Decision Released: Army Maintenance Assistance and Instruction Team protest denial

File: No. 24-782C

Background

The Army issued a solicitation, No. W-912CN-23-R-0027, for a single-award, fixed-price contract for Maintenance Assistance and Instruction Team (“MAIT”) support for units in the Pacific. AR 301, 318, 322.

The procurement was set aside for offerors that qualified as “Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Businesses” under NAICS Code 541614 (“qualified small businesses”). AR 381, 1272; see also 13 C.F.R. § 128.401. But the solicitation also permitted offerors to team up with subcontractors that were not qualified small businesses, so long as the offeror complied with the limitations on subcontracting set out in the Federal Acquisition Regulation

Discussion

To reach the merits of the case, I must first determine that the Court has jurisdiction over DecisionPoint’s claims. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998). This Court’s jurisdiction in post-award bid protests is derived from the Tucker Act, as amended by the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-320, § 12(a)–(b), 110 Stat. 3870, 3874 (1996) (codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)). See Dyonyx, L.P. v. United States, 83 Fed. Cl. 460, 464–65 (2008). The Tucker Act now grants this Court jurisdiction “to render judgment on an action by an interested party objecting to … the award of a contract or any alleged violation of statute or regulation in connection with a procurement[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1). This Court is empowered under the statute to “award any relief that the court considers proper, including declaratory and injunctive relief[.]”…

Decision

Plaintiff DecisionPoint Corporation brings this post-award bid protest challenging the Department of the Army’s decision to award a contract to Peterman & Sons Solutions (“P&S”). Compl. (ECF 1). Plaintiff argues that the Army’s award to P&S was arbitrary and capricious because P&S and its subcontractor had formed a joint venture that was ineligible to receive the award. Plaintiff also argues that the Army failed to evaluate P&S’s experience according to the terms of the solicitation and failed to perform a “best value” determination as the solicitation required. The parties have filed cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record, and I have heard oral argument.1 For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED, and Defendant’s motion is GRANTED. The case is DISMISSED.

Read the decision here.

🔊 Listen to Story