## In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 14-255 C (Filed August 13, 2014) 1

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * SOTERA DEFENSE SOLUTIONS, INC., Plaintiff

,

v. THE UNITED STATES,

Defendant , RAYTHEON CO.,

Intervenor defendant

. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * Post-Award Bid Protest; Protestor’s Standing Survives Allegation of Organizational Conflict of Interest; No Waiver of Protest Caused by Delay in Filing Protest of Agency Decision to Undertake Corrective Action; Waiver of Post-Award Protest of Cost Evaluation Scheme Set Forth in Solicitation;No Unstated Criteria in Reevaluation of Proposals; Best Value Award Not Shown To Be Unlawful, Arbitrary, Capricious, or an Abuse of Discretion. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Paul A. Debolt , Washington, DC, for plaintiff. James Y. Boland , Christina K. Kube , and Anna E. Pulliam , Washington, DC, of counsel. Steven M. Mager , United States Department of Justice, with whom were Stuart F. Delery , Assistant Attorney General, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr. , Director, and Kirk T. Manhardt , Assistant Director, Washington, DC, for defendant. Brian Bentley , United States Army Legal Services Agency, Fort Belvoir, VA, of counsel.

1 / This opinion was issued under seal on July 25, 2014. Pursuant to ¶ 8 of the ordering language, the parties were invited to identify source selection, proprietary or confidential material subject to deletion on the basis that the material was protected/privileged. The only proposed redactions were offered by intervenor-defendant. Redacted material is indicated by brackets ([ ]).Ma r

k D. Co l l ey , W as h i n g t o n , DC, fo r i n t erv en o r-d efen d an t

. Emma V. Br o omf i eld , St ef f en G. Ja co b s en , an d Da n a E. Pet er s o n , W as h i ng t o n , DC, o f co u ns el

.

_

__ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ OPI NI ON AND ORDER

_ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ Bus h , S en i o r Ju d ge . Th e co n t ract ati s s u e i n th i s b i dp ro tes ti s fo r th e d ev el o p m en to f an El ect ro ni c W arfare Pl an n i n g an dM an ag em en t To o l (EW PM T); t h e p ro cu ri n g ag en cy i s th e Un i t edSt at es Arm y . 2 Th i s p o s t -award p ro t es ti s b ro u g ht b y So t era Defen s e So l u t i o n s , In c. (So t era), t h e fo rm er co nt ract award ee, aft er i ts awardwas n u l l i fi edb y

co rrect i v e act i o n u n d ert ak enb y th e Arm y i n res p o n s e t o a p ro tes t b ro u gh t b y

Rayt h eo n Co m

p an y (Ray t h eo n ) atthe Go v ern m en tAcco u nt ab i l i t y Offi ce (GAO). Befo re t he co u rtare cro s s-m o t i on s fo r ju dg m en t o n t h e ad m i n is t rat i v e reco rdfi ledu nd er Ru l e 5 2 .1 (c) o f t h e Ru l es o f t h e Un i t ed St at es Co u rto f Fed eral Cl ai m s (RCFC), as wel l as m o t io n s t o d i sm i s s fi l edb y th e g o v ern m en tan di nt ev en o r-d efen d an tRayth eo n
. Pl ai n t i ff’ s co m

p lai n twas fi ledo n Ap ri l 1 , 2 0 1 4 an d am en d ed o n Ap ri l 2 4 , 2 0 1 4 . Th e g o vern m en tag reed t o s t ay p erfo rm an ce o f Ray t h eo n ’ s co n t ract du ri n g t h e p en d en cy

o f t h i s p ro t es twh i ch p ro ceed edu n d er an ex p ed i t edb ri efi n g s ch edu l e. Th e ad m i n i s t rat i ve reco rd(AR) was fi l edo n Ap ri l 1 6 , 2 0 1 4 an d s ub s eq u en t l y

co rrect edo n Ap ri l 2 9, 2 01 4 . Th e p art i es ’ d i sp o si t iv e m ot i o ns h av e b een fu l l y

b ri efed ; o ral arg u m en twas h el d o n J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 4. Fo r t he reas o n s d i s cu s s edb el o w, p l ai n t i ff’ s m o t i o n fo r ju d g m en t o n th e ad m i n i s t rat i v e reco rdi s d en ied ; th e g ov ern m en t ’ s an dRayt h eo n ’ s m o t i o ns t o d i sm i s s are g ran t edi n p art an d d en i edi n p art ; an d , th e g o v ern m en t ’ s an dRayth eo n ’ s m o t i o ns fo r ju d gm en t o n th e ad m i n i s t rat i v e reco rdare g ran t ed

.

2 / Electronic warfare eludes succinct definition, but the Army describes it as “the use of electronics to prevent or reduce an enemy ’s effective use and to protect friendly use of electromagnetic radiation equipment.” Administrative Record at 358. To g ive some concrete ex amples, various ty

pes of broadcast and receiving devices, navig ational sy stems and radar units are targ eted in electronic warfare. I d. at 638-39.

2BACKGROUND

I . Pro curem ent Deci s i o n A. El ectro ni c W a rfa re Pl a nni ng a nd Ma na gem ent To o l (EW PMT)
As p l ai n t i ff d es cri b es th e p ro cu rem en t , [t ] h e RFP i s fo r t h e award o f a co s t rei m b u rs em en t , fi v e-y ear i n d efi n i t e-d el i v ery , i nd efi n i t e-q u an t i t y (“ IDIQ”) co n t ract t o d es i g n , d ev el op an d fi el d t h e Arm y ’ s EW PM T. [AR] Tab 7 at4 8 6 . Th e EW PM T i s a n ew s y s t em

i n t en d edt o en han ce t h e Arm y ’ s ex i s t i n g El ect ro n i c W arfare cap ab i li t i es . When d ev el o p ed , the EW PM T s o ft ware wi l l g i v e el ect ro n i c warfare o ffi cers
“ m is s i o n pl an n i ng cap ab i li t y t o p l an , co o rd i n at e, m an ag e, an dd eco n fl i ctu n i t EW act iv i t i es .” Id

. Th e RFP req u iredth e award ee t o d el i v er t h e EW PM T i n s i x
“ n o t i o n al Cap ab i l i t y

Dro p s (CDs ).” Id

. Th e fi rs tt as k o rd er i s fo r CD1 an dwi l l b e award edco n cu rren t l y wi t h t h e IDIQ co n t act , wh i l e [CDs 2 -6 ] wi l l b e award edi n s ub s eq u en tt as ko rd ers
. Pl .’ s M o t . at3 -4

. Th i s d es cri p t i o n i s a l arg el y co rrect o v erv i ew o f t h e s ol i ci t at i o n an d t h e p ro cu rem en t , ex cep tfo r p l ai n t iff’ s s h o rth an dreferen ce t o th e co nt ract as a co s trei m b u rs em en tco n tract . Th e co s t s tru ctu re o f t h e fu l l IDIQ co n t ract i s fai rl y co m p l ex , wi th a co s t -p l u s -i ncen t i v e-fee s t ru ctu re wh i ch wo u l d i n cl u d e t arg etco s t , i n cen t i v e fee o r p ro fi tb en ch m ark s , as wel l as p ro fi to r i n cen t iv e fee ad ju s t m en t s
. AR at2 9 8 -9 9 , 7 4 0 . Th e fi rs tt as ko rd er, CD1 , h as a rel at i v el y s t rai g h tfo rward co s t -p l u s -i n cen t iv e-fee s t ru ctu re. Id

. at7 4 0 , 7 8 7 8, 9 7 5 1

. Th e s o l i ci t at i o n , al s o kn o wn as a Req u es tfo r Pro p o s al s (RFP), i s s u edo n Decem b er 2 0 , 2 0 12 . AR at 7 2 6 , 6 62 4 , 8 1 0 6 . Anam en d m en t o f th e s ol i ci t at i o n o f l i tt l e co n s eq u en ce t o th i s p ro t es to ccu rred o n J an u ary 1 5 , 2 0 1 3. Id

. at7 2 6-9 5 1 , 6 6 2 4 , 8 1 1 0 . Offers were du e b y Feb ru ary 4 , 2 0 1 3

. B. Ev a l ua ti o n Schem e

3Th e wi n n in g p ro p o sal wo u l d b e t h e p ro p o s al o fferi n g th e b es t v al u e t o th e

g o v ern m en t . AR at7 4 4 . Th e fo u r ev al u at i o n fact o rs , i n d es cen d i n g ran k o f i m p o rt an ce, are: (1 ) Tech n ical ; (2 ) Pas t Perfo rm an ce; (3 ) Co s t ; an d , (4 ) Sm al l Bu s i nes s Part i ci p at i o n Pl an
. Id

. Th e n on -co s t fact o rs are s i g n i fi can t l y m o re i m p o rt an tth anco st

. Id

. W i t h i n th e Tech n ical Fact o r are t wo s ub -fact ors , Tech n i cal Ap p ro ach an d M an ag em en t. AR at7 4 4. Th e Tech n i cal Ap p ro ach s ub -fact o r i s m o re i m po rt an t t h an th e M an ag em en t s ub -fact o r. Id

. W i t h i n th e Tech ni cal Fact or t h ree s p eci fi c cri t eri a wo u l db e rev i ewedi n th e o ffero rs ’ t ech n i cal p ro p o s al s : (1 ) Un d ers t an d i n g t h e Pro b lem s ; (2 ) Feas ib i l i t y o f Ap p ro ach ; an d , (3 ) Ad eq uacyo f Res po n s e/ Co m

p l et en es s
. Id

. Pag e l i m i t s were i m p o sedfo r t h e o ffero rs ’ t ech n i cal p ro p os al s
. Id

. at7 3 2 . Fo r t h e Tech n i cal Fact o r, th e ran g e o f rat in g s were Ou t st an di n g , Go o d , Accep tab l e, M arg in al an dUn accep t ab l e, an d t h e ev al u at i o n t eam wo u l d al s o i d en t i fy

s t ren g t h s an d weak nes s es
. Id

. at3 3 8 -3 9

. Th e Co s t Fact o r wo u l db e ev al u at edb as edo n t he co s t s o f t h e fi rs t t as k o rd er, CD1

. S

ee AR at7 3 9 (“ Offero rs are i n s t ru ct edt o p ro v i d e p ro p o s edco s t s fo r Tas kOrd er 1 o n ly .”). Si g n ifi can tam o u nt s o f d et ai l were req u iredfo r th e o ffero rs ’ p ro p os edco s t s
. Id

. at7 3 9 -4 0 . Th i s d et ai ledi n fo rm at io n wo u l d al l o w th e ag en cy t o

ev al u at e th e real i s m o f Offero r’ s p ro p o s edco st s i n rel at io n t o th e Offero r[’ ] s s p eci fi c t ech n i cal ap p ro ach t o Tas k Ord er 1 . Th e Offero r’ s p ro p o sedco st s wi l l b e ev al u at ed b y d et erm i n i n g wh atth e Go v ern m en tp red i ct s t h e Offero r’ s ap p ro ach wo u l dm o s t p ro b ab ly co s t t h e Go v ern m en twh en th e wo rkp erfo rm edu n d er Tas kOrd er 1 i s co m p l et ed . To th e d eg ree t hatth e Go v ern m en t ’ s m o s tp ro b ab l e co s tes t i m at e d i ffers fro m th e Offero r’ s p ro p o s ed co s t , th e Offero r’ s p ro p o s ed co stan di n cen ti v e fee m ay b e ad ju s t edfo r t h e p u rp o s es o f ev al u at io n
. AR at7 4 5

. C. Ev a l ua ti o n o f Pro po s a l s a nd Aw a rd to So tera

41
. Bi ds Recei v ed a nd Di s cus s i ons Hel d

Si x t i m el y

b i d s were recei v ed . Rayth eo n was d es i g n at edas “ Offero r A” i n t h e ev al u at i o n d o cu m en t s an dSo t era was d es i g nat edas “ Offero r B.” Th ro u g h o u t t h e ev al u at i o n p ro ces s , th e rat i n g s fo r So t era an dRayt h eo n were v ery cl o s e an d t h ei r p ro p o s al s were ran k edh ig h er t h an th e o t h er p ro p o s al s. S ee, e.g
. , AR at6 6 2 3 , 7 4 1 0 . No n et h el es s , d is cu s s i o n s were i n i ti at edb ecau s e ev en t he l ead i n g o ffero rs ’ p ro p os al s were [ ] i n atl eas t o n e fact o r. Id

. at 6 6 2 8 . In s ucces s i v e co m p et i t i v e ran g e d et erm i n at i o n s , two l o wer-ran k ed o ffero rs were el i m i n at edfro m th e co m p et i t i o n. Th ro u g h d i s cu s s i o n s , b o t h So tera an d Ray t h eo n were ab l e t o i m p ro v e th e rat i n g s o f t hei r p ro p o s al s , b u t n ei t her o ffero r was ab l e t o p u l l v ery far ah eado f t h e o t h er i n th e p ro p o s al rat i n g s
.

2
. Bes t Va l ue Aw a rd to So tera
On ce t h e fo u r fi nal p ro p o s al s were ev al u at ed , th e n o n -co s tev al u at i o n fact ors fo r Ray t h eo n an dSo t era were s i m i l arl y rat ed . Fo r Tech n i cal Ap p ro ach , Ray t h eo n recei v edan Ou t s t an d i n g rat i n g , wi t h fi ve s t ren g t h s an do n e weak n es s
. AR at7 4 2 9 -3 0 . So t era, fo r t h i s s am e s ub -fact o r, al s o recei v edan Ou ts t an d i n g rat i n g, wi t h fi v e s t ren g t h s an dtwo weakn es s es
. Id

. at 7 4 8 1 -8 3 . Fo r t h e M an ag em en t s ub -fact o r, Ray t h eo n recei vedan Accep t ab l e rat i n g , wi th zero s t ren gt h s an dzero weakn es s es
. Id

. at7 4 3 3 -3 4 . Fo r t h i s s ub-fact o r, So t era al s o recei v edan Accep t ab l e rat i n g , wi t h zero s t ren g th s an dzero weakn es s es
. Id

. at 7 4 8 6 . Thu s , th e o v eral l Tech n i cal Fact or rat i n g fo r b o t h Rayt h eo n an d So t era was Go o d

. Tu rn i n g t o th e l es s i m p o rt an tn o n -co s tfact o rs , fo r Pas tPerfo rm an ce Ray t h eo n recei v eda Sub s tan t i al Co n fi d en ce rat i n g , as d i dSo t era, al th o u g h So t era’ s rat i n g was s l i g h t l y ab ov e Ray t h eo n ’ s i n o n e res p ect . AR at7 4 5 6, 7 5 0 4

- 0 5 , 7 6 4 0 . Rayt h eo n ran k edb et t er t h an So tera i n th e Sm al l Bu s i n es s Part i ci p at i o n Pl an fact or, t he l eas t i m

p o rt an tev al u at i o n fact o r. Fo r t hi s fact o r, Ray t h eo n recei v edan Ou t s t an d i n g rat i n g wi t h s i x s t ren g t h s an dn o weakn es s es , wh ereas So t era recei v ed a Go o d rat i n g wi t h two s t ren g t h s an dn o weakn es s es . AR at7 4 72

- 7 3 , 7 5 1 7 -1 8

. Th ere was , h owev er, a n o ti n s i g n i fi can td i fferen ce i n t h e co s to f t h es e o ffero rs ’ p ro p o s al s fo r CD1 . Rayt h eo n ’ s ev al u at edp ri ce was $ 1 1,2 5 8 ,5 0 5 ;

5So t era’ s ev al u at edp ri ce was $ 1 0 ,3 2 5 ,6 71

. 3 AR at 7 46 9 , 7 5 1 3. Th e d i fferen ce i n

p ri ce b et ween th e t wo p ro p os al s i s d es cri b ed as ei t h er a d i fferen ce o f 8 .3 %, i d

. at 7 5 2 9 (co n cl ud i n g t h at “ Offero r B’ s co s t[i s ] 8 .3 % l o w er [t han Offero r A’ s co s t ] ”), o r a d i fferen ce o f 9 %, i d

. at7 6 3 9 (co n cl ud i n g th atth e d ifferen ce i n p ri ces “ eq u at es t o a 9 % d i fferen ce”). It wo u ldb e accu rat e t o s t at e t h atSo t era’ s p ro p o s al was ev al u at edt o co s t ap p ro x i m at el y 8 .3 % l es s th an Rayt h eo n ’ s p ro po s al

. Th e So u rce Sel ect i o n Au t h ori t y ’ s trad e-o ff an al y s is co m p ari n g n o n -co s t wi t h co s t fact o rs fo r Ray t h eo n (Offero r A) an d So t era (Offero r B) co n cl u dedth at

[i ] n co n s i d erat i on o f t h e equ al Tech ni cal rat i n g s , th e m o re ad v an t ag eo u s Pas tPerfo rm an ce an dCo s t Fact o r as s es s m en t s wh ich o u t wei g h t h e d i fferen ces i n th e Sm al l Bu s i n es s Part i ci p at i o n Pl an as s es s m en ts , i ti s m y d et erm i nat i o n t h atth e p ro p o s al s ub m i t t edb y Offero r B p ro v i d es s uperi o r v al u e t o th e Go v ern m en t t h an th e p ro p o s al p ro v i d edb y

Offero r A.
AR at7 6 4 0 . Th e EW PM T co n t ract was award edt o So t era o n J u n e 2 8 , 2 0 1 3 , an d t h e CD1 t as ko rd er was award edt o So t era o n J u l y 1 , 2 0 1 3

. Bo th So t era an d Ray t h eo n as k ed fo r d eb ri efi n g s reg ard i n g the award d eci si on
. D. Ra y theo n’s Pro tes t a nd the Arm y’s Co rrecti ve Acti o n Ray t h eo n rai s edn u m ero u s i s s u es reg ard i n g t h e Arm y ’ s awardi n i t s d eb ri efi ng
. AR 8 04 2 -5 9 . Ino ne p art i cu l ar i n s t an ce, Rayt h eo n s ug g es t edth ata recen t l y -h i redSo t era em

p l o y ee h adacces s t o p ro p ri et ary i nfo rm at i o n o f o th er o ffero rs th ro u g h h i s p ri o r co n t ract wo rkfo r t h e Arm y , an dth atSo t era’ s p ro p o s al was t h u s t ai n t ed b y an o rg an i zat i on al co n fl icto f i n t eres t(OCI). Id

. at8 0 4 2-4 3

. Th e OCI co n cern was i n v es t i g at edfo r t wo week s b y th e Arm y , fro m J u l y 3 , 2 0 1 3 t h ro u g h J u l y

1 7 , 2 0 1 3 , an d t h e res u l t s o f t h i s l i m i t edi n ves t i g at i o n re-as s u redth e Arm y th atn o OCI h ad s kewed th e co m p et i t i o n fo r t h e EW PM T co n t ract

. Id

. at 8 0 5 6 -5 9

.

