## I n the U nited S tates Cour t of Feder al Claim s
No . 1 4 -1 17 9 C (Fi l edM arch 3 , 2 0 1 5 ) 1

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * RAYM OND EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Pl

a i nt i f f ,

v . THE UNITED STATES,

Def en d an t

. *

* * * * * * * * * * Pre-Award Bi dPro t es t ; No Vi o l at i on o f St atu t e o r Reg u l at i o n ; Ad equ at e M ark et Res earch ; No Am

b i g ui ty i n So l i ci t at i o n Pri ce Ev al u at i o n Sch em e; Rat i on al Tes tfo r Pri ce Reas o n ab l en es s
.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Jo h n E. Jen s en , M cLean , VA, fo r p l ai n t i ff. Al exa n d er B. Gi n sb er

g , Tr a vis L. Mu l l an ey , an d Megha n D. Do h er t y , M cLean , VA, o f co u n s el

. Ch r is t o p h er J. Ca rn ey , Un i t edSt at es Dep art m en to f J u s ti ce, wi t h wh o m were Jo yce R. Br a n d

a , Act i n g As s i s t an tAt t o rn ey Gen eral , Ro b er t E. Ki r

s ch ma n , Jr

. , Di rect o r, Cl a u di a Bu r ke , As s i s t an tDi rect o r, W as h i n g t o n , DC, fo r d efen d an t

. Ra l p h J. Tr ema g l i o , III

, Defen s e Co m

m i ss ary Ag en cy , Fo rtLee, VA, o f co u n s el

.

_ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ OPI NI ON

_ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

1 / This opinion was issued under seal on F ebruary 13, 2015. Pursuant to ¶ 4 of the orderinglanguag e , the parties were invited to identify source selection, proprietary or confidential material subject to deletion on the basis that the material was protected/privileged. Undisputed redactions were all acceptable to the court. Disputes over redactions were resolved in favor of plaintiff, because the redacted information in question was not relied upon by the court and the removal of this information does not prevent the reader from understanding the leg al issues resolved in this opinion. All redactions are indicated by brackets ([ ] ).Bus h , S

en i o r Ju d ge . Pl ai n t i ff Raym o n d Ex pres s In t ern at i o n al , LLC (REI) fi l edi ts p re-award b i d p ro t es tco m

p l ai nt o n Decem

b er 8 , 2 01 4 an d am en d edi t s co m p l ai nto n Decem

b er 1 1 , 2 0 1 4 . Ini ts fo ur-co u n t am en d edco m p lai n t, REI ch al l en ges So li ci t at i o n No

. HDEC0 9 -1 4 -R-0 00 2 , a s o l i ci t at i o n wh i ch h as b een am en d ed s ix t im es . So m e o f t h e am en d m en t s were i n res p on s e t o t h ree p ri o r p ro t es t s b ro u g h t b y REI – an ag en cy -l ev el p ro t es tan dtwo p ro t es t s at t h e Go v ern m en t Acco u n t ab i l it y Offi ce (GAO).
Th e s o l i ci t at i o n s eek s b i d s o n a co nt ract (o r co n t ract s ) t o p ro v i d e fres h fru i t an d v eg et ab les (FFV) t o Dep art m en to f Defen s e co m m i s s ari es i n So u t h Ko rea, J ap an an dGu am

(t h e “ Paci fi c Area”). Th e s ol ici t in g ag en cy i s th e Defen se Co m m i s s ary Ag en cy (DeCA). In th i s p ro tes t , REI s eek s i n ju n ct iv e an d d ecl arat ory

rel i ef reg ard in g v ari o u s t erm s an d p ro v is i on s o f t h e s ol i ci t at i on
. Th e ad m i ni s trat iv e reco rd(AR) o f t h i s p ro cu rem en t was fi l edo n Decem b er 1 9 , 2 0 1 4 an db ri efi n g was fi l edacco rd i n g t o an ex p ed i teds ch edu l e. Oral arg u m en twas h el d o n J anu ary 2 6 , 2 0 1 5 . As d i scu s s edb el o w, p l ai n t i ff h as n o t s h o wnth atth e t erm s o f t h e s o l i ci t at i o n v i o l at edp ro cu rem en tl aws o r reg u l at i o n s o r were arb i t raryo r cap ri ci o u s
. Defen d an t ’ s m ot i o n fo r ju d g m en to n t h e ad m i n is t rat i v e reco rdi s t h erefo re g ran t edan d p l ai n t i ff’ s m o t i on fo r ju d g m en to n t h e ad m in i s t rat i ve reco rdi s d en i ed

. BACKGROUND
I . I ntro ducti o n Th i s p ro t es t p o s es fo u r b as i c qu es ti o n s : (1 ) Do es DeCA h av e t h e d i s cret i o n u n d er ap p l i cab l e l aws an d reg u l at io n s t o ch an g e i t s fres h fru i tan dv eg et ab l es co n tract in g fro m

a m o d el wh ere t h e co n t ract o r p ro cu redm o sti t em s i n th e Un i t ed St at es an dh adth e i t em s s h i p p edatth e g ov ern m en t ’ s ex pen s e t o the Paci fi c Area, t o a m od el wh ere t h e co n t ract or s h i ps s u ch i t em s ati ts o wn ex pen s e t o DeCA co m m i s s ari es i n the Paci fi c Area? ; (2 ) Di dDeCA co n du ctad equat e m ark et res earch t o s up p o rtthi s ch an ge i n co nt ract i n g fo r t h e Paci fi c Area? ; (3 ) Is th e s o l i ci t at i on u n am

b i g uo u s as t o h o w p ro p o s al s wo u ldb e ev al u at edwh en cert ai n

2p ro duce i t em s were u n av ai l ab l e ei t h er l o cal l y (i n So u t h Ko rea, J ap ano r Gu am ) o r g l o b al l y ? ; an d , (4 ) W as th e p ri ce ev al u at i o n s ch em e co m p o s ed o f rat i on al m eas u res wi t h wh i ch DeCA co u l dd et erm i ne t h e p ri ce reas o nab len es s o f t h e p ro p os al s ? Al l o f t h es e qu es t i o n s m u s tb e an s weredi n th e affi rm at i v e. Th e co u rt o ffers h ere a b ri ef d i s cu s s i on o f t h e b ack g ro u n dfact s u n derl y i n g i t s an al y si s
. 2
I I . I ncum bent Co ntra ct a nd FFV Co ntra cts El s ew here REI i s th e i n cu m

ben tco nt ract o r s up p l y i n g FFV t o DeCA co m m i s sari es i n So u t h Ko rea, J ap an –

i n cl u di n g Ok i n awa, an dGu am . Th e i n cu m b en tco nt ract i s a s m al l b u s i n es s s et -as i d e. AR at3 7 8 4 . Th e i n cu m ben tco n tract i n cl u des a t ran s po rt at i o n s ub s id y , b ecau s e “ [t ] h e Go v ern m en t [p ay s ] tran s p o rt at i o n co s t s fro m d es i g n at edp o i n t s wi t h in t h e Un i t edSt at es t o th e co m m i s saryl o cat i o n s l o cat edth ro ug h o u tSo u t h Ko rea, Gu am , Ok i n awa an d J ap an .” Id

. at3 8 0 4 . On e effect o f t h e s ub s i dy

i s t o l o wer t h e p ri ce t hatp at ro n s o f t he co m m i s s ari es i n th e Paci fi c Area p ay

fo r fres h p ro du ce. S

ee i d

. at2 9 8 (n o t in g th at p at ro n s o f Paci fi c Area co m m i ss ari es “ en

jo y [] US qu al i t y

p ro du ce at v ery

l o w p ri ces co m

p aredt o th e l o cal eco n o m

y i n an y o f t h e co u n t ri es ”).
It is u n d i s pu t ed t h atth e t ran sp o rt at i o n s ub s i dy fo r t he Paci fi c Area co m es at a s ub st an t i al co s tt o th e t ax p ay er. On e es t i m at e fo r t h e an n u al co s to f t h e s ub s i dy fo r REI’ s co nt ract i s $ 3 6 m il li o n . Oral Arg u m en t Tran s cri p t (Tr.) at2 5 . DeCA h as b een ab l e t o co nt ract el sewh ere fo r FFV wi t h o u tp ro v i d i ng th e tran s po rt at i on s ub s i dy , wh i ch redu ces th e co s t s o f th e co m m i ss ary p ro g ram . AR at2 9 8 , 4 9 1 (n o t ran s po rt at i o n s ub s id y

fo r FFV fo r co m

m i s s ari es i n Al as k a, Hawai i an dPu ert o Ri co ); Tab 4 3 (n o tran s p o rt at i o n s ub s i dy fo r FFV fo r co m

m i s s ari es i n Germ an y , Bel g iu m an dthe Net h erl an d s ); Tab 4 4 (n o tran s p o rt at i o n s ub s i dy fo r FFV fo r co m m i s s ari es i n the Un it edKi n g do m ). W i t h th e t ran s p o rt at i o n s ub s i dy rem o v ed , t h e FFV co n t ract s i n o t h er reg i o n s u t il i ze th e d el iv ery t erm “ F.O.B. Des t i n at i o n ,” wh ere t h e co n t ract o r d el i v ers th e p ro du ce t o each co m m is s ary an dt i t le t o th e

2 / The parties explore a wide-rang e of topics in their briefing

. Similarly , the administrative record, which includes extensive briefing and ex hibits that were submitted for review during

the litig ation of prior protests, is quite robust. Althoug h all of the parties’ arguments have been considered by the court, this opinion focuses on the issues essential to the resolution of this protest. 3g o o d s p as s es t o th e g o vern m en to n l y up o n d el i v ery

t o thatco m

m i s s ary
. E.g

. , i d

. at 3 8 8 9 , 3 8 9 7

. I I I . Acqui s i ti o n Pl a nni ng a nd Ma rk et Res ea rch
As REI’ s i n cu m

b en tco n t ract was n eari n g i t s o ri g i n al co m p let i o n d at e, DeCA d eci d edth e t i m e h adco m e t o rem o v e th e t ran sp o rt at i o n s ub s i dy fro m th e n ex t Paci fi c Area FFV co n t ract . AR at4 9 1 , 4 9 8 -9 9 . Th i s d eci s i o n was fo u n d ed , i n p art , o n th e ag en cy ’ s u n d ers tan d in g o f t h e g l o b al m ark etfo r p ro du ce. Id

. at4 91 (n o t i ng th atth e F.O.B. Des t i n at i o n b u s i n es s m o d el “ t ak es ad v an tag e o f t h e d i s t ri b u t i o n p ro ces s effi ci en ci es th atco m m erci al i n dus t ry

h as d ev el o p edwh i ch al l o ws th em

t o o ffer q u al i t y

p ro du ct s fro m

thei r wo rl dwi d e s o u rces ”). DeCA al s o b el i ev edi tco u l drep li cat e, i n th e Paci fi c Area, t h e n ewer b u s i n es s m od el ’ s s u cces s i n o t h er reg i o n s s uch as Eu ro p e. Id

. Th is b el i ef was fo u nd edo n m ark etres earch co n du ct ed b y

a DeCA co nt ract i n g t eam b as edi n Germ an y . S

ee i d

. Tab 4

. Th e s o u rce s el ect i o n p l an was ap p ro v edo n J an u ary 3 0, 2 0 14 . AR at5 3 2

. Becau s e m

uch o f t h e co nt ract wo u ldb e p erfo rm edo u t s i d e t h e Un it edSt at es , DeCA rem o v edth e s m al l b u s i n es s s et -as i d e req u i rem en t

. Id

. at4 9 2 . Ano ffero r co u ldb i do n al l th ree reg i o ns i n th e Paci fi c Area (So u t h Ko rea, J ap an an d Gu am ), o r co u ldb i do n o n l y

o n e o r two reg i o n s
. Id

. at4 9 7 . Th e co n t ract i ng p eri o d wo u l d b e fo r an i n i ti al two -y ear b as e p eri o d , wi t h t h ree o p t i o n y ears
. Id

. at5 0 0

. Th e o ri g i nal s ch edu l e cal l edfo r DeCA t o i s s u e a Req u es t fo r Pro p os al s (RFP o r s o l i ci tat i o n ) i n Feb ru ary 2 0 1 4 , m ak e an award(o r award s ) i n J u n e 2 0 1 4 , an d h av e co n t ract p erfo rm an ce b eg i n i n Sep t em b er 2 0 1 4

. Id

. at5 0 4

. Th at p ro ject eds ch edul e was i n t erru p t edan dd el ay edb y REI’ s p ro t es t s
. See i nf

r a . REI co n ti n u es t o fu l fi l l th e FFV n eed s o f t h e Paci fi c Area co m m i s s ari es an dwi l l co n ti n u e t o d o s o th ro ug h M arch 3 1 , 2 0 1 5

. S ee i d

. Tab 4 1 ; Pl .’ s M o t. Ex . 1 at4

. I V. The So l i ci ta ti on So l i ci t at i o n No . HDEC0 9 -1 4 -R-0 00 2 , “ So l i ci t at i o n o f Fres h Fru i t s & Veg et ab l es –

Paci fi c Area,” was i s s uedb y DeCA o n Feb ru ary

3 , 2 0 1 4. AR at3 1

- 2 0 4 . Th e p ro du ce n eed s o f t h e co m m i ss ari es o f So u t h Ko rea, J ap anan dGu am were d i v id edi n t o d i s ti n ctCo n t ract Li n e It em Nu m b ers (CLINs ), s o thatan o ffero r co u lds ub m i t a p ro po s al fo r an y n u m b er o f t he t h ree CLINs

. Id

. at 3 3 . Th e
4es t i m at edv al u e o f th e co n t ract was $ 2 0 0 m i ll i on fo r t h e b as e p eri o dan d al l o p ti o n

p eri o d s i f an o ffero r p ro v i d edFFV fo r al l t h ree CLINs

. Id

. at2 8 8 , 2 9 3 (cl ari fi cat i on p ro v i d edb y Am en d m en t 0 0 0 1 ). Th e F.O.B. Des t i n at i o n co n tract t erm was cl earl y

i nd i cat edi n b o t h t h e So li ci t at i o n i t s el f an d i n l et t ers s en tt o p o t en t i al o ffero rs
. Id

. at6 2 -6 3 , 2 0 6 -3 7

. In i t s p l an n i n g fo r t h e p ro cu rem en t , DeCA reject edan ev al u at i o n s y st em b as edo n p ri ce al o n e, b ecau s e “ p ri ce wi ll n o tb e t h e s o l e d et erm i n i n g fact o r i n s el ect i o n o f t he award ee.” AR at5 0 2 . In s t ead , th e ag en cy reco g n i zedth at t ech n i cal p ro fi ci en cy

i s k ey t o t h e o ffero r’ s s u cces s i n p ro v i d in g FFV t o t h e Paci fi c Area co m

m i s s ari es : Iti s es s en t i al t h at t h e co n tract award ee h as th e t ech ni cal ap p ro ach t o m eet t h e m erch an d i s i n g s up p ort , m eeto r ex ceed th e [Paci fi c Area] Ag ri cu l tu ral St an d ard s, an d t h e o th er req u i rem en t s th atfal l u n d er t h e t ech n i cal ap p ro ach s ub -fact o r. In ad di t i o n , th e co n t ract award ee m u s t b e ab l e t o m eetth e i ns p ect i o n req u i rem en t s , an dh av e a p ro m o t i on al p l an t o m eetth e ad d i t i o n al s up p o rt req u irem en ts n eed ed . Th i s req u i rem en ti s a p ro g ram b uy ; wh i ch m ean s th e res u l t i n g co n t ract i s an al l

i n cl u s iv e co m

m od i t y co n t ract t hatp ro v i de[s ] fo r th e ad d i t i o n o f n ew i t em s as th ey b eco m e av ai l ab l e i n the m ark etp lace. Th es e ad di t i o n al i tem s wi l l b e co ns i d ered wi t h in t h e s co p e o f t h e co n t ract an dwi l l n o treq u i re fu rt h er co m

p et i t i o n . Ev al u at io n o f each s ub -fact o r wi l l i n cl u d e t h e o ffero r’ s p art i ci p at i o n i n t ech n ol o g i cal ad v an cem en t s an di t s ab i l i ty t o p ro v i d e p ro duct s av ai l ab le i n the co m

m erci al m ark etp l ace. Th e co n t ract i n g o ffi cer m

u s th av e l at i tu d e t o m ak e t rad eo ff d eci s i o n s b et ween Co m

b i nedTech n i cal Cap ab i l i t ies / Ri s k, Pas tPerfo rm an ce, an dPri ce. Id

