In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

BID PROTEST 

No. 19-685C 

(Filed Under Seal: August 12, 2019 | Reissued: August 27, 2019)*

TRAX INTERNATIONAL 

CORPORATION,

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Defendant, 

 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Keywords: Standing; Prejudice; PreAward Protest; FAR 15.206(a); 

Procurement Integrity Act; Substantial 

Chance; Non-Trivial Competitive Injury. 

 

 

 

Amy L. O’Sullivan, Crowell & Moring LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff. James G. Peyster,

Olivia L. Lynch, Stephanie L. Crawford, and G. Meredith Parnell, Crowell & Moring LLP, 

Washington, DC, Of Counsel. 

Eric P. Bruskin, Senior Trial Counsel, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, 

DC, for Defendant, with whom were Douglas K. Mickle, Assistant Director, Robert E. 

Kirschman, Jr., Director, Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General. Harry Parent, Trial 

Attorney, Contract and Fiscal Law Division, U.S. Army Legal Services Agency, Fort Belvoir, 

VA and Andrew J. Smith, Lieutenant Colonel, Judge Advocate, Branch Team Chief & Trial 

Attorney, Contract and Fiscal Law Division, U.S. Army Legal Services Agency, Fort Belvoir, 

VA, Of Counsel. 

 

*

 This opinion was originally issued under seal and the parties were given the opportunity to 

request redactions. The opinion is now reissued with redactions noted in brackets. The Court 

notes that it declines to redact the name of a declarant that TRAX requested be hidden from 

public view. TRAX has not identified any reason why the individual’s name should not be 

disclosed, much less a basis sufficient to overcome the “presumption of public access to judicial 

records.” Baystate Techs., Inc. v. Bowers, 283 F. App’x 808, 810 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also Does 

I Thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214 F.3d 1058, 1068–69 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth 

factors for courts to consider in balancing a party’s interest in anonymity with public interest in 

disclosure). 
2 

OPINION AND ORDER 

KAPLAN, Judge. 

Plaintiff TRAX International Corporation (“TRAX”) was excluded from a competition to 

supply the Department of the Army (“the Army” or “the agency”) with mission support services 

at the White Sands Missile Range (“WSMR” or “the Range”). The Army found the proposal 

technically unacceptable because of what the agency viewed as its excessive reliance for contract 

performance on a part-time workforce that would receive no fringe benefits. 

TRAX, the incumbent contractor, contends that the Army’s decision was arbitrary, 

capricious, and contrary to law. Specifically, it argues that—in violation of FAR 15.206(a)—the 

Army failed to amend the solicitation to reflect changes in what it alleges was the Army’s 

forecast regarding the number of labor hours that would be required to perform the contract. 

Second, TRAX contends that the agency did not perform a reasonable and complete 

investigation of an alleged Procurement Integrity Act (“PIA”) violation. 

Currently before the Court are the parties’ cross-motions for judgment on the 

administrative record, as well as the government’s motions to strike and TRAX’s motion to 

supplement the administrative record. For the reasons that follow, the Court concludes that 

TRAX has not established its standing to bring either of the two claims pressed in its complaint. 

Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice; TRAX’s motion for judgment 

on the administrative record is DENIED; and the government’s cross-motion is DENIED as 

moot. TRAX’s motion to supplement the administrative record and the government’s motion to 

strike documents attached to TRAX’s complaint and MJAR are both GRANTED-IN-PART 

and DENIED-IN-PART. Finally, the government’s motion to strike documents attached to 

TRAX’s reply in support of its MJAR is GRANTED. 

BACKGROUND 

I. The Solicitation 

The White Sands Missile Range is the Department of Defense’s “largest open-air land 

test range.” Administrative Record (“AR”) Tab 1a at 191. It was established “to provide for the 

operation of an integrated guided missile range under the command, management, and 

operational responsibility of the Army.” Id. The Range, which is located in New Mexico, 

“possesses extensive capabilities and infrastructure utilized by the Army, Navy, Air Force, 

NASA and other government agencies as well as universities, private industry and foreign 

militaries.” Id. at 191–92. It “supports National Security interests by providing the warfighter 

with data collection and analysis, instrumentation development, modeling and simulation, 

research, assessment, and technical services.” Id. at 191. 

TRAX is the incumbent Mission Support Services (“MSS”) contractor at the Range. In 

anticipation of the expiration of its contract with TRAX, on March 30, 2018 the Army issued 

Solicitation No. W91151-18-R-0005 (“the Solicitation”). AR Tab 1 at 1. The Solicitation 

requested proposals to perform a wide variety of “non-personal services to support the planning, 

logistics, operation, maintenance, research, and development of systems, equipment, and 
3 

facilities for the WSMR [Test and Evaluation] mission.” AR Tab 1a at 192. It contemplated the 

award of a “cost plus fixed fee term contract.” AR Tab 1 at 79; see also id. at 65. 

Under the Solicitation, the Army would determine best value on the basis of four factors: 

(1) “Mission Capability”; (2) “Past Performance”; (3) “Small Business Participation”; and (4) 

“Cost.” Id. at 81–82. The Mission Capability factor was “significantly more important” than Past 

Performance, while Past Performance was equal to Small Business Participation. Id. at 83. The 

combined “non-cost factors”—i.e., Mission Capability, Past Performance, and Small Business 

Participation—were “significantly more important” than Cost. Id. at 82. 

The “Mission Capability” factor, which is the focus of this protest, was comprised of 

three subfactors: “Program Management”; “Cost Management”; and “Recruitment and Retention 

of Technical Expertise.” Id. at 81. Under the Solicitation, if a proposal was assigned a 

“Marginal” or “Unacceptable” rating under any of these subfactors, then the Mission Capability 

factor as a whole would receive the same rating and the offeror would be ineligible for award. Id. 

at 83.

Of particular relevance to the present protest is Exhibit T to the Solicitation. Exhibit T is 

a ten-page document that lists the “total hours” of work for employees occupying several 

hundred labor categories during the base and option years of the contract. AR Tab 1a at 914–23. 

The hours for each labor category are listed on a CLIN-by-CLIN basis reflecting the cost of 

services for the clients to which they pertain. Id. 

The hours reflected in Exhibit T are based on historical data. Aug. 1, 2019 Hr’g (“Hr’g”) 

at 3:11:54–12:05. One of the central issues on the merits in this case is whether—as TRAX 

argues—the historical data reflected the agency’s forecast of the number of labor hours that 

would be required to perform under the new contract. According to the agency, the purpose of 

Exhibit T was simply to provide a baseline against which to evaluate the offerors’ cost proposals, 

and it was never intended to be treated as a prediction of the hours required for future 

performance, which would vary based on budget and other factors. 