3 / The Army

reports the evaluated price for Ray theon either as $11,258,505 or $11,258,506. Compare AR at 7469, with id. at 7529. 6After its debriefing with the Army, on July 22, 2013 Raytheon timely filed

a protest of the award at the GAO. Raytheon’s protest was robust and thorough – it featured a detailed sixty-page brief and over three hundred pages of exhibits. AR Tab 48. The protest included arguments such as: (1) the award to Sotera was “flawed because of the existence of several organizational conflicts of interest”; (2) “the [Source Selection Authority] failed to look behind the ratings and qualitatively assess the underlying technical differences of the proposals to determine whether the various risks and benefits justified a 9% ($900K) cost differential”; (3) the Management sub-factor rating was not “a comparative, qualitative evaluation”; and, (4) the Army “failed to properly apply its relevancy standards” in the Past Performance evaluation. Id. at 8102-03. Internally, the Army crafted a corrective action plan to separately address the OCI allegations and

the evaluation errors alleged by Raytheon. AR at 8499- 500. Although the terminology used in the internal plan is not perfectly consistent, a re-evaluation of final proposals was a key element of the plan. Id. at 8500 (“The Agency will re look at the evaluations of all offerors in the final competitive range, and in addition will specifically examine the following [alleged flaws] as [they] pertain[] to the allegations set forth in Raytheon’s protest . . . .”) (emphasis added); id. (“Upon completion of the Agency’s re evaluations , the Agency[] will take appropriate action based on the results of the re evaluation .”) (emphases added). In essence, the re-evaluations would address the allegations of evaluation errors highlighted by Raytheon in its GAO protest and would either confirm the award to Sotera or produce another proposal evaluation result. On August 15, 2013, the Army proposed the following corrective action so as to render Raytheon’s protest at the GAO moot:

The Army believes that it is in its best interest to take corrective action in this protest by fully investigating the OCI allegations and facts related to them and, if warranted, take appropriate action resulting from any finding of an OCI or appearance thereof made by the contracting officer. The Army also will examine all proposals and evaluations for offerors in the final competitive range (this includes Protester), and will re-evaluate as
7ap p ro p ri at e. If t h e re-ev al uat i o n s res u l ti n an y ch an ges , t h e s ou rce s el ect i o n au t h o ri ty wi l l ren d er a n ew s o u rce s el ect i on d eci s io n
. AR at8 5 0 6 .1 . Th e Arm

y fu rt h er cl ari fi ed , aft er Ray t h eo n d is p u tedwh et h er t h e co rrect iv e act i on wo ul d p ro v i d e ad eq u at e n o t i ce o f t h e res ul t s o f th e OCI

“ i n ves t ig at io n an dre-ev al u at io n act i v i t y ,” i d

. at8 5 0 6 .4 , th at“ t h e Arm y i n t en d s t o an n ou n ce a n ew award d eci s i o n , o r co n fi rm at i o n o f i t s p rev i o u s d eci s i o n , i n wri t in g t o th e p art i es p ro m pt ly aft er s u ch d eci s i o n i s m ad e. Th i s n ot i ce wi ll b e p ro v id edt o th e p art i es reg ard l es s o f t h e o u t co m e o f t h e d eci s i o n
. ” Id

. at8 5 0 6 .5

. Th e GAO th end i s m i s s edRayt h eo n’ s p ro t es tas m o o to n Au gu s t 2 1 , 2 0 1 3

. As fo r t h e OCI i n v es t i g at i o n , So t era p ro v i d edth e Arm y wi t h a wel l -arg u ed

“ wh i t e p ap er” reject i n g t h e p ro p o s i t i o n th atan OCI t ai nt edSo t era’ s p ro p o s al . AR Tab 5 3. Th e Arm

y co n du ct ed a t h o ro ug h OCI i n v es ti g at i o n wh i ch l as t edfro m J u l y 2 2 , 2 0 1 3 i n t o Oct o b er 2 01 3

. Id

. at8 6 7 1-7 5 . Th e Arm y d et erm i n ed , ag ai n , t h atSo t era’ s p ro p o sal was n o tb arred b y an OCI an dp ro du ceda s i x -h u n d redp ag e rep o rtwh i ch d o cu m en t edth e i n v es t i g at i o n an dth is fi n d i n g
. S ee i d

. Tab 5 7.
E. Re-ev al ua ti on o f Pro po s a l s a nd Aw a rd to Ra y theo n Th e p ro p os al ev al u at i o n p ers o n n el fo r t h e Arm y were o rg an izedi n t o a t h ree-t i ered h i erarch y : (1 ) t h e So u rce Sel ect i o n Au t h o ri ty (SSA), wi th u l t i m at e awardau t h o ri t y ; (2 ) t h e So urce Sel ect i o n Ad vi s o ry Co u n ci l (SSAC), wi t h s up erv i s o ry

au t h o ri t y o v er t h e ev al u at i o n p ro ces s ; an d , (3 ) th e So urce Sel ect i o n Ev al u at i o n Bo ard (SSEB), wi t h ev al u at i on fact or rat i n g res p o n s i b i l i t i es . AR at 3 3 3 -3 6 . On ce t h e Arm

y d eci d edt o re-ev al u at e p ro po s al s, t h e SSAC Ch ai r s en t an em ai l t o m em

b ers o f t h e SSEB. Th i s em ai l i n cl u d edth e fo l l owi n g i n s t ru ct i o n s : St ev e/ SSEB Team , as y o ureas s es s rat i n g s fo r each o f t h e 4 Offero rs fro m

the fi n al co m

p et i t i v e ran g e en s u re t hat y ou are fo l lo wi n g [So u rce Sel ect i on Ev al u at i on Pl an (SSEP)] g u i d an ce i n s t ri ctacco rd an ce wi t h ev al uat i o n cri t eri a an dd efi ni t i o n s . Inad d i t io n , I wo u l d l i k e ex t ra em

p h as i s p l aced o n th e fo l l o w in g : Tech n i cal Ap p ro ach
8· Qu an t i fy s ch edu l e ri s k reg ard i n g an y p re-award act i v i t i es co m

p l et ed b y each Offero r

· As s es s each Offero rs es ti m at ed “ % co m p l et e an d read y fo r i n t eg rat i o n t es t i n g ” an dh o w m u ch [s o ftware l i n es o f co d e (SLOC)] i s p ri o r l ev erag ed effo rt s v i ce Go vtfu rn i s h ed[g o v ern m en to ff t h e s h el f (GOTS)] / [co m

m erci al o ff t h e s h el f (COTS)]
M an ag em en t

· As s es s EXTENT t o wh i ch req ui rem en t s are m et/ ex ceed edv i ce a “ g o / n o g o ” fo r el em en t s i d en t i fi edu nd er t h e M an ag em en t s ub fact o r (e.g

. s ub co n t ract m an ag em en t , [s o ft ware] d ev el o p m en t p ro ces s , [Cap ab i l i t y M atu ri t y M o d el In t eg rat i o n (CM MI)] l ev el s , [Qu al i ty As su ran ce] , trai n i n g , s ch edu l e ri s k(n o tju s t[In teg rat ed M as t er Sch edu l e] d et ai l s ), et c. . . an dp ro v i d e as s es s m en t i f a s up eri o r ap p ro ach l o wers ri s ko r i s s u ffi ci en tl y ad v an t ag eo u s t o th e Go v tt o warran ta St ren g t h [i n acco rd an ce wi t h ] th e d efi n i ti o n

· M g m

tan dTech n i cal Team

t o d is cu s s th e m eri t s i f CM M I Lv l 5 (h i g h es t qu al i t y / l o wes tri s k) cert i fi cat i on v s l o wer CM M I l ev el s , e.g . CM M I Lv l 3 (m ed qu al i t y

/m edri s k ) an dwh et h er h i g h er CM M I l ev el s are ad v an t ag eo us t o th e Go v tfo r t h e EW PM T effo rt . Al s o as s es s CM M I l ev el s fo r s ub s an dqu an t i fy

ex t en to f p erfo rm an ce t h e s ub i s p erfo rm in g i n rel at i o n s h i p t o o v eral l CD1 . Do es a h ig her CM M I Lv l fo r a s ub h av e eq u al m eri t t o a p ri m e wi t h a h i g h CM M I l ev el ?

· Do s o ftware p ro du ct i v i t y i n i t i at i v es , e.g . SW IFT o r o t her effi ci en ci es m eri tv al u e t o th e Go v tan d

9h en ce a St ren g t h ? Lo o katthi s acro s s al l 4 Offero rs

· Lo o kcl o s el y

ats ub co n t ract o r m an ag em en t i n i t iat i v es , p re-award i n v es tm en t s, an dex t en tt o wh i ch th es e m i t i g at edco n t[r] actp erfo rm an ce ri s k s

· Wh ere d o es s ch edu l e ri s k(o r ri s k red uct i o n ) co m e i n t o th e M an ag em en ts ubfact or rat i n g as s es s m en t ? Ho w i s t h i s d i fferen tth en Tech ni cal ?
Pas tPerfo rm an ce

· En s u re p ro p er ap p l i cat i o n o f rel ev an cy s t an d ard s (4 l ev el s ) an drel ev an cy

d efi n i t i o n fo r p ri m e an d s ub co n t ract s []

· Lo o kh o w i n d i vi du al as s es s m en t s o f p ri m e/ s ub are d eri v edan dan y

“ wei g ht i n g ” b as edo n ex t en tan d n ature o f t h ei r u n d erl y i n g p as tp erfo rm an ce

· Be s u re t o fact o r i n Ex t en t(% o f t o t al co n tract ) an dn atu re o f p ro p o s eds ub p erfo rm an ce o n t h e EW PM T co n t ract v ice t h ato f p as t p erfo rm an ce

· If Offero r p ro p o s e[s ] t o l ev erag e p ri o r s co p e fo r i n s ert i o n i n t o EW PM T CD1 s o l ut i o n s , h o w d oes t h i s i nfl uen ce t h e RELEVANCY as s es sm en t ?
I’ dl i k e t o d i scu s s i n m o re d et ai l ato u r 2 6 Au g s tatu s upd at e AR Tab 5 1

. Th e re-ev al u at i o n o f p ro p o s al s b y th e SSEB was co m

p l et edb y Oct o b er 1 6 , 2 0 1 3 . Bro ad l y

s p eak i n g , s om e ev al u at i o n rat i n g s rem ai n edu n ch an gedfo r al l fo u r o ffero rs : (1 ) t h e Tech n i cal Ap p ro ach s ub-fact o r rat in g s , as wel l as the s t ren g t h s an d weak n es ses i n t h i s s ub -fact o r; (2 ) t h e o v eral l Pas tPerfo rm an ce Co n fi d en ce rat i n gs ; (3 ) t h e Sm al l Bu s i n es s Part i ci p at i on Pl an rat i n gs , as wel l as th e s t ren g t h s
10an d weak n es ses i n t h i s fact o r; an d , (4 ) t h e Co s tFact o r ev al u at edp ri ces o f t h e

p ro p os al s . AR at8 55 5 . Rayt h eo n , h o wev er, m ad e s ig ni fi can tg ai n s i n t h e M an ag em en t s ub -fact o r, g ai n i n g a s t ren g t h an d i m p ro v i n g th i s s ub -fact o r rat i n g fro m Accep t ab l e t o Go o d

. Id

. at8 5 5 5 , 9 24 9 . Th i s Go o drat i n g i n th e M an ag em en t s ub -fact o r t h en tri g g ered an o veral l rat i n g i n th e Tech n i cal Fact o r o f Ou t st an di n g , rat her t h an Go o d(Ray t heo n ’ s fo rm er rat i n g i n t h i s ev al uat i on fact o r).
So t era, as n o ted s u

p ra , ret ai n edi t s co s tad v an t ag e o v er Ray t h eo n i n th e reev al u at i on p ro ces s , b utl o stthe s l i g hted g e i tp rev io u s ly h aden jo y edi n t h e Pas t Perfo rm an ce Fact or. Th i s ch an g e was du e t o a co rrect i o n o f t h e wei g h tp rev i o u s l y as s i g n edt o th e p as tp erfo rm an ce o f So t era’ s s ub -co n tract o rs . AR at8 5 5 5 , 9 3 4 1 , 9 3 7 2 . On ce t h e re-ev al u at i o n res u lt s were co n s i d ered b y th e SSAC, Ray t heo n ’ s p ro p os al p res en t edad v an tag es i n i t s Tech n i cal Ap pro ach , M an ag em en t , Pas t Perfo rm an ce an dSm al l Bu s i n es s Part i ci pat i o n Pl an
. Id

. at9 4 77 -7 8. Th es e ad v an t ag es o u t wei g h edSo t era’ s l o wer co s t

. Id

. Th e SSA co ncu rred wi t h th e SSAC an dfo u ndRayt h eo n ’ s p ro p o s al t o b e t h e b es tv al u e fo r th e EW PM T p ro ject . AR Tab 6 2 . So t era’ s co n t ractwas t erm i n at ed fo r t h e co n ven i en ce o f th e g ov ern m en t o n Decem b er 2 , 2 0 1 3 . Rayt h eo n was award edth e EW PM T co n t ract o n Decem b er 2 , 2 0 1 3 an dth e CD1 t as k o rd er o n Decem b er 3 , 2 0 1 3. Bo t h So t era an dRayt h eo n req u es t edan drecei v edd eb ri efi n g s reg ard i n g th e award

. I I . Pro tes ts by So tera
A. So tera ’s Pro tes t a t the GAO
On Decem

b er 1 0, 2 01 3 , So t era t i m el y fi leda p ro t es to f t he co n t ract awardt o Ray t h eo n wi t h th e GAO, b u td i dn otp ro t es t t h e Arm y ’ s d eci s i o n t o re-ev al u at e p ro p os al s . AR Tab 7 4 . Ev eni n two s ub s equ en t s up p lem en t al GAO p ro t es t s , So t era n ev er co n t en d edthatth e Arm y i m p ro perl y ch o s e t o re-ev al u at e t h e EW PM T p ro p o s al s i n th e co rrect i v e act i o n t h atm o o tedRayt h eo n’ s p ro t es to f t h e p ri o r award t o So t era. S

ee i d

. Tab s 7 7 , 9 1 . In s tead , So t era arg u edth atth e d eci s i o n t o awardth e co n tract t o Rayt h eo n was fl awedfo r a n um b er o f reas o n s , i n cl u d i n g fai l u re t o fo l l o w ev al u at i o n cri t eri a an dt o p erfo rm ap p ro p ri at e co s t real is m an d t rad e-o ff an al y s es
. Id

. at9 9 8 7

.

11In s up p l em en t al p ro t es t s atth e GAO, So t era rai sedad d i ti o n al al l eg at i o n s o f

erro r. Fo r ex am

p l e, i n t h e fi rs ts up p l em en t al p ro t es tSo tera arg u ed t h atth e reev al u at i on an d t h e award d eci s i o n were t ai nt edb o t h b y Rayt h eo n ’ s p ri o r p ro t es t at t h e GAO an d b y

th e Arm y ’ s fai l u re t o i nv es t ig at e p o t en t i al OCI’ s o n th e p arto f Ray t h eo n . AR at1 0 66 0 -6 1 . Inth e s eco n ds up p l em en t al p ro t es t , So t era h i g h l i g h t edad di t i o n al al l eg edev al u at i o n erro rs , i n cl u d i ng an accu s at i o n th atth e re-ev al uat i on em

p l o y ed“ un s tat edev al u at i o n cri teri a.” Id

. at1 2 4 3 8 . Th ro u g h o u t t h e GAO p ro t es tp ro ceed i n g s, So t era rep eat ed l y req u es t edp ro du ct i o n o f an y wri t ten i ns t ru ct i o n s p ro v i d edt o th e SSEB fo r t he re-ev al u at i o n o f p ro p o s al s , an d was rep eat ed l y

t o l db y the Army

th atwri t ten i n s t ru ct i o n s t o th e SSEB d i dn o t ex i s t

. So t era’ s p ro t es t atth e GAO was d en i edo n M arch 2 0 , 2 0 1 4.
B. So tera ’s Pro tes t i n thi s Co urt
1
. I ni ti a l Co m pl a i nt
Th e i n it ial co m

p l ai n t fi l edb y

So t era co n t ai n ed t h ree co u nt s . Co un tI fo cu s es o n th e Arm

y ’ s d eci s i o n t o re-ev al u at e p ro p o sal s
. In th i s co un t So t era arg u es th ati t i s u n l awfu l t o “ ab an d o n a l awfu l co n t ract award ,” an dth at i twas arb i t rary an dcap ri ci o u s fo r t h e Arm y t o co ndu cta n ew ev al uat i o n o f p ro p o s al s wh en th ere was n o cl ear erro r i n th e o l d o ne. Co m p l . ¶ 9 1

. In Co u n t II, So t era arg u es th atth e re-ev al u at i o n o f p ro p os al s an dthe b es t v al u e award d eci s i o n were fl awedi n s ev eral res p ect s . On e p arto f Co u n tII qu es ti o n s wh et h er Ray t heo n ’ s h i g h er ev al u at edp ri ce was co rrect l y wei gh edi n th e t rad e-o ff an al y s is , an d p o s i t s t h atRayt heo n ’ s actu al co s t s o v er t h e l i fe o f t he co n tract wi l l b e m

u ch h ig h er t h an So t era’ s actu al co s t s . An o t h er p arto f Co u n tII d eb at es th e rel at i v e t ech ni cal s t ren g th s o f Rayt h eo n ’ s an d So t era’ s p ro p os al s
. In Co u n t III o f t h e o ri g i n al co m p l ai n t , So t era at t ack s th e co s t ev al u at i o n o f p ro p os al s p erfo rm edb y

th e SSEB. Becau s e Ray t h eo n h adal read y ach i ev eds o m e o f t h e m i l es t o n es req u i redfo r CD1 , So t era arg u es th atRayt h eo n ’ s co stp ro p o s al fo r CD1 m ad e Ray th eo n ’ s co n t ract p erfo rm an ce ap p ear t o b e m u ch ch eap er th an i t wo u l dactu al l y

b e o v er t h e l i fe o f t h e co n t ract

. Th u s , So t era arg u es t hat

“ Ray t heo n ’ s ‘ ev al u at edco s t ,’ wh i ch was s up p o s edt o b e i nd i cat i v e o f Ray th eo n ’ s t o t al co s tfo r t he EW PM T p ro g ram , was dram at i cal ly an darb i t rari l y

u n derev al u at ed . Th e Arm

y arb i t rari ly

fai l edt o acco u n tfo r Ray t h eo n ’ s u n i qu e co s t as s u m pt i o n s , wh i ch were n o tco n t em p l at edb y th e RFP.” Co m

p l. ¶ 1 3 4

. 12In th e o ri g in al co m pl ai n t ’ s p ray er fo r rel i ef, p l ai n ti ff req u es t s a d ecl arat o ry ju d g m en taffi rm i n g th e arg u m en t s p res en t edi n Co u nt s I-III. In ad d i t io n , So t era s eek s “ [a] n i nju nct i o n d i rect i n g th e Arm y t o t erm i n at e t h e co n t ract award edt o Ray t h eo n an drei n s t at e t h e o ri gi n al awardt o So t era s i nce t he Army can n o tp ro v e t h atth e o ri g i n al awardt o So t era was u n l awfu l .” Co m p l. at2 7 . Inth e al t ern at i v e, So t era req u es t s “ an i n

ju n ct i o n d i rect i ng th e Arm y [t o ] co n du ct a rat i o n al an d l awfu l ev al u at io n an db es tv al u e s o u rce s el ect i o n d eci s i o n co n si st en twi t h th e Co u rt ’ s d eci si o n i n thi s cas e.” Id

.

2
. W ri tten I ns tructi o ns to the SSEB Di scl o s ed i n the Adm i ni stra ti v e Reco rd Fi led i n thi s Ca se On ce t h e g o v ern m en t fi l edth e AR i n t h i s cas e, p l ai nt i ff l earn edth at t h e SSAC Ch ai r h adi n d eedp ro v i deds o m e wri t t en i n st ru ct i o n s t o th e SSEB fo r t h e reev al u at i on o f p ro p o s al s i n an em ai l

. S ee AR Tab 5 1. W i t h i n a week So t era m o v ed t o am en d i t s co m

pl ai n t , s t at i n g th at“ [t ] he Army ’ s co n ceal m en tan d m i s rep res en t at i o n s [as t o t h e ex i s t en ce o f wri t ten i n s t ru ct i o n s t o th e SSEB] n o t o n l y p rev en t edSo t era fro m

ad eq u at el y

arg u i n g i t s cas e b efo re t h e GAO, b u ti t p rev en tedSo t era fro m

i n cl u d i n g th i s [p ro p o s edad d i t i o nal ] p ro t es tco u n ti n th e o ri g i nal co m

p l ai n t

. ” Pl

. ’ s M o t. o f Ap r. 2 3 , 2 0 1 4, at3 . Leav e t o am en dthe co m p l ai n twas g ran t ed , an d t h e am en d ed co m pl ai n t , ad d i n g a Co u n t IV an d rev i s in g th e p ray er fo r rel i ef, was fi l edo n Ap ri l 2 4 , 2 0 14

. 4

3
. Am ended Co m pl a i nt
Al t h ou g h Co u n t s I-III o f t h e o ri g i n al co m p l ai n trem ai n u n ch an g ed , th e am en d edco m

p l ai ntco n tai n s a n ew Co u n tIV an d a rev i s edreq u es tfo r rel i ef.

