# Dev Technology Group Inc. v. United States

> United States Court of Federal Claims · December 3, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11214026

## Case

- **Court:** United States Court of Federal Claims
- **Decided:** December 3, 2025
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Zachary N. Somers
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11214026

## Opinion text

In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 25-621
Filed Under Seal: November 13, 2025
Reissued: December 3, 2025 *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
DEV TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC, *
*
Plaintiff, *
*
v. *
*
THE UNITED STATES, *
*
Defendant, *
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

William A. Shook, The Law Offices of William A. Shook PLLC, with whom was Steven
Barentzen, The Law Office of Steven Barentzen, both of Washington, D.C., for Plaintiff Dev
Technology Group, Inc.

Emma E. Bond, Senior Trial Counsel, with whom were Douglas K. Mickle, Acting
Deputy Director, Patricia M. McCarthy, Director, and Brett A. Shumate, Assistant Attorney
General, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, Department of Justice, all of
Washington, D.C., for the government, and Shirin E. Ahlhauser, Assistant General Counsel, U.S.
General Services Administration, of Washington, D.C., of counsel.

OPINION AND ORDER

SOMERS, Judge.

As the Court has observed on several occasions, most recently in KL3, LLC v. United
States, it is black letter law that allegations of agency error alone are insufficient to establish
standing to bring a bid protest, and proof of agency error alone is insufficient to succeed on the
merits of a bid protest. See 176 Fed. Cl. 657 (2025). Rather, it is axiomatic that a protestor must
plausibly allege prejudicial error in its complaint to establish standing (both Article III and
statutory) and that it must, drawing on the administrative record, prove prejudicial error in its
motion for judgment on the administrative record (“MJAR”) to be successful on the merits of a

*
Pursuant to the protective order entered in this case, this opinion was filed initially
under seal. The parties did not provide any proposed redactions of confidential or proprietary
information; however, this version of the opinion contains minor typographical and stylistic
corrections.
bid protest. Without more, allegations and proof of agency error alone—no matter how obvious
or egregious—can neither open the courthouse door for a protestor nor lead to success on the
merits of a bid protest.

A sine qua non of standing in a bid protest is that a protestor allege that it could compete
for the contract if the challenged agency errors were corrected. Relatedly, the concept of
prejudicial error then requires that the protestor prove those allegations on the merits in what has
been termed a “trial on the paper record.” Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346, 1356
(Fed. Cir. 2005). As was the case in KL3, the protestor here, Dev Technology (“Dev Tech”),
makes no factual allegations in its complaint and offers no proof on the merits that it could
compete for the contract at issue. Beyond a few sparsely placed conclusory sentences, there is
nothing in Dev Tech’s complaint or its merits briefing that even attempts to establish that Dev
Tech could actually do the work required by the contract at issue. Instead, Dev Tech essentially
asserts, “I sued, therefore I have standing.” See, e.g., ECF No. 31 at 106:10–23. But while
establishing standing in a bid protest is not an onerous task, it is also not satisfied by bare
assertions sounding in Cartesian rhetoric. Dev Tech’s approach to meeting its burden to
establish standing and prove prejudice is insufficient both in its allegations and on the merits.

This is a pre-award protest brought by a protestor that did not bid on the solicitation. In
such a case—in which there was no proposal or therefore no evaluation thereof—it is incumbent
on the protestor to offer the Court some indication of the protestor’s capability to perform the
contract and some indication that the errors alleged were indeed what kept the protestor from
submitting a proposal. Rather than attempting to meet this standard through plausible factual
allegations or perhaps a declaration attached to its complaint, Dev Tech simply offers the legal
conclusion that it “is a prospective offeror with a direct economic interest in this procurement” in
its complaint and several equally conclusory statements on the merits. ECF No. 1 ¶ 5.