The Solicitation’s instructions for proposing costs reference the “staffing information 

and total hours in Exhibit T by labor category,” and direct offerors to use them “as a baseline for 

developing proposed labor costs.” AR Tab 1 at 79. Offerors were also instructed that they “shall 

not deviate from the baseline staffing in Exhibit T except as instructed . . . to account for lead 

workers and straight overtime.” Id. 

II. TRAX’s Proposal 

After five Solicitation amendments, the Army received timely proposals from six 

offerors, including TRAX, which submitted its proposal on May 14, 2018. AR Tabs 2–6, 11. On 

August 21, 2018, the contracting officer (“CO”) sent TRAX three letters raising concerns (i.e., 

“perceived weaknesses, errors, omissions, or mistakes”) regarding its proposal in accordance 

with FAR 15.306(b) (entitled “Communications with offerors before establishment of the 

competitive range”). See generally AR Tabs 14a, 14b, 14c. The concerns expressed involved two 

related aspects of TRAX’s proposal: (1) its plan to use a predominantly part-time workforce to 
4 

provide services under the contract; and (2) its projection of drastic reductions in the amount of 

overtime work that would be needed to perform the contract. Id. at 6136–43. 

Specifically, TRAX had proposed that—as a cost-cutting measure—slightly over [***] 

percent of the workforce it employed would be part-time workers who would not be eligible for 

certain fringe benefits, such as holiday and vacation pay. See AR Tab 11b at 5432–35; AR Tab 

14a at 6136. In addition, TRAX’s proposal contemplated that it would need to assign work on an 

overtime basis at a tiny fraction of the Army’s historic rates. AR Tab 11b at 5435–36; AR Tab 

14c at 6141–42. 

In one of the three letters, the Army expressed “a concern about the proposed fringe 

benefits for part time (PT) employees and the impact it will have on retaining qualified 

personnel.” AR Tab 14a at 6136. In another, the Army stated a concern that TRAX’s proposal 

not to provide vacation time, paid holidays, or sick leave for part-time employees might violate 

Federal Acquisition Regulation clauses, Executive Orders, and provisions of the governing 

collective bargaining agreement. AR Tab 14b at 6138–40. In the third letter, the Army requested 

that TRAX confirm that its proposal contemplated the use of only [***]%, or [***] hours, of 

overtime notwithstanding that “historical overtime usage for this requirement are 378,998 

hours.” AR Tab 14c at 6142. It also asked TRAX to specify where in its proposal it had 

explained its “methodology” for achieving “quick reaction capability to meet last-minute mission 

changes and requirements” with such a drastic reduction in historical overtime hours. Id. 

On August 23, 2018, TRAX responded to each of the three letters. See generally AR 

Tabs 15a, 15b, 15c. TRAX affirmed that it intended to propose a [***] percent to [***] percent 

part-time/full-time workforce ratio. AR Tab 15a at 6144. In addition, it provided a cost-cutting 

rationale as the basis for its strategy, and responded to the Army’s questions regarding the fringebenefit eligibility of its proposed workforce. Id. at 6144–50; AR Tab 15b at 6151–54. Finally, in 

response to the CO’s third letter, TRAX challenged the Army’s suggestion that the number of 

overtime hours performed under prior contracts was pertinent to the work to be performed under 

the new contract. AR Tab 15c at 6155. It further stated that its use of part-time employees would 

be “an enabler for reducing overtime utilization” and that it would provide “an extremely 

efficient workforce,” which was “a key element” of its “cost management approach.” Id. at 6156. 

III. The SSEB’s Report 

On September 12, 2018, the Source Selection Evaluation Board (“SSEB”) submitted a 

Report and competitive range recommendation to the Source Selection Authority (“SSA”). AR 

Tab 16 at 6160–203. The SSEB observed in its Report that TRAX’s proposal specified that it 

intended to hire “100% of the incumbent employees” so that it could provide “a trained 

workforce” and also “minimize interruptions or delays to work in progress that would impact the 

mission.” Id. at 6183. But “[w]hile the plan emphasized hiring/retaining 100% of the incumbent 

workforce,” the SSEB noted, “the information provided by [TRAX] revealed the conversion of 

[***]% of the workforce to Part-time employees with no fringe benefits.” Id. The SSEB was 

“great[ly] concern[ed]” about TRAX’s ability “to retain highly skilled trained employees on a 

part time basis with no fringe benefits on day one of transition”; indeed it observed that there 

was what it called “a real possibility of a union strike in the short term.” Id. “Furthermore,” the 

SSEB opined, “there is a realistic possibility of disgruntled part-time employees having a 
5 

negative impact on mission operations and the government expects there to be erosion of the 

highly trained and skilled part time work force that the Offeror was able to convert over time.” 

Id. 

The SSEB also found TRAX’s overtime projections “perplexing.” Id. at 6199. “As the 

incumbent,” the SSEB observed, TRAX “should clearly understand the requirement but their 

deliberate plan appears unrealistic.” Id. Noting that overtime is typically “beyond the control of 

the contractor,” the SSEB explained that TRAX would “need to provide additional rationale on 

how they [would] overcome the external factors discussed herein with their OT projections.” Id. 

In light of its concerns, the Army made a significant upward probable cost adjustment to 

TRAX’s proposal to reflect realistic overtime levels based on historical rates of overtime usage. 

Id.; see also AR Tab 26c.3 at 7865–72 (Exhibit AL – Historical Overtime Data). 

IV. TRAX Is Eliminated from the Competition 

On September 18, 2018, the SSA made his competitive range determination. The SSA 

excluded three offerors from the competitive range, including TRAX. AR Tab 17 at 6204–21. 

The Army notified TRAX of its exclusion on the same day. AR Tab 18 at 6222–23. It 

explained that—consistent with the evaluation factors set forth in the Solicitation—it had found 

TRAX ineligible for award because it had been assigned a “Marginal” rating in the “Program 

Management” and “Recruitment and Retention of Technical Expertise” subfactors and an 

“Unacceptable” rating in the “Continuity of Operations” subfactor of the Mission Capability 

factor. Id. at 6222. The Army advised TRAX that its proposal to employ a workforce [***] 

percent of whom would be part-time employees presented “an appreciable risk for the 

Government with respect to TRAX’s ability to retain both qualified and trained personnel being 

asked to convert from full time to part time with no fringe benefits.” Id. The Army further noted 

that TRAX’s “proposal did not identify the transition of [***]% of the workforce from full time 

to part time with no fringe benefits as a risk” and that “[t]here was no risk evaluation or 

mitigation for the implementation of this strategy in the proposal.” Id. at 6223. In the Army’s 

view, “[t]he conversion of [***]% of the workforce to Part-time status with no fringe benefits 

raise[d] the risk of unsuccessful contract performance during the transition period to an 

unacceptable level.” Id. 