4 / On May

6, 2014, Sotera moved to amend the protective order in this case so that the GAO could be provided with the amended complaint and the newly disclosed document containingthe written instructions to the SSEB , which were both filed under seal in this case. The g o vernment opposed the motion and the court deferred ruling on the motion at that time. At oral arg ument, the court asked counsel arg uing for plaintiff whether the motion to amend the protective order was now moot, g iven that the GAO has had access to much of the information, in redacted form, that was the subject of plaintiff’s motion. Counsel replied that the motion was probably moot, in his view, and that plaintiff could alway s renew the motion at a later time. Oral Argument Transcript (Tr.) at 91. On J une 26, 2014, plaintiff moved to withdraw its motion to amend the protective order and filed an unopposed motion to release a redacted version of AR Tab 51. B oth motions filed J une 26, 2014 are g ranted. 13Co u n tIV al l eg es th at“ t he Army ap p l i edu n s tat edev al u at i o n cri t eri a [i n t h e p ro p os al re-ev al u at i o n s ] t h at were creat edb y the SSAC Ch ai r t o acco m m od at e Ray t h eo n ’ s p art i cu lar co n cern s [t h atwere p res en t edi n Rayt h eo n ’ s GAO p ro t es t ] .” Am . Co m p l . ¶ 1 4 1. Acco rd i n g t o So t era, t h e u s e o f t h es e u n s t at edcri t eri a ren d ered th e p ro p o s al re-ev al u at i o n s an d t h e award t o Rayth eo n u n l awfu l an d u n fai r. Id

. ¶ 1 6 7

. Th e rev i s edp ray er fo r rel i ef co n t in u es t o as kfo r a d ecl arat o ry ju d gm en t affi rm in g th e arg u m en ts p res en t edi n th e co u nt s o f th e co m p l ai n t , n o wfo ur i n n u m b er. So t era al s o co n t i n u es t o as kfo r “ [a] n i n ju n ct i o n d i rect in g t h e Arm y t o t erm i n at e t h e co n tract award edt o Rayt h eo n an drei n s tat e t h e o ri g in al awardt o So t era s i n ce t h e Arm

y can n o tp ro v e t h atth e o ri g in al awardt o So t era was u n l awfu l .” Am . Co m

p l . at3 4 -3 5 . As an al t ern at i v e rem ed y , h owev er, So t era s u g g es t s th atan ad d i ti on al co n d i t i on b e p l aced o n fu rt h er ev al u at io ns o f p ro p o s al s
. Pl ai n t i ff s eek s

an i n ju n ct i o n d i rect i n g th e Arm y [t o] rep lace t h e en ti ret y o f th e ev al u at io n t eam s (i ncl u d in g SSEB, SSAC, an d SSA), an dth en co n du cta rat i o nal an dl awfu l ev al u at i o n an db es tv al u e s o urce s el ect i o n d eci s i o n wi t h n ew ev al u at ors i n a m an n er t h ati s co n s i s ten t wi t h the Co u rt ’ s d eci s i o n i n t h i s cas e[.]
Id

. at3 5

. 4
. Di s po s i ti v e Mo ti o ns a nd Atta ched Ex hi bi ts

a . Pendi ng Mo ti ons Pl ai n t i ff’ s m o t i o n fo r ju d g m en t o n th e ad m in i s t rat i ve reco rd l arg el y track s So t era’ s am en d edco m

p l ai n t , al t h ou g h th e m o t i o n ad d res s es t he co u n t s o f t h e am en d edco m

p l ai nti n th i s o rd er: Co u ntIV (u n s t at edev al u at io n cri t eri a fo r t h e reev al u at i on o f p ro p o s al s); Co u n tI (i m p ro p er d eci s i o n t o re-ev al u at e p ro p o s al s ); Co u n tII (arb i t raryre-ev al u at io n o f p ro po s al s an db es t v al u e award ); an d Co u n tIII (arb it raryco s tev al u at i o n ). Bo t h d efen d an tan d Ray t heo n i n cl u d e m o t io n s t o d i s m i s s wi t h thei r m o t i o n s fo r ju d g m en to n the ad m i n i s t rat i v e reco rd . Al l o f t h e b ri efs are wel l -wri t t en an ds up p o rt edb y ci t at i o n t o rel ev an tau t h o ri ty

.

14Th e g o v ern m en tm ov es t o d i s m i s s Co u n t I (i m p ro p er d eci s i o n t o re-ev al u at e p ro p os al s ) an d Co u ntIII (arb i t raryco s t ev al uat i o n ) as wai v edu n d er t h e au t h o ri t y o f Bl u e & Go ld

Fl eet , L.P. v. Un i t ed

St a t es , 4 9 2 F.3 d1 3 0 8 , 1 3 13 (Fed . Ci r. 2 0 0 7). Ray t h eo n m o v es t o d i s m i s s th e en t i re co m p l ai n t , s t at i n g thatSo t era h as n o s t an d i n g t o b ri n g th i s p ro t es tdu e t o an al l eg edOCI. Fu rt h er, Ray t h eo n ag rees wi t h th e g o v ern m en t t h at Co u ntI (i m p ro p er d eci s io n t o re-ev al u at e p ro po s al s ) i s u n t i m el y an dwai v ed . Fi n al l y , Rayt heo n ag ai n ag rees wi t h th e g o v ern m en tth at Co u n tIII (arb it raryco s tev al u at i o n ) i s u n ti m el y an dwai v ed , b ecau s e Co u n tIII “ i s a ch al l en g e t o the So l i ci t at i o n g ro u n dru l es fo r t h e co s treal i s m ev al u at i on , an di s t h erefo re p at en t l y

u n ti m el y .” Ray t h eo n M o t. at4 8

. Ev en i f t h ei r m o t i o n s t o d i s m i s s are d en i ed , b o t h th e g o v ern m en tan dRayt h eo n arg ue t h atth e reco rdi n th i s cas e s h o w s th atth e Arm

y ’ s award d eci s i on wi t h s t an d s al l o f th e ch al l en g es p res en t edi n Co u n t s I-IV o f So t era’ s am en d edco m p l ai n t

. b. Pro po s ed Suppl em ents to the Adm ini s tra ti v e Reco rd
To res o l v e t h i s p ro t es t , the co u rtrel i es o n th e am en d edco m p l ai n t , the ad m i n is t rat i v e reco rdan dth e p art i es ’ b ri efi n g o f t h ei r d i s p o s i t i v e m o t i o n s . To p l ai n t i ff’ s m o t i o n fo r ju d g m en to n th e ad m i n i s t rat i v e reco rdwas at t ach edan ex h ib i t , Ex h i bi tA, wh i ch i s an ad d i t i o n al , o m i t t edem ai l i n a ch ai n o f em ai l s p res en t edi n th e AR. At o ral arg u m en tth e p art i es ag reed thatth i s Ex h ib i tA i s u n o b ject i o n ab l e as a s up p l em en tt o t h e ad m i n i s t rat i v e reco rd . Oral Arg u m en t Tran s cri p t(Tr.) at9 8 -9 9 . Th e co u rtag rees thatth i s em ai l s h o ul dco m p l et e t h e ad m i n is t rat i v e reco rd

. Th ere was n o s u ch ag reem en tas t o o t h er ex h i bi t s at t ach edb y t h e p art i es t o t h ei r d is p o s i t i v e m o t i o n s an drep l y b ri efs . Th e co u rtn o t es th atn o fo rm al m o t i o n s t o s up p l em en tth e ad m i n i st rat i v e reco rdwere fi l edi n th i s p ro t es t . As ex p l ai n edi n t h e an al y s i s s ect i o n o f t h i s o p i ni o n , th e o t h er ex h ib i t s at t ach edt o th e p art i es ’ m o ti o n s are n o tap p ro pri at e s up p l em en t s t o th e ad m i ni s t rat i v e reco rd

. S ee i n f r a n n .1 2 ,1 8 -1 9 . Th e co urt d o es , h o wev er, rel y o n t h e ex h i b i t s at t ach edt o Rayt h eo n ’ s m o ti o n , n o tas s upp l em en t s t o t h e ad m i n i s t rat i v e reco rdb u tas s up p o rt i n g d o cu m en t at i o n n eces s ary fo r an al t ern at i v e h ol d i n g reg ard i n g So t era’ s s t an d i n g t o b ri n g th i s b i dp ro t es t

. S

ee i n f r a . Th e co u rtn ow tu rn s t o i t s res o l u t i o n o f t h e p art i es ’ m o t i o n s
. DI SCUSSI ON

15I . J uri sdi cti o n

Th i s co u rt“ s h al l h av e ju ri s d i ct i o n t o ren d er ju d gm en to n an act i on b y an i n t eres t edp art y o b

ject i n g t o a s o l i ci tat i o n b y a Fed eral ag en cy fo r b i d s o r p ro p os al s fo r a p ro p o s edco n t ract o r t o a p ro p o s edawardo r t h e award o f a co n tract o r an y

al l eg edv i o lat i o n o f s t atu t e o r reg u l at i o n i n co nn ect i o n wi t h a p ro cu rem en t o r a p ro p o s edp ro cu rem en t .” 2 8 U.S.C. § 1 4 9 1 (b )(1 ) (2 0 1 2 ). Th e ju ri s d i ct i o n al g ran ti s “ wi t h o u t reg ardt o wh et h er s u i ti s i n s t itu tedb efo re o r aft er t h e co n t ract i s award ed .” Id

. As a t h res h ol d ju ri s di ct io n al m at t er, h o wev er, th e p l ai n t i ff i n a b i dp ro t es tm u s ts h o w th ati th as s t an d i ng t o b ri ng th e s u i t

. In f o
. Tech . & Ap

p l i ca t i o n s Co r

p
. v. Un it ed

St a t es , 3 1 6 F.3 d1 3 1 2 , 1 3 1 9 (Fed . Ci r. 2 0 0 3 ) ( ITAC ); Myer s In ves t i g a t i ve & S

ec. S er vs
. , In c. v. Un i t ed

St a t es , 2 75 F.3 d 1 3 6 6 , 1 3 6 9 (Fed . Ci r. 2 0 0 2 ) (ci t at i o n o m i t t ed ).
I I . Sta nda rds o f Rev i ew A. J udg m ent o n the Adm i ni stra ti v e Reco rd
RCFC 5 2

. 1 (c) p ro v i d es fo r ju d g m en t o n th e ad m i n i s t rat iv e reco rd . To rev i ew a m o ti o n , o r cro s s -m o t i o n s , u n d er RCFC 5 2

. 1 (c), t h e co u rtas k s wh et h er, g i v en al l th e d i s p u t edan du n d i s p u t edfact s , a p art y h as m eti ts b urd en o f p ro o f b as edo n th e ev i d en ce i n th e reco rd

. Ba n n um, In c. v. Un it ed St a t es , 4 0 4 F.3 d 1 3 4 6 , 1 3 5 6 (Fed . Ci r. 2 0 0 5 ). Th e co u rtm u s t m ak e fact fi n d i n g s wh ere n eces s ary
. Id

. Th e res o l u t i o n o f RCFC 5 2 .1 cro s s -m o t i o n s i s ak i n t o an ex p ed i t edtri al o n th e p ap er reco rd

. Id

. B. Bi d Pro tes t Rev i ew Fi rs t , th e p l ai n ti ff i n a b i dp ro t es tm u s ts h o w th ati th as s tan d i n g t o b ri n g th e s u i t

. ITAC , 3 1 6 F.3 dat1 31 9 . Th i s m ay b e acco m

p l i s h edb y

d em on s trat i n g th at t h e p l ai n t i ff was an actu al b i d d er an dthati twas p reju d i ced b y th e award t o th e s u cces s fu l o ffero r. Id

. (ci t i n g A m. Fed ’n o f Go v’t Emp l o yees v. Un i t ed

St a t es , 2 5 8 F.3 d1 2 9 4 , 1 3 0 2 (Fed

. Ci r. 2 0 0 1 ) ( AFGE )). Preju d ice i s p ro v en b y es t ab l is h i n g t h atth e p l ai n ti ff h ada s ub s tan t i al ch an ce o f recei v i n g t h e co n t ract , b u tfo r t h e al l eg edp ro cu rem en terro r. Id

. (ci t in g Al f a La va l S ep a r a ti o n , In c. v. Un i t ed

St a t es , 1 7 5 F.3 d1 3 65 , 1 3 6 7 (Fed . Ci r. 1 9 9 9 )).

16As th e Un i t ed St at es Co urto f Ap p eal s fo r t h e Fed eral Ci rcu i th as s t at ed ,

“ t h e p ro p er s t an d ardt o b e ap p l i edi n b i dp ro t es tcas es i s p ro v i d edb y 5 U.S.C. § 7 06 (2 )(A) [(2 0 1 2 )] : a rev i ewi n g co u rts h al l s etas i d e th e ag en cy act i o n i f i ti s
‘ arb it rary , cap ri ci ou s , an ab u se o f d i s cret i on , o r o t h erwi s e n o ti n acco rd an ce wi t h l aw.’ ” Ba n kn o t e Co r

p . o f Am. v. Un i t ed

St a t es , 3 6 5 F.3 d1 3 4 5 , 1 3 5 0 -5 1 (Fed . Ci r. 2 0 0 4 ) (ci t i n g Ad

va nced Da ta Co n cep ts , In c. v. Un it ed St a t es , 2 1 6 F.3 d1 0 5 4 , 1 0 5 7 -5 8 (Fed . Ci r. 2 0 0 0 )); s ee a l s o 2 8 U.S.C. § 1 4 9 1(b )(4 ) (d es cri b in g th is co u rt ’ s s t an d ardo f rev i ew fo r b idp ro t es t s ). Un d er t h i s s t an d ard , a p ro cu rem en td eci s i o n m ay b e s etas i d e i f i tl ack eda rat i on al b as i s o r i f t h e ag en cy ’ s d eci s io n -m ak i n g i n v o l v ed a v i ol at i o n o f reg u l at io n o r p ro cedu re. Imp r es a Co n s tr uz i o n i Geo m. Do men ico Ga r u

f i v. Un it ed

St a t es , 2 3 8 F.3 d1 3 24 , 1 33 2 (Fed . Ci r. 2 0 0 1 ) ( Imp r es a ) (ci t at io ns o m i t t ed ). De mi n i mis erro rs i n t he p ro cu rem en t p ro ces s , h o wev er, d o n o t ju s t ify

rel i ef. Gr u mma n Da t a S ys . Co r p . v. Da lt o n , 8 8 F.3 d9 9 0, 1 0 0 0 (Fed . Ci r. 1 9 9 6 ) (ci t i ng An d er s en Co n s ul t i n g v. Un i t ed

St a t es , 9 5 9 F.2 d9 2 9 , 9 3 2 -3 3 , 9 3 5 (Fed . Ci r. 1 9 9 2 )). Th e b i dp ro t es tp lai n t i ff b ears th e b u rd en o f p ro v in g t h ata s i g ni fi can terro r m arred th e p ro cu rem en ti n qu es t i o n
. Id

. (ci t i n g CACI Fi eld S

er vs ., In c. v. Un i t ed

St a t es , 8 54 F.2 d 4 6 4 , 4 6 6 (Fed . Ci r. 1 9 8 8 )).
Th e h i gh er t h e d eg ree o f d i s cret i on al l o t t ed t h e co n t ract i n g o ffi cer, t h e m o re d i ffi cu l ti ti s fo r a p ro t es t o r t o p ro v e t h atth e p ro cu rem en td eci s i o n was arb i t rary an d cap ri ci o us
. Bu r r o ugh s Co rp . v. Un i t ed St a t es , 6 1 7 F.2 d5 9 0 , 5 9 7 (Ct . Cl

. 1 9 8 0 ) (ci t at i o n o m i t ted ). Neg o t i at edp ro cu rem en t s g iv e a “ b read t h o f d is cret i o n ” t o the co n t ract i n g o ffi cer an d i m p o s e a h eav ier b u rd en o f p ro o f o n a p ro t es t o r. Id

. at5 9 8 (ci t at i o n o m i t t ed ). Si m i l arl y , “bes tv al u e” co n t ract award s g i v e a co n tract in g o ffi cer m ore d i s cret i o n th an award s b as edo n p ri ce al o n e. G a l en Med

. As s o cs
. , In c. v. Un i ted

Sta t es , 3 6 9 F.3 d1 3 24 , 1 33 0 (Fed . Ci r. 2 0 0 4 ) (ci ti n g E.W

. Bl is s Co

. v. Un i ted

Sta t es , 7 7 F.3 d4 4 5 , 4 4 9 (Fed . Ci r. 1 9 9 6)). Th u s, t h e p ro t es t o r’ s b u rd en i s es p eci al l y h eav y i n n eg o t i at ed , b es tv al u e p ro cu rem en t s
. Ba n kn o t e Co r

p
. o fA m. v. Un i t ed

St a t es , 5 6 Fed . Cl . 3 7 7 , 3 8 0 (2 0 0 3 ) (ci t at i o n s o m it t ed ), a

f f’d , 3 6 5 F.3 d1 3 4 5 (Fed . Ci r. 2 0 0 4).
Th e d eferen ce affo rd edt o an ag en cy ’ s d eci s i o n m u s t b e ev en g reat er wh en a t ri al co u rti s as k edt o rev i ew a t ech n i cal ev al u at i o n. “ [T] ech ni cal rat i n g s
. . . i n v o l v e d i s cret i o n ary

d et erm i n at i o ns o f p ro cu rem en to ffi ci al s th ata co u rtwi l l n o t s eco n dg u es s .” E.W

. Bl is s , 7 7 F.3 dat4 4 9 (ci tat i o n s o m i tt ed ); Omeg a W o rld Tr a vel , In c. v. Un it ed

St a t es , 5 4 Fed . Cl . 5 7 0 , 5 7 8 (2 0 0 2) (“ Iti s wel l s et t l edth at co n tract in g o ffi cers are g i v en b ro add i s cret i on wi t h res p ectt o ev al uat i o n o f t ech n i cal p ro p o s al s .” (ci ti n g E.W . Bl is s , 7 7 F.3 dat4 4 9)). “ [W ] h ere an ag en cy ’ s
17decisions are highly technical in nature, . . . judicial restraint is appropriate and

proper.” Electro Methods, Inc. v. United States , 7 Cl. Ct. 755, 762 (1985) (citing Isometrics v. United States , 5 Cl. Ct. 420, 423 (1984)). “‘If the court finds a reasonable basis for the agency’s action, the court should stay its hand even though it might, as an original proposition, have reached a different conclusion as to the proper administration and application of the procurement regulations.’” Honeywell, Inc. v. United States , 870 F.2d 644, 648 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting M. Steinthal & Co. v. Seamans , 455 F.2d 1289, 1301 (D.C. Cir. 1971)). If, on the other hand, “the trial court determines [that] the government acted without rational basis or contrary to law when evaluating the bids and awarding the contract[,] . . . it proceeds to determine, as a factual matter, if the bid protester was prejudiced by that conduct.” Bannum , 404 F.3d at 1351. The protestor again bears the burden of proof, and must “show that there was a ‘substantial chance’ [the plaintiff] would have received the contract award but for the [government’s] errors in the bid process.” Id. at 1358 (citations omitted). If a protestor can show that, but for the procurement error of the agency, there was a substantial chance that it would have won the contract award, prejudice has been established. Id. at 1353 (citations omitted). “Prejudice is a question of fact.” Id. (citing Advanced Data Concepts , 216 F.3d at 1057). C. Supplementation of the Administrative Record
In Axiom Resource Management, Inc. v. United States , 564 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the Federal Circuit identified the acceptable circumstances under which the administrative record may be supplemented in a bid protest. The Axiom panel criticized a decision by this court which permitted supplementation of the administrative record in a bid protest, and criticized the trial court’s over-broad reliance on Esch v. Yeutter , 876 F.2d 976, 991 (D.C. Cir. 1989), a case which provides a list of possible justifications for the supplementation of the administrative record of an agency action. Axiom , 564 F.3d at 1379-81.
The court notes that the Axiom panel adopted a restrictive standard for supplementation of the administrative record in a bid protest, and favorably cited Murakami v. United States , 46 Fed. Cl. 731 (2000), aff’d , 398 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Axiom , 564 F.3d at 1380. The Axiom standard for supplementation of the administrative record in a bid protest is a direct quotation from Murakami , stating that “supplementation of the record should be limited to cases in which ‘the

18o m is s i o n o f ex t ra-reco rdev i den ce p recl u d es effect i v e ju di ci al rev i ew.’ ” Id