Dev Tech needed to do more. Although it is clear that aside from perhaps one of Dev
Tech’s five protest grounds the agency did not err, without plausible factual allegations
establishing standing, any analysis of the alleged errors would amount to an advisory opinion
and allow this protest to become a “vehicle for the vindication of the value interests of concerned
bystanders.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 756 (1984) (quoting United States v. SCRAP, 412
U.S. 669, 687 (1973)). Therefore, the Court’s below analysis will focus on Dev Tech’s general
lack of standing and, additionally, its lack of standing as to each of the five counts of its
complaint. The Court will also address the interrelated issue of Dev Tech’s failure to
meaningfully address merits prejudice beyond a few conclusory assertions.

BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

In this pre-award bid protest, Dev Tech protests the Alliant 3 solicitation for certain
“unreasonable terms of the Solicitation that exceed the legitimate needs of the Agency.” ECF
No. 1 ¶ 1. Dev Tech is a “mid-sized other than small business concern” incorporated in
Washington, D.C. that allegedly is a “prospective offeror with a direct economic interest in [the
Alliant 3] procurement.” Id. ¶¶ 2, 5.

2
The Alliant 3 solicitation is a Governmentwide Acquisition Contract (“GWAC”) issued
by the General Services Administration (“GSA” or “agency”) for IT services across the federal
government. Tab 44 at AR 5912; see also 48 C.F.R. § 2.101 (defining a GWAC as a “task-order
or delivery-order contract for information technology established by one agency for
Governmentwide use” that is operated “[b]y an executive agent”). The Office of Management
and Budget designated the GSA as “the executive agent” for the Alliant 3 GWAC procurement.
Tab 9 at AR 1145; Tab 44 at AR 5912. Alliant 3 is to be the successor to Alliant 2, which is
currently the largest GWAC administered by any agency. Tab 9 at AR 1145. Alliant 2 supports
“68 customers from Federal Civilian Agencies and the Department of Defense,” totaling “544
task orders worth approximately $40.9 billion.” Id. at AR 1146. The agency envisions Alliant 3
as a continuation of Alliant 2, allowing for, inter alia, “[i]mmediate access to a highly qualified
contractor pool” and “[f]lexibility to award all contract types and hybrid contract types (except
BPAs and letter contracts).” Id. The agency asserts that “Alliant 3 is integral to ensure the
Government has a streamlined option through an established vehicle for IT service-based
solutions . . . [because] it creates an acquisition avenue for agencies that may not have the
required manpower, resources, budget, or lead time to conduct a standalone acquisition.” Id. at
AR 1145.

Accordingly, Alliant 3 is intended to service diverse IT needs across the federal
government. Id. To this end, the agency issued a solicitation that seeks to “ensure a high-
performing contractor pool,” ECF No. 20 at 1 (citing Tab 44 at AR 6230–34), scoring offerors
on factors that the agency deems predictive of future success, such as relevant experience, see,
e.g., Tab 44 at AR 6230. The agency’s “best value basis for awards will be determined by the
Highest Technically Rated Offerors with a Fair and Reasonable Price (HTR/F&RP) approach.”
Tab 44. at AR 6225. The technical evaluation encompasses four areas: “Relevant Experience,”
“Past Performance,” “Systems, Certifications, and Clearances,” and “Organizational Risk
Assessment.” Id. at AR 6228. As part of this technical evaluation, the solicitation provides for a
point-scoring system that assigns a numerical score to each offeror evaluated. Id. at AR 6225.
The agency contemplates awarding 76 base contracts under the Alliant 3 master contract, with
awards to the 76 highest scoring offerors with a fair and reasonable price that meet all the
“Acceptability Review requirements.” Id. at AR 6225–26. An offeror can earn a maximum of
88,200 points, but there is no minimum points threshold for award. See generally id. at AR
6225–36 (outlining evaluation factors for award). These points are awarded based on criteria set
by the solicitation and a “screening process . . . to verify support documentation for all the
applicable evaluation elements submitted . . . .” Id. at AR 6226. The scoring provisions at issue
in this protest include point awards based on contractor teaming arrangements, audited or
approved accounting, purchasing and estimating systems, verified experiences with emerging
technologies, and points awarded for relevant experience servicing unique federal customers. Id.
at AR 6230–34. These provisions are described in further detail below.