On September 24, 2018, the Army sent TRAX a debriefing letter which contained a 

detailed explanation of the evaluation of its proposal. AR Tab 19 at 6224–27. In a September 26, 

2018 letter, TRAX posed a series of questions regarding the matters covered in the debriefing 

letter. AR Tab 20 at 6228–30. The CO responded by letter dated September 28, 2018. AR Tab 21 

at 6231–34. 

V. TRAX’s GAO Protest 

TRAX filed its first bid protest with GAO on October 3, 2018. AR Tab 23. In that 

protest, TRAX challenged as unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious the Army’s decision to 

exclude it from the competitive range based on its proposal to use a predominantly part-time 

workforce. Id. at 6244, 6262–63, 6278. 
6 

GAO denied the protest on January 9, 2019. AR Tab 30 at 9385. It concluded that it was 

reasonable for the Army to find TRAX’s proposal technically unacceptable because of the 

perceived risk presented by the proposal’s heavy reliance upon a part-time workforce that would 

not receive fringe benefits. Id. at 9387–91. In particular, GAO agreed that it was reasonable for 

the Army to question whether TRAX could meet its stated goal of retaining one hundred percent 

of its incumbent workforce if it converted such a substantial portion of that workforce to parttime or temporary employment. Id. at 9388–89. GAO further rejected as inconsistent with the 

record TRAX’s argument that was misled by the Solicitation into believing that it would be 

required to use a largely part-time workforce. Id. at 9389–90 (noting that in its FAR 15.306(b) 

response letter TRAX had acknowledged that there was no specified Government requirement to 

use part-time or full-time employees and that it had “elected to use the ‘part-time’ resource to 

save money and reduce slack time between tests”) (quoting AR Tab 15a at 6146). 

VI. Confidential and Proprietary TRAX Information Appears on the Z-Drive 

In the meantime, on December 21, 2018, while its initial GAO protest was pending, 

TRAX became aware that some of its confidential and proprietary documents had been uploaded 

onto the WSMR Z-Drive. Pl.’s Mot. for J. on the Admin. R. (“Pl.’s MJAR”) at 9, ECF No. 19. 

That drive contains documents that are relevant to WSMR operations and the WSMR MSS 

contract. AR Tab 46c at 9698. Its contents are not accessible by the public, but other contractor 

personnel may secure access with the government’s permission. Id.; AR Tab 31 at 9392. As 

TRAX later discovered, the documents uploaded to the Z-Drive included its Fiscal Year 2019 

Contractor Rates, position descriptions, organizational charts, and other confidential materials 

related to its incumbent contract. Pl.’s MJAR at 9–10; see also AR Tab 31 at 9392. 

On January 4, 2019, TRAX submitted a PIA notice to Peter Hopkins, the CO on its 

current contract, and Worner Heath, the Procurement Contracting Officer (“PCO”) for the 

pending recompete. AR Tab 31 at 9392–93. In the notice, TRAX asked the Army to remove all 

of its proprietary information from the Z-Drive and investigate whether a PIA violation had 

occurred. Id. at 9393. TRAX also requested that the Army “take appropriate corrective action to 

remedy any such violation” that had “any impact on the pending competition.” Id. 

On January 7, 2019, TRAX Project Manager David Soules informed Mr. Hopkins that 

the proprietary TRAX information was contained in the “Contract Functional Review” and 

“Resume” subfolders of the “Accounting” folder on the Z-Drive. AR Tab 46c at 9696; AR Tab 

41c at 9589; see also AR Tab 38a at 9536. Mr. Hopkins located the folder and subfolders and 

determined that they belonged to Dawn Way, the Resource Management Director for the WSMR 

Finance and Accounting Directorate. AR Tab 41c at 9590. 

Ms. Way acknowledged that she had uploaded the confidential and proprietary 

information onto the Z-Drive for a briefing in late November or early December of 2018. AR 

Tab 33 at 9395. After she learned that TRAX had filed a PIA notice, Ms. Way moved the entire 

Accounting folder, which contained 6,600 files, from the Z-Drive to her assigned laptop’s 

desktop. AR Tab 41c at 9592–93; AR Tab 46c at 9698. She showed Mr. Hopkins the relocated 

files and explained that she had removed them from the Z-Drive “[i]n order to immediately 

address the [PIA] concern while still preserving the information in question.” AR Tab 41c at 

9592–93. Ms. Way told Mr. Hopkins that she had determined that out of the 6,600 files in the 
7 

Accounting folder, only twenty-nine documents in the “Contract Functional Review” subfolder 

contained TRAX information. AR Tab 46c at 9696–97. Ms. Way and Mr. Hopkins then 

reviewed the twenty-nine documents together and Ms. Way explained their substance to Mr. 

Hopkins. AR Tab 41c at 9590, 9593. 

On January 9 or 10, Mr. Heath held a telephone conference with Mr. Hopkins, Ms. Way, 

WSMR legal counsel, Contract Management Division Chief Tim Byrnes, and two WSMR IT/ZDrive experts. AR Tab 33 at 9395; AR Tab 41c at 9590, 9594. Ms. Way told the participants on 

the call that she had uploaded the TRAX proprietary information to the Z-Drive, that this was not 

her general practice, and that she had removed the information from the Z-Drive and transferred 

it to her computer. AR Tab 33 at 9395; AR Tab 41c at 9592–93. Ms. Way gave the team 

investigating the PIA notice access to her computer. AR Tab 41c at 9594. 

Mr. Heath interviewed the technical team for the procurement. Each of the five team 

members stated that they did not upload proposal data for the Solicitation to the Z-Drive. AR 

Tab 41b at 9576. IT recovered backups of the folders and files, which according to the 

government, “confirmed the contents of those folders.” AR Tab 41c at 9590. After he reviewed 

the files, Mr. Hopkins determined that the information they contained was “not part of the 

solicitation,” but rather “pertain[ed] to the administration of the current contract.” Id. at 9582. 