. at5 0 2 -0 3 . Inth e s o l i ci t at io n , th e ev al u at i o n s y s tem i s g en eral l y

d es cri b edas
“ Bes tVal u e, Trad e-Off.” Id

. at5 1. M o re s p eci fi cal l y , th e ev al u at i on s ch em e p ro v id es th att ech n ical cap ab i li t y i s s i g n i fi can t l y

m o re i m po rt an tth an p as t

5p erfo rm an ce, an d t h atth es e t w o fact o rs , wh en co m b i n ed , are s i g n ifi can t ly

m o re i m p o rt an tth anp ri ce. Id

. It is n o tn eces s ary

t o rev i ew al l o f t h e s o l i ci t at io n t erm s, b u ta few t erm s h av e b een h i g h l i g h tedb y th e p art i es t o th i s l i t i g at io n (an d i n earl i er p ro t es t s b ro u gh t b y

REI) an d m eri tm en t i o n h ere. Th e co n tract o r i s req u i redt o p ro v i d e “ a fu l l l i n e o f qu al i t y

p ro du ct s av ai l ab l e wo rl d -wi d e t h ati s b et t er t h an , o r eq u al t o U.S. . . . Grad e # 1 .” AR at3 3, 2 4 2 . Pro du ce m u st b e av ai l ab l e fo r d el i v ery , as a g en eral ru l e, t wen t y -fo u r h ou rs aft er an o rd er h as b een p l aced b y a co m m is s ary
. Id

. at6 2 , 2 4 6 . Pri ces are t o b e ev al uat edfo r reas o n ab l en es s , an d p ro p o sal s wo u l d al s o p ro v i d e t h e g ov ern m en twi t h th e o p p o rtu n i t y t o p erfo rm a p ri ce real i s m as s es s m en t

. Id

. at5 4 , 2 4 3 , 3 7 74 . Co n s u m er p ri ces atthe co m m i s s ari es m

u s t p ro v id e s h o p p ers wi t h atl eas ta fi ft een p ercen td i s co u n t co m pared t o co m

pet i n g p ri ces at n earb y

l o cal s t o res ; th i s d i s co u n t i s kn o wn as th e Pat ro n Sav in g s Di s co u n t , o r PSD. Id

. at5 4, 2 4 3 , 2 9 3 , 3 7 7 4

. Offero rs were i nv it edt o s ub m i tques t i o n s reg ard i n g th e s o l i ci t at i on i n wri t in g . Th es e qu es ti o n s were an s weredb y Am en dm en t 0 0 0 1 t o th e s o li ci t at i o n wh i ch was co m

m u n i cat ed t o th e o ffero rs o n Feb ru ary 2 4 , 2 0 1 4 . AR at2 8 6 -9 2

. Vari o u s p ri ce ev al u at i o n t erm s were cl ari fi eddu ri n g th e co u rs e o f t he p ro cu rem en t an d wi l l b e d i s cu s s edfu rt h er i n t h e an al y si s s ect i o n o f th is o p i n i o n . Offers i n res p o n s e t o th e s o li ci t at io n were i n i t i al l y du e b y M arch 1 9, 2 0 14

. Id

. at3 1

. V. Offers Recei v ed [ ] o ffero rs res p on d edt o th e s o l i ci t at io n , b u to n l y [ ] p ro p o sal s were d eem ed t o b e res p o n s i v e. AR Tab s 2 4 -2 9 , 3 3 -3 8 . Of the [ ] res p o n s i v e p ro p o s al s , [ ] fo r Gu am o nl y , [ ] fo r Gu am

an dSo u t h Ko rea o n ly , an d t h e rem ai n i ng [ ] fo r al l th ree reg i o n s (So u t h Ko rea, J ap an an dGu am ). [ ]

. VI . Pro tes ts a nd Rel a ted So l i ci ta ti o n Am endm ents So m e o f REI’ s co ncern s ab ou tthe s ol i ci t at i o n , an d i n p art i cu l ar i t s co n cern s ab o utth e el i m in at i o n o f t h e t ran s p o rt at i o n s ub s i dy an dDeCA’ s i ncreas edrel i an ce o n l o cal l y -g ro wnp ro du ce fro m th e Paci fi c Area, were ex p res s ed i n the q u es t i o n s s ub m i t t edt o DeCA an d an s weredb y Am en d m en t0 0 0 1. S

ee AR at 2 8 8 . Al t h o u g h DeCA p ro vi d ed i t s an swers t o th e o ffero rs ’ qu es t i o n s o n Feb ru ary 2 4 , 2 0 1 4 , 6Am en d m en t0 00 1 was n otp o s t edo n Fed Bi zOp p s u n t i l M arch 4 , 2 01 4

. Id

. at2 8 0

.

So o n thereaft er, o n M arch 1 4 , 2 0 1 4 DeCA ex t en d edth e d ead l i n e fo r t h e recei p to f p ro p os al s u n t i l Ap ri l 4 , 2 0 1 4 b y i s s u i n g Am en d m en t0 0 0 2

. Id

. at2 76 -7 7

. OnAp ri l 3 , 2 0 1 4 , o n e d ay b efo re t he p ro p o s al s ub m i s s i o n d ead l in e, REI l o d g edan ag en cy -l ev el p ro t es twh i ch req u es t eda d eci s i o n fro m a l ev el ab o v e t h e co n tract in g o ffi cer i n v o l v edi n th e p ro cu rem en t . AR Tab 6

. Th e ag en cy -l ev el p ro t es trai s edm an y

o f t h e i s s u es th atm

u s tb e d eci dedb y

th is co u rti n t h e s ub

ject m at t er. Pro p o s al s were recei v edb y th e ag en cy o n Ap ri l 4 , 2 0 1 4 as p rev i o u s l y s ch edu l ed . OnM ay

1 6 , 2 0 1 4 , M r. Lawren ce P. Hah n , th e Di rect o r o f Acqu i s i t i o n M an ag em en t fo r DeCA, d en iedREI’ s p ro t es t

. Id

. Tab 7 . M r. Hah n n o ted , h o wev er, t h ats o m e o f REI’ s req u es t edcl ari fi cat i o n s o f al l eg ed l y am b i g u o u s t erm s i n the s o l i ci t at i o n h adb een ad dres s edb y Am en d m en t s 0 0 03 an d0 0 0 4 . Th es e am en d m en t s i ss uedo n M arch 2 4 , 2 0 1 4 an dM ay 1 6 , 2 01 4 , res p ect i v el y . Id

. at 2 4 9 -7 5

. Un d et erred , REI fi l eda t i m el y ch al l en g e t o t h e s o l i ci t at io n o n M ay 2 7 , 2 0 1 4 wi t h GAO. AR Tab 8 . REI’ s fi rs tGAO p ro t es t rai s edm an y o f th e i s s u es th at m u stb e d eci d edb y

thi s co u rti n t h e s ubjectm at t er. Wh en th e ag en cy an n o u n ced co rrect iv e act i on i n res p on s e t o s o m e o f t h e i s su es rai s edb y REI, th i s fi rs tGAO p ro t es twas d i s m i ss edas acad em i c o n J un e 2 5 , 2 0 1 4 . Pl .’ s M o t . at1 2 . DeCA’ s p ro p os edco rrect i v e act i o n i n cl u d edcl ari fy in g t erm s o f t h e s o l i ci t at i o n an d p ro v id i n g o ffero rs wi t h t h e o p p o rtu ni t y t o s ub m itrev i s edp ro p o s al s
. Id

. Am en dm en t0 00 5 i ss u edo n J u l y 1 1 , 2 0 1 4 an dcl ari fi eds ev eral t erm s o f t he s o l i ci t at i on . AR at2 41 . Th i s am en d m en tt o th e s o l i ci tat i o n ad dres s edt o p i cs wh i ch are s t i l l i n co n t ro v ers y i n th e s ub

jectm at t er. Am en d m en t 0 00 5 ex p lai n ed wh en cert ai n Hi g h Vo lu m e Co re It em s o f p ro du ce (HVCI) co u l db e co n s i d eredt o b e “ n o tav ai l ab l e” fo r t h e p ri ce ev al u at i o n o f p ro p o s al s
. Id

. at2 4 2. Th is am en d m en tal s o ex pl ai n edh o w an o ffero r co ul dju d g e wh ether i t s p ro p o s ed p ro duce m eet s th e qu al i t y s tan d ardo f U.S. Grad e # 1. Id

. An o t her cl ari fi cat i o n was p ro v i d edas t o t he d el i veryreq ui rem en tfo r “ 2 4 -h o ur Ord eri n g LeadTi m e.” Id

. Fi n al l y , Am en d m en t0 0 0 5 ad dres s edth e o v eral l ev al u at i o n ap p ro ach fo r co m p ari n g th e o ffero r’ s p ri ces , i n cl u d i n g a l en gt h y ex p l an at i o n o f t h e i m

p o rt an ce o f t h e Pat ro n Sav i n g s Di s co u n t , o r PSD, as wel l as th e i m p o rt an ce o f th e o ffero rs ’ accu rat e u n d ers tan d i n g o f co m p et i n g l o cal p ri ces th ata co n s u m er wo u l dp ay fo r p ro duce i n th e reg i o n s o f t h e Paci fi c Area.

7Di s cu s s i o ns were ap paren t l y o p en edwi t h t h e res po n s i v e o ffero rs o n J u l y

1 4 , 2 0 1 4 . AR at2 4 0 . OnJ u l y 1 6 , 2 0 1 4 , DeCA req u es t edrev i s ed p ro p o s al s fro m t h e o ffero rs . Pl .’ s M ot . at1 2

. Rev i sedp ro p o s al s were du e o n J u l y 3 1 , 2 0 1 4 . AR at6 9 3

. On e d ay

b efo re rev is edp ro p o s al s were due t o b e recei v edb y DeCA, REI fi led it s s eco n dGAO p ro t es t o n J u l y 3 0 , 2 01 4

. Id

. Tab 1 0 . REI’ s s eco n dGAO p ro t es tal s o rai s edm an y

o f t h e i s s u es th atm

u stb e d eci d edb y t h i s co u rti n th e s ub jectm at t er. Rev i sed p ro p o s al s were ap paren t l y recei v ed fro m

th e fi ve res p o n s i v e o ffero rs o n J u l y 3 1 , 2 0 1 4

. Id

. Tab s 3 3 -3 8 ; Pl .’ s M o t . at1 2

. VI I . GAO Deci s i o n a nd Am endm ent 0 0 06
REI’ s s eco n dGAO p ro t es twas v i go ro u s l y l it ig at ed , b u t a d et ai l edacco u n t o f t h e s ub s t an ce o f t h e p art i es ’ p o s i t i o n s i n thatp ro t es ts erv es n o p u rp o s e h ere. Th e s am e b as i c ch al l en ges t o th e s o l i ci t at i o n th ataro se i n REI’ s p ri o r p ro t es t s an d t h atare carri edfo rt h i n REI’ s am en d edco m pl ai n tb efo re t h i s co urtwere d eb at ed

. Each s i d e i n t ro du cedd ecl arat i o n s an dex h i b i t s . REI co m m i s s i o n ed a s tu dy

fro m [ ] (h erei n aft er, [ ] Stu dy ) t i tl ed“ Fres h Fru i tan dVeg et ab l e J ap an an dKo rea Lo cal So u rci n g Feas ib i l i t y

Stu dy ” an ds ub m i t t edth is s tud y t o GAO. AR at

1 3 8 5 -1 5 0 3

. DeCA res p o n d edwi th i t s o wn d ecl arat i o ns an d ex h i b i ts

. Id

. at1 3 0 8-1 4 , Tab 1 9

. Th e d ocu m en ts s ub m i tt edi n t h e s eco n d GAO p ro t es ten co m p as s ap p ro x im at el y 9 0 0 p ag es
. Onth atreco rd , o n No v em b er 6 , 2 01 4 GAO s u s t ai n edtwo o f t h e p ro t es t g ro u nd s rai s ed b y

REI an dd en i edth e res t

. AR Tab 3 9. 3 REI was n o t ab le t o p ers u ad e GAO th atan y s tatu t e o r reg u l at i on fo rb i ds th e el i m i n at i o n o f t h e t ran s po rt at i o n s ub s id y

fo r t he FFV co n t ract fo r t h e Paci fi c Area. Id

. at3 7 6 1 -6 4

. No r d idGAO fi ndth atDeCA’ s m ark etres earch , wh ich co n fi rm edth e feas i b i l i t y o f t h e F.O.B. Des t i n at i o n co n t ract i n g m od el fo r t h e Paci fi c Area, was i n ad equ at e u n d er t h e Fed eral Acqui s it i on Reg u l at i on (FAR) o r i n fi rm fo r an y o th er reas o n
. Id

. at3 7 6 4 -6 5 . GAO’ s an al y s is o f t h es e two i s su es i s th o ro u gh an dp ers u as i v e. GAO al so b ru sh edas i d e “ n u m ero us ” l es s wei g h t y ch al l en g es t o s o l i ci t at i o n t erm s t h atREI h adrai sed i n i t s s eco n dGAO p ro t es t

. Id

. at 3 7 61

.

3 / Althoug h the record in this case contains only the sealed, unredacted version of the GAO decision, the public, redacted version of the decision appears to be identical and is available on GAO’s website. 8GAO ag reed wi t h REI, h o wev er, t h atth e p ri ce ev al u at io n s ch em e s etfo rt h

i n the s o l i ci t at i o n was fl awedi n t wo res p ect s . Fi rs t , GAO i d en t i fi edan am b i g u i t y i n the s o l i ci t at i o n ’ s d es cri p t i o n o f t h e m et h o dDeCA wo u l du s e t o co m p are t h e p ri ces o f each o ffero r’ s p erfo rm an ce:

W e v i ew th e ev al u at i o n m etho dd es cri b edb y t h e ag en cy i n res p o ns e t o th e p ro t es t– i .e. , u s i n g th e p ro p o sed p atro n s av i n g s d i s co u n tp ercen tag e t o ev al u at e t he co m p et i t i v en es s o f p ro p o s al s an d u si ng th e J u l y 1 4

“ s n ap s h ot -i n -t i m e” p ri ci n g t o ev al u at [e] p ri ce reas o n ab l en es s an dreal i s m – as reas o n ab l e. Ho w ev er, i t i s d i fferen tfro m

th e ev al u at i o n m et h o d o l o g y i n th e s o l i ci t at i o n i n two k ey

res p ect s . Fi rs t , n o wh ere d o es the s o l i ci t at i o n s t at e t h atth e ev al u at i o n o f p ri ce i s t o b e b as edo n ano ffero r’ s p ro p os ed p atro n s av i n g s d is co u nt p ercen t ag e. Seco n d , th e s o l i ci t at i on i n cl ud es a p ro v i s i o n t h ati s reas o n ab ly

i n terp ret edas es t ab l is h i n g the J u ly 1 4

“ s n ap s h ot -i n -t i m e” p ri ci n g – rat h er t h an th e p ro p o sed p atro n s av i n g s d i s co u n tp ercen tag e – as the b as i s o f th e ag en cy ’ s awardd eci s i o n. Sp eci fi cal l y , th e s o l i ci t at i o n s t at es th at“ [t ] he Go v ern m en twi l l cal cu l at e an d ev al u at e as b as is o f co n t ract awardth e t o t al ev al u at ed p ri ce fo r al l HVCI fo r t h e b as e p eri o dan dal l o p t i o n y ears .” RFP, am en d . No . 0 0 0 5 , at4 . As i l l u st rat ed b y [REI] , ev al u at in g t h e co m

p et i t i v en es s o f p ro p o sal s b as ed o n t h e o ffero rs ’ u n i tp ri ci n g fo r t h e weeko f Ju l y 1 4 co u l d l ead t o m i s lead i n g res ul t s b ecau s e a p ro p o s al o fferi ng a l o wer p atro n s av i n g s d i s co u n tp ercen tag e co u l d b e ev al u at ed m o re fav o rab l y

th an a p ro po s al o fferi ng a h i g h er p at ro n s av i ng s d i s co u n tp ercen t ag e. AR at3 7 5 8