1. Points for Contractor Teaming Arrangements

Section L.5.6 of the solicitation, titled “Organizational Risk Assessment,” allows for joint
ventures, partnerships, or contractor teaming arrangements (“CTAs”) that are formed “to act as a
potential Prime Contractor” to bid on the solicitation. Id. at AR 6172, 6220. The solicitation

3
allows for these “Joint Venture Offerors” to earn points for “each relevant experience project . . .
in which all members of a CTA have previously performed [] exclusively together. . . . ” Id. at
6220. For offerors to earn these points, they must have “previously performed work on a
contract/order,” or “all members of the Joint Venture or Partnership Offeror [must] have
previously performed work exclusively together (all JV or Partnership members must have
worked together on a contract/task order, with no other entities involved in performance) on a
contract/order.” Id.

The agency justified these limitations on awarding relevant experience project points to
joint ventures because of performance risks associated with CTAs in which the members of the
CTA “may lack sufficient relevant experience and past performance working together.” Tab 18
at AR 1272. As an example, the agency stated:

[T]he Government recognizes the performance complexities of providing overseas
performance of a sophisticated enterprise-wide emerging technology IT solution
for a classified system under a cost reimbursable type contract (that requires an
approved accounting system), when the clearance belongs to one CTA member, the
IT solution capability belongs to another CTA member, the overseas business
capabilities belong to a different CTA member, and the approved accounting
system belongs to yet another CTA member. The learning curve and multi-entity
coordination requirements for combining the types of performance anticipated for
Alliant 3 between two or more CTA entities risks a negative impact on
performance, while a prior history of the CTA entities successfully working
together lessens the likelihood of a potential negative outcome.

Id. The agency further noted that “[a] combination of separate capabilities that have never
functioned together does not necessarily equal a performance capability that operates at a level
equal to the sum of its parts.” Id. Thus, the contracting officer concluded that these restrictions
were “deemed necessary and proper by the Government to minimize the performance risk
inherent in contractor teaming arrangements that lack actual performance experience as a
cohesive teaming arrangement.” Id. at AR 1276.

2. Points for Audited or Approved Accounting, Purchasing, and Estimating
Systems

Section L.5.4 of the solicitation awards offerors points for having, inter alia: (1) an
adequate or acceptable accounting system; (2) an approved or acceptable purchasing system; and
(3) an approved or acceptable estimating system. Tab 44 at AR 6212–14. Offerors can earn
6,000 points for an accounting system that was audited and found adequate by the Defense
Contract Management Agency (“DCMA”), Defense Contract Audit Agency (“DCAA”), or a
Chartered Financial Analyst (“CFA”), or 3,000 points for an accounting system that was audited
and found acceptable by a Certified Public Accountant (“CPA”). Id. at AR 6233. Next, an
offeror can earn 1,500 points for a purchasing system reviewed and approved by DCMA or a
CFA, or 750 points for a purchasing system reviewed and found acceptable by a CPA. Id.
Finally, an offeror can earn 200 points for an estimating system that was audited and approved

4
by DCMA, DCAA, or a CFA, or 100 points for an estimating system audited and found
acceptable by a CPA. Id.

In short, Section L.5.4 awards offerors twice the number of points for systems audited by
a federal agency as it does for systems audited by a CPA. In deciding how to allocate points
under this provision, the agency found that “CPA point parity with CFAs, DCAA and DCMA is
not warranted” because “CPAs are not authorized by federal law and regulation to act as a
certifying body (such as DCMA or a CFA), and CPAs can not [sic] approve or determine the
adequacy of a system.” Tab 25 at AR 1418. The agency further justified its scoring system by
stating that “third-party independent auditors determine the acceptability of a vendor’s
accounting system based on their application of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
(GAAP), while the government determines adequacy of an accounting system based on the
higher standard of Generally Accepted Government Accounting Standards (GAGAS), which
also requires audit peer review.” Id.