On January 15, 2019, Mr. Heath issued a memorandum stating his conclusion that the 

alleged PIA violation had “no impact whatsoever on the pending award of the contract” under 

the Solicitation. AR Tab 33 at 9396. Two days later, he sent TRAX’s counsel a letter regarding 

the Army’s finding. AR Tab 34 at 9397. Specifically, the letter stated that “[a] scan of the ZDrive revealed no evidence of source selection sensitive information” and “[s]ource selection . . . 

was done in the Acquisition Source Selection Interactive Support Tool (ASSIST). . . . There was 

no evidence that anyone with access to both ASSIST and the Z-Drive violated protocol by 

uploading source selection sensitive information onto the Z-Drive.” Id. 

VII. TRAX’s Second and Supplemental GAO Protests 

TRAX filed its second GAO protest on January 22, 2019. AR Tab 36. TRAX argued that 

the Army’s January 2019 PIA determination was irrational and unsupported, and that its PIA 

investigation was unreasonable and inadequate. Id. at 9408–14. The Army submitted a request 

for dismissal on January 30, 2019 and a legal memorandum to GAO on February 21, 2019. AR 

Tabs 37, 41. TRAX then submitted a supplemental protest on March 4, 2019, alleging “a litany 

of additional errors and omissions” in the Army’s PIA investigation. AR Tab 42 at 9595. In 

response, the Army submitted a supplemental legal memorandum on March 12, 2019. AR Tab 

46. 

On May 2, 2019, GAO denied TRAX’s second and supplemental protests. AR Tab 48. 

GAO found reasonable the Army’s determination that the alleged PIA violation had no impact 

on the competition. Id. at 9834–41. GAO also found that the Army adequately investigated the 

potential PIA violation. Id. at 9837–38, 9840–41. 
8 

VIII. This Action 

On May 8, 2019, TRAX filed the present bid protest in this court. Compl., ECF No. 1. It 

consists of two claims. First, TRAX alleges that the Army violated FAR 15.206(a) when it failed 

to amend the Solicitation to reflect Army decisions to significantly reduce the labor-hour and 

staffing requirements for the new contract, which it claims were made some time after TRAX 

submitted its proposal. Id. ¶¶ 2; 34–45. TRAX contends that its elimination from the competitive 

range was arbitrary and capricious and without any rational basis because it was “based on both 

a[n] RFP and an evaluation that were inconsistent with the Agency’s requirements.” Id. at 37. 

Second, TRAX alleges that the Army “failed to perform a reasonable and adequate investigation 

in response to TRAX’s notice of a PIA violation.” Id. 

TRAX seeks injunctive relief requiring the Army to: (1) amend the Solicitation to reflect 

the Army’s current and/or projected requirements and request revised proposals from all offerors 

who submitted proposals in response to the Solicitation; (2) conduct a reasonable and complete 

PIA investigation in compliance with statutory and regulatory obligations; and (3) not proceed 

with performance of a contract awarded—or to not award a contract if an award has not yet been 

made—based either on the current Solicitation requirements that allegedly violate FAR 

15.206(a) or before the completion of a fully compliant PIA investigation that finds no violation 

or impact on the procurement transpired. Id. at 37–38. 

The government filed the administrative record on May 23, 2019. On June 6, 2019, 

TRAX filed its MJAR. ECF No. 19. The government filed its own MJAR, along with a motion 

to strike all references to extra-record documents in TRAX’s MJAR, on June 20, 2019. ECF No. 

20. The cross-motions have been fully briefed. ECF Nos. 23, 26. TRAX filed a motion to compel 

completion and/or supplementation of the administrative record on July 16, 2019, to which the 

government responded on July 26. ECF Nos. 25, 28. The government also moved to strike the 

documents attached to TRAX’s reply in support of its MJAR. ECF No. 28. The Court held oral 

argument on August 1, 2019. 

DISCUSSION 

I. The Parties’ Motions Regarding Extra-Record Documents 

As mentioned above, TRAX has sought to supplement and/or complete the administrative 

record with certain additional documents, and the government has moved to strike the same 

documents from TRAX’s submissions to the Court. The documents at issue are: (1) the 

declaration of TRAX Program Manager David Soules attached to TRAX’s complaint as Exhibit 

20 (“the Soules Declaration”); (2) Exhibits 1–3 to TRAX’s MJAR, which all pertain to TRAX’s 

MSS bridge contract; (3) Exhibit 4 to TRAX’s MJAR, characterized by TRAX as “an email 

exchange between counsel regarding the scope of the Administrative Record,” Pl.’s Mot. to 

Compel Completion and/or Supplementation of the Admin. R. & Resp. to Mot. to Strike (“Pl.’s 

Suppl. Mot.”) at 2, ECF No. 25; and (4) four exhibits attached to TRAX’s reply to support its 

position that the agency’s requirements changed after TRAX submitted its proposal. 

The Court finds that certain portions of the Soules Declaration may be considered for 

purposes of determining standing and therefore may be included in the Court’s record. It will 
9 

also consider the email correspondence between counsel regarding the scope of the 

administrative record as part of the record of the case, as the government does not object to such 

consideration. In contrast, the remaining documents proffered by TRAX are not necessary for 

judicial review. Thus, the Court rejects TRAX’s argument that the remaining documents should 

be added to the administrative record. Accordingly, the parties’ motions regarding extra-record 

materials are GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART, as further explained below. 

A. The Soules Declaration 

TRAX seeks inclusion of the Soules Declaration in the record on the grounds that: (1) 

certain portions of the Declaration support its argument that the agency’s requirements changed 

after the proposal was submitted; 2) paragraph 10 addresses the prejudice to TRAX resulting 

from the agency’s failure to amend the Solicitation; and 3) paragraphs 11–16 address the 

showing of harm required of TRAX to demonstrate its entitlement to injunctive relief. Pl.’s 

Suppl. Mot. at 11–12. The government does not object to the Court’s consideration of paragraphs 

1–4 and 11–16 for the purposes of considering injunctive relief. Def.’s Mot. to Strike & Resp. to 

Pl.’s Suppl. Mot. (“Def.’s Suppl. Resp.”) at 7 n.2, ECF No. 28. 

“[E]vidence going to prejudice or prospective relief, if not found in the administrative 

record, may nonetheless be considered as part of the court’s record.” State of N.C. Bus. Enters. 

Program v. United States, 110 Fed. Cl. 354, 362 (2013) (citing East West, Inc. v. United States, 

100 Fed. Cl. 53, 57 (2011)). The Court, therefore, finds that it may properly consider paragraphs 

1–4 and 10–16 of the Soules Declaration as part of its record for prejudice and injunctive-relief 

purposes. TRAX’s motion to supplement is granted to this extent. 