. GAO th erefo re m ad e t wo reco m m en d at i o n s s p eci fi c t o thi s fl aw i n t h e s o l i ci t at i on . Fi rs t , DeCA s ho u l dad dl an g u ag e i f t h e PSD i s i n ten d ed t o b e d et erm i n at i v e o f p ri ce co m p et it i v en es s :

9[I] f i ti s th e ag en cy ’ s i n t en tt o ev al u at e co m p et i t i v en es s o n t h e b as i s o f an o ffero r’ s p ro p o s edp at ro n s av i n gs d is co u ntp ercen t ag e –

as th e ag en cy

h as arg u edi n res p o n s e t o t h i s p ro t es t– th en t h e ag en cy

s h o ul d am en d t h e s ol i ci t at i o n t o cl earl y

s t at e i t s i nt en t[t o d o s o .]
AR at3 7 5 9 . DeCA s h o ul dal s o , t o en s u re t h at i t s i n ten ti n th i s reg ardi s cl ear,
“ d el et e o r rev i s e t h e s o l i ci t at io n p ro vi s i o n d es cri bi n g the o ffero rs ’ HVCI u n i t p ri ci ng as th e b as i s o f award .” Id

. at3 7 5 9 -6 0

. GAO h adn o o b ject i o n t o th e u s e o f s n ap s h o t -i n -t i m e p ri ce d at a, as l o n g as t h e p u rp o se o f s ol i ci t i n g th i s d at a was t o es t ab l i s h a p ro p os al ’ s p ri ce reas o n ab l en es s o r p ri ce real i sm :

[T] h e s o l i ci t at i o n t erm s reg ard in g t h e ev al uat i o n o f p ri ce reas o n ab l en es s an dp ri ce real i s m u s i n g
“ s n ap s h ot -i n -t i m e” u ni tp ri ci n g co u l drem ai n ; th e s o l i ci t at i o n s i m

p l y wo ul db e am en d edt o cl earl y co m m un i cat e th atth e ag en cy ’ s co m p arat i v e ev al u at io n o f th e p ro p o s al s ’ pri ci n g t erm s ( i .e. , th e b as i s fo r award ) wi l l b e b as edo n th e l ev el o f an o ffero r’ s p ro p o s edp atro n s av i ng s d i s co u n t

. Id

. at3 7 6 0 n .7

. Ona d i s t i n ct b u trel at edt o p i c, GAO fo u ndam b ig ui t y i n th e s o l i ci tat i o n ’ s d es cri p t io n o f DeCA’ s ev al u at i o n o f “ an o ffero r’ s u n d ers t an d i ng o f . . . h o w th e p at ro n s av i n g s d i s co u n ti s ap p l i ed .” AR at3 7 6 0. Offero rs h adb een warn edth at t h ei r p ro ject edm i ni m

u m PSD wo u l db e t es t edth ro u g h a co m p ari s o n o f t he o ffero r’ s s n ap s h o t-i n -t i m e p ri ces fo r HVCI an d t he ag en cy ’ s s n ap sh o t -i n -t im e s u rv ey o f HVCI p ri ces . If a d ev i at i o n o f p l u s o r m i n us t en p ercen ts ep arat edth e ag en cy ’ s cal cu l at i o n o f t h e PSD fo r t h ato ffero r an d t h ato ffero r’ s p ro ject ed m i n i m u m PSD, th e o ffero r’ s p ri ce p ro p o s al co u l d b e reject edas u naccep t ab l y i n accu rat e. Id

. Acco rd i ng t o GAO, h o w ev er, t h e l an g u ag e i n the s o l i ci t at i o n d es cri b i ng th e co m

p ari s o n m eth o d o lo g y

was “ un cl ear” an dd i d n o trev eal “ t h e ag en cy ’ s i n t en d edm et ho d o l o g y .” Id

. at 3 7 6 0 -6 1

. GAO th erefo re reco m

m en d edth at“ th e ag en cy

am en dth e s o l i ci t at i o n t o cl ari fy the p ro vi s io n reg ard i ng t h e ev al u at i o n o f o ffero rs ’ u nd ers t an di n g o f t h e
10ap p li cat io n o f t h e p at ro n s av i n g s d i s co u n t

. ” AR at3 7 61 . On ce al l o f t hes e

reco m m en d edch an g es t o s o l i ci t at i o n t erm s were i m pl em en t ed , GAO al s o reco m m en d edth ato ffero rs b e p erm i t tedt o s ub m it rev i s edp ro p o s al s
. Id

. at3 7 6 6

. Fi n al l y , GAO s u g g es t edth atDeCA s h o u l d rei m bu rs e REI fo r i ts p ro t es tco s t s
. Id

. DeCA i m p l em en t edGAO’ s reco m m en d at io n s b y

i s su i n g Am en d m en t0 0 0 6 o n Decem

b er 1 , 2 0 1 4 an db y

i nv i t i n g rev is edp ro p o s al s fro m th e [ ] res p o n s i v e o ffero rs wh i ch were due o n Decem b er 2 2 , 2 0 1 4. AR Tab 4 0 . Th is am en d m en t s t at edth at“ t h e g o v ern m en td efi n es ‘ PRICE’ as th e M i n i m u m Percen tag e o f Pat ro n Sav in g s fo r t he p u rp os e o f p ro p o s al ev al u at i on .” Id

. at3 77 3 . Am en d m en t0 0 0 6 al s o ch an g edth e s n ap s h o t -i n -t i m e weekfo r p ri ce co m pari s on s t o Decem

b er 8 -1 4 , 2 0 1 4

. Id

. Th e am en dm en tfu rth er s t at edth atDeCA “ w i l l an al y ze t h e HVCI u n i t p ri ces p ro v i dedb y

o ffero rs fo r th e s p eci fi ed [s n ap s h o t -i n -t i m e] p eri o dfo r p ri ce reas on ab l en es s o r p ri ce real i s m , h o wev er, t h e HVCI u n i tp ri ces wi l l n o t b e t h e b as i s o f co nt ract award .” Id

. at3 7 7 4 . Inad d i t io n , p ro p o s al s wo u l dn o l o n g er ex p li ci t l y ri s kreject i o n if t h e o ffero r’ s p ro j ect edPSD v ari edm o re t h an t en p ercen t fro m th e g o v ern m en t ’ s cal cu l at i o n o f t h ato ffero r’ s PSD. Id

. at3 7 7 5

. In th e co u rt ’ s v i ew, DeCA, b y i s s ui n g Am en d m en t0 0 0 6 , ad dres s edal l o f t h e fl aws n o t edb y

GAO i n the s o l i ci t at i o n . REI n on et h el es s ren ewedm o s to f i t s ch al l en g es t o t h e s o l i ci t at io n b y fi l i n g a t hree-co u n t co m

p l ai n ti n th i s co urto n Decem b er 8 , 2 0 1 4. REI ad deda fo u rt h co u n t wh en i t fi l edan am en dedco m p l ai n t o n Decem

b er 1 1 , 2 0 1 4

. VI I I. Cl a i m s Befo re Thi s Co urt Co u ntI o f th e am en d ed co m p l ai n t arg u es thatDeCA can n o tel im in at e t h e t ran s po rt at i o n s ub s id y

fo r t he Paci fi c Area FFV co n t ract wi t h o utv i o lat i n g cert ai n s t atu tes an dreg ul at i o n s . As th e co u rtn o ted s u p r a , GAO reject edthatco n t en t i o n an d t h e co u rtfi nd s n o erro r i n GAO’ s an al y s i s o f t h i s i s s u e. Co un tII o f t h e am en d edco m

p l ai ntarg u es th atDeCA’ s m ark etres earch was b o t h i n su ffi ci en t p u rs u an t t o FAR req u i rem en t s an dn o t“ rat i o n al ly s u ffi ci en t .” Am

. Co m

p l

. ¶¶ 8 5 -8 8 . Ag ai n , as no t ed s u pr a , GAO reject edREI’ s ch al l en g e t o the s u ffi ci en cy o f DeCA’ s m ark etres earch an dGAO’ s an al y s i s o f th i s i s su e i s s o u n d

. Co u ntIII o f t h e am en dedco m p l ai nts u g g es t s th atth e s ol i ci t at i on t erm s th at ex p lai n h o w “ un av ai lab l e” p ro du ce wi ll b e co n s i d eredi n t h e ag en cy ’ s p ri ce
11evaluation are ambiguous, arbitrary and capricious. Finally, Count IV of the

complaint contends that the agency’s approach to determining the price reasonableness and price realism of proposals is illogical and contravenes various laws and regulations. 4 The court will, of course, consider all of plaintiff’s challenges to the solicitation, whether or not GAO has already covered the same ground. Revised proposals were received on December 22, 2014. Pl.’s Mot. at 12; Tr. at 74. DeCA agreed to suspend its award decision during the pendency of this protest. The court agreed to issue its decision on the merits no later than February 13, 2015.
DISCUSSION
I. Bid Protest Jurisdiction This court “shall have jurisdiction to render judgment on an action by an interested party objecting to a solicitation by a Federal agency for bids or

4 / Both plaintiff and GAO appear to misread the solicitation as requiring a price realism analysis. SeePl.’s Reply at 23 (mistakenly referencing “the Solicitation’s proposed evaluation of the HVCI unit prices for price reasonableness and realism”) (emphasis added); AR at 3754 (GAO Decision) (“The solicitation stated that the agency would evaluate the proposed unit prices as adjusted to include the patron savings discount for price reasonableness and realism.”) (emphasis added) (citing Amendment 0005). The solicitation commits only to a price reasonableness analysis, with a price realism analysis to be conducted at the option of the government. This is true whether one looks at the text of Amendment 0005, as did GAO, or the revised price evaluation language of Amendment 0006. SeeAR at 243 (“The Government may also conduct a price realism evaluation . . . .”); 3774 (“The proposed unit prices for the HVCI provided by each offeror will be analyzed for price reasonableness . . . . The Government will analyze the HVCI unit prices provided by offerors for the specified period of time for price reasonableness or

price realism . . . .”) (emphasis added). Because there is no requirement in the solicitation for a price realism analysis, and plaintiff has not pointed to any FAR requirement mandating that a price realism analysis be conducted in this type of procurement, the court will restrict its analysis of Count IV to an examination of the solicitation’s measures for determining price reasonableness. The court notes, however, that the solicitation terms identifying the data to be submitted to support the offerors’ price proposals would, in the court’s view, provide sufficient data for an adequate and rational price realism analysis, if DeCA chooses to test the proposals for price realism. 12p 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

Sta 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 ga t i ve & S

ec. S ervs
. , In c. v. Un i t ed

Sta 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 rd o f Rev i ew fo r J udg m ent o n the Adm i ni s tra ti v e Reco rd
Ru l e 5 2

. 1 (c) o f t h e Ru les o f t h e Un it edSt at es Co u rto f Fed eral Cl ai m s (RCFC) p ro v i d es fo r ju d g m en to n th e ad m i ni s t rat i v e reco rd . To rev i ew a m o t i o n , o r cro s s -m o t i o n s , u nd er RCFC 5 2 .1 (c), t h e co u rtas ks wh et her, g i ven al l th e d i s p u t edan du n di s pu t edfact s, a p art y h as m eti t s b u rd en o f p ro o f b as edo n th e ev i d en ce i n the reco rd

. B a n n u m, In c. v. Un i t ed Sta t es , 4 0 4 F.3 d 1 3 4 6 , 1 3 5 6 -5 7 (Fed . Ci r. 2 0 0 5 ). Th e co urtm us tm ak e fact u al fi n d i n g s wh ere n eces sary
. Id

. Th e res o l ut i o n o f RCFC 5 2.1 (c) cro s s -m o t i on s i s ak in t o an ex p ed i t edtri al o n th e p ap er reco rd

. Id

. I I I . Bi d Pro tes t Rev i ew Th e co u rt fi rs tex am i n es wh et h er t h e p l ai n t i ff i n a b i d p ro t es th as s t an d i n g t o b ri n g th e s u i t

. ITAC , 3 1 6 F.3 dat1 3 1 9 . Ani n t eres t edp art y wh o s e d i rect eco n om i c i n t eres ti n t h e p ro cu rem en th as b een p reju di cedb y th e g ov ern m en t ’ s act i on s h as s t an di n g
. Id

. (ci t i n g Am. Fed ’n o f Go v’t Emp l o

yees v. Un i t ed

Sta t es , 2 5 8 F.3 d1 2 94 , 1 3 0 2 (Fed . Ci r. 2 0 0 1 ) ( A FGE )). Bi dp ro t es ts t an d i n g i s l i m i t edt o t h o s e p l ai n t i ffs wh o are “ ‘ actu al o r p ro s p ect i v e b i d d ers o r o ffero rs wh o se d i rect eco n om i c i n t eres two u l db e affect edb y th e award o f t h e co n t racto r b y th e fai l u re t o award t h e co n t ract .’ ” W eeks Ma r i n e, In c. v. Un i t ed Stat es , 5 7 5 F.3 d1 3 5 2 , 1 3 5 9 (Fed . Ci r. 2 0 0 9 ) (qu o t in g AFGE , 2 5 8 F.3 d at1 3 0 2 ). In th e co nt ex to f a p re-award b i dp ro t es t , a p l ai n t i ff m

u s t es t ab l is h t h ati th as s uffered o r wi l l s u ffer a

“ n o n -t ri v i al co m

p et i t i v e i n

j u ry wh i ch can b e ad dres s ed b y ju d i ci al rel i ef” t o m eet t h e eco n om i c p reju d ice req u irem en t

. Id

. at 1 36 2

.

