Courts, Boards, & GAO

Trending Now
“Close Enough” Isn’t Good Enough: Protester’s “Homebrew” Certification Sinks Proposal • Lost in Translation: GAO Upholds Rejection of Lease Written in Japanese • Bid Protests in Alaska • Federal Circuit Holds Challengers to CICA Stay Overrides Need Not Satisfy Four-Factor Injunctive Relief Test • The Clock Is Still Ticking — Claims Timeliness Across the Boards and at the COFC

COFC Found Miscalculations in the Price Evaluation. Why Did the Court Deny the Protest?

Neale Cousland | Shutterstock

The protester challenged the award of a contract to another vendor, arguing there were significant errors in the evaluation of price and technical proposals. The court found miscalculations in the price evaluation. However, it found these miscalculations immaterial. It concluded that the government’s decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious, and that the protest lacked merit.

Assured Consulting Solutions, LLC v. The United States, COFC No. 24-1478
  • Background - The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) issued the Enterprise Senior Information Technology Advisors III (ESITA III) Request for Quotations (RFQ) to solicit proposals for a contract to provide information technology services. The protester contested the award to the intervenor, Logic Gate, after a corrective action. The protester believed that the DIA made key evaluative errors that impacted the award decision.
  • Pricing Evaluation Errors - The protester argued that DIA miscalculated the price evaluations for its and the awardee's proposals. The rule governing bid evaluations requires accurate methodological calculations to ensure fair competition. The court found that, although there were miscalculations, they did not affect the overall relative rankings of the offerors; thus, it concluded that the protester's claims regarding pricing were moot after the DIA's remand corrected those errors.
  • Technical Proposal Evaluation - The protester contended that the DIA's technical evaluation, which rated the awardee's proposal superior, was arbitrary and capricious.  The court determined that the DIA's evaluators provided a coherent rationale for their ratings, indicating that the decision stemmed from a valid comparative assessment of the offers rather than an arbitrary rejection of the protester's qualifications.

The plaintiff is represented by Lewis Philip Rhodes of Reston Law Group, LLP. The intervenor, Logic Gate, LLC, is represented by Gunjan R. Talati and Daniel J. Strouse of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP. The government is represented by Ravi Dhananjayen Soopramanien, Emma Bond, Corinne A. Niosi, Patricia M. McCarthy, and Brian M. Boynton of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Get daily insights on bid protests, CDA claims, and contract litigation that shape the GovCon landscape with our Protests & Claims newsletter, delivering up-to-the-minute intelligence Monday–Saturday — Subscribe here.