As to the other portions of the Declaration, the Court declines to supplement either its 

record or the administrative record because the information is not necessary for “effective 

judicial review.” See Axiom Res. Mgmt., Inc. v. United States, 564 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 

2009) (“[S]upplementation of the record should be limited to cases in which the omission of 

extra-record evidence precludes effective judicial review.”) (internal quotation marks and 

citations omitted). These paragraphs contain assertions regarding what Mr. Soules alleges are the 

agency’s current and projected estimates of the staffing needed to perform the contract and his 

“understanding” that the agency is engaged in “an ongoing effort to reduce contractor personnel 

at WSMR.” Compl., Ex. 20 (“Soules Decl.”) ¶¶ 6, 9, ECF No. 1-1. The assertions regarding 

current and projected needs are not relevant in light of the Court’s conclusion, described in detail 

below, that TRAX lacks standing to challenge any alleged change in agency requirements that 

occurred after its proposal was eliminated from the competition. TRAX’s motion to supplement 

is denied in this respect. 

B. Exhibits 1–3 to TRAX’s MJAR 

The documents submitted as Exhibits 1–3 to TRAX’s MJAR are all related to the bridge 

contract the parties executed to provide the government with services while this protest is 

pending. Pl.’s Suppl. Mot. at 6–7. TRAX maintains that these documents “reflect[] major 

requirements changes that have already occurred since the issuance of the [Solicitation].” Id. at 

8. These documents all appear to have been created in the spring of 2019 for the purpose of 

preparing a three-month contract extension from June 1, 2019 through August 31, 2019. See Pl.’s 
10 

MJAR, Exs. 1–3, at 2–32, ECF No. 19-1.1

 Thus, they do not contravene the Court’s conclusion 

that, accepting as true the allegation that the requirements changed, the obligation to amend the 

Solicitation was not triggered before TRAX’s elimination from the competition on September 

18, 2018. Accordingly, these documents are not necessary for effective judicial review and the 

Court denies TRAX’s request to add them to the administrative record. 

C. Exhibit 4 to TRAX’s MJAR 

The government does not oppose TRAX’s request that the Court treat Exhibit 4 to 

TRAX’s MJAR, an email between the parties regarding the contents of the administrative record, 

as part of the “record of the case.” Def.’s Suppl. Resp. at 10 n.5 (citing Pl.’s Suppl. Mot. at 13–

14). Because the parties agree that the Court may properly consider Exhibit 4 as part of the 

record of the case, the Court grants that request.2 

D. Exhibits 1–4 to TRAX’s Reply in Support of Its MJAR 

The government contends that any changes in contract requirements occurred either too 

early or too late for TRAX to successfully protest the agency’s failure to amend the Solicitation, 

for reasons related to waiver and standing. In response, TRAX included four exhibits with its 

reply to support its argument that the alleged changes “commenced” in the summer of 2018, 

before its exclusion from the competitive range. Pl.’s Suppl. Mot. at 9–10. The documents 

consist of “three examples of documentation of e-mail correspondence between TRAX 

employees and Army personnel and one resignation notice.” Id. at 9. The Court finds these 

documents unnecessary for effective judicial review for three reasons. 

First, as explained in detail below, the Court rejects TRAX’s incremental change 

argument—which is directly tied to the subject documents—on its face. In failing to identify the 

point at which the agency’s obligation to amend was triggered, TRAX has not carried its burden 

to establish standing. The Court need not consider these supporting documents because it has 

concluded that the related legal theory is faulty. Second, the Court has determined that several 

documents in the existing administrative record show that any final decisions regarding the 

Fiscal Year 2019 budget and related staffing levels were not finalized until after TRAX was 

eliminated from the procurement. In light of that conclusion, documents from the summer of 

2018 only reflect—at the most—deliberations, and cannot overcome the existing record 

evidence. 

Finally, the Court has also found that one reason that TRAX was not prejudiced by the 

agency’s failure to amend the Solicitation is that it has not demonstrated that, had the Army done 

 

1

 The page numbers cited are taken from the ECF header added to the documents upon filing. 

2

 The parties also concur that Exhibits 5 and 6 to TRAX’s MJAR reproduce portions of the 

existing administrative record. Pl.’s Supp. Mot at 13–14; Def.’s Suppl. Resp. at 10 n.5. There is 

therefore no need for the Court to formally add them to either the administrative record or its 

own record of the case. 
11 

so, TRAX would have submitted a proposal that lacked the deficiencies which led to its 

elimination. This basis for the Court’s disposition of TRAX’s FAR 15.206(a) claim does not 

depend on the timing of the purported changes to the contract’s staffing requirements. 

Documents submitted to establish that timing, therefore, are irrelevant to this aspect of the 

Court’s reasoning and need not be included in the record. 

For these reasons, the four documents attached to TRAX’s reply in support of its MJAR 

are not needed for effective judicial review. The Court therefore denies TRAX’s request that it 

consider these documents as part of the administrative record. 

II. TRAX Lacks Standing to Pursue Its Claim Under FAR 15.206(a) 

FAR 15.206(a) states that “[w]hen, either before or after receipt of proposals, the 

Government changes its requirements or terms and conditions, the contracting officer shall 

amend the solicitation.” TRAX contends that the Solicitation in this case established “a 

mandatory staffing level of 505 FTEs and a full slate of PWS requirements to support WMSR’s 

testing efforts” but that these requirements have since been changed. Pl.’s MJAR at 17. 

Specifically, TRAX argues that “the Army has made affirmative decisions to dramatically cut the 

WSMR MSS staffing levels and scope of work in large part through the implementation of 

insourcing decisions, transfers of personnel to other contracts, and deliberate staffing level 

reductions driven by budgetary-based reductions.” Id. It contends that instead of the 505 FTEs 

reflected in Exhibit T, “the reasonable range in required staffing levels is between 343 FTEs 

(based on the current WSMR MSS contract) and 174 FTEs (based on the Army’s stated needs 

today).” Id. Because of these changes, TRAX argues, the Army was required to amend the 

Solicitation to more accurately reflect its requirements under FAR 15.206(a). Id. 

For the reasons set forth below, TRAX has failed to establish that it is an “interested 

party” under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b) with standing to pursue its claim. Therefore, the claim must be 

dismissed. 