13As the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has stated,

“the proper standard to be applied [to the merits of] bid protest cases is provided by 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) [(2012)]: a reviewing court shall set aside the agency action if it is ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.’” Banknote Corp. of Am. v. United States , 365 F.3d 1345, 1350-51 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing Advanced Data Concepts, Inc. v. United States , 216 F.3d 1054, 1057-58 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Under this standard, sometimes referred to as the “APA standard” or the “arbitrary and capricious standard,” a procurement decision may be set aside if it lacked a rational basis or if the agency’s decision-making involved a clear and prejudicial violation of statute, regulation or procedure. Emery Worldwide Airlines, Inc. v. United States , 264 F.3d 1071, 1085-86 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States , 238 F.3d 1324, 1332-33 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). “The arbitrary and capricious standard applicable [in bid protests] is highly deferential.” Advanced Data Concepts , 216 F.3d at 1058.
De minimis errors in the procurement process do not justify relief. Grumman Data Sys. Corp. v. Dalton , 88 F.3d 990, 1000 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citing Andersen Consulting v. United States , 959 F.2d 929, 932-33, 935 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). The bid protest plaintiff bears the burden of proving that a significant error marred the procurement in question. Id. (citing CACI Field Servs., Inc. v. United States , 854 F.2d 464, 466 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). Examples of arbitrary and capricious agency action include “when the agency ‘entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or [the decision] is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.’” Ala. Aircraft Indus., Inc. Birmingham v. United States , 586 F.3d 1372, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)) (alteration in original). The court will, however, “uphold a decision of less than ideal clarity if the agency’s path may reasonably be discerned.” Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas Best Freight Sys., Inc. , 419 U.S. 281, 286 (1974) (citation omitted). “‘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

14(Fed . Ci r. 1 9 8 9 ) (qu o t in g M. Stei n th a l & Co . v. S ea ma ns , 4 5 5 F.2 d1 2 8 9, 1 3 0 1 (D.C. Ci r. 1 9 7 1 )). If, o n th e o t h er h an d , th e p ro t es t or h as s h o wna s i g n i fi can terro r i n the p ro cu rem en tp ro ces s , th e co u rtm u std et erm i n e wh et h er t h aterro r p reju d i ced t h e p ro t es t o r, b ecau s e b o t h erro r an dp reju d i ce are req u iredfo r th e p ro t es t o r t o p rev ai l

. St a tis t i ca , In c. v. Ch r is t o p her , 1 0 2 F.3 d1 57 7 , 1 5 8 1 (Fed . Ci r. 1 99 6 ) (ci t i n g Da ta Gen . Co r

p . v. Jo h n s o n , 7 8 F.3 d1 5 5 6, 1 5 6 2 (Fed . Ci r. 1 9 9 6 )). Pl ai n t i ff b ears th e b u rd en o f p ro o f t o es t ab l i s h p reju d i ce. Ba n n u m , 4 04 F.3 dat 1 3 5 8 . “ Preju d i ce i s a qu es t io n o f fact .” Id

. at1 3 53 (ci t i ng A d

va n ced Da ta Co n cep t s , 2 1 6 F.3 dat1 0 5 7 ).
I V. Sta ndi ng Al t h ou g h d efen d an th as n o t ch al len g ed REI’ s s t an d i n g t o b ri n g t h i s b i d p ro t es t , s t an d i n g i s a t h res h o ldi n qu i ry th atth e co u rtm

u stad dres s
. ITAC , 3 1 6 F.3 dat 1 31 9 . As s t at ed s u p r a , th e p ro t es t o r m

u s tfi rs ts h o w th ati t i s an i n t eres t ed p art y , i.e. , th at t h e p ro t es t o r i s an actu al o r p ro s pect i ve b i d d er fo r t h e co nt ract

. E.g

. , W eeks Ma r i n e , 5 7 5 F.3 dat1 3 5 9 . Th e co u rtn ot es , atth e o u t s et , th atREI i s an actu al b id der i n th i s p ro cu rem en t an di s th e i n cu m b en t co n t ract or. Becau s e REI i s an actu al b i d d er, t h e fi rs tel em en t req u i redt o es t ab l i s h s t an d in g i s s at i s fi ed

. See i d

. Wh et h er REI h as s u ffereda n o n -t ri v i al co m p et i t i v e i n ju ry , th e s eco n d el em en to f p re-award b i dp ro t es ts tan d i n g (wh i ch i s al s o referred t o as p reju d i ce), i d

. at1 3 6 2 , i s a cl o s er q u es t i on . Ino rd er t o ad dres s th i s i n qu i ry i n t o eco n o m i c p reju d i ce, t h e co u rtm

u s t fi rs td eci d e wh et h er p l ai n t i ff m ay i n t ro du ce a d ecl arat i o n fo r t h e co u rt ’ s co n s i d erat i o n wh i ch s up p o rt s i t s al l eg at i o n s o f p reju di ce. Th i s co u rth as o ft en co n s i d ereds u ch d ecl arat i o n s fo r t h e i n qu i ry i n t o p reju d ice. S

ee, e.g
. , Ea s t W es t, In c. v. Un i t ed

Sta tes , 1 00 Fed

. Cl . 5 3 , 5 7 -5 8 (2 0 1 1 ) (s t at i n g th at d ecl arat io n s fro m

co m pan y o ffi ci al s as s i s t t h e co urti n d et erm i ni n g wh et h er a p ro t es t o r h as b een p reju di cedb y ag en cy act i o n ). Th e Decl arat i o n o f [a s en i o r REI o ffi ci al ] , Ex h i b i t1 at t ach edt o p l ai n t i ff’ s m o t io n fo r ju d g m en to n t h e ad m i n is t rat i v e reco rd , i s an ap p ro p ri at e s ub m i s si o n fo r th is p urp o s e. Defen d an t co n ced edato ral arg u m en t t h atth e co u rt m ay co n si d er [t h e REI o ffi ci al ’ s ] d ecl arat io n t o ex am i n e t h e i s s u e o f co m pet i t i ve p reju d i ce. Tr. at8 4

. Th e p ro p er i n qu i ry

i n t o p reju d i ce an d s tan d i n g , i n the p re-award co n t ex t , i s p ro v id edb y W

eeks Ma r i n e . Sev eral p aral l el s b et ween W eeks Ma r i n e an dth i s
15p ro t es tare ap p aren t. In W eeks Ma r i n e , the p ro t es t o r al l eg edth at t h e ch al l en g ed s o l i ci t at i on was i rrat i o nal an dth atth e co m p an y was n o t b u i l tt o co m

p et e u n d er s u ch term s . 5 7 5 F.3 dat1 3 6 0 . Fu rt h er, th e p ro t es t o r as s ert ed t hatth e s o l i ci t at i o n
“ v i ol at ed. . . s t atu t es an dreg ul at i o n s an d l ack eda rat i o n al b as is .” Id

. at1 3 6 1 (i nt ern al qu o t at i o n s o m i t t ed ). REI m ak es s i m i l ar al leg at i on s h ere. M o re s p eci fi cal ly , the p ro t es to r i n W eeks Ma r in e es t ab l i s h edth atthe ch al l en g eds o l i ci t at i o n , were t h e p ro cu rem en t t o g o fo rward , wo u l d l i k el y h av e a d i rect m o n et ary

i m p acto n th e co m

p an y ’ s b o t t o m

l i n e. Id

. at1 36 2

. Th e Fed eral Ci rcu i tco n cl u d ed t h at t h e p ro t es t o r h ad“ a d efi n i t e eco n o m i c s t ak e i n t h e s o l i ci t at i on b ei n g carri edo ut i n acco rd an ce wi t h ap p l i cab l e l aws an dreg u l at i o n s .” Id

. Here, t oo , REI h as p ers uas i v el y d es cri bedth e s i gn i fi can teco n o m i c i m p act s o f t h e ch al l en g ed s ol i ci t at i on ’ s t erm s o n i t s b u s i n es s m o d el

. S ee [REI Offi ci al ’ s ] Decl . ¶¶ 5 -1 0. In s i m i l ar ci rcu m s tan ces , th e Fed eral Ci rcu i tfo u n d t h atth e p ro t es t o r h ades t ab li s h eda “ n on -t ri v i al co m p et i t i v e i n

ju ry wh i ch can b e red res s ed b y ju d i ci al rel i ef.” W

eeks Ma r i n e , 5 7 5 F.3 dat 1 3 6 2 . As i n W eeks Ma ri n e , REI h as d em o n s t rat eda n o n-t ri v i al co m pet i t i v e i n j u ry an ds t an d i n g t o b ri n g i t s b i d p ro t es t . Th e co u rtn o w co n s i d ers wh et h er t h e reco rdo f fi l i n gs b efo re GAO s h o ul d b e co ns i d eredt o res o l v e t h e m eri t s o f p l ai n t i ff’ s p ro t es t

. V. The Sco pe o f the Adm i ni s tra ti ve Reco rd o f DeCA’s Pro curem ent Th e p art i es h av e l arg el y

fo cu s edo n th e m eri t s o f t hi s p ro t es tan dh av e n o t , fo r t h e m o s tp art , arg u edth atth e co u rt s ho u l dex cl u d e fro m i t s co ns i d erat i o n d o cu m en t s i n cl u d edwi t h i n th e ad m i n i s t rat iv e reco rdo r at t ach edas ex h i b it s t o the p l ead i n g s o r t h e p art ies ’ b ri efs . Th e o n l y s ub st an t i v e d i sp u te rai s edb y th e p art i es as t o th e s co pe o f t h e reco rdreg ard s t h e wei gh tt o b e acco rd edth e [ ] Stu dy , AR at 1 3 8 5 -1 5 0 3 , s ub m i t t ed b y p l ai n t i ff t o GAO, an dth e reb u tt al d ecl arat io n s o f M r. J o s ep h E. J euan dM r. Dav i dC. Carey , id

. at 1 3 0 8 -1 4 , Tab 1 9, s ub m i tt ed b y DeCA t o GAO. S

ee Def.’ s M o t

. at3 6 -3 7 ; Pl .’ s Rep l y at1 9 -2 0. Pl ai n t i ff al s o s u g g es t s, i n a fo o t n o t e, t hatDeCA h as at t em p t edt o s ub st itu t e “ p o s t -h o c rat io n al i zat i o n” p res en t edt o GAO fo r “ s u ffi ci en t [] es p res s [i o n s o f] i t s i nt en t i o n s i n th e So l i ci t at i o n .” Pl .’ s Rep l y at2 0 n .1 6

. In th e co u rt ’ s v i ew, i ti s ap p ro p ri at e t o i gn o re t h e p art i es ’ s ub m i s s i o n s t o GAO wh en co n si d eri n g t h e m eri t s o f t h i s b i dp ro t es t . Fi rs t , th e b are co n tem p o ran eo u s reco rdo f t he ag en cy ’ s d eci s i on i s ad equ at e t o res o l v e al l o f

16p l ai n t i ff’ s ch al l en ges t o th e s o l i ci t at i o n . Seco nd , i n th e co u rt ’ s ex p eri en ce,

d ecl arat io n s fro m

th e co n tract i n g o ffi cer an do t her ag en cy o ffi ci al s m ay

p ro ffer, i n m an y cas es , p o s t -h o c rat i on al i zat i o n an darg u m en t rat h er t han a fact -d ri v en ex p lan at i o n o f t he ag en cy ’ s d eci s i o n -m ak in g p ro ces s
. S ee, e.g
. , S o t er a Def

. S o l u t i o n s , In c. v. Un it ed

Stat es , 1 1 8 Fed . Cl . 2 3 7 , 2 6 3 n .1 6 (2 0 1 4) (d ecl i n i ng t o co n si d er a s o u rce s el ect i o n au t h o ri t y ’ s s t at em en t s p res en t ed t o GAO b ecau s e t h es e co n tai n edp o s t -h o c rat io n al i zat i o n ); CRAs s o ci a t es , In c. v. Un i t ed Sta t es , 9 5 Fed

. Cl . 3 5 7 , 3 7 7 (2 0 1 0) (s u g g es t in g th ata co n t ract i n g o ffi cer’ s d ecl arat i on s b efo re GAO s h o u l db e v i ewedwi t h a “ h eal t h y d o s e o f s k ep t i ci s m ” s o as t o n o t“ fru s t rat e effect i v e ju d i ci al rev i ew u n d er t h e APA s t an dard s ”); cf

. Gl en n Def

. Ma r i n e (AS IA), PTE Ltd

. v. Un i t ed Sta t es , 7 2 0 F.3 d9 0 1, 9 1 1 n .8 (Fed . Ci r. 2 01 3 ) (n o t i n g t h e p ro t es t o r’ s o b

ject i o n t o t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s co n s id erat i o n o f th e g ov ern m en t ’ s s ub m i s si o n s t o GAO, b u td ecl i n i n g t o d eci d e wh et her s uch s ub m i s s i on s were
“ ap p ro p ri at el y co n s i d ered ” b y th e t ri al co u rt ). Th ird , REI’ s [ ] Stu dy was n o t b efo re t h e ag en cy wh en i tm ad e i t s d eci s io n reg ard i n g th e co m p et it i ve m ark etfo r p ro v id ers o f FFV i n t h e Paci fi c Area an di t s d eci s io n t o rem o v e th e t ran sp o rt at i o n s ub s i dy th at h adb een pro vi d edi n th e i n cu m ben tco n tract . Thu s , th e co urtcan n o t v i ew t h e [ ] Stu dy

as p ert in en tu n d er t h e APA s t an dardo f rev iew b y wh i ch th e co u rtm u s tju d g e t h e s o l ici t at i o n
. S ee, e.g
. , Rh in o Co r

ps Ltd

. v. Un i t ed

Sta t es , 8 7 Fed

. Cl

. 2 6 1 , 2 8 2 (2 0 0 9 ) (d ecl i n i n g t o co n s id er d ecl arat i o n s s ub m i t t edb y th e p ro t es t o r b ecau s e t hes e “ d o cu m en t s p ro ffer fact s t h ats ub s ti tut e p l ai n t i ff’ s o p i n i on fo r t h e [ag en cy ’ s ] t ech n i cal d et erm i n at i o n s”).
In cert ai n ci rcu m s t an ces , d o cu m en t s s ub m i t tedt o GAO m ay b e co n si d ered as th e co u rtren d ers a d eci s io n o n th e m eri t s o f a b i dp ro t es t . Fo r ex am pl e, a co n tract in g o ffi cer’ s s t at em en tm ay b e n eed ed t o ex p l ai n th e reco rdd o cu m en t s o r t o fi l l i n g ap s i n t h e p ro cu rem en tfi l es
. S ee, e.g
. , D & S

Co n s ul ta n t

s, In c. v. Un i t ed Sta t es , 1 0 1 Fed . Cl . 2 3 , 3 5 (2 0 1 1 ) (“ Th e Co u rtm ay co n s id er ex pl an at o ry

m at eri al s t h atd o n o to ffer n ew rat i o n al es fo r p as td eci s i o n s an dth at i l l u m in at e t h e m et h o do l o gy

th e ag en cy

em p l o y edi n m ak i n g i t s d et erm i nat i o n .” (ci t in g CRAs s o ci a t es , 9 5 Fed

. Cl

. at 3 7 6 -7 7 & n .1 5 )). Th e ad m i n i s trat i v e reco rdh ere req u i res n o p o s t -h o c ex p l an at i o n
. Al s o , wh ere t h e ag en cy

h as t ak en co rrect i v e act i o n i n a p ro cu rem en tas a res u l t o f a GAO p ro t es t , d o cu m en t s b efo re GAO m ay h av e b een co n s i d eredb y th e ag en cy as i tcraft ed t h e co rrect i v e act i o n , an dm ay th erefo re b e rel ev an t t o th e co u rt ’ s rev i ew o f t h atag en cy act i o n
. S

ee, e.g
. , Va n g ua rd Reco ver y As s ist a n ce v.
17Un i ted Sta t es , 1 0 1 Fed . Cl

. 7 6 5 , 7 85 n .2 1 (2 0 1 1 ) (co ns i d eri n g d ecl arat i o n s fro m

ag en cy o ffi ci al s b ecau s e “ t ho s e d ecl arat i o n s p l ay eda ro l e i n GAO’ s Fi rs t Deci s i o n an d t h e en s u i n g co rrect i v e act i o n b y ” t h e ag en cy ); Ja co b s Tech . In c. v. Un it ed Sta t es , 1 0 0 Fed . Cl . 1 9 8 , 2 0 8 (2 0 1 1) (co n si d eri ng th e “ co n t ract i n g o ffi cer’ s s t at em en t s [i n d o cu m en t s b efo re GAO i n an earl i er p ro t es t ] p ert ai ni n g t o th e i n i t i al p ro cu rem en t [b ecau s e t h es e] m ay co n t ai n i n fo rm at i o n thatreas o n ab ly i n fo rm ed , an d were t h e b as i s o f, th e ag en cy ’ s rep ro cu rem en td eci s i o n s ”). Here, o n t h e o t h er h an d, t he o n ly

d eci s i o n s rev is i t edb y

DeCA were rel at edt o s o li ci t at i o n ev al u at i o n t erm s , n o tth e fu n d am en t al i s s u e o f wh et her p ro du ce av ai lab i l i ty i n t h e Paci fi c Area i s s u ffi ci en t t o s up p ortth e n ew co n t ract i n g m o d el em b o d i ed i n the s o l i ci t at i on . Th e co u rt t h erefo re co n cl ud es th atn o n e o f t h e GAO d o cu m en t s i n th e ad m i n is t rat i v e reco rdare rel ev an tt o i t s rev i ew o f th e m eri t s o f t h i s p ro t es t. Pl ai n t i ff arg ues , an dth e co u rtd o es n otd i s ag ree, t hatth e [ ] Stu dy co u l db e co n si d eredwh en th e co u rtex am i n es p reju d i ce t o REI. Tr. at 7 5 . Defen d an t arg u es th atd ocu m en ts b efo re GAO are u s efu l i n u n d ers tan d i n g the h o l d i n g o f GAO as i td i s cu s s es p ro tes t g ro u n d s t h atwere n o ts u st ai nedb y th atb o dy . Def.’ s M o t . at 3 6 -3 7; Def.’ s Rep l y at1 5 . Th e co u rt ag rees wi t h th i s co n t en t i on as wel l

. Th u s, al t h o u g h th e co u rth as n o tco n s i d ered , fo r i t s d et erm i nat i on o n th e m eri t s , an y o f t h e v ari o us d ecl arat i on s , m em oran d a, ex h i b i t s , an ds tud i es s ub m i t t edt o GAO b y th e p art i es , th o s e i t em s h av e b een co n s i d eredfo r t h e l i m i t edp u rp o s e o f d et erm i n i n g p reju d ice t o REI an das co n t ex tfo r GAO’ s an al y s i s o f v ari o u s p ro t es t g ro u nd s ad v an cedb y

REI.
VI . Ana l y s i s o f the Meri ts
A. I ntro ducti o n Pl ai n t i ff’ s p red o m i nan tfact u al al l eg at i o n s are t h atDeCA’ s el i m in at i o n o f t h e t ran s p o rt at i o n s ub s i dy wi l l cau s e u naccep t ab l y

l arg e p ri ce i n creas es fo r p at ro n s o f t h e Paci fi c Area co m

m i s s ari es , an dth atth e i n creas ed fo cu s o n l o cal ly -g ro wn p ro duce i n th e n ew co n t ract wi l l o ffer p at ro n s FFV t h atare u n accep t ab ly l o wer i n qu al i t y , av ai l ab i l it y

an d s afet y . Nei t h er o f t h es e al l eg at i o ns i s s upp o rt edb y th e ad m i n is t rat i v e reco rd . Fi rs t, as t o the p ri ces p at ro n s wi l l p ay fo r FFV i n th e Paci fi c Area, DeCA i n fo rm edo ffero rs th at “ DeCA i s aware t h at t h e co s to f t h e [FFV] pro du ct s wi l l i n creas e.” AR at2 8 8.

