Opinion ID: 666055
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the administrative

Text: PROCEDURE ACT 75 Judicial review of the Training Center's action is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C.A. Sec. 706(2) (1977). The APA provides in pertinent part: The reviewing court shall ... (2) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be--(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.... This standard requires a disappointed bidder to show  'either that (1) the procurement official's decisions on matters committed primarily to his own discretion had no rational basis, or (2) the procurement procedure involved a clear and prejudicial violation of applicable statutes or regulations.'  Kinnett Dairies, Inc. v. Farrow, 580 F.2d 1260, 1271 (5th Cir.1978) (quoting Kentron Hawaii, Ltd. v. Warner, 480 F.2d 1166, 1169 (D.C.Cir.1973)), quoted in Choctaw Mfg. Co. v. United States, 761 F.2d 609, 616 (11th Cir.1985). This deferential standard reflects the respect that reviewing courts are required to accord to agencies in their evaluation of bids and in their interpretation and application of procurement regulations. Kinnett Dairies, 580 F.2d at 1272. 76 While contracting officers may not opt to act illegally, they are entitled to exercise discretion upon a broad range of issues confronting them, including 'considerations of price, judgment, skill, ability, capacity, and integrity' in the selection of businesses with whom the government will enter into contracts. Id. at 1277 (quoting Scanwell Laboratories, Inc. v. Shaffer, 424 F.2d 859, 869 n. 10, 874 (D.C.Cir.1970)). Accordingly, reviewing courts should be concerned with whether the contracting agency provided a coherent and reasonable explanation of its exercise of discretion. See, e.g., MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. FCC, 675 F.2d 408, 413 (D.C.Cir.1982); Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Costle, 657 F.2d 275, 283 (D.C.Cir.1981). Proof that the award lacked a reasonable basis generally establishes arbitrary and capricious action. Keco Industries, Inc. v. United States, 203 Ct.Cl. 566, 492 F.2d 1200, 1203-04 (1974). Thus, if a reviewing court: 77 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. ... Only when the court concludes that there has been a clear violation of duty by the procurement officials should it intervene in the procurement process and proceed to a determination of the controversy on the merits. 78 M. Steinthal & Co. v. Seamans, 455 F.2d 1289, 1301-03 (D.C.Cir.1971), quoted in Kinnett Dairies, 580 F.2d at 1271. Also, proof of subjective bad faith by procuring officials, depriving a bidder of fair and honest consideration of its proposal, generally constitutes arbitrary and capricious action. Keco, 492 F.2d at 1203. Bad faith includes predetermining the awardee or ... harboring a prejudice against the plaintiff. Id. at 1204. 79 Additionally, courts should be extremely reluctant to overturn agency actions validated by the GAO. Kinnett Dairies, 580 F.2d at 1272. However, uncritical deference to the GAO's decisions is not proper, because it would, in effect, repeal Congress' grant of jurisdiction via the APA. Shoals American Indus., Inc. v. United States, 877 F.2d 883, 889 (11th Cir.1989). [T]here certainly may be instances where the District Court will find procurement illegality that the GAO failed to recognize, or at any event failed to correct. M. Steinthal, 455 F.2d at 1305; cf. Delta Data Sys. v. Webster, 744 F.2d 197, 201-02 (D.C.Cir.1984) (stating that, although the GAO may have contracting expertise, courts have no obligation to defer to its conclusions); Aero Corp. v. Dep't of the Navy, 540 F.Supp. 180, 205-06 (D.D.C.1982) (stating that courts have a duty independently to judge the legality of procurement decisions).