3. Points for Verified Experiences in Emerging Technologies

Section L.5.2.4 of the solicitation awards points to offerors with verified emerging
technology relevant experience. Tab 44 at AR 6231. The agency, “[b]ased on IT Industry
research, Community Survey, and Federal Policy, [ ] developed a list of eleven (11) Emerging
Technologies (ETs) as the most likely ETs to become relevant for use in Alliant 3.” Tab 12 at
1255. Accordingly, offerors must demonstrate experience with these eleven emerging
technologies to earn these points. See Tab 44 at AR 6231. The agency reasoned that “Alliant 3
is designed to be the premier[] IT Services vehicle for the federal government and as such, it is
important that ETs be identified as integral to the future of IT services in the United States.” Tab
12 at AR 1256. Therefore, the agency asserted that “[i]t is equally important that Offerors are
evaluated and scored based on their technical experience with ETs.” Id. Furthermore, “[t]hese
[eleven] ETs will be evaluated with point scoring that reflects the anticipated future importance
of these ETs.” Id. at 1255.

Consequently, offerors can earn points for verified past experience in eleven different
emerging technology categories: artificial intelligence, big data, cloud computing, cybersecurity,
edge computing, extended reality, health information technology, the internet of things, mobile
information technology, quantum computing, and zero trust networks. Tab 44 at AR 6195–6203.
The solicitation provides that an offeror “may submit a MAXIMUM of three (3) Emerging
Technology Relevant Experience Projects” for each of these categories “for a total of [thirty-
three] Emerging Technology Experience projects.” Id. at AR 6195. Offerors are awarded 100
points for each first instance of relevant experience in each emerging technology category, 200
points for the second instance in an emerging technology category, and 300 points for the third
instance in an emerging technology category. Id. at AR 6231. Thus, the solicitation awards a
maximum of 6,600 points for verified emerging technology experiences. Id.

In order to earn points for emerging technology relevant experiences, Section L.5.2.4.2
requires that the offeror submit verification documents. See id. at AR 6204. Under this
provision, the solicitation allows offerors to earn points for experience in emerging technologies

5
based on work they performed as a subcontractor. Id. at AR 6206. An offeror may use
subcontractor work for only “the value and scope of the work subcontracted.” Id.

4. Points for Unique Federal Agency Customers

The solicitation awards points for “a maximum of seven (7) distinct Primary NAICS
[North American Industry Classification System] Code Relevant Experience Projects,” reflecting
past performance in one of the acceptable NAICS codes outlined in the solicitation. Tab 44 at
AR 6186 (emphases omitted); see id. at AR 6187–88. Section L.5.2.3.4 awards additional points
“for each unique Federal Government Customer” serviced under the “primary NAICS Code
Relevant Experience Project submitted under L.5.2.3.1.” Id. at AR 6193. According to the
agency, Alliant 3 is to “be available for use by any federal agency,” Tab 5 at AR 457, and the
contracting officer determined that “enlisting contractors with experience in managing multiple
agency customers should play a moderate role in the evaluation scoring of the Alliant 3
contract,” Tab 23 at AR 1409. To this end, the solicitation awards 500 points per relevant
experience project submission with a unique federal agency for a maximum of 3,500 points for
the seven maximum relevant experience projects allowed by the solicitation. Tab 44 at AR
6230–31.

