United States: October 2016 Protest Roundup

In October, the Government Accountability Office ("GAO") and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ("COFC") issued notable decisions addressing (1) competition, (2) price realism and best value, and (3) organizational conflicts of interest ("OCI"). Below we address these decisions, which offer the protest bar further clarity regarding agency evaluation and award obligations.


  • Areaka Trading & Logistics Co., B-413363, Oct. 13, 2016.

Areaka Trading & Logistics Company involved a pre-award protest alleging that a Department of Defense solicitation failed to include an authorization requirement as a definitive responsibility criterion and as a precondition for contract award. The protester argued the agency should have required offerors to demonstrate they had been authorized by the Royal Jordanian Air Force to sell jet fuel in Jordan before the agency could determine that they were eligible for award, because such a requirement was consistent with Jordanian law and would avoid undue delay after contract award. In denying the protest, GAO explained that the protester's allegation was, in effect, an attempt to make the procurement more restrictive of competition. Noting that its role in reviewing bid protests was "to ensure that the statutory requirements for full and open competition are met, not to protect any interest a protester may have in more restrictive specifications," GAO found that Areaka's protest was without merit.

Areaka is a reminder that GAO will not countenance attempts to impose additional requirements on a procurement, especially where the effect of such imposition will be potentially to limit the number of contractors able to compete for contract award. Although an agency has the discretion to include those requirements it deems reasonably necessary to achieve its stated needs, GAO ordinarily will not step in to require the Agency to impose additional restrictions.

Price Realism and Best Value

  • Heartland Tech. Grp., LLC, B-412402.2, Sep. 29, 2016.

In Heartland Tech. Grp., LLC, Heartland, the incumbent contractor, brought a post-award protest alleging that the U.S. Department of Agriculture failed to properly perform a price realism evaluation or make a reasonable best-value tradeoff determination in its award of an IT services contract. After taking corrective action and reevaluating proposals, the agency again awarded to a lower-priced offeror and Heartland renewed its price realism and best-value tradeoff arguments.

Price Realism

First, GAO rejected Heartland's contention that the only way the agency could have performed a meaningful price realism analysis was to compare the awardee's proposed rates to the rates Heartland charged under the incumbent contract and found that the agency's price realism analysis was meaningful. GAO noted that the agency performed an analysis that led it to conclude that the awardee's proposed rates presented "an overall moderate risk," but that the agency determined this risk was modulated by the location at which the higher-risk labor categories would be performed –- in areas like Washington DC, with high concentrations of highly educated recent college graduates who may be willing to work for less. The agency also noted that, because the solicitation did not dictate experience levels for the labor categories, and because the agency's rate comparison was based on average market rates, it was reasonable to assume that qualified individuals would be available at rates both above and below the average rates. GAO concluded that this analysis was neither inadequate nor unreasonable, and therefore it denied Heartland's challenge of the agency's price realism analysis.

Additionally, GAO rejected Heartland's argument that the agency was required to compare the awardee's rates to Heartland's incumbent rates because the awardee had proposed to retain "100% of the incumbent staff." GAO took issue with Heartland's characterization of the awardee's proposal, which said that it would retain all "qualified incumbents," and stated that there is no general requirement that an agency price realism analysis must include a comparison to the incumbent's prices.

Best-Value Determination

The GAO also denied Heartland's protest of the agency's best-value determination. The solicitation provided that the technical/management and past performance evaluation factors were significantly more important than price, and Heartland took issue with the agency's determination that Heartland's better non-price evaluations did not justify the $19 million price difference between it and the awardee. Heartland's scores on both technical/management and past performance were certainly better than the awardee's: Heartland received a technical/management score of "Excellent" to the awardee's "Very Good" and a past performance score of "Substantial" to the awardee's "Satisfactory." Heartland argued that RFP provided that price would "only be given a major consideration" if the vendors' quotations were considered equal under the non-price factors, and that its price should have been "of minor importance" since Heartland's quotation was rated higher than Ace's with regard to past performance and technical/management approach.