. (q u o ti n g Mu r a ka mi , 4 6 Fed . Cl . at7 3 5 ). Th e Fed eral Ci rcu i trel i edo n t h e cas es ci t ed b y th i s co u rti n Mu r a ka mi t o co n cl u d e t h at“ [t ] h e p u rp o s e o f l im it i ng rev i ew t o the reco rdactu al l y

b efo re t h e ag en cy

i s t o g u ardag ai n s tco u rt s u s i n g n ew ev i d en ce t o ‘ co n v ert t h e “ arb i t raryan d cap ri ci o u s” s tan d ardi n to effect i v el y d e n o v o rev i ew.’ ” Id

. (quo ti n g M u r a ka m i , 4 6 Fed . Cl . at 7 3 5 , an d ci t i ng Fla
. Po wer & Li gh t Co . v. Lo r i o n , 4 7 0 U.S. 7 2 9 , 7 4 3 -4 4 (1 9 8 5 ); Ca m p v. Pi t t s , 4 1 1 U.S. 1 3 8 , 1 4 2 (1 97 3 )). Th e t h ru s t o f t he Axi o m d eci si o n , an d Mu ra ka m i , i s th atth i s co u rt m u stex erci s e res trai ntwh en co n s i d eri n g wh et h er o r n o tt o s up p lem en tth e ad m i n is t rat i v e reco rdi n a b i dp ro t es t

. S ee i d

. (fav o ri n g a “ m o re res t ri ct i v e ap p ro ach ” an dqu es t i o n i n g t h e v i t al i t y o f Es ch ) (ci t at io n s o m i t ted ); Mu r a ka mi , 4 6 Fed

. Cl

. at7 3 5 (s t at i ng th at t h e co n st ru ct i o n o f t h e Es ch ju s ti fi cat i o n s fo r al l o wi n g s up p lem en t at i on o f an ad m i n is t rat i v e reco rds h o u l db e “ ex t rem el y l i m i t ed ”) (ci t at i o n s o m i t t ed ). Fo r t hes e reas on s , th is co u rth as carefu l l y co ns i d ered t h e d o cu m en t s at t ach edb y

th e p art i es as ex h i b i ts t o thei r b ri efs t o co n s i d er wh et h er t h es e d o cu m en t s s h o u l ds upp l em en t t h e ad m i n i s trat i v e reco rd

. I I I . Sta ndi ng Al t h ou g h the g o vern m en td o es n o tco n t en dth atSo t era l ack s s t an d in g t o b ri n g th i s b i dp ro t es t , Rayt heo n m ov es t o d i s m i s s So t era’ s p ro t es to n s t an d i n g g ro u nd s b ecau se o f an al l eg edOCI t h at i targ u es i m p ai rs So t era’ s el i g i bi l i t y

fo r co n tract award . Rayt h eo n M o t . at7 -1 9

. In i t s o p en i n g b ri ef o n t h i s i s s ue, Ray t h eo n fai l s t o ci t e a s i n g l e b i dp ro t es td eci s i o n wi th an al o g o u s fact s , i .e. , a cas e wh ere a p ro t es t o r’ s s t an d in g was d es t ro y edb y an al l eg ed OCI t h at t h e ag en cy h ad al read y i n v es t i g at edan del i m i n at edas a cau s e fo r co n cern . Ines sen ce, Ray t h eo n as k s th i s co u rtt o s ub s ti tut e i ts ju d g m en tfo r t h ato f t h e ag en cy o n th e OCI i s s u e, an d t o em p l o y a d e n ov o rev iew o f t h i s i s su e t o d ep ri v e So t era o f s t an d i n g . Inth e co u rt ’ s v iew, rel ev an tb i dp ro t es tcas el aw d o es n o ts up p ortRayt h eo n ’ s m ot i o n
. Fi rs t , as n o ted s u

p r a , s tan d in g i n b idp ro t es t s i s es t ab l is h ed i f t h e p ro t es t o r p o s s es s es a s ub s t an t i al ch an ce o f recei vi n g the co n tract awardi f i t s al leg at i o n s o f p ro cu rem en t erro r are s u s tai n edb y th e co u rt

. ITAC , 3 1 6 F.3 dat1 3 19 . Here, So t era o n ce wo n th e co n t ract award , i s cu rren t ly s eco ndi n l i n e fo r award , an dh as b een det erm i nedb y

th e p ro cu ri n g ag en cy

t o h av e n o OCIs . Th e Arm y h as , i n o t h er wo rd s , s h o wn n o i n d i cat i o n th ati t wo u l dd en y So t era t he co n tract award b ecau s e o f t h e al l eg edOCI, an d n o o t h er i m ped im en t t o So t era’ s s t an d in g h as b een id en t i fi edb y

i n terv en o r-d efen d an t . Th e reco rdth u s cl earl y s h o ws th atSo t era
19h as a s ubs t an t i al ch an ce o f co n t ract awardan ds t an d i n g t o b ri n g th i s s u i t

. S ee, e.g
. , Bi l f i n g er Ber g er AG S ed e S eco n d ar i a It a l i an a v. Un i t ed

St a t es , 9 7 Fed . Cl

. 9 6 , 1 3 5 (2 0 1 0 ) (“ Ap reju d i ce d et erm i n at i o n fo r t h e p u rp o se o f ev al uat i n g s t an d i n g i s a ‘ l i m i t ed rev i ew’ th ats eek s ‘ m i n i m um req u is i te ev id en ce n eces s ary fo r p l ai n t i ff t o d em o n s t rat e p reju di ce an dtherefo re s t an di n g .’ ” (q u o t i n g Ni ght Visi on Co r

p . v. Un i ted St a t es , 6 8 Fed . Cl . 3 6 8 , 3 9 2 & n .2 3 (2 0 0 5 )).
It w as o nl y

ato ral arg u m en tthatRayt h eo n p o i nt edt o s up p o rtfro m a recen t cas e d eci d edb y

th i s co u rt , B a n n u m, In c. v. Un it ed St a tes , 1 1 5 Fed . Cl

. 1 4 8 (2 0 1 4 ), fo r i t s s t an d i n g arg u m en t

. Ba n n u m an ds i m i l ar cas es , h owev er, m erel y s t an dfo r t h e p ro p o s i t i o n t h atth e co u rtm ay ru l e o n th e s t an d i n g i s s u e b as edo n d i s qu al i fy i ng el em en t s o f a p ro t es t o r’ s p ro p o s al thatth e ag en cy h as o verl o o k ed

. S ee, e.g
. , 1 1 5 Fed . Cl . at1 5 5 -5 6 (s t at i n g t h at“ i n as ses s i n g s t an d i n g , th i s Co u rti s n o tb o un db y

th e fi nd i n g i n the So u rce Sel ect i o n Deci s i o n o r requ iredt o ap p l y th e [d eferen t i al ] APA s t an d ardo f rev i ew . . . [b ecau s e] th e Co u rtm u s tas cert ai n i t s o wn juri s d i ct i o n an d, i n d o in g s o , [i t] i s n o tb o u n d b y an ag en cy ’ s m i s tak e i n o v erl o o k i n g a n on -co m

p l i an t p ro p o s al ”) (ci t i n g Dis ma s Ch a r it i es , In c. v. Un i t ed St a t es , 7 5 Fed . Cl . 5 9 , 6 1 -6 2 (2 0 0 7 )); Dis ma s , 7 5 Fed

. Cl . at6 1 -6 2 (fi n d i n g th ata p ro t es t o r l ack eds t an d i n g d es p i t e t h e fact th atth e p ro cu ri n g ag en cy ’ s “ So urce Sel ect i on Deci s io n . . . n ev er ex p l i ci t l y s t at edth at[t h e p ro tes t o r’ s p ro p o sal ] d i d n o tco m p l y wi t h th e s ol ici t at i o n ”) (ci t i n g A & D Fi r e Pr o t ., In c. v. Un it ed St a t es , 7 2 Fed . Cl . 1 2 6 , 1 4 0 (2 0 0 6 )). Here, Ray t h eo n i s n o t at t em p t i ng t o p oi n t o u tan o v erl o o k edas pect o f So tera’ s p ro p o s al th atren d ers So t era i n el i g i b le fo r award – i n s t ead , Rayt h eo n as k s t h e co u rtt o o v ert u rn th e ag en cy ’ s OCI ru l i n g
. Ba n n u m o ffers n o s up p o rtfo r t hatco u rs e o f act io n
. Pl ai n t i ff s u g g es t s thatRayt h eo n ’ s s t an di n g ch al l en g e i s , i n es s en ce, a p ro t es t o f t h e Arm

y ’ s OCI ru l i n g
. Pl .’ s Rep l y at 1 0 -1 1

. In th e co urt ’ s v i ew, i td o es n o t m at t er h o w Rayt h eo n ’ s m o t i on t o d i s m is s i s ch aract eri zed . Ul t im at el y , Rayt h eo n h as p ro du cedn o au t h o ri t y s t at i n g t h ata d e n o v o OCI rev i ew i s req u i red t o co n fi rm a p ro t es t o r’ s s tan d i n g t o b ri n g a b i dp ro t es t , wh en th e ag en cy h as fu l l y co n s i d ered t h e OCI al l eg at i o n an dh as ru l edag ai n s tth e ex i s ten ce o f an OCI. Un der Ray t h eo n ’ s co n st ru ct i on o f t hi s co u rt ’ s b i dp ro t es ts t an d ardo f rev iew, an ag en cy ’ s OCI ru l i n g wo u l db e affo rd ed l es s d ef er en ce i n a ch al l en g e t o a p ro t es t o r’ s s t an d i n g th an s u ch an OCI ru l in g wo ul d recei v e i n a ch al l en g e t o an award ee’ s el i g i b i l i t y fo r co n t ract awardo n th e m eri t s. S ee, e.g
. , Axi o m , 5 6 4 F.3 dat1 3 8 2 (s t at i n g th atan ag en cy ’ s ru li n g reg ard i n g an award ee’ s OCIs s h ou l dn o t“ t ri g g er[] d e n o v o rev i ew” b ecau s e t h e d eferen t i al arb i t raryan dcap ri ci o u s s t an d ardap p l ies ).

20Su ch an i n co n g ru o us an di n co n s i s t en tap p l i cat io n o f d eferen ce t o p ro cu ri n g

ag en ci es ’ OCI ru l in g s i s l o gi cal l y u n s upp o rt ab l e. Th u s , ev en i f the co u rt , i n th e ci rcu m s t an ces o f t h i s p ro cu rem en t , co ns i d ered i t ap p ro p ri at e t o co n du cta rev iew o f Ray t h eo n’ s OCI al l eg at i o n s t o co n fi rm So t era’ s s t an di n g , wh i ch i td o es n o t , an dev en i f t h e co u rt ag reedth atth e AR s h o u ldb e s up p l em en t edwi t h t h e m at eri al s at t ach edt o Rayth eo n ’ s m ot i o n t o d i s m i s s , wh i ch i tag ai n d o es n ot , the co urtb el i ev es th atd eferen ce wo u l d n o n et h el es s b e du e t h e Arm y ’ s OCI ru l i ng an dth atth e arb i t raryan dcap ri ci o u s s t an d ardo f rev i ew wo ul dap p l y . Ino t h er wo rd s , th e co u rtwo ul dfo l l o w Axi o m an d o n l y o v ert urn th e Arm y ’ s fi n d i n g th at So t era’ s el i g i b i l it y fo r award was n o t d es t ro y edb y an OCI i

f the co u rtd et erm in edth e Arm y ’ s fi n di n g reg ard i ng OCIs t o b e u n reas o n ab le.
Th e i d en t i fi cat i o n an d m i t i g at i o n o f OCIs are ex am p l es o f d i s cret io n ary p ro cu rem en t d eci s i on s b y a fed eral ag en cy

th atare due d eferen ce fro m thi s co u rt

. As s t at edi n A xi o m ,

t h e [Fed eral Acqu i s i t io n Reg u l at i o n (FAR) 5 ] reco gn i zes t h atth e i d en ti fi cat i o n o f OCIs an dth e ev al u at i o n o f m i t i g at i o n p ro po s al s are fact -s p eci fi c i n qu i ri es th at req u ire t h e ex erci s e o f co n s i d erab l e d i scret i o n. See 4 8 C.F.R. § 9 .5 0 5 (“ Each i n d i v idu al co n t ract i n g s i tu at i o n s h o u l d b e ex am i n edo n th e b as i s o f i ts p art i cu l ar fact s an dth e n atu re o f t h e p ro p o s ed co nt ract . Th e ex erci s e o f co m m on s en s e, g o o dju d g m en t , an ds o u ndd i scret i o n i s req u iredi n b ot h the d eci s i on o n wh eth er a s i g n i fi can t p ot en t i al co n fl i ct ex i s t s an d , i f i td o es , th e d ev el op m en t o f anap pro p ri at e m ean s fo r res o l v i n g i t .”); see a ls o [ ARINC En g ’g

S er vs ., LLC v. Un it ed St a t es , 7 7 Fed . Cl

. 1 96 , 2 02 (2 0 0 7)] (“ Th e res p on s i b i l i t y fo r d et erm i n i n g wh et her s uch u n eq u al acces s ex i s t s an d wh ats t ep s

5 / All citations to the F AR in this opinion are to the current version of Title 48 of the Code of F ederal Reg

ulations, which does not appear to differ in any material respect from the versions that were in force at times relevant to the procurement actions challeng ed in this bid protest. 21s h o u l d b e t ak en i n res p o n s e t h eret o res t s s qu arel y wi t h t h e co nt ract i n g o ffi cer.”).
5 6 4 F.3 dat1 3 8 2 . Hav i n g co n s i d ered th e t h ree ex h ib i t s at t ach ed t o Rayth eo n ’ s m o ti o n , an dth e arg u m en t s Rayt h eo n p res en ts reg ard i ng So t era’ s al l eg ed OCI, t h e co u rtfi n d s n o t h in g o f s u ffi ci en tco n cern t o cas td o ub to n the reas o n ab l en es s o f t h e Arm y ’ s OCI ru l i n g p res en t edi n AR Tab 5 7

. 6
Fi n al l y , i f an al t ern at i v e d e n o v o rev i ew o f t h e OCI i s s u e co u l db e ju s t i fi ed , t h e co u rtwo u l dco m e t o t h e s am e co n cl u s i on reach edb y th e Arm y i n 2 0 1 3 aft er an ex ten si v e i n v es t ig at i o n. Th e t ech ni cal el em en ts o f So t era’ s p ro po s al were n o t s ub s t an t i vel y

rev i sed aft er M r. Ch etW i l s o n , th e em p l oy ee wh o al l eg ed l y p o s s es s edp ro p ri et ary kn o wl ed g e o f So t era’ s co m p et i t o rs ’ t ech n ical ap p ro ach es , jo i n edSo t era’ s wo rk fo rce. Al t h o u g h d i s cu s s i on s , th ro u g h Ev al u at i o n No t i ces (ENs ) an dres p o n ses theret o , p erm it t edSo t era t o ex p ou n d up o n as pect s o f i t s p ro p os al th ath adp rev i o u s l y recei v edweakrat i n g s , an d t o p ro v i de s up p o rt i n g d o cu m en t at i o n th atres p o n d edt o req u es t s fo r m o re d et ai l edex p lan at io n s o f So t era’ s p l an o f wo rk , n o s ub s tan t i v e ch an g es were m ad e t o th e p ro p o sal o ri g i nal ly s ub m it t edt o th e Arm

y . S ee AR Tab s 9 , 1 7 , 1 9 , 3 0

. Fu rt herm ore, M r. W i ls o n was b o u n db y

p ro t o co l s n o t t o d i v u lg e p ro p ri et ary i n fo rm at i o n g l ean ed fro m p as two rk ex p eri en ces . S ee i d

. at8 6 77 -8 1 . Th e co u rt m u s tag ree wi th th e co n tract in g o ffi cer wh o s t at ed t h at :

Gi v en th e n atu re o f t h e l i m it eds co p e o f th e ENs i s s u ed t o So t era an dth e res p on s es recei v ed , co up l edwi t h t h e p erfo rm an ce-b as edn atu re o f t h e EW PM T effo rtwh i ch cal l edfo r n o s peci fi c ap p ro ach , th e fact thatSo t era h ad d ev el o p edan d p ro p o s edi ts ap p ro ach / so l u t i on p ri o r t o em p l oy i n g M r. W i l s o n , th e t y p e o f Ray t heo n
“ p ro pri et ary ” i n fo rm at io n t o wh i ch M r. W i l s o n h ad acces s , an d t h e fact thatth e ENs i ss u ed b y th e Go v ern m en tdu ri n g d i scu s s i o n s s p eci fi cal l y s o u gh tan d o bt ai n edcl ari fi cat i o n an dd et ai l o n the ap p ro ach

6 / AR Tab 57 is not carefully index ed by

defendant. The contracting officer’s finding s are on pag e s 8645, 8665-94; conclusions reg ardingthe OCIalleg ations are found on pag es 8691- 94. An index of enclosures is found on pag e 8695. The Army ’s accompany ing leg al analy sis of Ray theon’s OCI

alleg ations is found on pag es 9236-46. 22p ro p o s ed b y So t era p ri o r t o M r. W i l s o n b eg i n n in g em p l oym en t o r rev i ewi n g th e ENs , I h av e co n cl u d edth at al t h o u g h M r. W i l s o n h adacces s t o i nfo rm at i o n m ark ed as p ro pri et ary

b y Rayt h eo n , s ai di nfo rm at i o n was n o t co m p et i t i v el y ad v an t ag eo u s t o So t era i n th e p rep arat i on o f i t s p ro p o s al o r i n res p o nd i n g t o ENs , an d t herefo re d i d n ot p reju d i ce Ray th eo n i n an y way
. Id

. at8 6 8 3 . Thu s , ev en th ro ug h th e l en s o f a d e n o v o rev iew o f Ray t h eo n ’ s OCI al l eg at i o n s , So t era i s n oti n el i g i b l e fo r award b ecau se o f an OCI; p l ai n t i ff h as s t an d i n g t o b ri n g th i s p ro t es t

. ITAC , 3 16 F.3 d at 1 3 1 9

. I V. Ana l y s i s fo r Co unt I o f the Am ended Co m pl a i nt 7
A. No W ai v er o f Co unt I Ca us ed by Del a y i n Fi l i ng Pro tes t o f Ag ency Deci s i o n to Underta k e Co rrecti v e Acti o n 1
. Bi ndi ng Precedent
Bo t h th e g ov ern m en tan dRayt h eo n co n ten dth at Bl u e & Go ld Fl eet b ars th i s co u rt ’ s co n s id erat i o n o f Co un tI o f t h e co m pl ai n t . Th ei r b as i c co n t en ti o n i s th at So t era s h o u l dh av e p ro t es t edth e Arm y ’ s d eci s i o n t o re-ev al u at e p ro p o s al s b efo re t h e res u l t s o f t h at re-ev al u at i on were rev eal edb y the award t o Ray t h eo n . Th i s co n ten t i o n i s p rem i s edo n an ex t en s io n o f t h e h o ld i n g i n Bl u e & Go ld Fl eet wh ich s t at es th at
a p art y

wh o h as th e o p p o rtu n it y t o o b jectt o th e t erm s o f a g o v ern m en t s o l i ci t at i o n co n t ai n i ng a p at en terro r an d fai l s t o d o s o p ri or t o th e cl o s e o f th e b id d i n g p ro ces s wai v es i t s ab i li t y

t o rai s e t he s am e o b

ject i o n s ub s eq u en t l y

i n a b i dp ro t es tact i o n i n th e Co u rto f Fed eral Cl ai m s
. 4 9 2 F.3 dat1 3 1 3

.

