Decision released: Army AMCOM Programmatic Support Services RFQ Protest

File No. No. 24-16

Background

On December 1, 2021, the U.S. Army issued a request for quotation seeking programmatic support services for U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command (“AMCOM”), including: “resource management; cost estimating/analysis and budget preparation; program management, plans, and integration; schedule development and assessment; systems analysis; strategic planning; risk analysis; and risk mitigation to various offices and staffs within AMCOM.”  AR 64.   The procurement was conducted as a total small business set-aside, only open to vendors that already had EXPRESS Blanket Purchase Agreements (“BPAs”) with the General Services Administration.  AR 65.   The Army conducted the procurement under …

The award, according to the RFQ, would be given to the offeror “whose quotation provide[d] the best value to the Government . . . .”  AR 75.  The RFQ laid out three evaluation criteria: Technical Expertise, Risk Mitigation and Management, and Price.  AR 75–79.  Additionally, the RFQ described how the evaluation criteria would be weighed in …

Analysis

In this bid protest, Tolliver challenges the agency’s price reasonableness analysis and resultant best value determination as being irrational.  The agency’s price reasonable analysis and best value determination are both contained in a document appropriately titled: “Best Value and Fair and Reasonable Determination.”  AR 637–685.  In arguing that the agency erred in its price reasonableness analysis and further erred in determining that DigiFlight’s quote presented the best value to the government, Tolliver urges the Court to focus on particular sentences, paragraphs, and/or subsections of the Best Value and Fair and Reasonable Determination rather than to examine the agency’s determinations based on the whole document.  While Tolliver’s approach may reveal some weaknesses in the agency’s explanation of price reasonableness and best value, the problem for Tolliver is that when viewed as a whole the Best Value and Fair and Reasonable Determination reveals that both the agency’s price reasonableness analysis and best value determination were rational.  In other words, although Tolliver identified some issues with the agency’s explanations of the challenged determinations, the isolated issues identified by Tolliver are insufficient to meet its burden of demonstrating that either the agency’s price reasonableness analysis or best value determination were irrational …

Decision

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Tolliver’s motion for judgement on the administrative record, its motion for injunctive relief, and GRANTS the cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record filed by the government and DigiFlight.  The clerk shall enter JUDGMENT accordingly.

Read the decision here.

🔊 Listen to Story