Opinion ID: 1036021
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Optimization Model

Text: In making award recommendations to the Contracting Officer (“CO”), the TET considered the results of a computerized optimization model (“OM”), which generated recommendations upon considering factors related to the technical and price evaluation process. The Forest Service has explained that the OM assists the agency in its evaluation by providing a mathematical solution that recommends a set of awards based upon the importance the agency assigns to the evaluation factors the Forest Service is using in a given procurement. To run the OM, the Forest Service enters all relevant bid data, including prices, into the database, and programs the OM to incorporate the percentage weights assigned to each technical evaluation factor, reflecting the relative importance of each selection criterion. The OM thus provides a recommendation that is tailored to the objectives of the procurement for which it is being employed. Accordingly, it is purported that the OM offers an “overall objective of determining, for each line item, the overall best value to the Government.” J.A. 20541. The Forest Service further explained that the OM was developed to review and evaluate more efficiently, what previously had required the TET significant time and effort to conduct manually. E. The Forest Service’s Original December 16, 2011 Award and GAO Protests Eighteen small businesses, including Croman, submitted proposals in response to the 2011 Solicitation. In May 2011, discussions were held with the offerors and by June 2011, the discussions, including technical negotiaCROMAN CORPORATION v. US 7 tions, were concluded. Croman was not recommended for an award. Successful and unsuccessful offerors were notified on December 16, 2011. Between December 29, 2011, and January 9, 2012, three unsuccessful offerors, including Croman, Arctic Air Service (“Arctic”), and Swanson Group Aviation (“Swanson”) filed bid protests with the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”), challenging the awards of CLINs 16– 34, including the Forest Service’s decision to cancel CLINs 21, 22, 27, or 34. On January 27, 2012, GAO dismissed Croman’s protest in its entirety. GAO, however, declined to dismiss Arctic’s and Swanson’s protests. Relevant to this case, Croman’s protest pertained to its helicopters proposed for CLINs 16 to 34. Hence, as to CLINs 16 to 34 and to the extent relevant here, Siller, Defendant Appellee Columbia Helicopters, Inc. (“Columbia”), Firehawk Helicopters, Inc. (“Firehawk”) and HeliQwest International were awarded contracts. F. The Forest Service’s Corrective Action and the Corrective Action Award On January 30, 2012, the Forest Service notified the GAO, Swanson, and Arctic that it intended to take corrective action in response to the Arctic and Swanson protests. Specifically, “the Forest Service agreed to reevaluate three of the five technical evaluation factors” in the 2011 Solicitation: “safety/risk, past performance, and organizational experience.” Croman Corp., 106 Fed. Cl. at 209. “Because the awards for CLINs 1 to 15 had not been protested, the reevaluations pertained only to CLINs 16 to 34.” Id. On February 2, 2012, in response to the Forest Service’s intent to take corrective action, GAO dismissed as moot the Arctic and Swanson protests. The Forest Service implemented the corrective action it had proposed to GAO, and consequently, re-evaluated the offers in reference to the criteria set forth in the 2011 Solicitation. In particular, the Forest Service made best value determinations with respect to the fifteen (15) 8 CROMAN CORPORATION v. US CLINs at issue for which thirty-two (32) helicopters were proposed by sixteen (16) offerors. As it did prior to the corrective action, the OM provided recommended awards for all 15 CLINs based on technical and price evaluations. The Forest Service entered in the OM database all relevant bid data for each aircraft. In addition, the OM was programmed to incorporate the percentage weights it had assigned to each technical evaluation factor and to price, reflecting the relative importance of all of the evaluation criteria. The OM results from the corrective action were then subject to review by the TET. The TET Chair explained the process as follows: On each of the previous OM summaries we have performed an abundance of confirmation checks to ensure the program is optimizing the inputs and providing the overall “Best Value” to the agency. This OM for Large Fire Support has been no dif- ferent in fact we have re-checked the inputs and outputs to ensure the program is working as ex- pected and reconfirmed its application as being a valid tool. J.A. 20535. Following the re-evaluation, the TET determined that no changes were needed and that “the recommendations should be awarded, as modeled, without necessitating any human element changes.” Id. The TET conveyed this determination to the CO in a TET Re- evaluation Report. The CO separately reviewed the OM results “to assure that the recommendations comply with the solicitation requirements.” J.A. 20494. He concurred with the TET award recommendations and submitted them to the Source Selection Authority (“SSA”), together with seven attachments that “provide[d] the basis to understand how the award selections were determined for each line item.” J.A. 20493. The SSA agreed with the TET’s and CO’s award recommendations and, in the Source Selection Certificate, stated: “I have reviewed the model’s results and confirm that they represent best value CROMAN CORPORATION v. US 9 and prioritized aircraft performance over price, while still taking price into account.” J.A. 20734. G. Croman’s Bid Protest at the Claims Court Croman filed its bid protest on February 2, 2012, a few days after the Forest Service issued its notice of proposed corrective action. Croman challenged the awards of CLINs 16–33 including those that were awarded to Siller, Columbia, and Firehawk after the corrective action. Croman also challenged the cancellation of CLINs 21, 22, 27, and 34. On April 27, 2012, after the Forest Service completed its corrective action in which Croman was not awarded any CLIN, Croman filed its motion for judgment upon the administrative record. In its motion, Croman argued, among other things, that the Forest Service’s award decisions were based on determinations that were irrational or contrary to law. In addition, Croman contended “that many of the errors allegedly committed by the Forest Service in the initial evaluations and initial best-value tradeoff determinations were repeated during the corrective action.” Croman Corp., 106 Fed. Cl. at 212. On May 14, 2012, three months after Croman filed its bid protest, the Forest Service issued Solicitation No. AG– 024B–S–12–9025 (“2012 Solicitation”), which solicited one to four helicopters for large fire support, all to be located at the Boise National Forest host base in Idaho. On May 18, 2012, Croman filed a supplemental brief with the Claims Court, alleging that the 2012 Solicitation seeks the same equipment and services that were the subject of the cancelled CLINs 21, 22, 27, and 34 of the 2011 Solicitation. Croman therefore sought the Forest Service to be enjoined from procuring helicopters similar to those cancelled in the 2011 Solicitation. Nevertheless, Croman submitted a proposal in response to the 2012 solicitation, but it received notice in June 2012 that it did not receive an award. 10 CROMAN CORPORATION v. US On August 17, 2012, the Claims Court denied Croman’s motion, and granted the Government’s and Siller’s cross-motions for judgment upon the administrative record. The Claims Court found that the Forest Service’s determinations were rational and that Croman did not suffer prejudice even if the Forest Service’s determinations were made in error. Croman appeals. This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).