A. Governing Principles 

The Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over bid protests in accordance with the 

Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, as amended by Section 12 of the Administrative Dispute 

Resolution Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b). Specifically, the Court has the authority “to render 

judgment on an action by an interested party objecting to a solicitation by a Federal agency for 

bids or proposals for a proposed contract or to a proposed award or the award of a contract or 

any alleged violation of statute or regulation in connection with a procurement or a proposed 

procurement.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1); see also Sys. Application & Techs., Inc. v. United States, 

691 F.3d 1374, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (observing that § 1491(b)(1) “grants jurisdiction over 

objections to a solicitation, objections to a proposed award, objections to an award, and 

objections related to a statutory or regulatory violation so long as these objections are in 

connection with a procurement or proposed procurement”). 

“The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing standing.” 

CliniComp Int’l, Inc. v. United States, 904 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing Myers 

Investigative & Sec. Servs., Inc. v. United States, 275 F.3d 1366, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing 
12 

Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992))). In the context of a bid protest, “a plaintiff 

must make two showings” to meet this burden. Id. 

First, a plaintiff must show that it is an “interested party,” i.e., “an actual or prospective 

bidder” with a “direct economic interest” in the procurement or proposed procurement. Id.; see 

also Sys. Application & Techs., Inc., 691 F.3d at 1382 (citing Weeks Marine, Inc. v. United 

States, 575 F.3d 1352, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009)); Orion Tech., Inc. v. United States, 704 F.3d 1344, 

1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Generally, “[t]o prove a direct economic interest, an actual or prospective 

bidder must show that it had a substantial chance of winning the contract.” Diaz v. United States, 

853 F.3d 1355, 1358 (quoting Digitalis Educ. Sols., Inc. v. United States, 664 F.3d 1380, 1384) 

(Fed. Cir. 2012)); see also CliniComp, 904 F.3d at 1358 (quoting Diaz and Digitalis for the same 

proposition). The court of appeals, however, has recognized an exception to that general standard 

“when a prospective bidder challenges the terms of the solicitation itself, prior to actually 

submitting a bid.” Orion Tech., Inc., 704 F.3d at 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013); see also Weeks Marine, 

575 F.3d at 1361–62. In such circumstances, because “there is a lack of a bid or other factual 

basis to evaluate a protestor’s chance at an award,” a showing of a “non-trivial competitive 

injury” will suffice to establish the requisite direct economic interest. Veteran Shredding, LLC v. 

United States, 140 Fed. Cl. 759, 764 (2018). 

The second showing that a plaintiff must make to establish its standing is “that it was 

prejudiced by a significant error in the procurement process.” CliniComp, 904 F.3d at 1358 

(citing Diaz, 853 F.3d at 1358) (additional citations omitted). Specifically, the plaintiff must 

“show that but for the error, it would have had a substantial chance of securing the contract.” Id. 

(quoting Labatt Food Serv., Inc. v. United States, 577 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2009)) 

(emphasis added in CliniComp).3 Determining whether prejudice has been shown for purposes of 

establishing a plaintiff’s standing requires the court to engage in a factual analysis. Labatt, 577 

F.3d at 1379; see also CliniComp, 904 F.3d at 1359. 

As the court of appeals has noted, “[a]lthough the inquiries may be similar, prejudice 

must be shown either as part of, or in addition to, showing a direct economic interest.” 

CliniComp, 904 F.3d at 1358. Courts should not “conflat[e] the standing requirements of 

prejudicial error and economic interest,” because doing so would mean that “there would be no 

such thing as an error non-prejudicial to an economically interested offeror in a bid contest.” 

Labatt, 577 F.3d at 1380. Therefore, the question of prejudice may not be delayed until after the 

merits analysis but “must be reached before addressing the merits.” Id. at 1378–79 (quoting Info. 

Tech. & Applications Corp. v. United States, 316 F.3d 1312, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).4

 

3

 In post-evaluation, pre-award protests like this one, a plaintiff may satisfy the substantial 

chance test by showing it “could have likely competed for the contract” but for the alleged error. 

See, e.g., KSC Boss Alliance, LLC v. United States, 142 Fed. Cl. 368, 379 (2019) (quoting Orion 

Tech., 704 F.3d at 1348–49). 

4

 Although relevant case law is somewhat unclear as to whether the “substantial chance” test is 

used to determine direct economic interest, prejudice, or both, it is clear in any event that “a 

party cannot be prejudiced unless it first has a substantial chance of award.” Veteran Shredding, 
13 

B. Application of Principles 

As noted above, to establish its standing, a plaintiff must show that it is “an actual or 

prospective bidder” (or offeror) with a “direct economic interest” in the procurement, and that it 

was prejudiced by a significant error in the procurement process. TRAX was an actual offeror on 

the Solicitation. Nonetheless, it lacks standing because it has failed to establish that it was 

prejudiced by the agency’s alleged violation of FAR 15.206(a). Specifically, TRAX has failed to 

show, as a matter of fact, that but for the agency’s failure to amend the Solicitation to provide 

what TRAX alleges is a more accurate reflection of its requirements, TRAX would have had a 

substantial chance of securing the contract.5 

First, TRAX has failed to show that the agency had an obligation to amend the 

Solicitation before September 18, 2018, the day TRAX was eliminated from the competition. 

This failure of proof is fatal to TRAX’s standing because it would not have been entitled to 

submit a new proposal in response to an amendment issued after its elimination from the 

competition. See FAR 15.206(c) (“Amendments issued after the established time and date for 

receipt of proposals shall be issued to all offerors that have not been eliminated from the 

competition.”). And because it would not have been entitled to submit a new proposal in 

 

140 Fed. Cl. at 765; see also CliniComp, 904 F.3d at 1358 (applying substantial chance test to 

both direct economic interest and prejudice); Labatt, 577 F.3d at 1378 (“A party has been 

prejudiced when it can show that but for the error, it would have had a substantial chance of 

securing the contract.”); Weeks Marine, 575 F.3d at 1359 (stating two conditions for standing are 

that the plaintiff “(1) is an actual or prospective bidder and (2) possesses the requisite direct 

economic interest” and treating prejudice as part of “direct economic interest” inquiry). 