B. Procedural History

The operative version of the Alliant 3 solicitation was issued on March 12, 2025, with
proposals due on April 11, 2025. Tab 43 at AR 5535–36. On April 10, 2025, Dev Tech filed
this protest as a “prospective offeror” challenging several of the scoring provisions of the Alliant
3 solicitation. See generally ECF No. 1. Specifically, Dev Tech challenges solicitation
provisions awarding: (1) points for CTAs; (2) points for federal-agency-audited or approved
accounting, purchasing, and estimating systems; (3) points for experiences with emerging
technologies and (4) the verification procedures for those experiences; and (5) points for relevant
experience projects with multiple federal government customers. See id. ¶¶ 34–67.
Subsequently, Dev Tech moved for judgment on the administrative record, ECF No. 19, and the
government responded and cross-moved for judgment on the administrative record, ECF No. 20.
Following briefing and oral argument, the parties’ motions are ripe for consideration.

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

The Tucker Act, as amended by the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, provides the
Court of Federal Claims with jurisdiction over any “action by an interested party objecting to a
solicitation by a Federal agency for bids or proposals for a proposed contract or to a proposed
award or the award of a contract or any alleged violation of statute or regulation in connection
with a procurement or a proposed procurement.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1). In exercising its bid
protest jurisdiction, the Court “review[s] the agency’s decision pursuant to the standards set forth
in section 706 of title 5,” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(4), which require the Court to “hold unlawful and
set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of
discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). To succeed in a bid

6
protest, a protestor must make two showings. Bannum, 404 F.3d at 1351. First, a protestor must
show error, meaning that the agency violated the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”)
standard. Id. Second, a protestor must demonstrate that such error was prejudicial. Data Gen.
Corp. v. Johnson, 78 F.3d 1556, 1562 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

To demonstrate that an agency’s actions were in error, a protestor must establish that the
agency “entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for
its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or [the decision] is so
implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency
expertise.” Ala. Aircraft Indus., Inc.-Birmingham v. United States, 586 F.3d 1372, 1375 (Fed.
Cir. 2009) (alteration in original) (quoting Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto.
Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)). Accordingly, a procurement decision may be set aside if the
protestor proves that “(1) the procurement official’s decision lacked a rational basis; or (2) the
procurement procedure involved a violation of regulation or procedure.” Weeks Marine, Inc. v.
United States, 575 F.3d 1352, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting PGBA, LLC v. United States, 389
F.3d 1219, 1225 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). A protestor must then show that this conduct constituted
“a significant, prejudicial error in the procurement process.” WellPoint Mil. Care Corp. v.
United States, 953 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (quoting Alfa Laval Separation, Inc. v.
United States, 175 F.3d 1365, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 1999)); Data Gen. Corp., 78 F.3d at 1562 (“[T]o
prevail in a protest the protester must show not only a significant error in the procurement
process, but also that the error prejudiced it.”); see also Sys. Stud. & Simulation, Inc. v. United
States, 22 F.4th 994, 996–97 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“In particular, the challenger of agency action
generally bears the burden of showing that an error was harmful—that is, that it was
prejudicial.”). To establish prejudice in a pre-award challenge, a protestor must show a “non-
trivial competitive injury which can be addressed by judicial relief.” Weeks Marine, 575 F.3d at
1362.

Generally, bid protests are decided on cross-motions for judgment on the administrative
record under Rule 52.1 of the Rules of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”). In deciding
whether to grant an MJAR, the Court must “make factual findings from the record evidence as if
it were conducting a trial on the record.” Bannum, 404 F.3d at 1354. Accordingly, the Court
assesses “whether, given all the disputed and undisputed facts, a party has met its burden of
proof based on the evidence in the record.” A & D Fire Prot., Inc. v. United States, 72 Fed. Cl.
126, 131 (2006). Put differently, “in a bid protest, the court reviews the agency’s procurement
decision to determine whether it is supported by the administrative record.” PAE Applied Techs.,
LLC v. United States, 154 Fed. Cl. 490, 504 (2021).