18Pl ai n t i ff ap pears t o arg u e th atDeCA i s co ns t rai nedt o k eep p ri ces atth e

co m m i s s ari es atap p ro x i m at el y th e s am e l ev el as th ey

are u n d er th e i n cu m

b en t co n tract

. S

ee Am . Co m

p l . ¶ 3 0 (arg u in g thatth e [ ] Stu dy co n cl u d es th at[ ] ); Pl .’ s M o t . at 3 0 (co n d em

n in g DeCA’ s m ark etres earch fo r fai l i n g t o ad dres s o b v i o u s co n cern s ab o u t s i g n i fi can t p ri ce i n creas es ); Pl .’ s Rep l y at1 6 -1 7 (rei t erat i n g p l ai n t i ff’ s co n cern s ab ou tp ri ce i n creas es ). Th e co u rt can n o td i s cern i n p l ai n t i ff’ s arg u m en t s , h o w ev er, an y s t atu to ry o r reg u l at o ry

u n d erp i n ni n g wh i ch wo u l dfo rb i d t h e n ex tFFV co n t ract i n th e Paci fi c Area fro m rai s i n g th e p ri ces p at ro n s wi l l p ay fo r FFV. Fu rt h er, t h e s ol ici t at i o n p ro v i d es p ri ce ev al u at i o n m eas u res wi t h wh i ch DeCA can m in i m i ze t h e p ri ce i n creas es fo r FFV i n Paci fi c Area co m m i s s ari es
. AR at3 7 7 3 -7 4

. Pl ai n t i ff al s o co n d em

n s t h e s o l i ci tat i o n ’ s i n creas edfo cu s o n l o cal l y -g ro wn p ro duce, arg u i n g th atDeCA fai l s t o u n ders t an dth e l i m i t ed av ai lab i l i ty o f reas on ab l y

p ri ced , g o o dqu al i ty , s afe FFV i n So u th Ko rea, J ap an an dGu am . Th e s o l i ci t at i on , h o wev er, i m

p o s es n o m i n i m

u m p ercen t ag e o f l o cal p ro du ce as co m p aredt o i m

p o rt ed p ro du ce fo r t h e n ew co n tract

. S ee AR at 2 9 1 . Inth e co u rt ’ s v i ew, th e s o l i ci tat io n ad equ at el y b al an ces a p referen ce fo r l o cal l y -g ro wnp ro du ce wi t h a rat i o n al al t ern at i v e o f i m p o rt edp ro du ce wh eni m

p o rt ed p ro du ce b et t er m eet s th e n eed s o f co m

m i s s ary p at ro n s . Hav i n g ad dres s edp l ai nt i ff’ s s pecu l at i v e fact ual al l eg at i o n s as t o th e d i re co n s equ en ces o f t h e n ew co n t ract i n g m o d el s et fo rt h i n t h e s o li ci t at i on , th e co urttu rn s t o p l ai n t i ff’ s ch al len g es t o the s o l i ci t at i on ’ s t erm s
. B. Tra ns po rta ti o n Subs i dy a nd Rel ev a nt Sta tutes a nd Reg ul a ti o ns

(Co unt I )
1 . Secti o n 2 48 3 (b)(5 ) a nd Rel a ted Reg ul ato ry Pro v i s io ns Th e p art i es v i g o ro u s l y

d eb at e wh et h er ap p ro p ri at edfu n d s m u s tb e u s edt o s ub s i d i ze t h e t ran s p o rt at i o n o f p ro du ce fro m th e Un i t edSt at es t o t h e Paci fi c Area co m m i s s ari es . Cert ai n l y , ap p ro p ri at edfu n d s are u s edi n t h i s fas h i o n i n th e i n cu m ben tco n t ract

. J u s tas cert ai n l y , ap p ro p ri at edfu n ds are n o tu s edi n t h i s fas h i on i n DeCA’ s Eu ro p ean FFV co n t ract s
. As p l ai n t i ff co n ced edat o ral arg u m en t , th ere i s n o co m m en taryi n rel ev an t l eg i s l at i v e h i s t o ry th ati s h el p fu l o n t h i s i s s u e. Tr. at2 3

.

19In s t ead , p l ai n t i ff rel i es o n th e fo l l o wi n g l an g u ag e co nt ai n edi n 1 0 U.S.C.

§ 2 48 3 (2 0 1 2 ):

Ap p ro p ri at edfu n d s s h al l b e u s edt o co ver t h e ex pen s es o f o p erat i n g co m

m i s s ary s t o res an d cen t ral p ro du ct p ro ces s i n g faci l i t i es o f t h e d efen se co m m i s s ary s y s t em
. Fo r p u rp o s es o f t h i s s ub s ect io n , o p erat i n g ex p en s es i n cl u d e t h e fo l l o wi n g :

. . . . (5 ) Seco ndd es t i n at i o n t ran s p o rt at i o n co st s wi t h i n o r o ut si d e th e Un i t edSt at es
. 1 0 U.S.C. § 2 4 8 3 (b ). Al t h o u gh th e s t atu t e d o es n o td efi ne “ [s ] eco n dd es t i n at i o n t ran s po rt at i o n co s t s ,” t h e p l ai n m ean i n g o f t h i s p h ras e i s co n s i s t en twi t h a d efi n i t i o n wh i ch d i st i n g ui s hes a “ fi rs td es t i n at io n ,” s u ch as a cen t ral i zed Dep art m en to f Defen s e faci l i t y , an d a “ s eco n dd es ti n at i o n ,” s u ch as an actu al co m m i s s ary . Defen d an targ u es th ati t i s p reci s el y th i s i n t erp ret at i on o f § 2 48 3 (b )(5 ) th atal l o ws DeCA t o p ay a t ran sp o rt at i o n s ub si dy

i n th e i n cu m

b en t FFV co n tract , an dt o el i m i nat e t h e t ran s po rt at i o n s ub s i dy i n t h e n ew FFV co n t ract

.

“ Seco ndd es ti n at i o n t ran s p o rt at i o n co s t s ” are d efi n edb y reg u l at i o n, ev en t h o u g h th es e co st s are d efi n edm o re b y wh at t h ey

are n o t , th an b y

wh atth ey

are. 5 Acco rd in g t o Dep art m en t o f Defen s e Fi n an ci al M an ag em en tReg ul at i o n 7 0 0 0 .1 4 -R (Oct . 2 0 0 8 ) (Do D FM R 7 0 0 0 .1 4 -R):

Fi rs tDes ti n at i o n Tran s p o rt at i o n (FDT) i s th at t ran s p o rt at i o n req u i redt o d el i ver n ew, an up g rad ed m o d el , o r recap i t al i zedp ro du ct i o n i tem s fro m th e m an u fact u rer’ s p l an to r s o u rce o f p ro cu rem en tt o th e fi rs t p oi nto f d el i v ery

wh ere t h e M i l i t ary

Serv ice o r Defen s e Ag en cy t ak es p o s s es s i o n an d/ o r o wn ers h i p o f th ati t em
. Th e p ro cu rem en ts o u rce, as u s edh erei n , i s an y s upp l i er

5 / In lieu of reg

ulations codified in the Code of F e deral Reg ulations, pertinent regulatory guidance is provided in Department of Defense I nstructions (DoD In str.) and the Department of Defense F inancial Manag ement Regulations (DoD F MR). B oth parties treat these pronouncements as reg

ulatory in nature, as does the court.

20o ut si d e th e Do D s up p l y s y s t em o r an y Do D i ndu s t ri al act i v i t y t h atfab ri cat es n ew m at eri el

. Th e p ro cu rem en t s o u rce o r t h e fi rs t p o i nto f d el i very m ay b e i n th e Co n t i n en tal Un i t edSt at es (CONUS) o r o v ers eas . FDT i s n ot ap p l icab l e t o co m

p o n en t s o r i t em s rewo rk edb y an i n dus t ri al act i v i t y . Inth e cas e wh ere t h e Go v ern m en t accep t s th e p ro du ct i o n i t em atth e m an u fact u rer’ s p l an t o r s o u rce o f p ro du ct i o n an dl eg al l y o wn s th e i t em , FDT ex t en d s t o th e fi rs t p o i n to f d el i veryfo r ei t h er u s e o r s t o rag e b y

th e M i l i t ary

Serv i ce o r Defen s e Ag en cy . Fo r s h i p m en t s d es t i n edt o o v ers eas l o cat i o n s th atwi l l en t er t h e Defen s e Tran sp o rt at i o n Sy st em , FDT t erm i n at es at t h e p o rto f em

b ark at i o n (CONUS o r o v ers eas ).
Seco ndDes t i n at i o n Tran sp o rt at i o n (SDT) i s an y t ran s p o rt at i o n o t h er t h an FDT. Def.’ s M o t . Ap p . atA2 -A3 . Gen eral l y , b ecau s e fi rs t d es t i n at i o n t ran s p o rt at i o n co s t s are t h o s e co st s fo r t ran s p o rt at i o n t hatb ri ng s t h e i tem t o “ t h e fi rs tp oi n to f d el i v ery ” wh ere t h e g o v ern m en tt ak es p o s s es s io n o f th e i t em , s eco n d d es t i n at i o n t ran s po rt at i o n co s t s are i n cu rredb y th e g o v ern m en tt o tran sp o rt(o r t o h av e t ran s po rt ed ) t h e i t em , aft er d el i v ery h as b een accep t ed , t o a s eco n d l o cat i o n wh ere i t w i l l b e u s ed . Fu rt h er, t h e fi rs td el i v ery p o i n tm ay b e o v ers eas . Fi n al l y , “ [f] o r s h i p m en t s d es t i n edt o o vers eas l o cat i o n s th atwi l l en t er t h e Defen s e Tran s p o rt at i o n Sy s t em ,” fi rs td es ti nat i o n t ran s p o rt at i o n m ay t erm i n at e ei t h er i n t h e Un i tedSt at es o r o v ers eas . Thu s , o vers eas tran s p o rt at i o n o f co m m i s s ary g o od s m ay

b e fi rs t d es t i nat io n tran s p o rt at io n o r s eco n dd es t in at i o n tran s p o rt at i o n , d ep en di n g o n wh ere t h e g o v ern m en t t ak es p os s es s i o n o f t h e i t em
. Acco rd i ng t o d efen d an t , th es e s t atu t o ry an dreg ul at ory

d i rect i v es ex p l ai n wh y th e i n cu m

b en tco n t ract (wh ere DeCA t ak es p o s s es s i o n o f REI’ s FFV i n th e Un i ted St at es an dth en p ay s fo r o v ers eas t ran sp o rtt o a s eco n dd es t i n at io n ) i n v o l v es s eco n dd es t i n at i o n tran s p o rt at i o n co s t s (wh ich are p ai dwi t h ap p ro p ri at ed fu n d s p u rs u an t t o § 2 4 83 (b )(5 )), wh ereas th e n ew co nt ract(wh ere DeCA wi l l t ak e p o s s es s i o n o f t h e co n t ract o r’ s FFV atth e Paci fi c Area co m m i s s ari es ), wi l l i n v o l v e o n l y fi rs td es t i n at i o n t ran s p o rt at i o n co s t s (wh i ch d o n o treq u i re ap p ro pri at edfu n d s

21p u rs u an t t o § 2 4 8 3(b )(5 )). GAO co n cu rred wi th the ag en cy ’ s ex p l an at i o n o f t h e

rel ev an t s t atu t ory an d reg u l at o ry fram ewo rk : Si n ce t h e s ol ici t at i o n h ere p ro v id es th atth e ag en cy t ak es p os s es si o n an dt i t l e o f t h e FF[] V atthe co m m i s s ari es i n t h e Paci fi c Area, we co n cl u d e t h atth e s o l i ci t at i on d o es n ot co n t em

p l at e s eco n dd es t in at io n t ran s po rt at i o n . Si n ce t h e s ol i ci t at i o n d o es n o tco nt em p l at e s eco n dd es t i n at io n t ran s p o rt at i o n, we ag ree wi t h th e ag en cy th atth e p ro v i s i o n o f 1 0 U.S.C. § 2 48 3 (b ) reg ard i n g th e u s e o f ap p ro p ri at edfu n d s fo r s eco n dd es t i n at i o n t ran sp o rt at i o n co s t s i s i n ap p l i cab l e. AR at3 7 6 4 . Al t h o ug h p l ai n t i ff at t em p ts t o fi nds up p o rt fo r i t s co n t raryv i ew o f t h i s i s s u e i n b o t h § 2 4 8 3(b )(5 ) an dDo D FM R 7 00 0 .1 4 -R, Pl .’ s M o t . at1 4 -1 7 & n .4 , 2 5-2 7 ; Pl

. ’ s Rep ly

at3 -7 & n .2 , th e co u rt can n o ti g n o re t h e p l ai n m ean i n g o f t h e s t atu t o ry an dreg u l at o ry t ex t . Th e co u rtfi n d s n o v i o l at i o n o f § 2 4 8 3 (b )(5 ), as ex p lai n edb y Do D FM R 7 0 0 0 .1 4 -R, i n th e s o l i ci t at i o n
. Th e d efi n it io n o f th e t erm s fi rs td es t i n at i o n tran s p ort at i o n an ds eco n d d es t i nat io n tran s p o rt at io n p ro v i d edb y Do D FM R 7 0 0 0 .1 4 -R i s al s o referen cedi n t h e g l o s s ary

o f Dep art m en to f Defen s e In s t ru ct i o n 1 3 3 0

. 1 7 (J u n e 1 8 , 2 0 1 4 ) (Do D In s t r. 1 3 3 0 .1 7 ). 6 Pl .’ s M o t . Ap p . 4 at6 , 5 7 -5 8 . Pl ai n t iff arg ues , h o wev er, t h at Do D In s t r. 1 3 3 0 .1 7 , En c. 5 , Para. 1 co nt ai n s a d efi ni t i o n o f t h es e co s t s th ati s di f f er en t fro m th e o n e en d o rs edb y

DeCA, GAO an dth i s co u rt . Becau s e t h e ag en cy , GAO an d t h i s co u rth av e al l b as edthei r i nt erp ret at i o n o f t hes e t erm s o n t h e p l ai n m ean in g o f § 2 4 83 (b )(5 ) an dDo D FM R 7 0 0 0 .1 4 -R, p l ai n t i ff b ears a h eav y b urd en t o s h o w th atDo D In s t r. 1 3 3 0 .1 7 , En c. 5 , Para. 1 rewri t es o r o t h erwi s e al ters § 2 4 83 (b )(5 ) an dDo D FM R 7 0 0 0

. 1 4 -R. Pl ai n t i ff d oes n o t m eet t h i s b u rd en
.

