Red River Science & Technology LLC v. United States: Contract Dispute

Red River Science & Technology, LLC submitted a proposal to the U.S. Army under the Enhanced Army Global Logistics Enterprise (EAGLE) Program, which sought logistics support services at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. The solicitation involved multiple steps, including technical evaluation, past performance review, and cost and price analysis. During the procurement, Red River was twice selected as the apparent awardee before the Army reopened discussions with competitors following protests.

The dispute centered on the Army’s handling of indirect expense rates and the reopening of discussions after Red River’s selection. The solicitation required contractors to fully support their proposed indirect rates with documentation or accept capped rates determined by the Army. Red River supported its rates, while competing offerors Gemini Tech Services LLC and Vanquish Worldwide LLC faced issues with theirs. The Army’s subsequent actions and amendments to the solicitation led to challenges from Red River.

Procedural History

After initially selecting Red River in November 2023, the Army faced a protest from Gemini at the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which argued that the Army should have conducted discussions under Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) § 215.306. In response, the Army took corrective action, stayed the award, and opened discussions with all offerors. Following the discussions, Vanquish was selected as the apparent awardee but declined to sign the contract due to the rate caps. The Army again named Red River as the apparent awardee in July 2024.

The Army later decided to reopen discussions once more and issued Amendment 6, which removed the requirement to cap indirect rates. Red River protested at the GAO, but the protest was denied. It then filed a complaint with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims challenging the reopening of discussions, the inclusion of Vanquish in the competitive range, and the issuance of Amendment 6.

Legal Analysis

The Court of Federal Claims examined whether the Army’s actions were arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Red River argued that the Army erred in reopening discussions and that Gemini’s protest had been untimely. The court determined that the Army’s decision to open discussions was within its discretion, emphasizing that contracting officers are permitted to reopen discussions when necessary to ensure fair competition and best value to the government.

The court also addressed Red River’s claim that Vanquish was ineligible to continue competing after it refused an award. It found that even if Vanquish’s proposal was temporarily unacceptable, the Army could allow further participation through discussions, as permitted by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). The court further concluded that Amendment 6, which eliminated the indirect rate cap, was consistent with a broader Army policy shift and not a pretext to favor a specific offeror.

Red River also contended that discussions were unequal because the Army engaged more extensively with Gemini and Vanquish. The court held that the Army was not required to conduct identical discussions with all offerors, only fair and meaningful ones. Since Red River had already provided sufficient documentation for its indirect rates, there was no need for additional discussion.

Finally, the court addressed Red River’s complaint regarding the Army’s refusal to release the original source selection decision document (SSDD). It found that Red River’s debriefing requests were untimely under FAR § 15.506(a)(1) and that the Army’s subsequent release of an SSDD addendum satisfied the relevant requirements.

Court’s Ruling

The Court of Federal Claims denied Red River’s motion for judgment on the administrative record and granted the government’s and intervenors’ cross-motions. It concluded that the Army’s decisions, including the reopening of discussions, amendment of the solicitation, and selection process, were rational and lawful. The case was dismissed.

Assistance with Government Contracting Matters

If you are involved in disputes or protests related to federal procurement, Whitcomb, Selinsky PC assists with government contracting matters. Contact us to learn how our team can support your case.