5

 TRAX urges that because this is a pre-award protest, the Court should apply the more lenient 

“non-trivial competitive injury” standing prerequisite set forth in Weeks Marine. See Pl.’s Reply 

in Supp. of its MJAR & Opp. to Def.’s Cross-Mot. for J. on the Admin. R. (“Pl.’s Reply”) at 18 

& n.4, ECF No. 23. But in Weeks Marine, the court of appeals applied that standard as an 

exception to the usual “but for” analysis because there was no “factual foundation” for such an 

analysis where proposals had not yet been submitted or evaluated. 575 F.3d at 1361–62 (internal 

quotation marks and citations omitted). In this case, by contrast, the protest was filed after TRAX 

both submitted a proposal and was eliminated from the competition based on certain evaluated 

deficiencies in that proposal. The original proposal and the Army’s evaluation provide a 

sufficient factual predicate to determine: 1) whether TRAX’s proposal was eliminated before or 

after the alleged change in contractual requirements that would have triggered an obligation to 

amend the Solicitation under FAR 15.206(a); and 2) whether, in any event, TRAX would have 

submitted a proposal with the same or similar deficiencies had the government amended the 

Solicitation as TRAX contends was required. The record, in other words, is sufficient to 

determine whether TRAX had a substantial chance at award but for the Army’s alleged error. 

There is therefore an “adequate factual predicate” for applying a “but for” analysis. Orion Tech., 

704 F.3d at 1349. 
14 

response to the amendment, TRAX cannot demonstrate that it would have had a substantial 

chance of securing the award but for the legal error it alleges. 

Thus, under FAR 15.206(a), the obligation to amend a solicitation is triggered “[w]hen, 

either before or after receipt of proposals, the Government changes its requirements or terms and 

conditions.” But TRAX does not allege—much less prove—that the Army changed its 

“requirements” (i.e., arrived at a new forecast of hours that would be required to perform the 

contract ) before September 18, 2018. 

In fact, the record shows that the agency was examining the issue through the fall of 2018 

as part of the annual budget cycle. For instance, TRAX points to the fact that Ms. Way was 

tasked with a “Workforce Position Review” in late 2018 as part of its argument that the contract 

requirements changed. See Pl.’s MJAR at 6, 18. This review—which was part of the agency’s 

deliberative process and not a final decision—occurred in November, well after TRAX was 

eliminated from the competition on September 18. See AR Tab 41c at 9591 (Ms. Way’s 

memorandum for the record recounting that she was tasked with the Workforce Position Review 

on November 2).6 TRAX also directs the Court to a document entitled “FY19 Budget” in support 

of its position that the agency’s requirements changed. Pl.’s MJAR at 7, 18. This document, too, 

dates to November 2018, well after TRAX’s elimination. See id. (citing AR Tab 49 at 9842, 

9844). 

The Court finds it significant that TRAX itself has consistently declined to identify when, 

in its view, the agency’s obligation to amend the Solicitation was triggered. Instead, in its briefs 

and in response to the Court’s inquiries at oral argument, TRAX has characterized the changes in 

the agency’s forecast as “incremental” ones, which it claims “commenced in the four months 

prior to TRAX’s elimination.” Pl.’s Reply at 3; see also Hr’g at 2:03:50–04:30. It is TRAX’s 

burden to establish its standing, including prejudice. CliniComp, 904 F.3d at 1358. In the Court’s 

view, TRAX’s vague “incremental change” theory is insufficient to do so, particularly given the 

other evidence of record which shows that the Army was still analyzing its needs in the months 

after TRAX was eliminated from the competition. 

Further, and in any event, even were the Court to assume that the agency’s forecast 

changed before TRAX was eliminated from the competitive range, it would still find that TRAX 

has not established prejudice for standing purposes. The reason the agency excluded TRAX from 

the competitive range was because it proposed to use a workforce with a part-time to full-time 

employee ratio of [***] percent to [***] percent, which the agency concluded posed an 

unacceptable risk to contract performance, for the reasons set forth above. 

Therefore, to establish its standing TRAX must show that, had the agency amended the 

Solicitation to reflect a reduction in the hours set forth in Exhibit T, TRAX would have 

submitted a proposal that did not rely so heavily on a part-time workforce whose fringe benefits 

 

6

 Although Ms. Way’s memorandum references the date “2 November 2019,” the Court infers 

that this was a typographical error and that Ms. Way was referring to November 2018, as she did 

elsewhere in the same document. AR Tab 41c at 9591. 
15 

were limited. Based on the record before it, the Court is not persuaded that had the agency 

amended the Solicitation in the manner TRAX urges was required, TRAX would have submitted 

a proposal that was not similarly deficient. 

To the contrary, TRAX made several statements in its proposal which show that it 

understood that the labor hours listed in Exhibit T might not reflect the actual labor hours 

required to perform the contract. In fact, it advertised that its staffing approach was designed to 

address fluctuations in staffing. It observed that its “current contract staffing [was] much less 

than the total scope described in Exhibit T.” AR Tab 11b at 5381. It predicted that “actual 

staffing” would be determined based on “the total available reimbursable and institutional 

budgets, Spend Plans, and tasks issued through PSCs immediately after contract award.” Id. It 

further acknowledged that based on its “current experience” it understood “that available 

institutional funding and reimbursable test programs will ultimately dictate our overall staffing 

approach and will constantly evolve.” Id. at 5479. For these reasons, TRAX emphasized that a 

selling point of its proposal was that its “overall management and administrative staff is fully 

scalable and adaptable to the actual staffing level of the contract and [would] be adjusted 

accordingly as the contract grows or diminishes to control institutional cost.” Id. at 5381 

(emphasis supplied). 

TRAX further touted the merits of its use of part-time labor by stating that its staffing 

approach had been used successfully at other installations. See AR Tab 15a at 6145 (citing use of 

“a similar mix of part-time to full-time employees” at Fort Hood and Yuma Proving Ground); 

AR Tab 15c at 6158–59 (citing successful use of staffing approach at White Sands, Yuma, and 

Fort Hood). This further suggests that the fundamental details of its approach (which the Army 

found deficient) were not dependent upon the labor hours reflected in Exhibit T. 

TRAX made similar statements during its first GAO protest. It observed that it “was well 

aware that the incumbent staffing and scope of work actually differed markedly from the data 

provided in the [Solicitation].” AR Tab 23 at 6253. It also described Exhibit T’s staffing 

requirements as a “fictional” or “artificial” staffing baseline that “attempt[ed] to create a level 

playing field.” Id. at 6243, 6248, 6250, 6265. In letters to the Army, TRAX also said Exhibit T 

was a “baseline” and that the Solicitation provided no workload data or projections. AR Tab 15a 

at 6146; AR Tab 15c at 6156. 

TRAX also recognized the potential for future staffing reductions in its responses to the 

government’s August 2018 correspondence. It affirmed its proposed part-time to full-time ratio 

and informed the government that its “management solution [took] into consideration the current 

and future budget reductions and limitations” for various contract customers. AR Tab 15a at 

6145. TRAX further posited that its minimal-overtime approach was “viable” and was 

“reflective of the current WSMR MSS budget-constrained environment.” Id. at 6146. As a final 

example, TRAX reiterated that its proposal reflected the labor hours shown in Exhibit T, which 

was a “baseline” and was “representative of the previous contract and [did] not represent a 

forecast forward.” Id. 