B. Analysis

Dev Tech alleges that the agency has committed five errors in the solicitation for the
Alliant 3 procurement. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 34–67. However, to bring a bid protest based on these
alleged errors, Dev Tech must establish that it has standing. To meet this burden, Dev Tech must
plausibly allege in its complaint that the agency’s alleged errors will result in Dev Tech suffering
or being likely to suffer an injury in fact, that was caused or will be caused by the government,
and that is likely redressable by an order of this Court. See, e.g., Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504
U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992). In addition, and interrelated to this showing, Dev Tech must also

7
prove on the merits not only that the agency committed an error in the procurement process but
that this error was prejudicial—that is, that the error caused Dev Tech to suffer a non-trivial,
competitive injury. 1 In this protest, Dev Tech fails to meet either burden. It does not plausibly
alleges standing generally or with regard to any of its five protest grounds, nor does it prove that
any of the alleged errors were prejudicial. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed below, the
Court must dismiss Dev Tech’s protest for lack of standing.

1. Dev Tech Has Not Plausibly Alleged That It Has Article III Standing to
Protest the Solicitation.

Article III of the Constitution limits of the exercise of the judicial power to “Cases” and
“Controversies.” U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2. From this limitation stems the standing doctrine,
which helps maintain the “judiciary’s proper role in our system of government . . . .” Simon v. E.
Ky. Welfare Rts. Org., 426 U.S. 26, 37 (1976). The standing doctrine “limits the category of
litigants empowered to maintain a lawsuit in federal court to seek redress for a legal wrong,”
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338 (2016), and ensures that the courts do not become an
open forum for litigants to press “general complaints about the way in which the government
goes about its business,” Allen, 468 U.S. at 760. Thus, standing “is the threshold question in
every federal case, determining the power of the court to entertain the suit.” Warth v. Seldin, 422
U.S. 490, 498 (1975). While this Court is “an Article I court, [it] applies the same standing
requirements enforced by other federal courts created under Article III.” Anderson v. United
States, 344 F.3d 1343, 1350 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). Therefore, before the Court
can adjudicate the merits of this protest, it must determine whether Dev Tech has satisfied its
burden to establish the elements comprising the “irreducible constitutional minimum” of
standing. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560; see also Reoforce, Inc. v. United States, 853 F.3d 1249, 1263
(Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[B]ecause standing is a jurisdictional prerequisite, we must independently
determine whether [plaintiff] has satisfied its Article III standing requirements.”).

“[T]o establish standing, a plaintiff must show (i) that he suffered an injury in fact that is
concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; (ii) that the injury was likely caused by the
defendant; and (iii) that the injury would likely be redressed by judicial relief.” TransUnion LLC
v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, 423 (2021). Put differently, “[p]laintiffs must demonstrate a ‘personal
stake in the outcome’ in order to ‘assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the
presentation of issues’ . . . .” City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101 (1983) (quoting
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204 (1962)). In so doing, “[t]he plaintiff must show that he ‘has
sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury’ as the result of the
challenged official conduct and the injury or threat of injury must be both ‘real and immediate,’
not ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical.’” Id. at 101–02 (citing cases).

“The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing [the] elements
[of standing].” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561. “[E]ach element must be supported in the same way as

1
In most cases, because a protestor’s failure to sufficiently plead Article III standing is
fatal to its case, the Court would start and end its analysis with standing. However, because Dev
Tech’s failure to allege Article III standing is intertwined with, and exemplified by, its failure to
attempt to prove that it was prejudiced on the merits, the Court will analyze both issues together.
8
any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, i.e., with the manner and
degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation.” Id. For example, “[a]t the
pleading stage, general factual allegations of injury resulting from the defendant’s conduct may
suffice, for on a motion to dismiss we ‘presum[e] that general allegations embrace those specific
facts that are necessary to support the claim.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Lujan v. Nat’l
Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871, 889 (1990)). Still, even at this stage of the litigation, “the plaintiff
must ‘clearly . . . allege facts demonstrating’ each element [of standing].” Spokeo, Inc., 578 U.S.
at 338 (omission in original) (quoting Warth, 422 U.S. at 518). Conversely, at trial, “those
facts . . . must be ‘supported adequately by the evidence adduced at trial.’” Lujan, 504 U.S. at
561 (quoting Gladstone Realtors v. Vill. of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 115 n.31 (1979)). Finally, the
Court itself can raise the issue of standing at any stage of the litigation. FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of
Dall., 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990) (“The federal courts are under an independent obligation to
examine their own jurisdiction, and standing ‘is perhaps the most important of [the jurisdictional]
doctrines.’” (alteration in original) (quoting Allen, 468 U.S. at 750)).

