United States: April Bid Protest Roundup

Our monthly bid protest roundup for April identifies decisions by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Court of Federal Claims on issues concerning:  small businesses' right to a certificate of competency review from the Small Business Administration before being excluded for responsibility-like reasons; how potentially problematic organizational conflicts of interests can and should be mitigated prior to award; an extraordinary decision by the court to award enhanced attorney's fees based on the government's intransigence; and, finally, the definition of "adverse past performance."

Competitive Range Solutions LLC, B-413104.10

Competitive Range Solutions LLC (CRS) challenged the National Institutes of Health's (NIH) decision to exclude CRS's proposal from consideration for an information technology (IT) contract because CRS did not sufficiently demonstrate its capabilities or relevant experience related to IT health missions.  NIH deemed CRS's proposal unacceptable because of the deficient response to the Management Approach criteria, finding that CRS's examples of IT services and solutions did not establish experience with related IT missions.

According to NIH, its determination that CRS failed to demonstrate relevant capabilities and experience amounted to nothing more than the agency's reasonable conclusion that CRS submitted a non-responsive and unacceptable proposal.  CRS, on the other hand, argued that NIH's evaluation and conclusion amounted to a nonresponsibility determination, which should have been referred to the Small Business Administration (SBA) under its certificate of competency (COC) procedures.

Under the Small Business Act, the SBA must certify whether a small business can responsibly perform the contractual requirements.  15 U.S.C. § 637(b)(7)(A).  The responsibility determination includes an assessment of the contractor's capability, competency, capacity, credit, integrity, perseverance, and tenacity.  The COC regulations state that an agency must refer the small business to the SBA for a COC review prior to rejecting the small business's proposal when the evaluation is non-comparative (e.g., a pass/fail, go/no-go, or acceptable/unacceptable) and assess whether the small business is responsible or capable of performing the contractual tasks.

NIH argued that the assessment was not a responsibility determination because the agency did not review whether CRS lacked capabilities or was "responsible" rather, it evaluated whether CRS had fully responded to the solicitation requirements by demonstrating sufficient capabilities necessary to perform health-related IT missions.  The GAO disagreed, however, and found that a COC review was required prior to excluding CRS from consideration for award.

First, the GAO focused on the bifurcated nature of the evaluation as evidence that NIH was performing a non-comparative evaluation of CRS's capability to perform the technical requirements.  The solicitation established a two phase evaluation that required NIH to evaluate proposals on a "go"/"no-go," non-comparative basis in Phase 1.  This was problematic for the agency because the COC regulations specifically cite a "go"/"no-go" determination as a matter of responsibility.

Second, the GAO found the agency's record did not support its argument that CRS's proposal was eliminated because it was not responsive to the solicitation.  The GAO, however, focused on the agency's evaluation of CRS's "capability" to perform the contract, which contradicted NIH's argument that CRS submitted a non-responsive proposal.

Takeaways:  Small businesses should be mindful of possible legitimate protest arguments when they are eliminated from contention for a contract during an initial review or phase of the evaluation.  They should also pay particular attention to how the evaluation is characterized and, if eliminated during an initial phase, be certain to ask questions about the rationale for its exclusion during any debriefing.

Harkcon Inc., B-412936.2

The issue in Harkcon was whether the United States Coast Guard (USCG) reasonably evaluated an alleged organizational conflict of interest (OCI) arising from the awardee's hiring of a recently retired, high ranking USCG official.  The solicitation sought proposals for Training and Analysis Support Services (TASS) to be provided over a five year period at USCG training centers.

Harkcon's initial protest largely focused on the perceived OCI created by the awardee's hiring of the former USCG official.  In response to the first protest, the USCG agreed to investigate the OCI claims.  In December 2016, the USCG notified Harkcon that it had completed its OCI investigation and found no evidence that the awardee had an unfair competitive advantage due to receipt of information from the former USCG official.  The USCG affirmed its award to Metris LLC, which prompted Harkcon to file another protest raising similar concerns.

Harkcon argued that Metris had unequal access to information because Metris hired the recently retired USCG official.  Harkcon argued that the former USCG officer must have provided non-public information because the employee led the USCG's training division for Forces Readiness Command and had access to "competitively useful, nonpublic information" about Harkcon.

The GAO reviewed the USCG's investigation of the OCI and found that the investigation had clearly shown that the former USCG employee did not have access to "procurement sensitive or competitively useful information" related to Harkcon's previous contract.  The GAO also concluded that the USCG investigator reasonably found that, even if the individual had access to the information, it would not have been competitively useful for the new TASS solicitation.

The GAO also found it significant that the former employee had cleared the intent to serve as Metris's program manager with the agency's ethics office.  The GAO took the opportunity to re-affirm the notion that mere familiarity with a contract or scope of work due to prior government employment is not evidence of an unfair competitive advantage unless there are additional facts demonstrating such advantage.

Takeaways:  Certain types of OCIs are difficult to overcome and, for that reason, it is imperative to conduct extensive diligence before hiring a former government official.  It is also helpful to try to ensure that the agency has performed any investigative or mitigation steps prior to award.  For disappointed offerors, the protest process is still useful as a tool to verify and confirm that a proper review or investigation of a potential OCI was completed, but, if the agency follows protocol, GAO is unlikely to second guess the agency's conclusions.

