NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

RED CEDAR HARMONIA, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES, NEXTGEN 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

______________________

WALTER BRAD ENGLISH, Maynard, Cooper & Gale, PC, 

Huntsville, AL, for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by 

EMILY J. CHANCEY, MICHAEL W. RICH. 

 SONIA W. MURPHY, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee United States. Also 

represented by JEFFREY B. CLARK, STEVEN JOHN 

GILLINGHAM, ROBERT EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR. 

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

 CHE PETER DUNGAN, Miles & Stockbridge P.C., Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee NextGen Federal Systems, LLC. Also represented by ALFRED M. WURGLITZ, 

Rockville, MD. 

 ______________________

Before PROST, Chief Judge, MOORE and STOLL, Circuit 

Judges.

MOORE, 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). Because 

the government’s contract award was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance 

with law, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

The Defense Information Systems Agency (the agency)

issued a solicitation for independent verification and validation of software across four major agency command and 

control programs. J.A. 100034. The solicitation included 

three evaluation factors: (1) Technical/Management Approach; (2) Past 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, subfactor three was evaluated based on the offerors’ 

proposed approaches to perform independent verification 

and validation on multiple system builds. J.A. 100166. 

Subfactor six focused on offerors’ respective abilities to 

Case: 19-2449 Document: 77 Page: 2 Filed: 12/18/2020
RED CEDAR HARMONIA, LLC v. UNITED STATES 3

staff and manage the tasks identified in the solicitation. 

J.A. 100167.

The 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. 102539–40. 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 

Cedar proposed for fifty-eight positions. J.A. 102511–18

(NextGen), 102530–37 (Red Cedar). The contracting officer

issued evaluation notices to NextGen and Red Cedar to address these weaknesses. J.A. 102563–102568 (NextGen),

102574–84 (Red Cedar).

After another round of proposals and evaluation notices, NextGen and Red Cedar submitted their final proposals. The agency found weaknesses in Red Cedar’s 

proposed hours for thirty-seven positions under subfactor 

six. J.A. 105164–105185. The 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 positions. J.A. 105405–15. 

After adjustments, the 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 the 

agency’s total probable cost by 55.35% resulting in a “significant[] increase[] [in] the Government’s cost risk during 

performance.” J.A. 105138. The Source Selection Authority issued a memorandum memorializing 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: 12/18/2020
4 RED CEDAR HARMONIA, LLC v. UNITED STATES

NextGen. NextGen 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. The 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 because 

the agency “properly determined [that NextGen] represented the best value for the government.” J.A. 34. Red 

Cedar appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(3).

DISCUSSION

We review de novo Court of Federal Claims decisions 

granting judgment on the administrative record in bid protest cases. Bannum, Inc. v. United 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 a 

clear and prejudicial violation of statute, regulation, or procedure.” Croman Corp. v. United States, 724 F.3d 1357, 

1363 (Fed. Cir. 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 that the agency’s evaluation of Red Cedar’s proposed price was reasonable. It argues the agency’s 

evaluation under subfactor six, which affected the agency’s 

overall price evaluation (factor three), improperly focused

on Red Cedar’s interim proposals, rather than its final 

hours and labor mix. We do not agree. 

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

As 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 gave 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; 102532. And despite repeated notices that its 

hours were deficient, Red Cedar issued a final labor mix 

that failed to adequately remedy weaknesses for over 

thirty positions. The agency, therefore, rationally adjusted 

Red Cedar’s proposed hours and price to determine a probable cost to the agency in conformance with the solicitation’s price evaluation instructions.1 J.A. 30. 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 law.

Red Cedar also contends the trial court erred in determining that Red Cedar was neither treated unequally nor 

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 those aspects to the 

agency’s subfactor five analysis. It further argues that the 

agency treated Red Cedar unfairly by improperly relying

on evidence of NextGen’s experience under subfactor six

while discounting Red Cedar’s evidence. These contentions 

are unavailing. 

The agency acted within its broad discretion 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: 12/18/2020
6 RED CEDAR HARMONIA, LLC v. UNITED STATES

subfactor three. See Orion Tech., 704 F.3d at 1351. Pursuant to the solicitation, the 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, therefore, 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 labor 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. The agency rationally evaluated the totality 

of evidence presented under these criteria and concluded 

that NextGen’s proposal was more technically 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.

CONCLUSION

We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments 

and 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