7 / The court addresses the counts of the amended complaint in the following order: Count I , Count I I I , Count I V , Count I I

. 23Here, no solicitation term is at issue – it is the Army’s corrective action that

might have triggered waiver of a bid protest ground. In particular, the protestworthy action, according to the government and Raytheon, is the Army’s stated intent to examine all proposals and evaluations for offerors in the

final competitive range (this includes [Raytheon]), and [the Army] will re-evaluate as appropriate. If the re-evaluations result in any changes, the source selection authority will render a new source selection decision. AR at 8506.1. The defendants in this case rely upon a variety of authorities for their waiver argument, but the Federal Circuit precedent cited is almost entirely dicta and of minimal precedential value.
The waiver rule in Blue & Gold Fleet has been extended in COMINT Systems Corp. v. United States , 700 F.3d 1377, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2012), so that protests of the terms of an amendment to a solicitation are waived if not raised before award. See id. at 1382 & n.5 (stating that “assuming that there is adequate time in which to do so, a disappointed bidder must bring a challenge to [an amended] solicitation containing a patent error or ambiguity [excepting latent errors or ambiguities] prior to the award of the contract” (citing Blue & Gold Fleet , 492 F.3d at 1313)). This COMINT extension of Blue & Gold Fleet to solicitation amendment scenarios is, however, inapplicable to the facts of this bid protest, where no solicitation amendment occurred as part of the Army’s corrective action. Furthermore, although there is brief commentary in the COMINT decision which looks to GAO timeliness rules as support for the rationale of COMINT’s extension of the waiver rule of Blue & Gold Fleet , this general endorsement of the GAO’s approach to delay-based waiver must be construed, at most, as dicta regarding the propriety of extending Blue & Gold Fleet ’s waiver rule beyond the scope of the waiver holding in COMINT

. There is additional dicta in Systems Application & Technologies, Inc. v. United States , 691 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ( SA TECH II ), regarding the waiver rule set forth in Blue & Gold Fleet . At issue in that appeal was the government’s allegation that the bid protest of a corrective action was not ripe, not that a protestor had waived its right to protest by delaying its protest until a new award decision had issued. Id. at 1383-85. In particular, the government contended that

24the apparent awardee could not protest a corrective action until the government

concluded its corrective action and re-awarded the contract to another bidder. Id. at 1384. The Federal Circuit disagreed, because “the Army’s proposed finality rule would make some of their actions protest-proof.” Id. The only specific discussion of “protest-proof” actions being immune from review because of a waiver of protest grounds is this statement in SA TECH II :

If SA-TECH’s claims were not ripe until after the contract award, then SA-TECH could never protest th[e] proposed amendment to the terms of the solicitation [which was part of its challenge to the corrective action]. 691 F.3d at 1384-85 (citing Blue & Gold Fleet , 492 F.3d at 1313). Because this commentary is dicta, and could just as easily be read to not extend as to extend the waiver rule in COMINT

and Blue & Gold Fleet , the court finds SA TECH II to be of no value in resolving the waiver issue in this case. The court now turns to a brief discussion of the caselaw and GAO decisions relied upon by the government and Raytheon to argue that an extension of Blue & Gold Fleet ’s waiver rule is warranted in the circumstances of this protest.

2. Federal Claims Court Cases According to defendant, relying in particular on a number of protest ripeness cases decided by this court, a delayed protest of a corrective action is waived. Def.’s Mot. at 15. A discussion of the ripeness of a particular protest, however, is no indication that this court has actually extended the waiver rule in Blue & Gold Fleet

to protests of corrective actions that are separate and distinct from solicitation amendments. Although ripeness and waiver are related concepts, a holding deciding the ripeness of a bid protest does not confirm that this court has extended Blue & Gold Fleet to protests of re-evaluation decisions in the context of corrective actions by agencies responding to a GAO protest. Raytheon, in its reply brief, cites to better cases which discuss the waiver rule in the context of untimely challenges to government actions in a procurement – actions other than solicitation amendments. Raytheon Reply at 5-6. These cases are: Communication Construction Services, Inc. v. United States , 116 Fed. Cl. 233, 263-64 (2014) (waiver of a protest ground founded on an alleged OCI that

25was kno wn t o t h e p ro t es t o r b efo re b i d s were s ubm i t t ed ); CRAs s o ci a t es , In c. v.

Un i ted St a t es , 1 0 2 Fed . Cl

. 6 9 8 , 7 12 (2 0 1 1) (wai v er o f a p ro t es tg ro u n d fo u n d ed o n an al leg edOCI t h atwas kn own t o the p ro t es t o r b efo re b i d s were s ub m i t t ed ); Cer es En vi r o n men ta l S

er vi ces , In c. v. Un it ed

St a t es , 9 7 Fed . Cl . 2 7 7, 3 1 0 (2 0 1 1 ) (wai v er o f a p ro t es tg ro un dfo u n d edo n an “ o b v i o u s p ro cu rem en tp ro cedure” wh i ch d i s cl o s edth e p ro tes t or’ s p ri ci n g t o co m p et it o rs , b ecau s e t h i s p ro cedu re was kn o wn t o the p ro t es t or b efo re b i d s were s ub m i t t ed ).
Wh i l e t h e t hree cas es ci tedb y Rayt heo n are i n s t ru ct i v e, th ey d o n o t b i n dth e co u rti n t h is cas e. In ad di t i o n , th e fact s o f t h o s e cas es are n o tv ery s im i l ar t o th e fact s o f t h i s cas e. Fo r ex am p l e, al l three o f t h e ci t ed cas es i n v o l veda p ro t es t o r t h atp o s s es s ed kn o w l ed g e o f an al l eg edp ro cu rem en td efect , thatfaced a fi xed d ead li n e fo r p ro tes ti n g thatd efect (b efo re t h e s ub m i s s i o n o f b i d s ), an dth atwai t ed fo r t h e res u l t s o f an ev al u at io n p ro ces s b efo re p ro tes t i ng th e al l eg edd efect . Here, t h ere was n o up co m in g b i d di n g d ead l i n e b ecau s e p ro p os al s were al read y i n th e h an ds o f t h e Arm

y . W ai v er b ecau s e o f d el ay i s l es s eas i l y d is cern edwh en t h ere i s n o p ro po s al s ub m i s s i o n d ead l i ne t h atcl earl y d em arcat es t i m el y an du n t i m el y p ro t es t s
. Ato ral arg u m en t , th e co u rti n qu i redas t o wh en So t era s ho u l dh av e p ro t es t edth e re-ev al u at i o ns o f p ro p o s al s i n o rd er t o av o idwai ver u nd er Bl u e a n d Go ld Fl eet . Rayt h eo n s t at edthatSo t era s ho u l dh av e act ed“ wi t h i n a reas o n ab l e t i m e,” an dth atwai t i ng t o rai s e t h is ch al l en g e u n t i l aft er So t era h adl o s ti t s GAO p ro t es twas “ way

t o o l on g .” 8 Tr. at6 7 -6 9 . Th e g o v ern m en ts t at edth atal t h o u g h t h e u s u al ru l e i s th atth e p ro t es tm u s tb e l o d g edb efo re award , wh en a GAO p ro t es t i s d i s m i s sed as m o o tth e p ro t es t o r m u s tp ro tes tthe co rrect i v e act i o n b efo re t h e GAO p ro t es ti s d i s m i s s ed

. 9 Id

. at3 9 -4 0 . Pl ai nt i ff s t at edth at ev eni f Bl u e & Go ld Fl eet co u l db e ap p l i edt o th is ty p e o f s cen ari o, n o wai v er d ead l in e wo u ldb e

8 / The court notes that there is no requirement that a protestor raise each and every protest g round before the GAO before those protest g rounds may

be raised in a protest before this court. New protest g

rounds in cases before this court are not waived merely because the GAO had no chance to consider them in a previous protest. See, e.g. , Centech Grp., Inc. v. United States , 78 F ed. Cl. 496, 507 n.20 (2007) (statingthat “the right to file a protest in the Court of F ederal Claims is unaffected by GAO’s protest process” (citing 31 U.S.C. § 3556 (2012)).

9 / Under the g overnment’s rule Sotera would have had four business day s from the initial corrective action notice, or two business day s from the clarified corrective action notice, within which to have filed a timely appeal of the g overnment’s proposed corrective action.

26t ri g g eredu n l es s th e Arm y ack n o wl ed g ed t h atth e fi rs tev al u at i o n o f p ro p os al s was u n l awfu l an dth atth ere n eed edt o b e a s eco n d, l awfu l ex am i n at i o n o f p ro p o s al s
. Id

. at1 2

. Gi v en th e u n cert ai n t y

as t o th e ap p ro p ri at e d ead l i n e fo r av o i d i n g wai v er o f a co rrect iv e act i on p ro t es t , an d t h e l acko f p reced en t i al au t h o ri t y fo r ex t en d in g th e wai v er ru l e i n Bl u e & Go ld Fl eet t o p ro tes t s o f co rrect i v e act io n n o t i ces s u ch as t h e o n e i s s u edb y

th e Arm y h ere, t h e cas es ci t edb y Rayt h eo n an dth e g o v ern m en t fai l t o p ers uad e t h e co u rtth atSo t era n eces s ari l y wai v edi t s ri g h tt o p ro t es tth e Arm y ’ s d eci si on t o re-ev al u at e p ro p o s al s
. 1 0
3
. GAO Deci s i o ns Th e co u rt n o w co n s i d ers wh et h er GAO d eci s i o n s wh i ch h av e co n si d ered wai v er i n the co nt ex to f co rrect i v e act i o n p ro t es t s are p ers u as i v e, ev en t h o u g h GAO d eci s i o ns are n o t b i n di ng p reced en tfo r t h i s co u rt

. S ee, e.g
. , Al l i ed

Tech

. Gr p
. , In c. v. Un i t ed

St a t es , 6 4 9 F.3 d1 3 2 0 , 1 3 3 1 n .1 (Fed . Ci r. 2 01 1 ) (s t at i n g th at GAO d eci s i o ns d o n o tcreat e b i n d i n g p reced en tfo r t h e Fed eral Ci rcu i t ); XTRA Lea se, In c. v. Un i ted

Sta t es , 5 0 Fed . Cl . 6 1 2 , 6 1 8 (2 0 0 1 ) (s t at i n g t h at“ GAO d eci s i o n s are n o t b i n di n g o n t hi s co u rt ”) (ci t at i o n o m i t ted ). Th e g o v ern m en tan d Ray t h eo n ci t e t o a p ai r o f GAO d eci s i o n s i s s uedi n 2 0 0 8-0 9 as s up p o rtfo r th ei r wai v er arg u m en t s. S

ee Def.’ s M o t . at1 5 (ci t i n g No r th r o p Gr u m ma n In

f o . Tech ., In c. , B-4 00 1 3 4 .1 0 , 2 0 0 9 CPD ¶ 1 6 7 (Co m p . Gen . Au g . 1 8 , 2 00 9 ); Do ma i n Na me Al l i an ce Reg is try , B-3 1 0 80 3.2 , 2 0 08 CPD ¶ 1 6 8 (Co m p . Gen . Au g . 1 8 , 2 0 0 8 )); Ray t h eo n M o t . at3 2 (ci t i n g No r th r o p Gr umma n ); Rayt h eo n Rep l y at5 (ci t i n g Do ma i n Na me ). Th e p ri n ci p le t h atd efen d an t an di n t erv en o r-d efen d an tat t em p tt o d i s t i l l fro m

th es e two cas es i s b es ts u m m ari zed b y

th e g o v ern m en t :

1 0 / At least one judg e of this court appears to sug g e st that the waiver rule set forth in Blue &Gold Fleet

should not be applied too broadly in corrective action protests: [ H] ad [ the ag e n cy] at any point in taking corrective action modified its solicitation and called for new proposals, then the somewhat ex tended doctrine of timeliness and waiver represented by the prog e ny

of Blue &Gold Fleet in this court could well have been trig g ered. Vanguard Recovery Assistance v. United States , 99 F ed. Cl. 81, 92 (2011) (footnote omitted).

27GAO h as l o n g h el dth ata p ro t es t“ wh ich ch al l en g es th e way i n wh i ch th e ag en cy

wi l l co n du cti ts co rrect i v e act i o n an dreco m

pet i t i o n , i s an al og o u s t o a ch al l en g e t o t h e t erm s o f a s ol ici t at io n ,” an d , th u s , an y s uch ch al l en g e m u s tb e rai s edp ri o r t o awardt o b e t i m el y . Def.’ s M o t . at1 5 (q u o t i ng Do ma i n Na m e an dci t i n g No r th r o p Gr u mma n ). It wo u l db e m o re accu rat e, h o wev er, t o s t at e t hatth e GAO h as s t at edth at s o me s u ch co rrect iv e act i on ch al l en g es m u s tb e rai s edp ri o r t o awardt o b e t i m el y . Th e fu l l GAO co rrect i ve act i o n p ro t es twai v er ru l e i s s t at edi n a m ore recen t GAO d eci s i o n:

Becau s e [Eart h Res o u rces Tech no l o g y ’ s (ERT’ s )] p ro t es t o f th e ag en cy ’ s d eci s i o n i n th is reg ardam o u n t s t o a ch al l en ge o f t he ag en cy ’ s co rrect i v e act i o n a n d the g ro u n dru l es es t ab l i s h edfo r t h e co m pet i t i on , s ee No r th r o p Gr u m ma n In

f o . Tech , In c. , B-4 0 0 1 3 4

. 1 0 , Au g
. 1 8, 2 0 09 , 2 0 0 9 CPD p ara. 1 6 7 at1 0 ; Do ma i n Na me Al l i a n ce Reg is try , B-3 1 0 8 0 3

. 2 , Au g . 1 8 , 2 0 0 8 , 2 0 0 8 CPD p ara. 1 6 8 at 7 , i twas u nreas o n ab l e fo r ERT t o wai t u nt il J u l y 1 1 , aft er h av i ng recei ved i t s d eb ri efi n g reg ard i n g t h e award d eci s i on , t o p ro t es tNASA’ s d eci s i o n i n t h i s reg ard

. Rat h er, b ecau s e ERT kn ew o r s h o u l d h av e kn o wn o f t h i s b as i s o f p ro t es tas a co n s eq u en ce o f ERT’ s co u n s el recei v i n g the [co rrect i v e act i o n n ot i ce] , ERT s h ou l d h av e, atth e l at es t , p ro t es t ed t h e ag en cy ’ s d eci s i o n n o tt o h o l d. . . d i s cu s s i o n s wi t h i n 1 0 d ay s o f recei v i n g th e [co rrect i o n act io n n ot i ce] , o r b y J u l y 6 . Hav in g fai l edt o t i m el y p ro t es tth i s m at t er, t h e al l eg at i o n i s d i s m i s s ed . 4 C.F.R. s ect . 2 1.2

. Ea r th Res . Tech ., In c. , B-4 03 0 4 3 .2 , 2 0 1 0 CPD ¶ 2 48 , 2 0 1 0 W L 4 3 0 4 18 2 , at* 4 (Co m p . Gen

. Oct . 1 8 , 2 0 1 0) (em p h as i s ad d ed ). Th i s fu ll ex p o si ti o n o f th e GAO’ s wai v er ru l e, p u t t i n g as id e fo r t h e m o m en tth e fact th at t h e GAO ap p l i es a t en -d ay t i m el i n es s ru le wh i ch d o es n o tap p l y t o t h i s co u rt ’ s b i dp ro t es tjuri s d i ct io n , s up p os es th ats o m e co rrect i v e act i o n s affect th e g ro u n d ru l es o f t h e co m p et i t i o n

28an d t h ats o m e d o n o t

. Th i s d i s t i n ct i o n i s ex p l ai n ed , atl eas tt o s o m e d eg ree, i n a

m o re recen tGAO d eci s io n :

As an i n i t i al m at t er, we n o te t h atwe h av e co n s i dered th e m eri t s o f v ari o us p ro t es t s ch al l en g i ng th e ad eq u acy o f an ag en cy ’ s p ro po s edco rrect i v e act i o n . In d o i n g s o , i n t h o se i n s t an ces wh ere t h e ag en cy ’ s p ro p o s edco rrect i ve act i o n al t ers o r fai l s t o al t er t he g ro u n dru l es fo r t h e co m p et i t i o n ( i .e. , as p ect s th atap pl y t o al l o ffero rs ), we h av e co n s i d ered a p ro t es t er’ s ch al l en g e o f s u ch t o b e an al o g o u s t o a ch al l en g e t o t h e t erm s o f a s o l i ci t at i o n , t h u s p ro vi d i n g th e b as i s fo r p ro t es tp ri o r t o award

. Do ma i n Na me Al l i a n ce Reg is tr y , su p r a (p ro t es t ch al l en gi ng ag en cy ’ s d eci s i o n n o t t o reo p en d is cu s s i o n s ); No r th r o

p Gr u mma n In

f o . Tech ., In c. , B4 00 1 3 4 .1 0 , Au g . 1 8 , 2 0 0 9 , 2 0 0 9 CPD ¶ 1 6 7 at1 0 (p ro t es tch al l en g i ng ag en cy ’ s d eci s i o n n o t t o h o l d d is cu s s i o n s o r p erm i tcl ari fi cat i o n s ); s ee 4 C.F.R. § 2 1 .2 (a)(1 ) (2 0 1 2 ). Ho wev er, i n th o s e i n s t an ces wh ere t h e ag en cy ’ s p ro p os edco rrect i v e act i o n d o es n o tal t er t h e g ro u n d ru l es fo r t h e co m p et i t io n , we h av e co ns i d ered a p ro t es ter’ s p reaward ch al len g e t o b e p rem atu re. Al li a n t Tech sys t ems , In c. , B-4 0 5 1 2 9 .3 , J an
. 2 3 , 2 0 1 2 , 2 0 1 2 CPD ¶ 5 0 at2 n
. 1 (p ro t es tch al l en g i n g th e ag en cy ’ s ev al uat i o n as i m p ro p er); No r th r o

p Gr u m ma n Tech . S

er vs ., In c. , B4 04 6 3 6 .1 1 , J u ne 1 5 , 2 0 1 1 , 2 0 1 1 CPD ¶ 1 2 1 at4 (p ro tes t ch al l en gi ng th e ag en cy ’ s d i s cu s s i o n s as u n eq u al ).
S OS In t ’l , Ltd

. , B-4 0 77 7 8 .2 , 2 0 1 3 CPD ¶ 2 8 , 2 01 3 W L 1 2 1 1 61 , at* 2 (Co m p . Gen

. J an . 9 , 2 0 1 3) ( S OS In t er n at i o n a l ).
In i t s ex am i n at i o n o f t h e GAO’ s wai v er d o ct ri n e, as i tap p l i es t o co rrect i v e act i on p ro t es t s , th e co u rtas k edth e p art ies t o co m m en to n wh et h er th e Arm y ’ s co rrect iv e act i on n o t i ce i n th is cas e al t ered th e g ro un dru les o f t he co m p et i t i o n fo r t h e EW PM T co n t ract . Inres p o n s e p l ai n t i ff’ s co u n sel s t at edth atthe co rrect i v e act i on d i d“ n o tch an g e t h e g ro un dru l es o f th e co m p et i t io n [b ecau s e i th ad ] n o i m p acto n th e o t h er o ffero rs an dth ere [were] n o rev i s i o ns t o p ro p o s al s.” Tr. at9 0

. Ray t h eo n ’ s co u ns el d i s ag reed , s t at i n g em p h at i cal l y th atth e Arm

y ’ s co rrect i v e
29act i on al t ered th e g ro u n d ru l es o f t h e co m p et i t i o n b ecau s e t h e Arm y wo u l d“ g o b ack an dd o an o t h er ev al u at i o n .” Id

. at6 9. Go v ern m en tco u n sel ’ s res p on s e was l es s d efi n i t i v e:

[W ] e d i d n o t ch an g e t h e g ro u n dru l es
. . . . W e s eta g ro u n dru l e. . . . [D] ep en d i n g o n wh ere t h e co urti s g oi ng wi th t h e qu es t i o n , y o u kno w, I’ dh av e t o s ay th at we d i ds eta g ro u ndru l e, b u tI’ m n o ts ay i n g we –

an dI wo u ld n o ts ay

th atwe ch an gedth e g ro u n dru l e i n an y s i g n i fi can t fas hi o n
. Id