But GAO was not convinced. It found that the agency's source selection decision document demonstrated that the agency undertook an extensive comparison of the evaluated strengths and weaknesses in both vendors' quotations. Specifically, with regard to the technical/management evaluation factor, the agency performed a subfactor-by-subfactor comparison that recognized that Heartland's proposal was superior, but it assessed the relative value of the superiority of each subfactor and concluded that, overall, Heartland's advantages were not significant. For the past performance analysis, the agency found that Heartland's higher ratings were due in large part to its incumbent status, and, given that the awardee had a positive past performance rating, the value of Heartland's incumbency was not large. Finally, the agency determined that the $19 million price difference was "beyond substantially more" than the awardee's price, and it concluded that the price premium outweighed the "minimal gains" provided by Heartland's higher ratings.

From this, GAO concluded that the agency's analysis was not unreasonable; it had specifically recognized the evaluated superiority of Heartland's quotation under the non-price factors, made assessments regarding the relative value of that superiority; considered the magnitude of Heartland's price premium, and concluded that the benefits offered by Heartland's higher-rated quotation were not worth Heartland's substantially higher price.

Heartland is a reminder that, even where a solicitation emphasizes the importance of technical factors and past performance over price, agencies unwilling to pay a price premium for superior proposals can justify the decision to GAO's satisfaction with sufficient analysis. It also shows the benefit for agencies in looking "behind the ratings" to the actual strengths and weaknesses, and it demonstrates the discretion the GAO will afford an agency when it does so.


  • AEgis Techs. Grp., Inc. v. United States, No. 16-863C (Fed. Cl. Sep. 28, 2016).

AEgis Technologies Group, Inc. v. United States is the latest OCI decision imposing the high burden of proof for establishing an OCI set by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the seminal decision of Turner Construction Co. v. United States, 645 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In Turner, the Federal Circuit held that "an OCI must be based on hard facts; a mere inference or suspicion of an actual or apparent conflict is not enough. Turner, 645 F.3d at 1387. In AEgis Technologies, Judge Firestone found that AEgis failed to meet this high bar in alleging that the awardee was ineligible.

AEgis had alleged that the awardee should have been ineligible for the contract award because one of its subcontractors, Booz Allen Hamilton, had biased ground rules, unequal access to information, and impaired objectivity OCIs. With respect to each allegation, however, Judge Firestone found that AEgis had failed to set forth the "hard facts" necessary to establish an OCI.

With respect to its biased ground rules allegation, AEgis argued that Booz Allen provided systems engineering and technical direction under a support services contract that resulted in the development of requirements for the subject contract. To substantiate its claim, AEgis relied principally on a description of Booz Allen's past performance in the awardee's proposal and a declaration by an AEgis Vice President. The Government, however, responded that despite the contents of the awardee's proposal and the provided declaration, Booz Allen did not, in fact, provide systems engineering or technical direction for the support services contract. The Court agreed, finding that there was no evidence in the record that Booz Allen created specifications, developed testing requirements, or supervised the design of the subject procurement.

AEgis similarly relied on its Vice President's declaration for its unequal access to information OCI allegation. The declaration stated that Booz Allen had access to cost/price data and models, as well as AEgis's proprietary information and processes, due to Booz Allen's work under the support services contract. The Government responded that the agency had released information regarding contract requirements to all interested parties, and that Booz Allen did not have access to AEgis's proprietary information. The Court found that the agency's release of information was acceptable to mitigate an unequal access to information OCI, and that AEgis had failed to show that Booz Allen had access to proprietary information or had a competitive advantage in the procurement beyond that ordinarily attributable to incumbency.

Finally, relying once again on its Vice President's declaration, AEgis asserted that Booz Allen had an impaired objectivity OCI. As with the AEgis's other OCI allegations, however, the Court found that AEgis had failed to establish the hard facts necessary to prevail. The Court held that AEgis failed to show that Booz Allen drafted requirements or determined changes to the subject contract to steer the contract to the awardee, or that Booz Allen unduly criticized AEgis's performance of the incumbent contract to make it easier for the awardee to get the contract.

The key takeaway from AEgis Technologies is that OCI allegations, whether raised before GAO or COFC, must be based on record-based evidence. AEgis principally relied on a declaration from its Vice President to advance its OCI allegations, but the Court found that declaration unpersuasive given the record-based evidence to the contrary. In the aftermath of Turner Construction, contractors must recognize that "hard facts" means record-based facts.

Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions