Tech Systems v. United States: COFC Upholds Army’s LPTA Award to Westech

Tech Systems, Inc. challenged a contract award issued by the Army Contracting Command–Rock Island for logistics services at Schofield Barracks in Hawaii. The solicitation sought maintenance, supply, and transportation services under the Army’s Enhanced Acquisition Global Logistics Enterprise II program. The Army evaluated proposals using a lowest-price, technically acceptable framework.

After the evaluation process concluded, the Army awarded the task order to Westech International, Inc. Tech Systems first raised concerns through the Government Accountability Office, which denied relief. Tech Systems then brought the dispute to the United States Court of Federal Claims.

Structure of the Solicitation and Evaluation Process

The solicitation established a multi-step evaluation process. Proposals first had to pass a strict compliance review. Those that met the basic requirements advanced to a three-step evaluation focusing on technical acceptability, past performance, and cost realism.

Technical acceptability required offerors to demonstrate that their staffing plans, organizational structure, and labor mix met the minimum requirements of the performance work statement. Past performance was evaluated based on recency, relevance, scope, and complexity. Cost proposals were reviewed to determine whether proposed rates were reasonable and realistic for the work to be performed.

Issues Raised in the Bid Protest

Tech Systems argued that the Army acted arbitrarily and capriciously during each phase of the evaluation. The protest asserted that the technical review lacked sufficient documentation, that past performance references credited to Westech were not adequately explained, and that the cost realism analysis failed to justify the acceptance of certain labor and indirect rates.

Tech Systems also challenged how the Army evaluated joint venture experience and subcontractor participation. According to the protest, the record did not support the conclusion that Westech’s prior work demonstrated experience comparable to the full scope of the solicitation.

Court’s Review Standard

The court applied the Administrative Procedure Act standard, which limits review to whether the agency acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or contrary to law. Under this framework, the court emphasized that procurement decisions are entitled to substantial deference, particularly when agencies exercise technical judgment within the bounds of the solicitation.

The court noted that disagreement with an agency’s conclusions is not sufficient to overturn a contract award. Instead, the record must show that the agency lacked a rational basis or violated required procedures.

Analysis of the Technical and Past Performance Evaluations

The court concluded that the Army reasonably evaluated technical acceptability. The administrative record showed detailed discussion of staffing plans, labor categories, management structure, and workload distribution. Minor uncertainties identified in the proposals were not required to result in rejection under the solicitation’s terms.

With respect to past performance, the court found that the Army acted within its discretion when determining relevance. The solicitation allowed the Army to weigh experience across task areas and to consider joint venture and subcontractor performance where supported by the record. The court determined that the Army sufficiently explained why the cited prior work demonstrated experience similar in scope and complexity.

Cost Realism and Allocation Concerns

The court also rejected challenges to the cost realism analysis. The Army reviewed proposed labor rates, indirect costs, and supporting data, and adjusted certain rates where information was unsupported. The court explained that capping unsupported rates did not require the Army to find those rates unrealistic or to reject the proposal.

The record supported the Army’s conclusion that the evaluated costs were realistic for contract performance. The court found no requirement that the Army conduct additional risk analysis absent a determination that costs were unrealistically low.

The Court’s Ruling

The court denied the request to overturn the award and granted judgment in favor of the Army and Westech International. It concluded that the evaluation process complied with the solicitation and that the contract award was supported by a rational basis.

Assistance With Bid Protest Matters

If you are involved in a federal procurement dispute, Whitcomb Selinsky PC handles matters involving bid protests and contract award challenges. Reach out to schedule a consultation and learn how our team can assist with issues arising from government contracting decisions.