. at9 3 -9 4

. Th e co u rt i s n o tco n vi nced th atth e GAO’ s fo rm u l at io n o f a wai v er an d ri pen es s d o ct ri ne fo r co rrect i v e act i o n p ro t es t s i s o f m u ch u t i li t y

i n th is cas e. Fi rs t , t h e GAO m

u s ti m p o s e a s t ri ctt en -d ay

d ead l i n e fo r t he fi l i n g o f p ro t es t s , 4 C.F.R. § 2 1.2 (a)(2 ) (2 0 1 4 ); th is co u rth as n o s uch i m p erat i ve. Seco n d , th e GAO em p l o y s an o b s cu re d i s t i nct i o n b et ween a “ p ro p os edco rrect i v e act i o n [t h at ] al t ers o r fai ls t o al t er t h e g ro u n d ru l es fo r t h e co m p et i t i o n ( i .e. , as p ect s th atap p ly t o al l o ffero rs ),” an da “ p ro p o sed co rrect i v e act i o n [t h at ] d o es n o tal t er th e g ro un dru l es fo r t h e co m

p et it i o n .” SOS

In t er n a t i o na l , 2 0 1 3 W L 1 2 1 1 6 1 , at* 2 . Th i s GAO d o ct ri n e, i n th e co u rt ’ s v i ew, rel i es o v erm u ch o n d et erm in i n g wh et h er t he “ g ro u n d ru l es ” o f t h e co m

p et i t i on h av e b een al t ered , h owev er t h o se g ro u n dru l es m i g h t b e d efi n ed . Fo r t h es e reas o n s , th e co u rtwi l l n o t rel y o n Do ma i n Na me o r No rth r u p Gr u m ma n as p ers u as i v e au t h o ri t y t o s up p o rtth e ex t en si o n o f Bl u e & Go ld Fl eet t o t h e ci rcu m s t an ces o f t h i s cas e. If t h e co u rt wer e t o rel y

o n th e GAO’ s d o ctri n e o f co rrect iv e act io n p ro t es t wai v ers , atl eas t o n e d eci si o n co u l d b e v i ewedas fav o ri n g So t era. S OS In t er na t i on a l

d i scu ss es a p ro tes to f a co rrect i v e act i o n n o tv ery d i fferen t fro m

th e co rrect iv e act i on u n d ert ak en i n th e i n st an tcas e. Th e p ro t es t o r i n S OS In t er na t i on a l

arg uedthata co rrect i v e act i o n wh i ch o n ly re-ev al u at edp ri ce p ro p os al s , rat h er t h an en t ire p ro p o s al s , was i n ad equ at e. S ee SOS In t er n a t i o n a l , 2 0 1 3 W L 1 2 1 1 6 1 , at * 2 (rep o rt i n g t h atth e p ro t es t o r “ arg u es thatth e co u rs e o f act i on co n t em

p l at edb y th e ag en cy

– reev al uat i n g o ffero rs ’ p ri ce p ro p o s al s b u tn o t al s o th e t ech n i cal an d p as tp erfo rm an ce p ro po s al s – wi l l l eadt o an i m

p ro p er ev al u at i on ”). Th e GAO p ro t es twas d i s m i s s edas p rem atu re, b ecau s e th e p art i al

30re-ev al uat i on d eci s i o n “ d o es n oteffect i v el y i n co rp orat e [v ari o u s as pect s o f t h e ev al u at i on ] i n t o t h e g ro u n d ru l es fo r t h e co m p et i t i o n.” Id

. Here, t h e Arm

y ’ s i n t en t t o “ ex am i n e al l p ro p o s al s an dev al u at i o n s fo r o ffero rs
. . . an d. . . re-ev al u at e as ap p ro p ri at e” al s o , arg uab l y , d o es n o t i n co rp o rat e as p ect s o f t h e ev al u at i o n i n t o t h e g ro u n dru l es o f t h e EW PM T co m p et i t i o n. In deed , th e co rrect i v e act i o n an n o u nced i n S OS In t er n a t i o n a l ap p ears t o h av e b een m o re s p eci fi c t h an t h e co rrect iv e act i o n n ot i ce i s s u edb y th e Arm y h ere, b u t was s t i l l s een as a p rel i m i n ary g o v ern m en tact i o n n o ty et s ub jectt o p ro t es t . Al t h o ug h Rayt heo n an dthe g o v ern m en trel y o n th e GAO’ s wai v er d o ct ri n e reg ard in g co rrect i v e act i o n p ro t es t s t o d i s m i s s Co u ntI o f th e co m p l ai n t , t h atd o ct ri n e, as ap p l i edi n S OS In t er n at i on a l , wo u ld ju s tas l i k el y h av e reject ed an y So t era p ro tes t o f t h e Arm y ’ s co rrect i v e act i o n p l an , i f fi l edwi t h i n t en d ay s o f recei p t o f t he Army ’ s co rrect i ve act io n n o t i ce, as u n ri p e. Th e co urtth erefo re can n otd i s m i ss Co u n tI o f t he am en d edco m p l ai n tb as eds o l el y

o n th e GAO d o ct ri n e o f wai v er i n co rrect i v e act i o n p ro t es t s
.

4
. No W ai v er i n thes e Ci rcum s ta nces So t era’ s d el ay

i n ch al l en g i n g th e re-ev al u at i o n o f p ro p o s al s p res en t s a cl o s e qu es ti o n o f wai v er. If t he fact s were s l i g h tl y d i fferen t , an ex t en s i o n o f t h e wai v er d o ct ri n e m i g h twel l ap p l y . No n et h el es s , h av i n g g i v endu e co ns i d erat i o n t o th e cas es an dd eci s i on s rel i edup o n b y th e p art i es , as wel l as t o th e t ex t o f t h e Arm y ’ s co rrect iv e act i on n o t i ce an dthe cl ari fi cat i on o f t h atn o t i ce, n o wai v er, as d es cri b ed b y Bl u e & Go ld

Fl eet o r o t h er b i n d i n g p reced en t , o ccu rred h ere. In the ci rcu m s t an ces o f t h e EW PM T p ro cu rem en tco rrect i v e act i o n an n o u n cedb y th e Arm y , Co u n t I o f So t era’ s am en d edco m p l ai n t was n o twai v ed

. B. The Ag ency ’s Deci s i o n to Re-ev a l ua te Pro po s a l s Surv i v es Rev iew
1
. No Abs o l ute Ba r to Re-ev a l ua ti on So t era co n t en d s th atth e Arm y was p recl u d ed fro m

re-ev al uat i n g th e EW PM T p ro p o s al s aft er So t era h adb een award edth e co n t ract

. S ee Pl .’ s M o t . at 2 4 (s t at i n g th at“ t he Army d i dn o th av e a l awfu l b as i s t o ‘ reev al u at e’ th e o ri g i n al p ro p os al s an ds eco nd -g u es s i t s o ri g i n al ju d g m en t s ”). Un fo rtu n at el y fo r p lai n t i ff’ s p o s i t i on , th ere i s n o b i n di ng au t h o ri t y wh i ch s up p o rt s thatarg u m en t . Fu rth erm o re, p l ai n t i ff’ s rel i an ce o n FAR 3 3 .1 0 2 (b ) i s m i sp l aced

. S ee Pl .’ s M o t . at2 6-2 7

31(stating that “FAR 33.102(b) does not allow an agency to change its mind simply

because it later believes, upon further reflection, that a different offeror represents a better value”). The FAR provision relied upon by plaintiff merely states, in discussing an agency’s response to a protest, that:

If, in connection with a protest, the head of an agency determines that a solicitation, proposed award, or award does not comply with the requirements of law or regulation, the head of the agency may . . . [t]ake any action that could have been recommended by the Comptroller General had the protest been filed with the Government Accountability Office[.]48 C.F.R. § 33.102(b) (2013). This regulation does not contain any bar to the reevaluation of proposals undertaken in response to a protest filed at the GAO. To the extent that Sotera interprets a decision of this court to severely limit proposal re-evaluation as a corrective action option for federal agencies seeking to moot protests filed at the GAO, the court must disagree. See Pl.’s Mot. at 24-27 (citing Sys. Application & Techs., Inc. v. United States , 100 Fed. Cl. 687 (2011) ( SA TECH I

), aff’d on other grounds , 691 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2012). First, decisions of this court are not binding precedent for judges of this court. AINS, Inc. v. United States , 365 F.3d 1333, 1336 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2004), abrogated on other grounds by Slattery v. United States , 635 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (en banc). Second, the passage in SA TECH I relied upon by plaintiff is a brief, alternative holding supported by minimal analysis. See 100 Fed. Cl. at 719 (stating that the court “briefly consider[ed] whether the Army’s decision to take corrective action also violates a statute or regulation”). Third, SA TECH I is distinguishable on its facts, because the court in SA TECH I first determined that the re-evaluation decision was irrational (a finding which, as discussed infra , does not pertain here) before deciding that the re-evaluation decision was also unlawful. See id. (stating that “[a]lthough the court has determined that the Army’s decision to take corrective action lacks a rational basis, it briefly considers whether the Army’s decision to take corrective action also violates a statute or regulation”). For all of these reasons, the court rejects plaintiff’s contention, based on its reading of SA TECH I

, that a federal agency may only re-evaluate proposals, when responding to a protest, if the agency first finds that its previous evaluation was

32ei t h er s i g n i fi can t l y fl awedo r u n l awfu l

. S

ee Imp r es a , 2 3 8 F.3 dat1 3 3 2 (“ [T] h e co u rt s h av e reco g n i zedth at co n t ract i n g o ffi cers are ‘ en t i t l edt o ex erci s e d i s cret i o n up o n a b ro adran g e o f i s s u es co n fro n t i n g th em ’ i n th e p ro cu rem en tp ro ces s .” (q u o ti n g La t eco er e In t ’l

, In c. v. U.S

. Dep ’t o f Na vy , 1 9 F.3 d 1 3 4 2 , 1 3 5 6 (1 1 t h Ci r. 1 9 9 4 ))). As th e g o v ern m en t n o t es , So t era’ s res tri ct i v e v i ew o f co rrect i v e act i o n wo u l dreq u i re an ag en cy

t o p re-d et erm i n e t h e res u l t s o f i t s re-ev al u at i o n o f p ro p os al s b efo re actu al l y co n du ct i n g s u ch a re-ev al u at i o n . Def.’ s M o t . at1 9

. Fi n d in g t h atn ei th er p reced en tn o r l o g i c s up p o rt s So t era’ s co n t en t i o n s i n t h i s reg ard , th e co u rth o l d s t h at t h e Arm y was ex erci s i ng i t s l awfu l d i s cret i on wh en i t ch o se t o re-ev al uat e p ro po s al s t o co n s i d er t h e p ro t es tg ro u n d s rai s edb y Rayt h eo n i n i ts GAO p ro t es t

.

2
. The Arm y ’s Deci s i on to Re-ev a l ua te Pro po s a ls w a s No t a n Abus e o f Di s creti o n So t era al s o arg u es th ati twas an ab u s e o f d i s cret i o n fo r th e Arm y t o reev al u at e p ro po s al s . Pl

. ’ s M o t . at2 4 ; Pl .’ s Rep ly at2 6

. Pro cu rem en t act i o n s wh i ch l acka rat i o n al b as i s are an ab u s e o f t h e ag en cy ’ s d i scret io n
. Imp r es a , 2 38 F.3 dat 1 3 3 2 -3 3 . Here, t h e reco rds h o ws th atthe Army ch os e t o re-ev al u at e p ro p os al s b ecau s e Rayt h eo n ’ s cri t i qu e o f t h e ev al u at i o n p ro ces s an daward d eci si on was t ak en s eri o u s l y . S

ee AR Tab s 5 0 -5 1 . On e cl ear erro r was fo u ndi n t h e i ni t i al p as t p erfo rm an ce ev al u at i o n o f So t era’ s p ro p o sal , reg ard i ng th e wei g h tacco rd edth e p as tp erfo rm an ce o f So tera’ s s ub -co nt ract o rs
. S ee i d

. at8 5 5 5 , 8 5 9 9 -6 0 0 , 8 6 0 3

. Rev is i o n s were al s o m ad e i n t h e ev al u at i o n o f Ray th eo n ’ s t ech n i cal p ro p o s al . Th e co u rtd o es n o tfi n d , o n th i s reco rd , th atth e d eci s i on t o re-ev al u at e p ro p o s al s l ack eda rat i o n al b as i s . Th e co u rtth erefo re d i s ag rees wi t h th e co nt en t i o ns o f Co u n tI o f t h e am en d ed co m p l ai n t , an dfi n ds th atth e d eci si on t o re-ev al u at e p ro p os al s was n ei t h er u nl awfu l n o r an ab u s e o f d i s cret i o n
. V. Ana l y s i s fo r Co unt I I I o f the Am ended Co m pl a i nt
A. W a i ver o f Pro tes t o f the Pri ce Ev a l ua ti o n Metho do l o g y Us ed to Ra te Ra y theo n’s Pro po s a l , W here tha t Metho do l o g y W a s Di s cl o s ed i n the So l ici ta ti o n Th e am en d edco m

p l ai ntch al l en g es th e p ri ce ev al u at io n o f Rayt h eo n ’ s p ro p os al :

33Th e Arm y ’ s co s tev al u at i o n was fu n d am en t al ly i m p ro p er b ecau s e t he Army

al l o wedRayt h eo n t o t ak e ad v an tag e o f th e p ro cu rem en tb y

p ro p o s i n g s ub st an t i al l y

fewer l ab or h o u rs o n th e b as i s t h ati th ad al read y d ev el o p ed [ ] o f th e [CD1 ] req u i rem en t s. Wh i l e t h ere i s n o t h i ng i m p ro p er wi t h s u ch a p ro p o s al , i td i rect l y u nd erm i n ed t h e p u rp o s e an dfai rn es s o f t h e co stev al u at i o n an d , th us , i tb ecam e i n cu m

b en tup o n th e Arm

y t o t ak e affi rm at i v e s t ep s t o en s u re t h atth e co s t ev al uat i on ach iev edi t s co re p urp o s e (i .e., i d en t i fy i n g th e rel at i v e co stv al ue o f each p ro p o s al fo r th e EW PM T p ro gram ).
Am . Co m p . ¶ 1 32

. Th e s ol ici t at i o n d i s cl o s ed , h o wev er, t h atth e Arm y wo u l d ev al u at e p ri ce b y

co n s id eri n g an o ffero r’ s co s t s fo r CD1 al o n e, n o tth at o ffero r’ s co s t s fo r t h e en ti re co n t ract . AR at 7 3 9 , 7 45 . Inp l ai n t i ff’ s v i ew, t h e Arm y was req u i redt o m o di fy

i ts co s tev al u at i o n m et h o d o l o gy i n o rd er t o accu rat el y rat e Ray t h eo n ’ s p ro p o s al . Th e co u rtm u s tag ree wi t h Rayt h eo n an d t h e g o v ern m en t t h atCo u n tIII ch al len g es h o w th e s o l i ci t at i o n t erm g o v ern s co s t ev al u at i o n s , an d t h ats u ch a ch al l en g e i s u n t im el y u n d er Bl u e & Go ld

Fl eet

. S ee Rayt h eo n ’ s M o t

. at4 8 (“ If So t era fel tth atth e Ag en cy s h o u ldh av e co n s i d ered th e co s t s t o p erfo rm al l CD1 req u i rem en t s , reg ard l es s o f an o ffero r’ s ap p ro ach an dwh ether o r n o t t h o s e co s t s wo u l db e ch arg edt o t h e Ag en cy , th enSo t era was req u i redt o o b ject p ri o r t o t h e cl o s i n g d at e fo r recei p to f p ro p o sal s .” (ci t i n g B l u e & Go ld Fl eet , 4 9 2 F.3 dat 1 31 4 )); Def.’ s M o t . at4 4 (“ So t era’ s co s t ch al len g e was wai v ed , b ecau s e t h i s arg u m en tn eces s ari ly ch al l en g es t h e ex pres s co s tev al u at i o n cri t eri a es t ab l i s h edi n th e s o li ci t at i o n .” (ci ti n g Bl u e & Go ld Fl eet , 4 9 2 F.3 dat1 3 0 8, 1 3 1 3 )).
B. Pri ce Ev a l ua ti o n No t Sho w n To Be I rra ti o na l
To th e ex t en tth at So t era at t ack s th e rat i o n al i ty o f t h e Arm

y ’ s d eci s i o n t o h o l dfas tt o i t s co s tev al u at io n m et h o d o l o g y wh en faced wi t h th e p art i cu l ar co s t el em en t s o f Ray t h eo n ’ s p ro p o sal , th e co u rt i s n o tp ers u ad edth atth e Arm y erred b y co n si d eri n g Rayt h eo n’ s p ro p o s edan dev al u at ed co st s fo r CD1 t o b e rel i ab l e

34i n d i cat o rs o f t h e co m p arat i v e co s t o f Ray t h eo n ’ s p ro po s al

. 1 1 Pl ai n t i ff co n t en d s t h at : Th e Arm

y h ada res p o n s i b i l i t y t o ad ju s tRayt h eo n’ s p ro p o s ed co s tupwardt o a fi g u re t h atwas refl ect i v e o f wh at i two u l dco s tfo r Rayt heo n t o p erfo rm al l CD1 req u irem en ts , as th i s was h ow al l o t h er o ffero rs p ri ced t h ei r p ro p o s al s . . . . Th e Arm y v i o lat edth e l aw b y

fai l i n g t o m ean i n gfu l l y

co n s i d er t h e t ru e co s to f Ray t heo n ’ s p ro p o s al fo r th e u nd erl y i n g co n t ract

. Pl .’ s M o t . at3 7 -3 8 (fo o t n o tes om i t t ed ). In ad d i t io n , p l ai n t i ff p o in t s t o h i g h er rat es t h atRayt h eo n wo u l d ch arg e t h e g o v ern m en t , fo r ex am p le, fo r l ab o r an d o verh ead , as ev i d en ce t h at Ray t h eo n ’ s p ro p o s al wi l l co s tm u ch m o re t h anSo t era’ s p ro p o s al o v er t h e l i fe o f t h e co n t ract

. Id

. at 2 9 (ci ti n g AR at9 47 5 ). Rayt h eo n an dth e g o v ern m en t , o n th e o t h er h an d , arg u e t h atth e Arm y was fu l ly aware o f t h e s t ru ctu re o f Ray t h eo n ’ s co s tp ro p o s al (o fferi n g s o m e el em en t s o f CD1 t o th e Arm y atzero co s t b ecau s e o f p rev i ou s d ev el o p m en two rkacco m p l is h ed b y

Rayth eo n ), an d t h atth e Arm

y rat i o n al l y

co n cl u d ed t h atRayt h eo n ’ s ev al u at edco st fo r CD1 was accu rat el y

m eas u redp urs u an t t o th e m et h o d o l o gy req u i redb y

th e s o li ci t at i o n
. Th e co u rt ag rees th atth e co s tev al uat i o n o f Ray t h eo n ’ s p ro p o sal was rat i o nal an d i n acco rd an ce wi t h th e s o l i ci t at i o n’ s s t at edev al u at i on m et h o d o l o g y . Th e co u rtm

us t ag ree, i n p art i cu l ar, wi t h t h e g o v ern m en t ’ s co n t en t i o n t h atSo t era’ s p ro p os edad

ju s t m en t s t o Rayth eo n ’ s co s t s o v er th e l i fe o f th e en ti re co n t ract are t o o s p ecu l at i v e t o i n val i d at e t h e Arm y ’ s ev al uat edco s t fo r Rayt h eo n ’ s CD1 – $ 1 1 ,2 5 8 ,5 0 5 . Def.’ s Rep ly at2 0 (ci t i n g AR at9 2 9 2 , 9 3 0 2 ). Th e co u rtm u s tal s o co n cu r wi t h Rayt heo n ’ s co n t en t i o n th at [ ] d o n o tn eces s ari l y i nd i cat e h i g h er fu tu re co s t s . As p o i n t edo u tb y Rayt h eo n , d es p i te [ ] a co n t ract o r’ s o v eral l fu tu re co s t s m ay wel l b e o ffs etb y t h e d ep l oym en t o f h ei gh t en edem p l o y ee effi ci en ci es an d s up eri o r p ro ces s es , as co m p ared t o th o s e o f i t s co m

p et i t o rs . Tr. at8 0 -8 1

. Th u s, p ro ject i ng Rayt h eo n’ s co s t s o f p erfo rm an ce o v er th e l i fe o f th e co nt ract i s n o tas s i m

p l e as p l ai nt iff ap p ears t o s u g g es t

.