Starry Associates, Inc. v. United States, COFC No. 16-44C, Apr. 10, 2017

This protest began as multiple post-award challenges at the GAO, morphed into a protest of the agency's decision to cancel the solicitation at the Court of Federal Claims, and finished with a remarkable decision by the court to award protester enhanced fees.  The enhanced costs were warranted because the government engaged in conduct the court described as "an egregious example of intransigence and deception, not just with the regard to the bidder, but to the GAO and to the court."

Although the court's decision to award the protester enhanced fees is interesting, it was based on unique and unusual facts.  For practitioners, this case is equally noteworthy because:  (i) it is a rare instance of a successful challenge to an agency's decision to cancel its solicitation, and (ii) the protester was able to supplement the administrative record with deposition testimony of agency personnel.

An agency's decision to cancel a solicitation is typically afforded an almost impenetrable amount of discretion by the court.  This level of deference is premised on the fact that the agency (and only the agency) can define its requirements and determine whether those requirements have changed or are no longer necessary.  The agency need only proffer a rational and contemporaneously documented determination and the court will, in nearly all cases, uphold a decision to cancel a solicitation.  Here, however, the record "contains no basis on which can pin the rationality of its decision to cancel."  127 Fed. Cl. at 551.  All the court could point to were post hoc declarations and testimony from agency personnel that offered little more than conclusory assertions that the requirements were no longer necessary.

Also, the facts in this case present the unusual circumstances necessary for the court to grant limited discovery – in this case, depositions of agency officials.  Under the Federal Circuit's Axiom decision and its progeny, the Court of Federal Claims may only permit the supplementation of the contemporaneous agency record when necessary for effective judicial review.  One of the few instances in which the court will permit supplementation with discovery is where the plaintiff has raised colorable allegations of bias or bad faith, as such evidence would not typically be reflected in an agency's documentation.  Here, Starry proffered sufficient facts of bias, and, although the court did not reach the issue of bias, the court used the deposition testimony to not only sustain the substance of the plaintiff's challenge to the solicitation's cancellation, but also as the basis for granting the extraordinary remedy of enhanced costs as the deposition revealed the "intransigence and deception" the court found so distasteful.

Takeaways:  Although offerors and their counsel often reflexively file protests first at the GAO (and for good reason), there are circumstances where filing immediately with the court makes sense.  This may include circumstances where the offeror has colorable and justified concerns about the propriety of the agency's conduct because the court is better equipped and often more willing to probe such issues.  Potential offerors, however, should be cautious before blindly casting aspersions on the agency.  The burden of proof for bad faith or bias allegations is extraordinarily high, and, more often than not, such contentions weaken or water down otherwise strong arguments on the merits.

Walden Security, Akal Security, Inc., B-413523.6 et al.

This post-award protest involved the award of contracts for the staffing of court security officers for three judicial circuits.  Past performance was, along with the technical factor, the most important evaluation criteria.  The protester Walden and the awardee received identical "Very Good" adjectival ratings for Past Performance, but the agency noted in the narrative evaluation of Walden that it had experienced "some difficulty in 'maintaining performance while scaling up services.'"  The Source Selection Authority ("SSA") did not discriminate the awardee's and Walden's past performance in its tradeoff decision and instead reasoned that the awardee's slight premium was justified in light of its slight yet clear technical advantages.

Walden challenged, among other things, the agency's evaluation of its past performance.  Even though Walden's Past Performance was rated Very Good overall, and its Past Performance evaluation did not factor into the SSA's tradeoff decision, Walden argued that the negative aspects of the narrative description of its experience were unreasonable.  Typically, such arguments find no traction at the GAO, which affords agencies broad discretion to interpret and evaluate offerors' past performance.  Here, however, the Solicitation provided that "[o]fferors will be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond."

The agency argued, among other things, that Walden's past performance information was not "adverse" because it was overall very positive and did not result in the protester receiving "an unfavorable or less than satisfactory" rating.  The GAO disagreed because, notwithstanding the overall rating, "the agency relied on the[] same performance concerns in determining that Walden's past performance was not a discriminator" over the awardee.  For this reason, the GAO determined that the information was "sufficiently adverse that the agency should have provided Walden with an opportunity to respond."  The GAO found competitive prejudice in the error because, had Walden had an opportunity to respond, it could have increased its Past Performance rating from Very Good to Exceptional.

Takeaways:  Where agencies are required to afford offerors an opportunity to respond to adverse past performance, whether as a result of an RFP requirement or as a result of discussions under FAR subpart 15.3, protesters and their counsel should not view adverse past performance in a vacuum, but assess it under the circumstances of the overall competition.  Protesters ought to consider whether an improvement to otherwise positive past performance ratings could have improved their chances for award.  Although this places agencies in a difficult spot because it requires they forecast what may or may not be deemed "sufficiently adverse" before award, it should be seen as an opportunity for protesters.

Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:
  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.
  • Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.
    If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here
    If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here

    Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

    Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

    Use of www.mondaq.com

    You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


    Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

    The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


    Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

    • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
    • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
    • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

    Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

    Information Collection and Use

    We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

    We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

    Mondaq News Alerts

    In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


    A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

    Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

    Log Files

    We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


    This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

    Surveys & Contests

    From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


    If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


    From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

    *** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .


    This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

    Correcting/Updating Personal Information

    If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

    Notification of Changes

    If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

    How to contact Mondaq

    You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

    If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.

    By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions