The protester challenged a solicitation. The protester claimed that the government botched the scoring provisions of the solicitation. The COFC, however, dismissed the protest. The court determined that the protester had not established that it could fulfill the contract's requirements and thus still lacked standing.
Dev Technology Group, Inc. v. The United States, COFC No. 25-621
- Background - GSA's Alliant 3 sought IT services for federal agencies. Dev Technology Group, Inc. challenged various scoring provisions of the solicitation. It argued that they created unreasonable barriers that would prevent it from being awarded a contract. Importantly, Dev Tech did not submit a proposal for the solicitation.
- Lack of Standing - Dev Tech argued that it had standing as a prospective offeror. It asserted that it had a substantial chance of winning a contract if the alleged solicitation errors were corrected. The court noted that to establish standing, a protester must plausibly allege that they could compete for the work. Since Dev Tech neither disputed the necessary capabilities nor provided concrete facts demonstrating its eligibility, the court dismissed the case for lack of standing.
- Claims of Prejudice - The protester asserted that the solicitation's scoring provisions were prejudicial to its chances of winning. The court explained that to prevail, a protester must demonstrate that any alleged errors were significant and harmful. Dev Tech's arguments were deemed speculative and insufficient to meet the legal threshold for showing it was competitively harmed by the solicitation terms.
- Failure to Prove Capability - At the heart of the court's rationale was the absence of specific factual allegations from Dev Tech regarding its ability to fulfill the contract requirements outlined in the solicitation. The court highlighted that mere assertions were inadequate. The protester needed to provide context about its qualifications or relevant experience that would allow it to compete effectively for the IT services contract.
The plaintiff is represented by William A. Shook and Steven Barentzen of The Law Offices of William A. Shook PLLC. The government is represented by Emma E. Bond, Douglas K. Mickle, Patricia M. McCarthy, and Brett A. Shumate, all from the U.S. Department of Justice (Commercial Litigation Branch).