1 1 / There is substantial overlap between Counts IIand I I I of the amended complaint, which both question the rationality of the Army ’s cost evaluation of Ray theon’s proposal. Compare Am. Compl. ¶¶ 105-08, 122-25, with id. ¶¶ 132-37. The court addresses such arguments here, and will not return to the topic in its discussion of Count I I

. 35Ul t i m at el y , al t h ou g h So t era as k s th e co u rtt o s ub st itu t e i t s ju d g m en tfo r t h e

ag en cy ’ s , th is co u rt m

u s td efer t o th e ag en cy ’ s t ech n ical ex p ert i s e as t o th e co s t ev al u at i on o f t h e p ro p o s al s s ub m i t t edi n th e co m p et i t i o n fo r t h e EW PM T p ro ject

. Becau s e th e co s tev al u at i o n o f Ray t heo n ’ s p ro p o s al co n t ai n edi n th e AR h as n o t b een dem o n s trat edt o b e i rrat i on al , th e co u rt can n o t s u st ai n So tera’ s p ro tes to n th i s g ro u nd . Th e co u rtn o w tu rn s t o o n e o f t h e m o sth o t l y co n t es t edi s s u es i n t h e p ro cu rem en t, the i s s u e o f wh eth er u ns t at edev al u at i o n cri teri a were u sedi n th e reev al u at i on o f t h e EW PM T p ro po s al s
. VI . Ana l y s i s fo r Co unt I V o f the Am ended Co m pl a i nt
A. The SSAC Cha i r’s Em a i l
Th e co n t ro v ers y ad d res s edi n Co u ntIV o f t h e am en dedco m pl ai ntcen t ers o n th e em ai l s en t b y

th e SSAC Ch ai r t o th e SSEB as k i n g th atth ey p l ace “ ex t ra em ph as i s ” o n cert ai n as p ect s o f t h e o ffero rs ’ p ro p o s al s du ri n g th e re-ev al uat i o n
. AR Tab 5 1 . Al t h o u g h the em ai l al s o h i gh l i g h t edas p ect s o f t h e ev al uat i o n o f t h e Pas tPerfo rm an ce i nfo rm at i o n p ro v i d ed b y th e o ffero rs , th e fo cu s o f Co u n tIV i s o n th e Tech n i cal Fact o r re-ev al u at i o n , an des p eci al l y b u t n o tex cl u s i v el y

o n th e reev al u at i on o f t h e M an ag em en ts ub -fact or. Pl ai n ti ff accu ses th e Arm y o f u n l awfu l l y

re-ev al u at i n g p ro po s al s u s i ng “ un s tat edev al u at i o n cri t eri a” t h atwere d ev el o p ed i n res p o ns e t o th e SSAC Ch ai r’ s em ai l

. 1 2 Am . Co m p l

. ¶¶ 1 6 0 -6 1

. Pl ai n t i ff d i sav ows accu s i n g th e Arm y o f re-ev al u at i n g t h e p ro p o s al s i n b ad fai t h so as t o d i rect awardt o Rayt heo n
. S ee Pl .’ s Rep l y

at1 9 (s t at i n g th atth e
“ h i gh er b u rd en o f p ro o f” fo r b adfai t h d o es n o t ap p l y t o So t era’ s Co u n tIV); Tr. at 8 2 (“ W e’ re n o targ u i n g b adfai t h .”). Th u s , th e co u rt ’ s t as ki s t o d et erm in e wh et h er t h e re-ev al u at i on o f the Tech n i cal Fact o r i m p erm i s s ib l y

s t ray edfro m

th e ev al u at i on cri t eri a s t at edi n t h e s o l ici t at i o n . Infact , th e t ex to f t he em ai l i t s el f i m p l i ci tl y rai ses the q u es t io n o f wh et h er t h e So urce Sel ect i o n Ev al u at i o n Pl an (SSEP) (wh i ch u n d i s p u ted l y track s th e s o l i ci t at i on ’ s s t at em en to f ev al u at i o n

1 2 / Sotera relies on a declaration submitted with its reply brief for an analysis of the “unstated evaluation criteria” alleg ation (and for other purposes). SeePl.’s Reply at 17 & n.14. The court did not consider this declaration because the resolution of the evaluation criteria dispute was made clear by the AR itself. See Axiom , 564 F .3d at 1380 (restricting supplementation of the administrative record to circumstances where omission of the materials would frustrate judicial review). 36cri t eri a) was co rrect l y fo l l o wedb y

th e Arm y , o r wh et her t he ex t ra em p h as i s req u es t edb y

th e SSAC Ch ai r i m

p erm i s s i bl y

al tered th e ev al u at io n cri t eri a s etfo rt h i n the s o l i ci t at i o n :

St ev e/ SSEB Team , as y o ureas s es s rat i n g s fo r each o f t h e 4 Offero rs fro m

the fi n al co m

p et i t i v e ran g e en s u re t hat y ou are fo l lo wi n g SSEP g u i d an ce i n s t ri ctacco rd an ce wi t h ev al uat i o n cri t eri a an dd efi ni t i o n s. In ad d i t i o n , I wo u l d l i k e ex t ra em

p h as i s p l aced o n th e fo l l o w in g
. . . . AR at8 5 0 5

. Pl ai n t i ff u rg es the co urt t o co n s t ru e t h i s em ai l as u n fai rl y rep l aci n g n eu t ral ev al u at i on cri t eri a wi t h cri t eri a b l at an t l y fav o ri n g Rayt h eo n . Th e g ov ern m en tan d Ray t h eo n arg u e t h atth e SSAC Ch ai r u rg edthe SSEB t o fo l l o w t h e SSEP an d , i n o rd er t o co rrect l y ap p l y

the SSEP’ s ev al uat i o n cri t eri a, t o co n fi rm wh et her t h e ev al u at i on o f cert ai n i d en t i fi edas p ect s o f p ro po s al s was i n d eedaccu rat e. In th at reg ard , th e g o v ern m en t arg u es th atth e SSAC Ch ai r’ s referen ce t o ex tra em p h as is d o es no ti n d i cat e th atth e SSEB wo u l db e “ pu t t i n g ex t ra wei g h to n” u n s tat ed ev al u at i on cri t eri a; i n s tead , th e SSEB wo u l ds i m pl y “ rev i ew[] cert ai n co n cern s o r i s su es ” du ri n g t h e re-ev al u at i o n . Tr. at4 3

. In th e co u rt ’ s v i ew, t h e em ai l co u l d b e read ei t h er way . Cert ai n l y , m an y , i f n o tal l , o f t h e t o p ics d es i g n at edb y th e SSAC Ch ai r fo r ex tra em p h as i s o r ex am i n at i o n res po n dt o t op ics rai s edi n Rayt h eo n ’ s p ro tes t , an dp ro p ri et ary s o ft ware d ev el o p edb y

Rayth eo n i s m en ti o n edb y n am e as an ex am p l e o f an

“ effi ci en c[y ] .” AR at8 5 0 5 . Al s o h i g h l i g h t edi s a cert i fi cat i o n l ev el o b tai n edb y Ray t h eo n an dn o t o b t ai n edb y th e o t h er o ffero rs (CM M I l ev el 5 v ers us CM M I l ev el 3 ). 1 3 Id

. On th e o t h er h an d , th e SSEB i s rem i n dedi n t h e em ai l o f t he i m p o rt an ce o f ad h eri n g t o th e ev al u at i o n cri t eri a s t at edi n t h e SSEP, an dth e em p h as is req u es t ed i s fram edas an i n qu i ry

i n to v al u e, n o tas a d i rect i ve t o n eces s ari l y acco rds t ren g t h s

1 3 / The acrony

m CMMIrefers to “Capability Maturity Model Integ ration.” AR at 9471. Certification at a particular CMMI level relates to an offeror’s software development processes. Id. at 10941-42. 37t o cert ai n as p ect s o f t h e o ffero rs ’ p ro p o sal s
. Th e co urtn o t es , t o o , th at t h i s em ai l

d at edAu g u s t1 5 , 2 0 1 3 referen ces fu rt h er d is cu s s i o n s o n Au g u s t2 6 , 2 0 1 3 , an dth at t h e SSEB’ s wo rkco n t i n u edi n to Oct o b er 2 0 1 3 . Wh i l e t h e SSAC Ch ai r’ s em ai l d i rect s th e SSEB t o fo cu s i t s ex am i nat i o n i n p art i cu l ar up o n cert ai n i ss u es th ath ad b een fl ag g edas co n cern s as a res u l to f t h e GAO p ro t es t , th ere i s a d i s t i n ct i o n b et ween d i rect i n g the ev al u at i on b o ard t o g i v e th os e areas ext r a s cr u t i n y as o p p o s edt o ext r a cr ed i t . Thu s, al t h o u g h th e SSAC Ch ai r’ s em ai l s en d s t he SSEB o ff i n a cert ai n d i rect i o n , th e d ocu m en t s p ro du cedatthe en d o f t h i s p ro ces s m u s t b e an al y zedt o i den t i fy

the ev al u at i o n cri t eri a t h atwere act u al l y u s edi n th e Arm y ’ s re-ev al u at i o n o f p ro p o s al s
. B. SSEB Fi ndi ng s Th ree d o cu m en t s p res en tth e SSEB’ s re-ev al u at i o n res u l t s fo r So t era’ s an d Ray t h eo n ’ s p ro p o s al s . Th e fi rs ti s a s eto f s l i d es p res en t edt o t h e SSAC, AR Tab 5 6 , an dth e o t her t wo d o cu m en t s are n arrat i v e re-ev al u at i o n rep o rt s fo r each o ffero r, i d

. Tab s 5 8 -5 9 . Pl ai n t iff, rel y i n g h eav il y o n th e d i fferen ces b et ween th e o ri g i nal ev al u at i o n fo r Ray th eo n ’ s p ro p o s al an dth e re-ev al uat i on res u l ts , co n cl u d es th at :

[A] l l o f th e m at eri al ch an g es t o t he SSEB rep o rtd i rect ly co rrel at edt o th e k ey

co m p l ai n t s i n Ray t h eo n ’ s d eb ri efi n g an d p ro t es t , an d i n tu rn th e u n s t at edcri t eri a refl ect edi n the SSAC Ch ai r’ s i n s tru ct i on s
. Pl .’ s M o t . at1 4 . Pl ai n t i ff th erefo re al l eg es th at t h e i m pro v em en ts i n Rayt heo n ’ s ev al u at i on rat i n g s are t h e d i rect res u l to f i m p erm i s s ib l e u n s t at edev al u at i o n cri t eri a. Th e g o v ern m en td i s ag rees , an dco n n ect s th e i m p ro vedSSEB rat i n g s fo r Ray t h eo n ’ s p ro p o s al t o th e ev al u at i o n cri t eri a s etfo rt h i n th e s ol i ci t at i on . Def.’ s M o t . at 2 3 -3 1. Rayt h eo n , i n i t s m o v i n g b ri ef, p erfo rm s a s i m il ar an al y si s o f t h e ev al u at i on cri t eri a ap p l i edb y th e SSEB. Ray th eo n M o t . at2 1 -2 6

. Th e g o v ern m en t ’ s an dRayt h eo n ’ s arg u m en ts are p ers u as i v e. Th e co urtfi n d s n o ev i d en ce t h atth e SSEB ap p l i edcri t eri a i n t h e p ro p o s al re-ev al uat i on s t hatwere n o ts etfo rt h i n t h e s o l i ci t at i o n. S ee Def.’ s M o t . at2 3 (ci t i n g cas es up h o l d i n g th e ag en cy ’ s d is cret io n t o i n t erp retth e s co p e o f p ro p o s al ev al u at i o n cri t eri a). Th e co u rtfi n d s th atth e SSEB’ s re-ev al u at i o n res u lt s , AR at8 5 5 5, 8 5 9 7 , 9 2 4 9 , 9 3 1 0 , 38were rat i on al ap p l i cat i on s o f t h e ev al u at i o n cri t eri a ex p l i ci t ly s et fo rt h i n th e s o l i ci t at i on
. A d et ai l edrev i ew o f t h e p art i es ’ arg u m en t s i n t h i s reg ardi s n o tn eces s ary
. Th e al t erat i o n i n th e Pas tPerfo rm an ce ev al u at i o n res u l ts fo r So t era, an d t h e ad d it i o n al s t ren g t h i n th e M an ag em en ts ub -fact o r fo r Ray t h eo n , are wel l

d o cu m en t edi n th e reco rd an dad eq u at el y ex p l ai n ed . Pu rs u an tt o Sect i o n s L an dM o f t h e s o l i ci t at i o n , al l o f t h e m at eri al ch an g es t o t h e ev al u at i o n rat i n gs fo r Ray t h eo n ’ s an d So t era’ s p ro p os al s refl ect co n s i d erat i o n s th atare wi th i n th e s co p e o f t h e ev al uat io n cri t eri a p ub l i cl y es t ab l i sh edb y

the Army . Th e SSEB ad h ered t o t h es e cri teri a wh en i tfo un dRayt h eo n ’ s p ro p o s al t o ev i d en ce an “ ab i l i t y t o m eet t h e d em an ds o f an ag g res s i ve s ch edul e wi t h o u ts acri fi ci n g p erfo rm an ce an d i n creas i ng co s ti n an y

fu n ct i o n al d o m ai n .” AR at9 2 6 4

. Th e co u rt t h erefo re fi n d s th atth e SSEB’ s re-ev al u at i o n res u l t s are rat i o n al an d d i d n o tem

p l o y u n s t at edev al u at i o n cri teri a. To t he ex t en tth atSo tera co m p ares th i s cas e t o Hu n t

svi l le Ti mes Co . v. Un i t ed St a t es , 9 8 Fed . Cl . 1 0 0 (2 0 1 1), t h e co u rtfi n d s the an al o g y s t rai n ed

. Th atcas e i n v o l v ed an ag en cy ’ s s ub s t i tu t io n o f u n di s cl o s edev al u at i on cri teri a fo r t h o s e an n o u n cedi n th e s o l i ci t at i on –

h ere, t h e Arm

y ap p li edth e s am e s eto f d i s cl o s edcri t eri a i n a s eco n d , cl o s er l o o katp ro p o s al s . Th e co u rt fi nd s n o t h i n g i m p ro p er i n t h e cri t eri a em pl o y edi n th e SSEB’ s re-ev al u at i o n o f p ro p o s al s
. 1 4
C. SSAC Reco m m enda ti on a nd the SSA Aw a rd Deci s i o n Th e SSAC an dth e SSA ag reed wi t h th e SSEB’ s rev i s edev al u at i o n s o f So t era’ s an dRayt h eo n ’ s p ro p os al s. S ee AR Tab s 6 0 -6 2 . Th e SSAC n ot edth e ev o lu t i o n fro m

th e p ri or ev al u at i o n res u lt s t o th e re-ev al u at i o n res u l t s an d ex p lai n edth e d i fferen ces
. Id

. at9 3 7 2 -7 3 , 9 4 1 6, 9 4 19 , 9 4 6 3

. Th e SSAC t hen p erfo rm eda co m

p arat iv e an al y s i s o f p ro p os al s an d reco m m en d ed awardt o Ray t h eo n
. Id

. at9 46 9-7 3, 9 4 7 7 -7 8 . No th i n g i n th e SSAC’ s an al y si s s h ows th at t h e ev al u at i o n cri t eri a o f the s o l i ci t at i o n were rep l aced b y u n st at edev al u at i o n cri t eri a.

1 4 / The SSAC Chair’s instructions, AR Tab 51, certainly could have led to an improper substitution of an altered set of evaluation criteria. On this record, however, the SSEBobeyed his specific instruction to “ensure that y ou are following

SSEP g uidance in strict accordance with evaluation criteria and definitions.” Id. 39Th e SSA’ s awardd eci s i on refl ect s a carefu l co n si d erat i on o f t h e ev al u at i o n

rat i n gs an dreco m

m en d at io ns p ro du cedb y t he SSEB an dth e SSAC. AR Tab 6 2

. Th e SSA ex pl ai n s th at t h e re-ev al u at i o n was u n d ert ak enas a p arto f t h e co rrect i v e act i on th atm o ot edRayth eo n ’ s p ro t es tatth e GAO. Id

. at9 4 8 1. Al th o u g h th e SSA d o es n o tex p l i ci t l y

d i s av ow h i s p rev io us d eci s io n t o awardSo t era t h e EW PM T co n t ract , h e s t at es th ath i s d eci s i o n t o awardth e EW PM T co n t ract t o Ray t h eo n i s b as edo n h i s rev i ew o f th e SSEB’ s re-ev al u at i o n res u l t s an dthe ev al u at i on cri t eri a s etfo rth i n th e s o l i ci t at i o n
. Id

. Th e co u rtfi n d s t h atthe SSA’ s awardd eci s i o n d i dn otrel y o n u n s tat edev al u at i o n cri t eri a. Th e co urts p eci fi cal l y reject s So t era’ s co n t en t i on th atth e SSAC Ch ai r’ s em ai l t ai n tedth e p ro cu rem en tb y i n t ro du ci n g a d i fferen ts eto f ev al u at i o n cri t eri a t h atwere em p l o y ed t hro u g h o u tth e re-ev al uat i on p ro ces s. To th e ex t en tth at p l ai nt i ff arg u es th ati t i s u nfai r, o r t h atv ari o u s FAR p ro v is i o n s are v i o l at edwh en an ag en cy re-ev al u at es p ro p o s al s an dco n cu rren t l y co n si d ers th e v al i d i t y

o f al l eg at i o ns o f ev al u at i o n erro r th ath av e b een rai sedi n a p ri o r GAO p ro t es t , th e co u rtcan n o t ag ree. As l on g as t h e ag en cy ad h eres t o th e ev al u at i on cri t eri a s etfo rth i n th e s o l i ci t at i o n , th e co u rtb el i ev es th at an ag en cy h as t h e d i s cret i o n t o re-ev al uat e p ro p o s al s du ri n g a co rrect i v e act i o n an dt o co rrect p ri o r ev al u at i o n erro rs
. S ee Gl en n Def

. Ma ri n e (As ia

), PTE Ltd

. v. Un i t ed

St a t es , 1 0 5 Fed . Cl . 5 4 1, 5 69 (2 0 1 2 ) (“ Ag en cy ev al u at ors m

u s tb e al l o wed t he d i s cret i o n t o rev i ew thei r o wn co n cl u si o n s i f t h ey co n cl u d e a m i s t ak e h as b een m ad e, o r i f fu rt her i n qu iry

ap pears ap p ro p ri at e, p ro v i d edthe re-ev al u at i o n co nfo rm s wi t h th e s o l i ci t at i on , i n cl u di n g an y m od i fi cat i o n s t o th e s o l i ci tat i on an d t h e ev al u at i o n p ro ces s i s co ndu ct edi n a m an n er fai r t o al l o ffero rs
. ”). Here, t he reco rd s ho ws t h atth e re-ev al u at i on s were d on e fai rl y an d i n co n fo rm an ce wi t h th e s ol ici t at i o n ’ s ev al u at i on cri t eri a. Fo r t hi s reas o n, So t era’ s p ro t es tcan n o tb e s u s t ai n edo n th e g ro u nd s rai s ed i n Co u n t IV o f t h e am en d ed co m p l ai n t

. VI I . Ana l y s i s fo r Co unt I I o f the Am ended Co m pl ai nt
Th e co u rt n o w turn s t o p l ai n t i ff’ s arg u m en t s wh ich ch al l en g e t h e rat i o n al i t y o f t h e SSEB’ s re-ev al u at i o n o f p ro p o s al s
. 1 5 Th ree p ri n ci pal arg um en t s are rai s ed : (1 ) Th e Arm

y i n ap p ro p ri at el y

m i n i m i zedth e co s t p rem i u m i two ul d p ay fo r

1 5 / As intervenor-defendant notes, not all of Sotera’s challenges to the re-evaluation were presented in its motion for judg ment on the administrative record. Ray theon’s Mot. at 46 n.23. The court limits its discussion here to the arguments Sotera raised in its dispositive motion. 40Ray t h eo n ’ s p ro p o s al ; (2 ) Th e Arm y d i dn o t ad eq u at el y

ex p l ai n i t s trad e-o ff d eci s i o n , es p eci al l y

i n l i g h to f t h e fact th ata t rad e-o ff an al y s i s fav ored So t era’ s p ro p os al i n th e Arm

y ’ s earl i er award d eci s i on ; (3 ) Th e Arm y ’ s b es tv al u e d eci s i o n was fl awedb ecau se t h e t ech n i cal ad v an t ag es o f Ray th eo n ’ s p ro p o s al d i d n o t o u t wei gh th e co stp rem i u m th atth e Arm

y wo u l d p ay

i f i tch o s e Rayt h eo n ’ s EW PM T p ro p o s al o v er So t era’ s p ro p o s al . Th e co u rt wi ll ad d res s each o f t h es e arg u m en t s i n turn
. A. Co rrectl y I denti fi ed Ma g ni tude o f Co s t Prem i um Th e d i fferen ce b et ween t h e ev al uat edco s t s o f Ray th eo n ’ s an d So t era’ s p ro p os al s ($ 1 1 ,2 5 8 , 5 0 5 an d$ 1 0 ,3 2 5 ,6 7 1, res p ect iv el y ) was d ocu m en t edi n th e Arm y ’ s re-ev al u at i o n o f p ro p o s al s as a d i fferen ce o f 8 .3 % . AR at9 4 7 5 , 9 4 8 6 -8 7

