Opinion ID: 666055
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Advisory Council's Increase of ETC's Marginal Ratings

Text: 88 Latecoere asserts that the evidence establishes that the Advisory Council acted irrationally and in violation of procurement regulations when, during its review of the Evaluations Board's evaluations and ratings of the offerors' revised proposals, the Advisory Council increased ETC's ratings in four critical chapters from marginal to acceptable without re-evaluating those chapters. Latecoere points to 48 C.F.R. Sec. 15.608(a) (1993), which provides that [p]roposal evaluation is an assessment of both the proposal and the offeror's ability (as conveyed by the proposal) to successfully accomplish the prospective contract. Latecoere contends that, by increasing ETC's chapter ratings without re-evaluating the chapters, the Advisory Council improperly based its evaluation of ETC's proposal on factors other than those conveyed in its proposal. Latecoere maintains that the elimination of ETC's marginal ratings prejudiced Latecoere by making ETC eligible for the award when it otherwise would not have been. 89 The Navy does not deny that the Advisory Council increased ETC's ratings. Rather, it contends that the Advisory Council's act was not irrational or in clear violation of Sec. 15.608(a). Alternatively, it argues that, even if increasing the ratings was irrational and clearly violative of Sec. 15.608(a), it was not prejudicial to Latecoere. 90 After considering Latecoere's allegations and the evidence regarding the ratings increases, the GAO concluded: 91 While [increasing ETC's ratings] is indicative that the evaluation of these [chapters] was unreasonable, the record also shows that ETC's overall technical rating for the device design factor was acceptable with low risk, even with the four critical ... marginal ratings. Latecoere does not contend that ETC's overall acceptable rating for the device design factor was unreasonable. Since the [Selection Authority] was aware of the marginal ratings for these [chapters] and concurred with the [Advisory Council's] determination to change them to acceptable, it follows that he weighed them in making his selection decision. Under the circumstances, we are not persuaded that Latecoere was prejudiced by this change in the scoring of ETC's [chapters], inasmuch as it apparently had no effect upon ETC's unchallenged overall technical rating of acceptabl[e] with low risk for the device design evaluation factor. 92 Latecoere, 1992 WL 15029 at  6. 9 We agree with the GAO that the Advisory Council's increase of ETC's ratings from marginal to acceptable without re-evaluation of those chapters was unreasonable. There is no other way to describe an action taken in order to make an award to ETC to which it was not otherwise entitled on the merits. If fairly evaluated, ETC's proposal would not have been selected, so the books were cooked to ensure that it was. 93 We disagree with the GAO's conclusion that the cheating on behalf of ETC did not prejudice Latecoere. The GAO based its conclusion that Latecoere was not prejudiced by the arbitrary elevation of ETC's ratings on two assumptions, one of which has no support in the record, and the other of which is flatly contradicted by the record. The GAO's first assumption was that Selection Authority Robert Urban was aware that ETC had had marginal ratings in critical chapters and must have taken those marginal ratings into consideration when making his selection. That assumption is not supported by the record for two reasons. First, the record contains no evidence that Urban was aware when he selected ETC that the Advisory Council had changed ETC's marginal ratings in critical chapters. Second, even if Urban had known that the Advisory Council had arbitrarily upgraded ETC's marginal ratings in critical chapters, the record provides no reason at all to assume that Urban would have considered that fact against ETC. ETC's marginal ratings in critical chapters were changed for arbitrary and political reasons, and there is evidence that Urban's own decisional process was driven by that same improper motivation. Urban's overall course of conduct and his statements permit and perhaps compel the conclusion that, in keeping with the wishes of Assistant Director Ford, Urban was determined to favor ETC. Consequently, there is no indication that Urban considered the fact ETC actually should have had marginal ratings in critical chapters. 94 The GAO based its conclusion that the arbitrary increase of ETC's marginal ratings did not harm Latecoere on a second assumption as well: that this increase had no effect on ETC's overall rating. The evidence contradicts that assumption. Captain Kalapos, the Training Center's Director of Contracts, told the Advisory Council members that there would be no award to an offeror with a marginal rating in a critical chapter of the Device Design volume of the proposals, even if the firm had an overall rating of acceptable. Thus, the evidence shows that if the Advisory Council had not cheated on ETC's behalf, ETC would have had marginal ratings in four critical chapters and would not have been awarded the contract. The Advisory Council's action prejudiced Latecoere, and the GAO's contrary conclusion is clearly wrong. 95 The only statement by the magistrate judge pertaining to this issue is that:[T]he record does not currently ... support the conclusion that [ratings] were manipulated only to accept a lower cost proposal from a domestic corporation. Rather the record establishes only that ETC's proposal, previously classified as technically unacceptable, was reclassified as technically acceptable due to the reclassification of certain critical chapters. 96 Because the magistrate judge's finding ignores evidence that the Advisory Council increased ETC's ratings in critical chapters without re-evaluating those chapters for no reason other than to award the contract to ETC, we reject the magistrate judge's finding on this issue. 97 The record contains overwhelming evidence that the Advisory Council's manipulation of ETC's ratings was arbitrary, irrational, improperly motivated, and a clear and prejudicial violation of 48 C.F.R. Sec. 15.608(a). That evidence alone requires that we reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment against Latecoere. 98