In CAN Softtech, Inc. v. United States, CAN Softtech, Inc. filed a bid protest in the United States Court of Federal Claims challenging a federal contract award decision. The dispute arose from a procurement conducted by a federal agency seeking information technology services under a competitive solicitation.
The solicitation contemplated the award of a contract based on a best-value tradeoff. Offerors were required to submit technical proposals, past performance information, and pricing. The agency evaluated proposals under stated evaluation factors and assigned ratings in accordance with the terms of the solicitation.
After completing its evaluation, the agency selected another offeror for award. CAN Softtech filed a protest asserting that the agency’s evaluation and award decision were inconsistent with the solicitation and applicable procurement regulations.
CAN Softtech alleged that the agency misevaluated proposals under the technical and past performance factors. It contended that the agency failed to follow the solicitation’s evaluation criteria and applied unstated evaluation standards. The protest also challenged aspects of the best-value tradeoff analysis, asserting that the agency did not reasonably justify its decision in light of the comparative strengths and weaknesses of the competing proposals.
The government responded that the evaluation was conducted in accordance with the solicitation and that the award decision was supported by the administrative record. The government maintained that the contracting officer exercised reasonable judgment in assessing proposal strengths, weaknesses, and overall value to the agency.
The Court of Federal Claims reviewed the protest under the standards set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act. The court considered whether the agency’s actions were arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. The court’s review was based on the administrative record developed during the procurement.
The court explained that it did not substitute its judgment for that of the agency. Instead, it assessed whether the agency’s evaluation had a rational basis and whether the procurement process complied with the terms of the solicitation and governing regulations.
The court examined the agency’s technical evaluation findings and the documentation supporting those findings. The administrative record included evaluation reports, consensus findings, and the source selection decision document. The court considered whether the agency reasonably evaluated proposal features identified as strengths or weaknesses and whether it treated offerors consistently.
The court also reviewed the past performance assessment and the best-value tradeoff analysis. It evaluated whether the contracting officer adequately explained why the selected proposal represented the best value to the government under the solicitation’s evaluation scheme.
In addressing CAN Softtech’s arguments, the court analyzed whether any identified errors were prejudicial. The court noted that to prevail in a bid protest, a protester must demonstrate both that the agency erred and that the error was prejudicial.
After reviewing the administrative record and the parties’ arguments, the Court of Federal Claims entered judgment resolving the protest. The court determined whether the agency’s evaluation and award decision satisfied the applicable legal standards and whether any alleged procurement errors warranted relief.
The court’s opinion concluded with its disposition of CAN Softtech’s bid protest and directed the entry of judgment consistent with its findings.
If your company is challenging a federal contract award or defending against a bid protest, contact us to discuss your situation with our team.