6 / The court relies on the 2014 version of DoD I nstr. 1330.17, as does plaintiff in its reply brief. The ag ency ’s solicitation was challeng e d in this court on December 11, 2014 when the 2014 version of DoD I

nstr. 1330.17 was already in effect. The new version of the instruction was also already

in force when the ag ency issued Amendment 0005 and solicited revised proposals, and when REI challeng ed the elimination of the transportation subsidy before GAO in late J uly 2014. In any

case, there are no substantive changes from 2008 to 2014 in the relevant tex t of this instruction. 22Do D In s t r. 1 33 0 .1 7 , En c. 5 , Para. 1 s t at es i n rel ev an tp artth at : (2 ) Ap p ro p ri at edfu n d s wi ll b e u s edt o co ver t h e fo l l o wi ng ex p en s es o f o p erat i n g t h e co m m i s s ary p ro g ram
. . . .

. . . . (b ) Tra ns po rta ti o n. Seco ndd es t i n at i o n tran s p o rt at i o n co s t s o f co m

m i s s ary m erch an d i s e, s up p l i es , an d equ i p m en twi t h i n o r o u t s i d e t h e Un i t edSt at es t o i n cl ud e t ran s o cean i c m o vem en to f g o o d s t o an d fro m o v ers eas an dU.S. s ea an daeri al p o rt s o f em b ark at i o n t o fi rs t d es t in at i o n o v ers eas ; m o v em en t o f U.S. an d fo rei g n g oo d s wi t h i n fo rei g n areas ; an dm o v em en to f U.S. g o od s b etw een Do D i n s tal l at i o ns
. Pl .’ s M o t . Ap p . 4 at3 1. Acco rd i n g t o p l ai n t i ff, Do D In s t r. 1 3 30 .1 7 , En c. 5 , Para. 1 cl as h es wi t h t he ag en cy ’ s i nt erp ret at i o n o f “ s eco n d d es t i n at i o n t ran s p o rt at i o n co s t s ,” an dthe s o l i ci t at i o n’ s F.O.B. Des ti n at i o n d el i v ery t erm , b ecau s e i t

“ u n equ iv o cal l y

s p eci fi es th ats eco n dd es ti n at i o n t ran s p o rt at i o n i n cl ud es t ran s ocean ic m o vem en t o f g o o d s t o fi rs td es t in at i o n o v ers eas .” Pl

. ’ s M o t . at2 7

. Th e co u rtd i s ag rees fo r t h e fo l lo wi n g reas o n s
. Fi rs t , p l ai nt i ff’ s i n t erp ret at i o n o f Do D In s t r. 1 3 3 0 .1 7 , En c. 5 , Para. 1 co n fl i ct s wi t h th e o n ly

reas o n ab l e i n t erp ret at i o n o f § 2 4 8 3 (b )(5 ) an d Do D FM R 7 0 0 0 .1 4 -R. Seco n d , Do D In s t r. 1 33 0 .1 7 i nco rp o rat es th e d efi n i ti o n o f th e t erm s fi rs td es t i n at i o n t ran s p o rt at i o n an ds eco n dd es t i nat i on tran s po rt at i o n p ro v id edb y Do D FM R 7 0 0 0 .1 4 -R b y i n cl u d i n g th es e i n the g l o s saryo f Do D In s tr. 1 3 3 0 .1 7 – an y u s e o f s u ch t erm s i n Do D In s t r. 1 3 3 0 .1 7 , En c. 5 , Para. 1 n eces s ari l y ap p l i es th a t d efi n i t i o n , n o ts o m e co n fl i ct i n g d efi n i t i o n . Th i rd , a h arm o n i zi n g read i n g o f t h i s p o rt i o n o f Do D In st r. 1 3 3 0 .1 7 , En c. 5 , Para. 1 , wh i ch p aral l el s t h e u n d erl y i n g s t atu te, i s th atth i s t ex t o n l yad dres s es s eco n dd es t i n at i o n t ran s po rt at i o n co s t s , an d t h atth e referen ce t o “ fi rs td es t i n at i o n” i n th e t ex ti s n o ta referen ce t o “ fi rs t d es t i nat io n tran s p o rt at io n ” b u tt o a fi rs ts t o p i n t h e s eco ndd es ti n at i o n t ran s po rt at i o n i t i n eraryo f an i t em o f co m m i s s ary m erch an d i s e. 7 Fo u rt h , th e co u rt

7 / The court does not rely on the g overnment’s arg

ument that the term “commissary (continued...) 23m

u std efer t o t h e ag en cy ’ s i n t erp ret at i o n o f i ts o wn reg u l at o ry p ro v i s i o n i f i ti s am bi g uo u s
. E.g

. , Pr i ce v. Pa n et ta , 6 7 4 F.3 d1 3 3 5, 1 3 4 2 (Fed . Ci r. 2 0 1 2) (ci t i n g W h i te v. Un i t ed Sta t es , 5 4 3 F.3 d1 3 3 0 , 1 3 3 7 -3 8 (Fed . Ci r. 2 00 8 )). Becau s e t h e co u rtd o es n o tfi n dth atDo D In s t r. 1 3 3 0 .1 7 , En c. 5 , Para. 1 u n am b i g uo u s l y d efi n es al l o v ers eas tran s p o rt at i o n o f co m m is s ary i t em s t o b e s eco n dd es ti nat i o n t ran s po rt at i o n , the co u rt fi n d s n o v i o l at i o n i n th e s o l i ci t at i o n o f § 2 4 8 3 (b )(5 ), Do D FM R 7 0 0 0 .1 4 -R o r Do D In s tr. 1 3 30 .1 7 , En c. 5 , Para. 1

.

2 . Secti o n 2 48 4 a nd a Rel a ted Reg ul a to ry Pro v i si o n Pl ai n t i ff al s o arg u es th atth e s o li ci tat i o n v i o lat es 1 0 U.S.C. § 2 4 8 4 (2 0 1 2 ) an d a rel at edreg u l at o ry

p ro v i s i o n , Do D In s t r. 1 3 3 0 .1 7 , En c. 5 , Para. 2 . Th i s l i n e o f arg u m en ti s s o m ewh atfo rced . Wh ereas § 2 48 3 (b )(5 ) ad dres ses wh en DeCA s h al l u s e ap p ro p ri at edfu n d s fo r t ran s p o rt at i o n p u rp o s es , § 2 4 8 4 (e) d o es n o t ad dres s DeCA’ s u s e o f ap p ro p ri at edfu n d s fo r t ran s po rt at i o n b uti n s teadad dres s es t h e p ri ci n g o f g o o ds atco m m i s s ari es
. Co mp a r e 1 0 U.S.C. § 2 4 8 3 (t i t l ed

“ Co m m i s s ary s t ores : u s e o f ap p ro p ri at edfu nd s t o co v er o p erat i n g ex p en s es ”), wi th 1 0 U.S.C. § 2 4 8 4 (t i t l ed“ Co m m i s sarys t o res : m erch an d is e t h at m ay b e s o l d ; u n i fo rm s u rch arg es an dp ri ci ng ”); i d

. § 2 4 84 (e) (t i t l ed“ Sal es p ri ce es t ab l i s h m en t ”). Th e el i m i n at io n o f t h e t ran s p o rt at i o n s ubs i dy wh ich REI ch al l en g es i n t h e s o l i ci t at io n i s m o re a co st o f o p er a t i o n s t erm

th ana p r i ci n g

t erm , i n the co u rt ’ s v i ew. Fo r t hi s reas o n, § 2 4 8 3 m ore d i rect l y b ears o n th e ch al l en g e t o t h e s o l i ci t at i o n rai s edb y

p l ai n t i ff i n Co u n tI o f t h e am en d edco m p l ai n t , an d § 2 48 4 , i f i ti s i n d eedrel ev an tt o th e d i s p ut e, h as s i g n i fi can tl y l es s rel ev an ce. 8
Th e n ex tp ro b lem wi t h p l ai n t i ff’ s rel ian ce o n § 2 4 8 4(e) i s th ati td o es n o t ap p ear t o h av e an y ap p l icab i l i ty t o th e Paci fi c Area FFV co n t ract . Inrel ev an tp art , t h e s t atu t e s t at es th at :

7 (...continued) merchandise” has a special, post-delivery meaningin this regu latory tex t. Def.’s Mot. at 29-30; Def.’s Reply

at 9-10.

8 / Of course, the log ical connection between transportation costs and pricing cannot be ig nored. This does not necessarily mean, however, that plaintiff may impose § 2484 and its interpretingregulation upon a claim that fits squarely within the scope of § 2483 and its interpretingregulations. 24(1 ) Th e Secret ary o f Defen s e s h al l es t ab l i s h the s al es p ri ce o f each i t em

o f m erch an d i se s o l d i n , at , o r b y co m m is s ary s t o res at t h e l ev el th atwi l l reco up th e act u al p ro du ctco s to f t h e i t em
.

. . . . (3 ) Th e s al es p ri ce o f m erch an d i s e an ds erv i ces s o l d i n , at , o r b y co m m i s s ary s t o res s hal l b e ad

ju st edt o co ver t h e fo l l o wi ng : (A) Th e co s to f fi rs td es t i n at i o n co m m erci al t ran s p o rt at i o n o f t h e m erch an d i se i n t h e Un i t edSt at es t o t h e p l ace o f s al e. . . . 1 0 U.S.C. § 2 4 8 4 (e). Th e s o l i ci t at i o n o b vi o u s l y d o es n otv i o l at e § 2 4 8 4(e)(1 ), b ecau s e th e F.O.B. Des t i nat i o n d el i v ery t erm d o es fu n ct io n t o “ reco up t h e act u al p ro ductco s to f t h e i t em .” Id

. Pl ai n t i ff rel i es , p ri m ari l y , o n § 2 4 8 4 (e)(3 )(A). Pl .’ s M o t . at1 7 ; Pl .’ s Rep l y at4 -5 . Inth e co u rt ’ s v i ew, § 2 4 8 4 (e)(3 )(A) i n d i cat es th at fi rs td es t i n at i o n t ran s po rt at i o n co s t s “ i n t h e Un i t edSt at es ” are p as s edo n t o co m m i s saryp at ro n s t h ro u g h u n s ub si d i zedp ri ci ng , an dare n ot p ai dfo r b y ap p ro p ri at edDeCA fu n d s
. Is s u ch a p ro v i s i o n i n co m p at ib l e wi t h th e co u rt ’ s i n t erp ret at i o n o f § 2 4 8 3 ? Iti s n o t . Nei th er s t atu t e req u ires DeCA t o p ay fo r fi rs td es t i nat i o n tran s p o rt at i o n co st s wi t h ap p ro p ri at ed fu n d s
. Is § 2 4 8 4 (e)(3 )(A) i n co m p at i b l e wi th th e s o li ci tat i o n ? Iti s n o t . Th e s o l i ci t at i on ad dres s es over s ea s fi rs td es t i n at i o n t ran s p o rt at i o n co s t s (t h es e wi l l b e b o rn e b y t h e co n t ract o r); § 2 4 8 4 (e)(3 )(A) l i m it s i t s fo cu s t o fi rs td es ti n at i o n t ran s po rt at i o n co s t s “ i n t h e Un i t edSt at es .” Th e m o s t l o g i cal read in g o f § 2 48 4 (e)(3 )(A) i s th ati ti s i nap p l i cab l e t o o v ers eas t ran s po rt at i o n co st s o f an y k i n d

. 9 Th e o n l y o t h er l o g i cal read i n g o f § 2 4 84 (e)(3 )(A) wh i ch i s co ns i s t en twi t h

9 / Plaintiff, in its reply

brief, cursorily

sug g ests that § 2484(e)(3)(A) must be read to define all overseas transportation as second destination transportation, pursuant to the canon of statutory construction expressio unius est exclusio alterius , citingthe readily disting uishable analy sis in Archuleta v. Hopper , 773 F .3d 1289, 1295 (F ed. Cir. 2014). Pl.’s Reply at 4-5 & nn.3-4. This canon sug g ests that when a statute exp resses or includes one thing , the implication is that the statute ex cludes the other, or the alternative. B lack’s L aw Dictionary 701 (10th ed. (continued...) 25§ 2 48 3 (b )(5 ), al t h ou g h i ti s a s trai n edo ne, i s thatco m m i s s ary p ri ces o v ers eas wi l l b e ad j u s t edt o refl ectactu al p ro du ct co s t (wi t h ou ta t ran s p o rt at i o n s ubs i dy ) wh en a co n tract or d el i vers “ m erch an d is e i n th e Un i t edSt at es ” d i rect ly t o a p l ace o f s al e s u ch as an o vers eas co m

m i s s ary . Th i s al tern at e read i n g o f § 2 4 8 4 (e)(3 )(A) l i kewi s e p o s es n o co n fl i ctwi th th e d el i v ery t erm s o f t h e s ol i ci t at i on . Th e co u rt s ees n o v i o l at i o n o f § 2 4 8 4 (e) i n th e s o li ci t at i o n. Pl ai n t i ff’ s rem ai n i n g arg u m en treg ard i n g o vers eas tran s po rt at i o n co s t s fo cu s es o n Do D In s t r. 1 3 30 .1 7 , En c. 5 , Para. 2 , t i t l ed“ Sal es Pri ce an dSu rch arg e As s es s m en t .” Pl

. ’ s M o t

. Ap p . 4 at3 3 . Th e co u rtn o tes th atthi s i n s t ru ct i o n ’ s fo cu s i s o n p ri ci n g , n o t o p erat in g co s t s o r t h e u s e o f ap p ro p ri at edfu n d s fo r o p erat i n g co s t s
. S ee s u p r a n o t e 8 an dacco m

p an y in g t ex t . Th e t ex trel i ed upo n b y p l ai n t i ff, Pl .’ s M o t . at2 7 -2 8 , s i m

pl y s t at es th at : Pu rs uan tt o s ect i o n 2 4 84 (e) . . . , th e s al es p ri ce o f each i t em o f m erch an di s e an d s erv ices s o l d i n , at , o r b y co m m is s ary s t o res wi l l reco up : th e act u al p ro du ctco s t o f th e i t em , co m

m erci al fi rs td es t in at io n t ran s po rt at i o n o f

9 (...continued) 2014). The court does not ag ree that this canon, or Archuleta , is of any applicability

here. The canon is sometimes applied to ex c lude an unlisted item from the scope of a statute when a limited list of items has been provided. S ee, e.g. , Tenn. Valley Auth. v. Hill , 437 U.S. 153, 188 (1978) (refusing to ex pand the ex ceptions to the Endang ered Species Act bey ond those enumerated in the statute) (citation omitted); Archuleta , 773 F .3d at 1295 (citingthe canon to hold that “no ex ceptions should be read into [ 5 U.S.C.] § 7512 beyond the five that Congress specifically

created”) (citations omitted). The canon should not be applied, however, “unless it is fair to suppose that Congress considered the unnamed possibility and meant to say

no to it.” Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co. , 537 U.S. 149, 168 (2003) (citation omitted). B ecause § 2484(e)(3)(A) does not appear to contemplate overseas transportation at all, it is not fair to suppose that Cong ress ex cluded overseas transportation from the scope of the term “first destination commercial transportation” as that term is used in § 2484(e)(3)(A).
F urther, as plaintiff recog niz es, Cong ress has historically treated funding

for the transportation of g oods for domestic commissaries differently than fundingfor the transportation of g oods for overseas commissaries. Pl.’s Mot. at 16 n.4. To infer that § 2484(e)(3)(A) g overns overseas transportation of commissary g oods is a thesis not g rounded in the plain meaning of this statute or in any

applicable canon of statutory construction.

26t h e m erch an d i s e i n th e Un i t edSt at es t o t h e p l ace o f s al e

. . . . Pl .’ s M o t . Ap p . 4 at3 3. Becau s e t h e t ex to f t h i s i n s t ru ct io n m erel y res t at es th e rel ev an t co n ten to f § 2 48 4 (e), i ti s o f n o m ore u s e t o p l ai n t i ff than th e t ex t o f t h e actu al s t atu t e. S

ee s u p r a . Th e co u rtfi n d s n o v i o l at io n o f § 2 4 8 4(e)(3 )(A) o r i t s i m p l em en t i n g reg u l at o ry

p ro v i s i o n i n th e s o li ci t at i o n
. C. Ma rk et Res ea rch (Co unt I I )
Th e am en d edco m

p l ai ntn o t es atl eas t t hree al l eg edfl aws i n DeCA’ s m ark et res earch : fai l i n g to d i sco ver t h e fact th atth e t ran s po rt at i o n s ub s i dy i s n eces s ary t o s up p ortth e FFV n eed s o f t h e Paci fi c Area co m m i s s ari es ; fai l i n g t o t ak e i n to acco u n t th e h i g h p ri ces o f FFV i n th e Paci fi c Area; an d , fai li n g t o u n d ers t an dth at req u i ri n g t wen t y -fo u r h ou r d el i v ery wi l l p l ace an u n real i s t i c d ep en d en ce o n l o cal ly -g ro wnp ro duce. Am . Co m p l . ¶¶ 2 1 -2 3 , 2 6 -2 7 . In p l ai n t i ff’ s m o t io n , th e al l eg edfl aws i n DeCA’ s m ark etres earch are cri t i ci zedas ren d eri n g th e m ark et res earch g ro ss ly

i nad equat e: [I] n th e p l ace o f an y

fi n d in g s o n av ai l ab il i ty , p ri ce, qual i t y o r s afet y , DeCA’ s m ark etres earch co n s i st s i n s t eado f d es cri b i n g the s tep s DeCA t o okt o el i ci t p os s i b l e i n t eres ti n s ubm i t t i n g p ro p o s al s fo r t h i s req u irem en t. Th ere i s an i m p o rt an td i fferen ce, h o wev er, b etw een fi n d i n g co m

p an i es i n t eres t ed i n s ub m it t in g a p ro p o s al an dd et erm i n i n g t hatth e p ro cu rem en ts t rat eg y l i k el y wi l l res u l ti n th e acq u i s i ti o n o f p ro du ce at accep t ab l e l ev el s o f av ai l ab i l i t y , p ri ce, qu al i t y , an d s afet y . DeCA’ s m ark etres earch fai l s t o ad dres s t h es e fu n d am en t al s ub

ject s
. Pl .’ s M o t . at3 2

. Th e co u rt n o t es , fi rs t , th atth i s s o l ici t at i o n s eek s fres h fru i tan dv eg et ab l es , n o ts o p h i s t i cat edb od y

arm o r o r s tat e-o f-t h e-art i n fo rm at i o n t ech no l og y . Ag en ci es ap p ro p ri at el y

v ary th e ty p e an dam o un to f m ark etres earch th ey co ndu ctd ep en di n g o n th e i t em s p ro cu red . Seco n d , DeCA h as b een m an ag i n g FFV co n tract s i n a wi d e
27v ari et y

o f s et t i ng s fo r o v er t en y ears an dm u s t b e p res um edt o h av e a b as el i n e u n d ers t an d i n g o f t h e n eedfo r craft i n g ag reem en t s wh ich wi ll en s u re t he

“ av ai l ab i l i t y , p ri ce, qu al it y , an ds afet y ” o f p ro du ce. Th i rd , as n o ted su p ra , th e s o l i ci t at i on fav o rs l o cal s o urci n g o f p ro du ce b u t d o es n otreq u i re t hatco n t ract o rs ab an do n i m

p o rt edp ro du ce as a m ean s fo r fu l fi l l i n g th e FFV n eed s o f t h e Paci fi c Area co m m i ss ari es . Th e co u rtn o w tu rn s t o REI’ s s p eci fi c ch al l en ges t o th e ad equacyo f DeCA’ s m ark etres earch

. Pl ai n t i ff as s ert s t h at“ DeCA v i o l at edFAR 1 0 .0 0 2 (b )(1 )(i v )[ 1 0 ] b y fai l i n g t o co n si d er ‘ [t ] h e req u i rem en t s o f an y l aws an dreg u l at i o n s u n i qu e t o t h e i t em b ei n g acq u i red ’ –

n am el y th e s eco ndd es ti n at i o n t ran s p o rt at i o n s t atu t es an d reg u l at i on s .” Pl .’ s M o t . at3 2 . Th is ch al l en g e fai l s b ecau s e, as n ot ed s u p r a , t h e s o l i ci t at i o n d o es n o t

v i o l at e th e “ s eco n d d es ti n at i on tran s p o rt at i o n s t atu t es an d reg u l at i o n s .” Th e co u rts ees n o v i o l at i o n o f FAR 1 0

. 0 02 (b )(1 )(i v ) i n t h i s p ro cu rem en t. Pl ai n t i ff al s o as sert s th at“ DeCA . . . v i o l at edFAR 1 0 .0 0 1(a)(3 )(i ) b ecau s e i t h ad n o rat i on al b as i s up o n wh i ch t o draw an y co n cl u s i on s reg ard i ng ‘ s o u rces cap ab l e o f s at i s fy in g the ag en cy ’ s req ui rem en t s .’ ” Pl

. ’ s M o t . at3 2 . On t h e co n trary , atl eas tthree h i g h l y -p rai s edt ech n i cal p ro p o s al s were recei v edfo r each reg i o n i n the Paci fi c Area, i n cl u d i ng REI’ s p ro p os al an di t s fo rm er s ub co n t ract o r’ s p ro p os al . Inth e co u rt ’ s v i ew, th i s fact , as wel l as th e d o cu m en ts p ro v i d edt o s ub s t an t i at e t h e ag en cy ’ s m ark etres earch , AR Tab 4 , s h o wth at DeCA’ s m ark et res earch rat i on al l y

d et erm i n ed t h atth ere were s o u rces cap ab l e o f m eet i n g t h e FFV n eed s o f t h e Paci fi c Area co m m i s s ari es u n d er t h e t erm s o f t he s o l i ci t at io n
. Th e co u rts ees n o v i o l at i o n o f FAR 1 0 .0 0 1 (a)(3 )(i ) i n t h i s p ro cu rem en t

. Pl ai n t i ff al s o cl ai m s th atFAR 1 0 .0 0 2 (b )(1 ) was v io l at edb y DeCA:
DeCA’ s res earch was n o t “ s peci fi c t o th e i t em b ei ng acq u i red ” – i .e. , FF[] V fo r Do D co m m is s ari es i n th e Paci fi c Area –fo r wh i ch av ai l ab i l i t y , p ri ce, qu al i t y , an d s afet y are cri t i cal co n si d erat i o n s . In s t ead , th e res earch

1 0 / All citations to the F AR in this analy sis section are to the 2013 version of Part 10 in Title 48 of the Code of F ederal Reg u lations. 28m erel y i d en t i fi edfi rm s [t h at ] m ay b e i n t eres t edi n b id di n g fo r t he wo rk

. Pl .’ s M o t . at3 2 (qu o ti n g FAR 1 0 .0 0 2 (b )(1 )). Th e co u rt n ot es , fi rs t , th atal l o f t h e m ark etres earch i n T ab 4 ap p ears t o b e s p eci fi c t o “ FF[] V fo r Do D co m m i s s ari es i n the Paci fi c Area.” See, e.g

. , AR at3 0 2 -0 3 (n o t i ng th e g o al o f rep l aci ng th e i n cu m ben tPaci fi c Area FFV co n t ract wi t h a n ew o ne an dl i s t i n g t h e m ark et res earch t ech n i qu es u s edi n fu rt h eran ce o f th is g o al ); 3 0 4 -0 7 (l i s t i n g co m p an i es i d en t i fi edth ro ug h m ark et res earch as p o t en t i al s o u rces , i n cl u di n g s o m e wh i ch res p o n d ed t o th e s o l i ci t at i o n an db ecam e act u al o ffero rs ). Thu s , DeCA’ s m ark et res earch i s i n acco rdwi t h FAR 1 0 .0 0 2 (b )(1 ) an d d o es n o tv i o l at e t h e t erm s o f t hat reg u l at i o n as as sert edb y

p l ai n t i ff.
Seco n d , t o th e ex ten tth atREI as s ert s th atth e ag en cy was o b l i g ed , ei t h er b y t h e FAR o r b y

an y rat i o nal p ro cu rem en tp l an n i n g p ro ces s , t o co n s i d er t he

“ av ai l ab i l i t y , p ri ce, qu al it y , an ds afet y ” o f p ro du ce fo r t h e Paci fi c Area co m m i s s ari es , the co urt fi n ds th e reco rdo f t h e ag en cy ’ s acq u i s i t io n p lan n i n g an d m ark etres earch ad equ at e i n th is reg ard . As p l ai n t i ff i s fo rcedt o co n ced e, t h e ag en cy ack n o wl ed g ed t h e p art i cu lar ch al l en g es o f p ro v i d i n g FFV t o t h e Paci fi c Area co m m i ss ari es as i t i m

p l em en t edi t s d eci s i o n t o el i m i nat e t he t ran s p o rt at i o n s ub s i dy . S

ee Pl .’ s M o t . at3 1 -3 2 (ci t i n g AR at 3 3 1 , 4 1 8 , 4 8 4). J u s tb ecau se DeCA’ s an al y si s d is ag reed wi t h th e p os i t i o n ad v an cedh ere b y REI (t h ata t ran s po rt at i o n s ub s id y

i s th e o n l y

rat i o nal way

t o o b t ai n FFV fo r t h e Paci fi c Area), d o es no tm ean thatth e ag en cy ’ s m ark et res earch was n o t “ rat i o n al l y s uffi ci en t .” Am . Co m p l . ¶ 8 8

. In d eed , th e p ro p o s al s s ubm i t t edb y o ffero rs t en d ed t o l eg i t i m ize t h e ag en cy ’ s an al y s i s an d d i scred i tREI’ s co n ten t i o n s i n th i s reg ard

. Fi n al l y , p l ai n t iff as s ert s th at DeCA’ s m ark etres earch v io l at edFAR 1 0 .0 01 (a)(2 )(i ) b ecau s e i t p l ai n ly

was n o t“ ap pro p ri at e t o th e ci rcu m s t an ces , ” h av i n g fai l edt o co n s i d er an y o f t he s ub s t an t i v e fact o rs rel ev an tt o th is p ro cu rem en t– an d h av i n g i gn o redth e co n cern s rai s edi n i n t ern al DeCA em ai ls

.

29Pl .’ s M o t . at3 2 (qu o ti n g FAR 1 0 .0 0 1 (a)(2 )). Ap p aren t l y , REI i nt erp ret s FAR

1 0 .0 0 1 (a)(2 ) t o co m

m an dth atDeCA’ s m ark etres earch fo cu s p ri m ari l y o n th e
“ av ai l ab i l i t y , p ri ce, qu al it y , an ds afet y ” o f p ro du ce fo r t h e Paci fi c Area co m m i s s ari es , rat h er th an o n d et erm i n i n g wh et h er t h e m ark etfo r p o ten t i al co n tract ors fo r t he req u i rem en twas ad equ at el y ro b u s t . Wh at ev er t h e l og i c o f t h i s p ro p os i t i on , a m an dat e o f t h e fo cu s p ro po s edb y REI i s n o wh ere t o b e fo u n di n th e t ex to f FAR 1 0 .0 0 1 (a)(2 ). Th e co u rtfi n ds n o v i o l at io n o f FAR 1 0 .0 0 1 (a)(2 )(i ) i n DeCA’ s m ark etres earch , wh i ch , i n th e co u rt ’ s v iew, was ap p ro p ri at e u n d er t h e ci rcu m s t an ces
. 1 1
As t o th e m o re g en eral qu es t i o n o f wh et her DeCA was o b l i gedt o b o t h i d en t i fy s o u rces t o p erfo rm

th e co n t ract as wel l as i n v es ti g at e p o t en t ial ch al l en g es t o co n tract p erfo rm an ce as p arto f i t s m ark etres earch , d efen d an tn o t es th atth e ag en cy h as s ub s t an t i al d i s cret i o n i n th e s co p e an dm an n er o f co n du ct i n g m ark et res earch . Def.’ s M o t . at3 1 -3 2 (ci t i n g a n u m ber o f FAR p ro v i si o n s , i n cl ud i n g FAR 1 0 .0 0 2 (b )(1 )). Defen d an th as al s o cat al o g u edth e s o l ici t at i o n t erm s wh i ch wi l l ai d DeCA i n as s u ri n g th atth e “ av ai lab i l i t y , p ri ce, qu al it y , an d s afet y ” co n cern s rai sedb y

REI are ad equ at el y

ad dres s edb y

th e o ffero rs
. Id

. at 3 3

. Fi n al l y , d efen d an t co n ten d s th atth e p o s i t i v e ev al u at io n s o f m o sto f t h e p ro p o s al s recei v eds h o w th atREI’ s co n cern s as t o t h e “ av ai l ab i l i t y , p ri ce, qu al i t y , an d s afet y ” o f p ro du ce were ad equ at el y ad dres s edi n DeCA’ s m ark etres earch an db y t h e o ffero rs th em sel v es
. Id

. at3 3 -3 4

. GAO ag reed wi t h the ag en cy ’ s p o s it i on o n thi s i s s u e, an ds t at edth at [w] h i l e t h e reco rd refl ect s thatth e ag en cy ’ s m ark et res earch m ay

n o t h av e b een as ex pan s i ve as t he m ark et res earch co m

m i s s i o n edb y

[REI i n t he [ ] Stu dy ] , we v iew i tas ad equ at e u n d er t h e ci rcu m s t an ces o f t h i s p ro cu rem en t . Inth i s reg ard , i t i s ev i d en t t h atth e ag en cy co n du ct edm ark etres earch t o i d en t i fy s o u rces cap ab l e o f

1 1 / The ag ency ’ s market research did not include many of the more formal ex c hang es with industry

noted in F AR 15.201. As defendant notes, however, DeCA’s market research team met with two representatives of REI , in accordance with F AR 10.002(b)(2) and F AR 15.201(c)(4). SeeAR at 338-39. DeCA clearly did more than merely

identify potential sources for the contract as it conducted market research. 30s at i s fy i n g the ag en cy ’ s req ui rem en t , as d es cri b edi n FAR § 1 0 .0 01 (a)(3 )(i ).
AR at3 7 6 5 (ci t at i o n s t o th e GAO reco rdo m i t t ed ). GAO n o t ed , t o o , th atDeCA h as p lan s t o m o n i t o r p ri ce i n creas es p ai d b y co m m i s s ary p at ro n s s o th atth es e rem ai n “ reas o n ab le,” an dth atth e PSD wi l l en s u re t h atp at ro n s p ay p ri ces th atare atl eas t fi ft een p ercen tb el o w co m p arab l e FFV p ri ces i n l ocal s t o res
. Id

. Th e co u rt ag rees wi t h GAO th atDeCA’ s m ark etres earch i n t hi s p ro cu rem en t was reas o n ab l e an d d i d n o tv i o l at e th e FAR.
D. Una v a i la bl e Pro duce i n the Pri ce Ev a l ua ti o n Schem e (Co unt I I I)
Co u ntTh ree o f th e am en d edco m p l ai n t co nt ai n s a t wo -p ro ng edch al l en g e t o t h e s o l i ci t at i o n ’ s p ri ce ev al uat i o n s ch em e:

Th e So l i ci t at i o n ’ s p ri ce ev al uat i on p ro v i s i on s co n t ai n am b i gu o u s an dco n t rad i ct o ry s t at em en t s reg ard i ng th e m ean i n g o f “ av ai l ab l e” FFV. Th e So l i ci t at i o n al s o es t ab l i sh es an i l lo g i cal s ch em e fo r p ri ci n g an dev al u at i n g FF[] Vth atan o ffero r d et erm i n es are u n av ai l ab l e. Am . Co m p l . ¶ 3 7

. Defen d an targ u es i n reb u tt al th atth e rel ev an t s ol i ci t at i on t erm s, wh i ch m u s tb e co n si d eredt o g eth er, are n o tam b i gu o u s . Def.’ s M o t . at 4 0

. A l o g i cal p l ace t o t es tp l ai n ti ff’ s co n ten t i o n s i s th e t ex to f t he s o l i ci t at i o n i ts el f.
Hi g h Vo l u m e Co re It em s (HVCI) are t h i rt y -fi ve m ai n s t ream p ro du ce i t em s i n the t y p i cal Am eri can d i ets u ch as ap p l es , b an an as , carro t s an dt o m at o es . AR at 5 9 , 1 1 3 -2 4 . Each o ffero r m u s t s up p l y

p ri ce i n fo rm at io n fo r i t s HVCI. See i d

. at 3 7 7 4 (“ Un i tp ri ces are req u iredfo r each HVCI fo r each CLIN.”). In g en eral , th e l i sto f HVCI i s fi x edb y

th e s ol i ci tat i o n an dth e o ffer o f s ub s t i tut e p ro du ce m ay b e reas on fo r el i m i n at i o n o f an o ffero r. Id

. (“ Pro p o s ed al t ern at e HVCI s ub m i s s i o n s i n l ieu o f t h e HVCI s t at edi n t h e s o l i ci t at i o n wi l l b e d is reg ard edwi t h o u tth e Co n t ract i n g Offi cer’ s co n s en t . Fai l u re t o p ro v i d e t he HVCI req ui redb y th e s o l i ci t at i on m ay

res u l ti n rem o v al fro m

fu rt her co n s i d erat i o n fo r co n t ract award

. ”).

31Th e s o l i ci t at i o n i d en t i fi es a l i m i tedex cep t i o n t o th e req u i rem en tth atan

o ffero r s ub m itp ri ces fo r a l l HVCI, an dth e p art i es ap p ear t o ag ree t h atth i s ex cep t i o n wo u l db e rarel y , i f ev er, i n v o k ed :

Offero rs m ay

i d en t i fy t o th e Co nt ract i n g Offi cer an y HVCI t h ati s n o t av ai lab l e g l o bal l y wi t h i n t h e s p eci fi cat io n req u iredb y t he s o l i ci t at i o n . Th e Co n t ract i n g Offi cer wi l l p ro v id e fi n al d i s p o si t i o n o n t h o se HVCI i d en t ifi ed

. AR at3 7 7 4 . Thus , fo r ex am pl e, u n l es s an o ffero r b el iev es th at“ carro t s p eel ed m i n i ,” i d

. at 1 2 3 , can n o tb e s up p l i edfro m an y wo rl dwi d e p ro du cer an dcan n o tb e p ri ced , th ato ffero r wi l l n ot s eekan ex cep t i o n fro m th e g en eral ru l e an dwi l l p ro v id e an HVCI u n i t p ri ce fo r “ carro t s p eel edm i n i” as req u iredb y t h e s o l i ci t at i on . Th i s t ex t o f t h e s ol i ci t at io n i s n o tam b i g u o u s
. Lo ca l av ai l ab i l i t y i s ad dres s edb y an o t h er s eto f p ro v i s i o n s i n th e p ri ce ev al u at i on s ch em e s etfo rt h i n t h e s o l i ci tat i o n . Th es e p ro v i si o n s ex p l ai n th atth e g en eral m et h od o l o gy

fo r ev al u at i n g t h e l og i c o f ano ffero r’ s Pat ro n Sav i n gs Di s co u n t(PSD) i s fo r DeCA t o co m p are an o ffero r’ s HVCI u ni t p ri ces t o HVCI p ri ces i n n earb y

s t o res i n th atreg i on . AR at3 7 7 4. Th is p ri ce co m p ari s o n , h o wev er, wi l l ex cl u d e cert ai n HVCI t h atare n o t av ai l ab le i n l o cal m ark et s du ri n g t h e s n ap s h o t -i n -t i m e week :

If a HVCI i s n otav ai l ab le o n th e l o cal eco n o m y fo r t he M ark etBas k etSu rv ey

du ri ng th e t i m e 1 4 -2 0 J u l y 2 0 1 4 . . . , the i t em

wi ll n o t b e co n s id eredfo r ev al u at io n u n d er t h e Pri ce Ev al u at io n Fact o r. Id

. at2 4 2 . Th e s n ap s h o t -i n -t i m e weekl at er i s i d en t i fi edb y Am en d m en t0 0 0 6 as Decem b er 8 -1 4 , 2 0 1 4. Id

. at 3 7 7 3 . Thu s , l o cal av ai l ab il it y d oes n o t affect th e req u i rem en tth atan o ffero r s ub m i ta u n itp ri ce fo r al l HVCI, i taffect s th e n u m b er o f i t em s th atwi ll b e u s edb y DeCA t o co m

p are an o ffero r’ s u n i tp ri ces fo r HVCI t o l ocal HVCI u n i t p ri ces . Th es e s o l i ci tat i o n p ro v i s i o n s , t o o , are rat i o n al an d u n am b i g u o u s
.

32Al t h ou g h p lai n t i ff co n ten d s th atp ro v i d i n g HVCI u n i tp ri ces fo r l o cal l y

u n av ai l ab l e p ro du ce i s n au g h t b u t“ a m ean i n g l es s ex erci s e” wh en th es e u n i tp ri ces wi l l n o tb e u s edt o ev al u at e an o ffero r’ s p ri ce p ro p os al , Pl .’ s Rep l y at2 1 , th e co u rt d o es no tv iew s u ch an ap p ro ach as i rrat i o nal . As d efen dan t n o t es , DeCA d i dn o t p re-d et erm i n e l o cal u n av ai l ab il i t y o f p ro du ce. Def.’ s Rep l y at1 7 . Iti s far m o re l o g i cal t o s i ftth ro u g h each o ffero r’ s co m p let e s eto f HVCI u n i tp ri ces an dweed o u tth o s e HVCI t h ath av e b een d et erm i n edb y DeCA t o b e l o cal l y

u n av ai l ab l e, t h an t o ex p ectal l o f t h e o ffero rs t o u n i fo rm l y i d en t i fy an dp ri ce o n l y

th o s e i t em s t h atth ey b el i ev e are av ai l ab l e l o cal l y . Th e co u rtfi n d s n o th i n g arb i t rary o r cap ri ci ou s i n th e ag en cy ’ s d efi n i t i on s o f av ai l ab le p ro du ce i n t h e s ol i ci t at io n , o r i n a p ri ce ev al u at i o n s ch em e t h at u n am b ig u o u s l y t ak es l o cal av ai lab i li t y

o f p ro du ce i n t o acco u n twh enco m

p ari n g th e o ffero rs ’ p ro p o s al s. 1 2
E. Pri ce Rea s o na bl enes s Mea s ures (Co unt I V)
Pl ai n t i ff’ s fi n al at t acko n th e s o l i ci t at i o n fo cu s es g en eral l y o n t he p ri ce ev al u at i on s ch em e:

Th e So l i ci t at i o n v i o l at es s t atu to ry an d reg u l at o ry req u irem en ts b ecau s e t h e h y p o t h et i cal p ri ces o f HVCI i t em s t hatDeCA i n t en d s t o ev al uat e fo r p ri ce reas o n ab l en es s an d/ o r real i s m b ear n o m ean in g fu l co n n ect i o n t o th e am o u n t s th atwi l l b e ch arg edu n d er the co n t ract an d p ro v i d e l i t t l e i n s ig h ti n t o an o ffero r’ s actu al ab i li t y t o p erfo rm o r t h e reas o nab l en es s o f t h e co s to f t h e co n t ract

.

1 2 / The ag ency ’ s discussion of produce availability evolved from the initial responses it provided to offerors’ questions in Amendment 0001. SeeAR at 288-89. Amendment 0005, in particular, replaced this earlier g uidance. See id. at 242 (noting that this amendment chang ed the solicitation’s terms for “High Volume Core Items (HVCI ) and Item Substitution for Market B a sket Survey s”). Amendment 0006 further amended the price evaluation scheme. Id. at 3773- 78. As amended, the solicitation contains no ambig uity as to the “availability” of produce or the effect of the availability

of produce on the price evaluation of proposals. To the ex tent that there theoretically mig h t be some minor ling eringambigu ity in the solicitation reg ardingthe availability

of produce, such an error would be de minimis and would neither prevent offerors from submitting rational price proposals nor prevent DeCA from conducting a rational evaluation of price proposals. 33Am. Compl. ¶ 96. In other words, REI argues that the solicitation’s price

evaluation methodology “will not meaningfully assess the cost under the contract for any of the offerors.” Id. The court notes that GAO considered DeCA’s stated price evaluation approach to be reasonable as long as the solicitation was corrected to clarify how that price evaluation would be implemented. AR at 3758, 3760 n.7. In its motion, plaintiff explains that it is not the snapshot-in-time methodology that renders the agency’s price evaluation scheme meaningless, but the fact that DeCA refused to supply offerors with its baseline local market basket prices upon which the offerors could calculate their proposed minimum PSD:

In sum, the Solicitation’s price reasonableness and realism evaluation methodology is flawed, illogical, and arbitrary because the HVCI prices will not be calculated from a common baseline. It could lead to critical miscalculations and the unequal treatment of offerors. Pl.’s Mot. at 37. The object of a price reasonableness inquiry is to prevent the government from paying too much for procured items. 13 E.g. , DMS All Star Joint Venture v. United States , 90 Fed. Cl. 653, 657 n.5 (2010). In plaintiff’s view, DeCA would only be able to accurately compare the reasonableness of price proposals if each offeror based its proposed PSD on a common baseline local market basket price, rather than on an individually-conducted market basket survey of local prices. See Pl.’s Mot. at 36 (“Without [a market basket survey] equivalent common to all offers, different offerors invariably will start with different perceptions of the market prices, meaning that any evaluation of the resulting proposed HVCI prices will be arbitrary and capricious.”). The court cannot agree with plaintiff’s assumptions. First, plaintiff misunderstands the unit price data each offeror will supply to DeCA. Each offeror is to communicate both its proposed PSD and its local price assumptions for HVCI. See Def.’s Mot. at 45 (“After receiving offerors[’] proposed unit prices for the snapshot time period, DeCA will have an understanding of what offerors

13 / As previously noted, a price realism analysis is not required by the solicitation and the particularities of such analyses need not be discussed further in this opinion. See supra note 4. 34p ercei v e t o b e t h e l ocal m ark etp ri ce up o n wh i ch th ey are ap p ly i n g th ei r p at ro n

s av i n g s d i s co u n t .”). Th u s , th ere wi l l b e ad equ at e d at a fo r DeCA t o av o i drel i an ce o n an y i n accu rat e m ark etb as k ets u rv ey s o r o n an y i naccu rat e PSDs

. 1 4
Seco n d , o ffero rs co m

m i tt o a m i n i m

u m PSD fo r t he b as e p eri o d an dth e o p t i o n y ears o f t h e co n t ract

. S ee AR at3 77 4 , 3 7 7 6 -7 8

. Th e PSD i n each p ro p o sal t h erefo re al l ows DeCA t o co m p are t h e t ru e co s to f p ro po s al s, b ecau s e t he PSD an d fl uctuat i n g l o cal m ark etp ri ces , t o g et h er, wi l l b e a g o o d p red i ct o r o f t h e co s to f co n tract p erfo rm an ce. Th e rel ev an t t ex ti n t h e s o l i ci t at io n d es cri b es th e o v eral l ap p ro ach t o d et erm i n i n g p ri ce reas o n ab l en es s b as edo n th e d at a p ro v i d edb y th e o ffero rs : Th e p ro p os edu n itp ri ces fo r t h e HVCI p ro v id edb y each o ffero r wi l l b e an al y zedfo r p ri ce reas o nab l en es s an dth e accu racy of t h e ap p l i cat i o n o f th e p ro po s edPri ce (m i n i m u m percen t ag e o f p atro n s av i n g s ). Th e p ro p o sed u ni t p ri ces fo r t h e HVCIs s h al l refl ectth e ap p l i cat i o n o f t h e p ro p o s edPri ce (m i n i m u m p ercen t ag e o f p at ro n s av i ng s) b as ed o n m ark etb as k ets u rv ey equ i v al en t s co n du ct eddu ri n g t h e p eri od8 -1 4 Decem b er 2 0 1 4

. . . . Th e Go v ern m en twi l l an al y ze t h e HVCI u n i tp ri ces p ro v i d edb y

o ffero rs fo r t he s peci fi edp eri o d fo r p ri ce reas o n ab l en es s o r real i s m , h o wev er the HVCI u n i t p ri ces wi l l n o tb e the b as i s o f co n tract award

. Id

. at3 7 7 4

. Th e co u rt v i ews th e ag en cy ’ s cl ari fi edfo cu s o n PSD fo r i t s p ri ce ev al u at i o n , AR at3 7 7 2 -7 8 , as fu n d am en tal l y rat i o n al an d fu l fi l l i n g th e s t atu t o ry an d reg u l at o ry

req u i rem en ts ci t edb y

p l ai n t i ff. Here, d es p i te p lai n t i ff’ s arg u m en t s t o t h e co n t rary , th e p ri ce ev al u at i o n s ch em e co ll ect s b ot h s uffi ci en t an du s efu l d at a fro m th e o ffero rs an d rat i o n al l y ex pl ai n s h o w th is d at a wi ll b e u s edt o d et erm i n e

1 4 / I f DeCA had provided a baseline market basket survey of local prices, as plaintiff sug g ests, the ag ency

would be forced to accept proposed PSDs larg ely on faith. There is no advantag e to plaintiff’s preferred price evaluation method. 35t h e p ri ce reas o n ab l en es s o f p ro p o s al s . Th e s o l i ci t at i o n ’ s p ri ce ev al u at i o n s ch em e

v i o l at es n o l aws o r reg u l at i o n s an di s n o tarb i t raryo r cap ri ci o u s
. CONCLUSI ON
Pl ai n t i ff h as fai l edt o s ho w th atth e s o l i ci t at i o n i s “ arb i t rary , cap ri ci o u s , an ab u se o f d i s cret i o n , o r o th erwi se n o ti n acco rd an ce wi t h l aw.” 5 U.S.C. § 7 06 (2 )(A). Becau s e p l ai n t i ff’ s b i dp ro t es th as n o ts u cceed edo n the m eri t s , th e co u rtn eedn o t co n s i d er wh et her p l ai n t iff h as p ro vedp reju di ci al erro r o n th e p art o f t h e g o v ern m en tan dn eedn o ti n qu i re fu rth er i n t o the fact o rs th atm i g htju s t i fy i n ju n ct i v e rel i ef. Acco rd i n g 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 J u d gm en t o n th e Ad m in i s t rat iv e Reco rd , fi l ed Decem b er 2 9 , 2 0 14 , i s DENI ED ; (2 ) Defen d an t ’ s Cro s s -M o t i o n fo r J u d g m en to n t he Ad m i n is t rat i v e Reco rd , fi l edJ an u ary 1 2 , 2 0 1 5 , i s GRANTED ; (3 ) 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 t , DI SMI SSI NG th e am en d edco m p l ai n t wi t h p reju d i ce; (4 ) Ono r b efo re Februa ry 2 7 , 2 0 1 5 , co un s 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 areda cted co py o f t h i s o pi ni o n , wi t h an y

m at eri al d eem edp ro p ri et ary m ark edo u t an d en cl o s 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 aredan dm ad e av ai l ab l e i n th e p ub l i c reco rdo f t hi s m at t er; an d (5 ) Each p art y

s h al l b ear i t s o wnco s t s.

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

36