No. 24-1282C
Background
The USDA Rural Development Technology Office issued a small business set-aside solicitation, No. 12SAD123R003, to procure professional technology services, including managing “a full range of IT cybersecurity, compliance, quality assurance, program management and surge support services.” Administrative Record (“AR”) 1487. The USDA intended to award a single, Firm Fixed Price, Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (“IDIQ”) contract, to the offeror who represented the best value to the agency. Id. The contract was set for a base period of 12 months with three optional 12-month extension periods for a total estimated value of approximately $24.5 million. AR 1487–88, 1594. The solicitation contemplated work under four Focus Areas: Focus Area One: Cybersecurity, Information Assurance and Risk Management Services; Focus Area Two: Compliance and Assessment Services; Focus Area Three: Quality Assurance and Testing Services; and Focus Area Four: Surge Support Services for Modernization Efforts. AR 557–69.
Discussion
The Tucker Act grants this court jurisdiction over bid protests. 18 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1). In any bid protest, this court reviews an agency’s decision pursuant to the standards set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). § 1491(b)(4). Under the APA, we review an agency’s action to see if it was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(1)(A); see also Off. Design Grp. v. United States, 951 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The court may “set aside a procurement action if ‘(1) the procurement official’s decision lacked a rational basis; or (2) the procurement procedure involved a violation of regulation or procedure …
Decision
In this post-award bid protest, AcmeSolv, Inc. (“AcmeSolv”) alleges that the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) improperly awarded a contract to Arlluk Technology Solutions, LLC (“Arlluk”), the intervenor, for cybersecurity services, because the agency erroneously evaluated AcmeSolv’s proposal. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to prevent the USDA from allowing performance under this solicitation by Arlluk and to direct the USDA to perform a new evaluation and make a new award decision. Plaintiff has filed its motion for judgment on the administrative record. The government has cross-moved. Oral argument was held on January 29, 2025. As we announced at oral argument, because plaintiff fails to show that the agency made an arbitrary and capricious award decision or that it was prejudiced by any errors in the procurement process, we deny plaintiff’s motion and grant the government’s cross motion for judgment on the administrative record.
Not Yet a Premium Partner/Sponsor? Learn more about the OS AI Premium Corporate and Individual Plans here. Plans start at $295 annually.