US Court of Federal Claims rules on USAID decision of Ineligible status for USAID Regional and Bilateral Missions within Central and Latin America IDIQ

Case No. 24-79

Digest

Two related government actions are at issue.  First, plaintiff challenges USAID’s decision that PMCG CollaborateUp JV LLC was ineligible for the award based on the exclusion of Vistant.  Compl. ¶¶ 15-22.  Second, plaintiff contests USAID’s failure to refer this decision to the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) to make a certificate of competency determination before eliminating plaintiff from the competition …

Discussion

On March 31, 2023,4 USAID issued an initial solicitation for a multiple-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (“IDIQ”) contract.  AR 327, 336.5  Specifically, USAID sought contractors to provide “USAID Regional and Bilateral Missions within Central and Latin America with a flexible, streamlined, and total integrated service solution for addressing a variety of issues affecting the root causes of irregular migration from Central America to the United States.”  AR 352.  The agency anticipated awarding the contract to four small businesses and to “[u]p to six” other-than-small businesses.  AR 810.

Prior to responding to USAID’s solicitation, Vistant and CollaborateUp entered a joint venture agreement on December 22, 2022, for the purpose of bidding on contracts and, if successful, performing the solicited work.  AR 1168, 1197.  That agreement named Richard Crespin as CollaborateUp’s manager and Walter Barnes, III as Vistant’s manager.  See AR 1170, 1187.   The SBA subsequently approved the corresponding mentor-protégé agreement on February 27, 2023.  AR 1197.

CollaborateUp is the managing venturer and Vistant is the participating venturer.  See AR 1166.  Accordingly, CollaborateUp has “the overall responsibility for performance of the [c]ontract” and “control[s] the day-to-day management and administration of the contractual performance,” serves as the “primary point of contact with the [c]lient during evaluation of the [j]oint [v]enture’s proposal,” and makes final decisions for the joint venture.  AR 1169-70, 1172.  CollaborateUp is also given “primary responsibility” both for “any negotiations with the [c]lient regarding the [j]oint [v]enture’s proposal for the [c]ontract,” including task or delivery orders issued under the contract, and for “ensuring appropriate labor for the effort.” …

Conclusion

The court finds the record is unclear as to whether the contracting officer considered the exclusion against Mr. Barnes to be a ground that was independently sufficient to support his decision not to award the joint venture the contract.

For the reasons stated, plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the administrative record is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and the government’s cross-motion for judgment on the administrative record is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.  The contracting officer’s November 13, 2023, decision not to award plaintiff the contract is null and void and is vacated.  The court REMANDS this matter to USAID to reevaluate PMCG CollaborateUP JV LLC’s eligibility for award in accordance with this opinion.  On remand, USAID is enjoined from considering the suspension against Vistant.  RCFC 52.2(b)(1)(A).  This reevaluation shall be completed within 45 days from the date this opinion is filed publicly, RCFC 52.2(b)(1)(B), and the decision on remand shall be filed with the Clerk as provided in RCFC 52.2(e).  During the remand period, proceedings in this case shall be STAYED.  RCFC 52.2(b)(1)(C).  The parties shall file a joint status report regarding further proceedings before the court no later than five days following the decision on remand …

Read the decision here.

🔊 Listen to Story