To be sure, the Soules Declaration contains a sentence asserting that TRAX “would have 

taken a different approach to its proposed staffing and Mission Capability proposal based on 

significantly fewer FTEs consistent with these new requirements.” Soules Decl. ¶ 10; see also 
16 

Compl. ¶ 94; Pl.’s MJAR at 20–21. But Mr. Soules does not even attempt to explain what the 

“different approach” would have entailed. And the Court has no basis for inferring that the 

“different approach” would have involved a staffing strategy that did not rely heavily on a parttime workforce. Indeed, such an inference would be inconsistent with the other evidence in the 

record, described above. That evidence shows that TRAX was acutely aware of the constrainedbudget environment and the possibility of further budget cuts related to the successor MSS 

contract, that it proposed a heavily part-time workforce to cut costs, and that it expected that its 

approach would be adaptable to the overall level of effort required. 

The Court finds based on the record that TRAX has not shown that, had the Army issued 

an amendment as was allegedly required, TRAX would have submitted a proposal free from the 

deficiencies that caused its exclusion from the competitive range. In other words, TRAX has not 

shown that but for the alleged procurement error, it would have had a substantial chance of 

securing the contract award. 

For all of the above reasons, the Court finds that TRAX lacks standing to bring its FAR 

15.206(a) claim. The Court, therefore, lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the claim and must 

dismiss it without prejudice. 

III. TRAX Also Lacks Standing to Pursue Its PIA Claim 

TRAX’s second ground for protest is based on what it alleges was a failure of the agency 

to conduct a reasonable investigation of its allegation of a potential violation of the Procurement 

Integrity Act, as required by FAR 3.104-7. It contends that the CO’s investigation was 

inadequate because, among other things: (1) he did not review all 6,600 documents that Ms. Way 

moved to her laptop from the accounting folder that was on the Z-Drive, but instead only 

reviewed those contained in the subfolders entitled “Contract Functional Review” and 

“Resumes”; (2) he failed to determine at the time of the investigation whether any of the 

information uploaded to the Z-Drive was “bid or proposal” information within the meaning of 41 

U.S.C. § 2101 (i.e., the PIA); and (3) his conclusion that any disclosure that occurred could not 

have affected the procurement was not supported by the record. TRAX also contends that the CO 

violated FAR 3.104-7(a)(1) because he did not provide complete and accurate information to the 

Chief of Contracting. 

The Court assumes for purposes of determining its jurisdiction that the agency committed 

the violations of the PIA alleged by TRAX. It concludes, however, that whether it applies the 

“but-for” test (i.e., substantial chance) or the “non-trivial competitive injury” standard of 

prejudice, TRAX has not established its standing to pursue its PIA claim. 

Thus, as counsel for TRAX conceded at oral argument, to establish injury for purposes of 

standing, TRAX must show, at a minimum, that the alleged PIA violation occurred before it was 

eliminated from the competition. Hr’g at 2:51:20–53:10. The record shows, however, that to the 

extent that the uploading of TRAX’s files resulted in a PIA violation, such violation could not 

have occurred until after TRAX was excluded from the competitive range. Not only was TRAX 

no longer in the competition by the time the files were uploaded but, in addition, all of the 

offerors remaining in the competition had already submitted their final proposal revisions 

(“FPRs”). 
17 

In the statement she provided during the CO’s PIA inquiry, Ms. Way stated that she 

uploaded the files at issue to the Z-Drive on November 26, 2018. AR Tab 41c at 9591. She 

explained that on that day she was in a hurry and she placed the files into a newly created 

“Contract Functional Review” folder in connection with a briefing she was preparing as part of 

her assignment to develop a Workforce Position Review. Id. at 9591–92; AR Tab 33 at 9395. 

Ms. Way noted that it was not her general practice to place proprietary data on the Z-Drive. AR 

Tab 33 at 9395. She also assured the participants on the January conference call that she had 

never uploaded TRAX proprietary data to the Z-Drive before or after November 26. Id. 

TRAX was eliminated from the competition on September 18, 2018, more than two 

months before Ms. Way had uploaded the files at issue to the Z-Drive. In addition, the three 

remaining offerors submitted their FPRs on November 25 and the morning of November 26, 

before Ms. Way created the Contract Functional Review folder at 12:43 PM MST on the same 

day. See AR Tab 41b at 9578 (explaining details of submission of FPRs in relation to date and 

time that Ms. Way created the new Z-Drive folder and uploaded the subject files to the folder). 

Although TRAX challenges Ms. Way’s statement that the data at issue was uploaded on 

November 26, and not before, it cites no evidence that calls into question either Ms. Way’s 

recollection or her credibility. At best, TRAX contends that—in light of the “modified date” 

included with each file’s metadata—it is impossible to rule out that at least some of the files at 

issue could have been uploaded before that date. Pl.’s MJAR at 30–34. But this speculation does 

not suffice to rebut Ms. Way’s unequivocal statement that no TRAX proprietary data was 

uploaded before or after the afternoon of November 26, 2018. See Am-Pro Prot. Agency, Inc. v. 

United States, 281 F.3d 1234, 1239–40 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that the “presumption that 

government officials act in good faith” can only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence). 

In short, the Court concludes that the data in question was not on the Z-Drive until after 

TRAX was eliminated from the competition and the final three offerors had submitted their 

FPRs. TRAX therefore cannot establish that—even assuming there was a PIA violation—it 

suffered any resulting competitive injury, let alone a “non-trivial” one. Its PIA claim must 

therefore also be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, TRAX’s complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack 

of subject-matter jurisdiction. In addition: 

1. TRAX’s motion for judgment on the administrative record (ECF No. 19) is DENIED. 

2. The government’s cross-motion for judgment on the administrative record (ECF No. 

20) is DENIED as moot. 

3. TRAX’s motion to compel completion and/or supplementation of the administrative 

record (ECF No. 25) is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. 

4. The government’s motion to strike materials attached to TRAX’s complaint and 

MJAR (ECF No. 20) is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. 
18 

5. The government’s motion to strike materials attached to TRAX’s reply in support of 

its MJAR (ECF No. 28) is GRANTED. 

The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly. Each party shall bear its 

own costs. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

s/ Elaine D. Kaplan 

ELAINE D. KAPLAN 

Judge