. So t era d o es n o taccu se t h e Arm y o f an y m ath erro rs i n co m

pari n g th e ev al u at ed co s t s o f p ro p os al s . No r d oes So t era s t at e th ati ti s p er s e i rrat io n al fo r t he Army t o p ay an ap p ro x im at el y

9 % co s tp rem i um

fo r a co n t ract o f t h i s s i ze an dty p e. In s t ead , So t era arg ues t h at th e Arm y d o wnp l ay ed , m i n im i zedan dm i s ch aract eri zed t h e co s tp rem i um

i two u l dp ay

fo r Ray t h eo n ’ s p ro po s al . Pl .’ s M o t. at2 8 -3 0

. Pl ai n t i ff arg ues th atthe SSAC’ s u s e o f t he wo rd s “ m i n o r” an d “ s l i g h t ” t o d es cri b e t h e co s tp rem i um

co ns t itu tedarb i t rary

o r i rrat io n al d eci s i o n -m ak i n g
. Id . at3 0

. Th e co u rt fi n d s th atth e SSAC was n oti rrat i o n al i n i ts d es cri pt i o n o f t h e co s tp rem i u m

as s o ci at edwi t h Rayth eo n ’ s p ro p o sal . Th e co s ts o f Ray th eo n ’ s an d So t era’ s p ro p o s al s were p ro p erl y m eas u redp u rs uan tt o t h e ev al uat i on cri t eri a o f t h e s o l i ci t at i o n an dwere p res en t edi n an accu rat e fas hi o n. Th e ad ject iv es u s edt o d es cri b e t h e co s t p rem i u m were n ei t h er o b v i o us l y

i n accu rat e n o r m i s l ead i n g b ecau s e th ey

were acco m

p an i edb y th e act ual ev al u at ed co st s o f t he p ro p o s al s an d t h e p ercen t ag e d i fferen ce b et ween th em . Fu rt h er, t h e SSA d i d n o tad o ptth e ad ject i v es th at p l ai nt i ff fi n d s o b ject i o n ab le. 1 6 S

ee AR at9 4 8 6 -8 7 ; Def.’ s Rep l y at 1 6 n .1 1 . Fo r al l o f t h es e reas o n s , p l ai n t i ff h as fai l edt o s h ow t h atth e Arm y ’ s as s es s m en to f t h e m ag n itu d e o f th e co s tp rem i u m i two ul dp ay fo r Ray t heo n ’ s p ro p os al was arb i t raryo r cap ri ci o u s. B. Adequa te Do cum enta ti o n o f the Tra de-Off Deci s i o n

1 6 / The court did not rely

on post-hoc rationaliz ations offered by the SSA during Sotera’s GAO protest, AR at 12545-47, for any purpose. 41Pl ai n t i ff co nt en d s thatthe SSA fai l edt o p ro v i d e t h e req u i redd o cu m en t at io n

o f h i s i n d ep en d en tju dg m en tan drat io n al e fo r ch o o si n g Rayth eo n ’ s p ro p o s al fo r t h e EW PM T p ro

ject

. S ee Pl .’ s M o t . at 3 0 -3 1 (rel y i ng i n p art i cu l ar o n FAR 1 5 .3 0 8 an d cas es d i s cu s s i n g th e SSA’ s d o cu m en t at i o n res p o n si bi l i t i es ). Pl ai n t i ff al s o arg u es th ata t rad e-o ff d eci si o n m u s t b e es peci al l y

wel l -d o cu m en t ed wh en , aft er re-ev al uat i ng the s am e p ro p o s al s , an ag en cy can cel s an awardt o o n e o ffero r s o as t o award t h e co n t ract t o an o t h er. S ee Pl .’ s Rep l y at2 7 (“ [T] h e Arm y d i d n ot ad eq uat el y

d o cu m en tth e s o u rce s el ect io n d eci si o n b ecau s e t h e SSA fai l edt o ex p lai n wh y

h e ch an g edh i s m i n d .” (ci t i n g Ca d d el l Co n s tr

. Co . v. Un i t ed

St a t es , 1 1 1 Fed . Cl . 4 9 , 1 0 0 (2 0 1 3 ))). Pl ai n t i ff’ s arg u m en ts fai l t o p ers u ad e, h o wev er, b ecau s e th e SSA’ s d eci s i o n i n th i s cas e s at i s fi es t he req u i rem en t s o f FAR 1 5 .3 0 8

. Th e co u rtn o t es , t o o , t h at Ca d d el l d o es n o ti den t i fy

a h ei g h t en eds t an d ardfo r d o cu m en t at i o n wh en an SSA ch an g es h i s m i n das t o co n tract award

. S ee 1 1 1 Fed

. Cl . at1 0 5-1 1 0 (t h o ro u g h l y ex am i n i n g th e requ i rem en t s o f FAR 1 5

. 3 0 8 an dn o t d i s cu s s i n g th e ci rcu m s t an ces o f an SSA ch an g i n g h i s m i n d as t o an award d eci s i o n ).
FAR 1 5.3 0 8 s i m

p l y s t at es th at : Th e s o u rce s el ect i o n au t h o ri t y ’ s (SSA) d eci s i o n s h al l b e b as edo n a co m

p arat i v e as s es s m en to f p ro p o s al s ag ai n s t al l s o u rce s el ect io n cri teri a i n th e s o l i ci tat i o n . Wh i l e t h e SSA m ay u s e rep o rt s an dan al y ses p rep ared b y o t h ers , t h e s ou rce s el ect i o n d eci s i o n s h al l rep res en tth e SSA’ s i n d ep en d en tju d g m en t . Th e s o u rce s el ect i o n d eci s i o n s h al l b e d ocu m en ted , an d t h e d ocu m en t at io n s h al l i n cl u d e t h e rat i o nal e fo r an y b u s i n es s ju d g m en ts an d t rad eo ffs m ad e o r rel i edo n b y th e SSA, i n cl u d i n g b en efi ts as s o ci at edwi t h ad d i ti o n al co s t s . Al t h o u g h th e rat i o n al e fo r t he s el ect i on d eci s i o n m u s t b e d ocu m en t ed , t h atd ocu m en t at io n n eedn otqu an t i fy t h e t rad eo ffs th at l ed t o th e d eci s i o n
. Th e SSA’ s d eci si o n i n thi s cas e fu l ly m eet s th es e req u i rem en t s . AR Tab 6 2 . In ad d it i o n , as th e g o v ern m en tan dRayt h eo n arg u e, n o t hi n g i n FAR 1 5.3 0 8 can b e i n t erp ret edas h ei g h t en i n g th e d o cu m en t at i o n req u i rem en tfo r an award d eci s i o n b as edo n a re-ev al u at i o n o f p ro p o s al s , as o p p os edt o an i ni t ial ev al u at i o n o f p ro p os al s . Def.’ s M o t . at4 0; Rayt h eo n ’ s M o t. at4 2 . Th e co u rt al s o d i s t i n g u i s h es
42t h e p ro cu rem en t d o cu m en t at i o n i n th i s cas e fro m p ro t es t s wh ere t h e s o u rce s el ect i o n d o cu m en t fai l edt o ex p l ai n a t rad e-o ff/b es tv al u e award wh i ch p ai da co s t p rem i u m (o r refu s edt o p ay a co s tp rem i um ) fo r a m o re h i g h l y ran k edp ro p o s al

. S ee Ca d d el l , 1 1 1 Fed . Cl . at1 0 5 -1 0 (d i s cu s s i n g cas es ). Becau s e t h e SSA’ s trad eo ff rat i o n al e an db es tv al u e award d eci s i o n are ad eq u at el y d ocu m en t edu n d er b o t h FAR 1 5 .3 0 8 an dth i s co urt ’ s ju ri s p ru d en ce, t h e co u rtcan no ts u s t ai n So tera’ s p ro t es to n th i s g ro u n d

. 1 7
C. Bes t Va l ue Aw a rd Deci s i o n Ra ti o na ll y W ei g hed the Techni ca l Adv a nta g es o f Ra y theo n’s Pro po s a l
Pl ai n t i ff d i sag rees wi t h v ari o u s as p ect s o f t h e re-ev al uat i on o f Ray t h eo n ’ s an d So t era’ s p ro p os al s , an ds u gg es t s th ata rat i o n al ev al u at i o n o f th e d ifferen ces b et ween th es e t wo p ro po s al s wo u l dn o th av e fo u n d t h atRayth eo n ’ s p ro p o s al m eri t eda co st p rem i u m

o f ap p ro x i m at el y 9 %. 1 8 See Pl .’ s M o t . at3 1 (“ T h e ev al u at ed‘ ad v an t ag es ’ o f Ray t h eo n ’ s p ro p os al d i dn o trat io n al l y ju s t ify p aym en t o f Ray th eo n ’ s s ub st an t i al co s t p rem i u m .”); Pl .’ s Rep ly at2 8 (“No n e o f t h e al l eg edat t ri bu t es o f Ray t h eo n ’ s p ro p o s al can rat i o nal l y ju s t i fy a 9 % co s t p rem i u m
. ”). Th e co u rtn o t es t h ati t s rev i ew o f t ech ni cal ev al u at i o n rat i n g s an d b es tv al u e award d eci s i o n s i s d eferen t i al t o th e ex pert is e an dd i s cret i o n o f p ro cu rem en t o ffi ci al s
. S

ee s up r a . Th e co u rth as co n si d ered each o f p l ai n ti ff’ s arg u m en t s reg ard i n g t ech n ical re-ev al u at i o n erro rs b ut l im it s i ts d is cu s si o n h ere t o t h e p ri nci p al arg u m en t s rai s ed b y So t era.

1 7 / There is ample authority which recog n iz es that a re-evaluation of proposals may rationally result in a different award outcome. See, e.g. , Vanguard Recovery Assistance v. United States, 101 F ed. Cl. 765, 786 (2011) (“[ A] n ag ency has the right to chang e its mind in the course of an evaluation if it has g ood reason.”) (citations omitted); Marcola Meadows VA LLC , B

- 407078.2, 2013 CPD ¶ 141, 2013 W L 2 4 68753, at *7 (Comp. Gen. J une 4, 2013) (“[ I ] t is implicit that a reevaluation can result in different finding s and conclusions.”) (citations omitted).

1 8 / Sotera relies on a declaration submitted with its reply brief for an analysis of the relative merits of its and Ray theon’s proposals. SeePl.’s Reply at 28. The court did not consider this declaration because the resolution of plaintiff’s challenge to the re-evaluation of proposals was adequately

informed by

the AR and the parties’ arg uments on the record. See Axiom , 564 F .3d at 1380 (restricting supplementation of the administrative record to circumstances where omission of the materials would frustrate judicial review). 43Pl ai n t i ff arg ues th atthe re-ev al uat i o n s h o u ldn o t h av e p referred Rayt h eo n ’ s

SW IFT s o ft ware d ev el o p m en tp ro ces s o v er So t era’ s Ag i le Arch i t ect u re Sy s t em En g in eeri n g (A2 SE) s o ft ware d ev el o p m en tp ro ces s . Pl .’ s M ot . at 3 2 -3 5

. In es s en ce, So t era s u g g es t s thati ts p ro ces s was o f eq u i v al en tv al u e. Id

. at3 3 . Th e co u rth as rev i ewedth e SSEB’ s re-ev al u at i o n o f t h e M an ag em en ts ub -fact o r, AR at 9 2 5 9 -6 5 , 9 3 1 9 -2 3 , an dco n cl u d es th atth e Arm y co u l d rat i o n al l y

p refer SW IFT o v er A2 SE.
Pl ai n t i ff al s o co m

p l ai n s th atRayt h eo n’ s CM M I l ev el 5 cert i fi cat i o n fo r s o ft ware d ev el o p m en t p ro ces s es , as o p p os edt o So t era’ s CM MI l ev el 3 cert ifi cat i o n , wo u l dn o tju s t i fy th e co stp rem i u m

th atthe Army

wo u l dp ay

fo r Ray t h eo n ’ s p ro p o s al

. 1 9 Pl .’ s M o t . at3 5 . At m o s t , So t era arg u es , CM M I l ev el 5 cert ifi cat i o n co u l dp ro vi d e o n l y a “ rel at i v el y

m i n o r ad v an t ag e.” Id

. Ato ral arg u m en t , p lai n t i ff’ s co u n s el at t em p t edt o ex pl ai n t h e d i fferen ce b et ween l ev el 5 an d l ev el 3 i n CM M I cert ifi cat i o n :

[I] f y o u ch o o s e t o b eco m e Lev el 5 rat ed , as Rayt h eo n h as , y o u ’ re es s en t i al l y

ad o pt i n g p ro cedu res
. Yo u ’ re s ub ject i n g y o u rs el f t o l ay ers o f ad d it i o n al p ro cedure, m u l t ip l e p ro ces ses an d–

I m ean , th i n ko f i t as s o rto f b ei ng a b u reau crat i c way . I’ m n ottry i n g t o b e cri ti cal o f i t , b u ti t ’ s ad di t i o n al l ay ers o f rev i ew t h atcreat es en o rm o us ex p en s e. Th i s i s – o n e o f t h e reas o n s wh y Ray t h eo n’ s h o u rl y

rat es are s ub s tan t i al l y

h ig h er t h an So t era’ s . Lev el 5 co n t ract o rs h av e h ig h er rat es an dth e Go v ern m en th as t o p ay

fo r i t

. A l oto f co m

pan i es l i k e So t era, t h ey d o n ’ t wan tLev el 5 o r atl eas tthey

d o n ’ tn eedi t i f t h e cu s t o m ers d o n ’ twan t i t . An d t h ey ’ v e h adcu s t o m ers th ath av e t ol dth em , we d on ’ twan tLev el 5 . W e wan tt o p ay fo r Lev el 3 b ecau s e Lev el 5 ’ s n o tn eces s ary
.

1 9 / Ray theon relied on an ex hibit attached to its reply brief to explain the differing levels of CMMIcertification. The court did not consider this exhibit because the AR and the parties’ arguments reg ardingCMMI fully aired the issue. S ee supra nn.12, 18. 44Tr. at2 5 . It i s u n di s pu t edthatdu ri n g th e re-ev al u at io n m u ch m o re at t en t i o n was p ai dt o CM M I cert i fi cat i o n l ev el s t h an o ccu rred i n th e Arm y ’ s fi rs t ev al u at i o n o f p ro p os al s
. Co m

p ar e AR at8 0 47 -4 8 , wi th i d

. at 9 4 7 9 . Th e co u rth as co n si d ered t h e p art i es ’ arg u m en t s reg ard i n g th e wei g htacco rd edRayt h eo n ’ s CM M I l ev el 5 cert ifi cat i o n , an dfi n ds th atth i s as p ecto f Ray t heo n ’ s p ro p o s al co u ldrat i o n al l y b e u s ed as a d i s cri m i n at o r i n d et erm i n i n g th e b es tv al u e EW PM T p ro p os al

. Th e co u rt h as d is cern ed n o erro r wh i ch i n v al i d at es th e res u lt s o f t h e reev al u at i on o f Ray t h eo n ’ s p ro p o s al . Inad d i t i o n , al t ho u g h So t era arg u es thati t s p ro p os al was erro n eo u s l y d en i ed s tren g t h s an di m

p ro perl y v i ewedas i nferi o r t o Ray t h eo n ’ s p ro p o s al , th e co u rtd o es n o tfi n dth e re-ev al uat i o n o f So t era’ s p ro p o s al t o h av e b een arb i t raryo r cap ri ci o u s . Ev en th o u g h th e co urtag rees wi t h p l ai n t i ff’ s co n ten t i o n th atth i s was a cl o s e co m p et i t i o n fo r t h e EW PM T co n t ract , th e Arm y ’ s b es tv al u e award d eci s i o n was rat i o nal . Gi v en th e d eferen ti al s t an d ardo f rev i ew ap p li cab l e h ere, t h e Arm

y ’ s awardd eci si on m

u s ts t an d

. CONCLUSI ON
In th e en d , p l ai n t i ff h as n o tm eti ts b u rd ent o s h o w th atth e Arm y ’ s b es t v al u e award d eci s i o n was arb i t rary , cap ri ci ou s , an ab u s e o f d i s cret i o n , o r o t h erwi s e n o ti n acco rd an ce wi t h l aw. So t era’ s p ro t es tcan n o tb e s u st ai ned

. Becau s e p l ai n t i ff h as n o t s u cceed edo n th e m eri t s o f i t s p ro t es t , th e co u rtn eedn o t co n si d er wh eth er th e s t an d ard fo r i n ju n ct i v e rel i ef h as b een m eti n th i s cas e. Acco rd i ng l y , i ti s h ereb y ORDERED th at (1 ) Pl ai n t i ff’ s M ot i o n fo r a Prel i m i n ary In ju nct i on , fi l edAp ri l 1 , 2 0 1 4 , i s DENI ED ; (2 ) Pl ai n t i ff’ s M ot i o n fo r J u d gm en t o n th e Ad m in i s t rat iv e Reco rd , fi l ed M ay 2 , 2 0 1 4 , i s DENI ED ; (3 ) Pl ai n t i ff’ s M ot i o n t o Am en d t h e Pro t ect i v e Ord er, fi l edM ay 6 , 2 0 1 4 , i s W I THDRAW N ; (4 ) Defen d an t ’ s an dIn t erv en or-Defen d an t ’ s M o t i o n s t o Di s m i s s , i n cl u d edwi t h th ei r m o t i o n s fo r ju d g m en to n th e ad m i n i s t rat i v e reco rd

45fi l edM ay 1 9 , 2 0 1 4, are GRANTED i n pa rt , as t o Co u n tIII o f t h e Am en dedCo m

p l ai n t , an d DENI ED i n pa rt , i n al l o t h er res p ect s ; (5 ) Defen d an t ’ s an dIn t erv en or-Defen d an t ’ s Cro s s -M o ti o n s fo r J u d g m en t o n t h e Ad m i n i s t rat i v e Reco rd , fi l ed M ay 1 9 , 2 0 1 4 , are GRANTED ; (6 ) Pl ai n t i ff’ s M ot i o n t o W i t h draw M o ti o n t o Am en dth e Pro t ect i v e Ord er, an dUn o pp o s edM o t io n fo r Perm i s s i o n t o Rel eas e Do cu m en t Ou t s i d e o f t h e Pro t ect i v e Ord er, fi ledJ u n e 2 6 , 2 0 1 4 , are GRANTED ; (7 ) Th e Cl erk ’ s Offi ce i s d i rect edt o ENTER fi n al ju dg m en t i n fav o r o f d efen d an tan di n t erv en o r-d efen d an t , DI SMI SSI NG t h e co m p l ai n t wi t h p reju d i ce; (8 ) On o r b efo re Aug us t 1 1 , 2 0 1 4 , co u ns el fo r t h e p art i es s h al l CONFER an d FI LE wi t h th e Cl erk ’ s Offi ce a reda cted co py o f t h i s o p i n i o n , wi t h an y m at eri al d eem edp ro p ri et ary m ark ed o u tan d en cl os edi n b rack et s , s o th ata co p y

o f t h e o p i n i o n can t h en b e p rep ared an dm ad e av ai l ab le i n the p ub l i c reco rdo f t h i s m at t er; an d (9 ) Each p art y

s h al l b ear i t s o wn co s t s.

/ s / Ly n n J . Bu s h LYNN J . BUSH Sen i o r J u d g e

46