N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ RED CEDAR HARMONIA, LLC, Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES, NEXTG EN FEDERAL SYSTEMS, LLC, Defendants

- Appellees

______________________

2019

- 2449

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:19

- cv

- 00405

- CFL, Senior Judge Charles F. Lettow.

______________________
Decided: December 18, 2020

____________ __________
W ALTER B RAD E NGLISH , Maynard, Cooper & Gale, PC, Huntsville, AL, for plaintiff

- appellant. Also represented by E MILY J. C HANCEY , M ICHAEL W. R ICH

.

S ONIA W. M URPHY , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U nited States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for d efendant

- appellee United States

. A lso represented by J EFFREY B. C LARK , S TEVEN J OHN G ILLINGHAM , R OBERT E DWARD K IRSCHMAN , J R

. Case: 19-2449 Document: 77 Page: 1 Filed: 12/18/2020RED CEDAR HARMONIA , LLC v. UNITED STATES 2

C HE P ETER D UNGAN , Miles & Stockbridge P.C., Washington, DC, for defendant

- appellee NextGen Federal Systems, LLC. Also represented by A LFRED M. W URGLITZ , Rockville, MD

.

______________________
Before P ROST , Chief Judge, M OORE and S TOLL , Circuit Judges.

M OORE
, Circuit Judge

. Red Cedar Harmonia, LLC

, appeals a final decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims granting the government and NextGen Federal Systems, LLC, judgment on the administrative record regarding the government’s contract award to NextGen. Red Cedar Harmonia, LLC v. United States , 144 Fed. Cl. 11, 29 ( 2019). Becausethe government’s contract award was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law, we affirm

. B ACKGROUND

The Defense Information Systems Agenc y ( the agency ) issued a s olicitation for independent verification and validation of software across four major agency command and control programs

. J.A. 100034

. The s olicitation included three evaluation factors: (1) Technical/Management Approach; (2) Pa st Performance; and (3) Price. J.A. 100164. The Technical/Management Approach factor included six subfactors: ( 1 ) security clearance requirements; ( 2 ) technical approach to test execution; ( 3 ) technical approach to test event build support; ( 4 ) technical approach to cybersecurity and information compliance; ( 5 ) technical approach to test process improvements and test automation support; and ( 6 ) management/staffing approach. Id. As relevant here, s ubfactor three was evaluated based on the offerors’ proposed approach es to perform independent verification and validation on multiple system builds. J.A. 100166. S ubfactor six focused on offerors’ respective abilities to Case: 19-2449 Document: 77 Page: 2 Filed: 12/18/2020RED CEDAR HARMONIA , LLC v. UNITED STATES 3

staff and manage the tasks identified in the solicitation. J.A. 100167.

T he agency received initial proposals from five offerors. After three offerors were excluded, the agency established a competitive range including the two remaining offerors: NextGen and Red Cedar. J.A. 1025 39

– 40. During its initial analysis, the agency found two weaknesses with NextGen’s management/staffing approach ( subfactor six )

, including weaknesses in the hours NextGen proposed for thirty

- eight labor positions

, and four weaknesses with Red Cedar’s approach , including weaknesses in the hours Red Ceda r proposed for fifty

- eight positions

. J.A. 102511

– 18 (NextGen)

, 10253 0

– 37 (Red Cedar)

. The c ontracting o fficer issued evaluation notices to NextGen and Red Cedar to address these weaknesses. J.A. 102563

– 10256 8 (NextGen), 10257 4

– 84 (Red Cedar)

.After another round of proposals and evaluation notices, NextGen and Red Cedar submitted their final proposal s

. The agency found weaknesses in Red Cedar’s proposed hours for thirty

- seven positions under subfactor six

. J.A. 10516 4

– 105185. T he agency revised Red Cedar’s final proposal, noting that Red Cedar’s approach appeared low for the demands of the contract and increasing the proposed hours across a number of position s

. J.A. 10540 5

– 15

. After adjustments, t he agency found that NextGen’s total proposed cost was equal to the agency’s total probable cost, whereas Red Cedar’s total proposed cost varied from theagency’s total probable cost by 55.35% resulting in a “significant[] increase[] [in] the Government’s cost risk during performance.” J.A. 105 1 38

. T he Source Selection Authority issued a memorandum memorializ ing the agency’s determination that NextGen was the “highest [

- ] rated offeror, taking into consideration all non

- price factors” and was “also the lowest

- priced (evaluated) offer[or].” J.A. 105237.

Red Cedar filed a bid protest in the Court of Federal Claims

, challenging the agency’s contract award to Case: 19-2449 Document: 77 Page: 3 Filed: 12/18/2020RED CEDAR HARMONIA , LLC v. UNITED STATES 4

NextGen

. Nex tGen intervened. Red Cedar, NextGen

, and the government filed cross

- motions for judgment on the administrative record. The Court of Federal Claims granted the government and NextGen judgment on the administrative record and denied Red Cedar’s motion

. Th e court concluded that the agency’s decision to select NextGen was reasonable because NextGen ’s proposal was “the lowest priced and highest technically rated proposal” and becausethe agency “properly determined [that NextGen] represented the best value fo r the government.” J.A. 34. Red Cedar appeals . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

D ISCUSSION
We review de novo Court of Federal Claims decisionsgranting judgment on the administrative record in bid protest cases. Bannum, Inc. v. Unite d States , 404 F.3d 1346, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Under this standard, we consider whether the agency’s action was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(4). We may set aside a procurement decision “if it lacked a rational basis or if the agency’s decision

- making process involved aclear and prejudicial violation of statute, regulation, or procedure.” Croman Corp. v. United States , 724 F.3d 1357, 1363 (Fed. C ir. 2013). An agency is “entitled to a high degree of deference when faced with challenges to procurement decisions.” Orion Tech., Inc. v. United States

, 704 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

Red Cedar contends that the trial court erred in determining t hat the agency’s evaluation of Red Cedar’s proposed price was reasonable. It argues the a gency ’s evaluation under subfactor six , which affected the agency’s overall price evaluation (factor three)

, i mproperly focused on Red Cedar’s interim proposal s , rather than its final hours and labor mix

. We do not agree

. Case: 19-2449 Document: 77 Page: 4 Filed: 12/18/2020RED CEDAR HARMONIA , LLC v. UNITED STATES 5

A s the trial court noted, the “[a]gency provided a consistent and coherent explanation at each stage of the evaluation.” J.A. 27. The technical evaluators g ave Red Cedar a marginal rating for its initial proposed labor mix, indicating that the “[p]roposal [did] not demonstrate an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.” J.A. 105157; 10 2532

. And despite repeated notices that its hours were d eficient, Red Cedar issued a final labor mix that failed to adequately remedy weaknesses for over thirty positions

. T he agency

, therefore

, rationally adjustedRed Cedar’s proposed hours and price to determine a probable cost to the agency in conformance w ith the solicitation’s price evaluation instructions. 1 J.A. 3 0

. On this record, we hold that the Court of Federal Claims did not err in holding that the agency’s evaluation of Red Cedar’s proposed price was not arbitrary, capricious, or in violation of l aw.
Red Cedar also contends the trial court erred in determining that Red Cedar was n either treated unequally n or evaluated based on unstated criteria

. It argues that the
agency evaluated Red Cedar based on unstated criteria when it improperly considered allegedly redundant aspects of NextGen’s technical approach under subfactor three

, rather than limiting its consideration of th ose aspects to the agency’s subfactor five analysis

. It further argues that the
agency treated Red Cedar unfairly by improperly rel ying on evidence of NextGen’s experience under s ubfactor six while discounting Red Cedar’s evidence

. These contentions are unavailing

. T he agency acted within its broad dis cretion in awarding NextGen a strength for its technical approach under

1 To the extent Red Cedar argues that the agency should have decreased hours in other labor categories to offset any increase in hours, the administrative record does not support any such offset requirement. Case: 19-2449 Document: 77 Page: 5 Filed: 12/18/2020RED CEDAR HARMONIA , LLC v. UNITED STATES 6

subfactor three

. See Orion Tech. , 704 F.3d at 1351. Pursuant to the solicitation, t he agency considered NextGen ’s and Red Cedar ’s proposed approaches for the contract’s testbed event support. There is no evidence that the
agency relied upon criteria outside of the designated criteria under subfactor three

. There is, there fore, no support in the administrative record for Red Cedar’s contention that it was evaluated based on unstated criteria.
With respect to subfactor six

, the solicitation indicated that it would evaluate the appropriateness of the offeror’s proposed labo r mix in meeting or exceeding the agency’s requirements. The solicitation expressly noted that the demonstration of “breadth and depth of staff and expertise” was encouraged and could result in a higher rating. J.A. 100167. T he agency rationally evaluat ed the totality of evidence presented under these criteria and concluded that NextGen’s proposal was more technical ly sound than Red Cedar’s proposal

. Therefore, Red Cedar’s claim of unequal treatment under subfactor six is likewise without merit. On this record, we hold that the Court of Federal Claims did not err in holding that the agency’s evaluation of Red Cedar’s and NextGen’s respective strengths under subfactors three and six was not arbitrary, capricious, or in violation of law.

C ONCLUSION

We have considered the parties’ remaining argumentsand do not find them persuasive. Because the Court of Federal Clams did not err in granting the government and NextGen judgment on the administrative record, we affirm

. AFFIRMED Case: 19-2449 Document: 77 Page: 6 Filed: 12/18/2020