In a post-award bid protest, a protestor can usually establish that it has standing “because
it claims an injury, namely rejection of its bid, which is traceable to the allegedly defective
procurement process and which could be redressed by this Court.” Barbaricum LLC v. United
States, 172 Fed. Cl. 186, 195 (2024). But in a pre-award bid protest in which a protestor did not
bid on the contract, the protestor’s standing is not so obvious. Rather, in such cases, the
protestor, at minimum, must allege that it could compete for and perform the contract to be
awarded by the protested solicitation. See KL3, 176 Fed. Cl. at 667 (“Because if a protestor
could not perform that contract, there can be no injury no matter how egregious the agency’s
alleged error, and the Court cannot provide any redress to an incapable protestor based on any
alleged errors.”). Otherwise, the protestor would lack a redressable injury, and it would remain
“[a] stranger to the procurement at issue . . . .” Superior Waste Mgmt. LLC v. United States, 169
Fed. Cl. 239, 272 n.30 (2024).

Here, Dev Tech did not submit a proposal in response to the Alliant 3 solicitation. ECF
No. 31 at 102:7–11. More problematically, Dev Tech fails to allege—plausibly or otherwise—
that it could compete for the Alliant 3 solicitation. Instead, the factual allegations in Dev Tech’s
complaint regarding its standing and capability to compete are limited to a single conclusory
paragraph:

Dev Technology has standing as an interested party. 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1). Dev
Technology is a prospective offeror with a direct economic interest in this
procurement. Dev Technology would possess a substantial chance of an award to
a properly issued Solicitation that eliminates requirements that exceed GSA’s
legitimate needs that will likely and unreasonably prevent Dev Technology from
obtaining the number of evaluated points necessary to be awarded a contract.

ECF No. 1 ¶ 5. Crucially, nowhere in its complaint (or its merits briefs for that matter) does Dev
Tech plausibly allege facts that support its ability to do the work contemplated by the
solicitation.

9
At the pleading stage, a plaintiff’s “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice.” Id. Thus, merely echoing to the Court the legal standard for
standing in a bid protest is wholly insufficient to establish standing. See id. (“Nor does a
complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’”
(alteration in original) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557)). In its complaint, Dev Tech merely
repackages the definition of an interested party and the post-award bid protest standard for
statutory standing to claim that it has standing. But these statements are legal conclusions, and
the Court is “not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.”
Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986). Dev Tech plainly fails to allege in its complaint, or
in materials attached thereto, that it can perform the work required by the Alliant 3 solicitation.
Moreover, because Dev Tech did not bid on the solicitation, there is no underlying proposal to
serve as the factual basis for Dev Tech’s capability to perform and, therefore, its standing more
broadly. However, it is Dev Tech’s burden to allege that it has standing, and it has not alleged
any facts that even begin to meet this burden. In other words, the issue here is not that the Court
considered Dev Tech’s factual allegations and found that they could not plausibly give rise to
standing; it is that Dev Tech failed to put forth such facts altogether.

To be clear, Dev Tech’s burden is not an onerous one. In a pre-award protest, a protestor
must allege just enough facts to plausibly support the conclusion that it could have competed for
and performed the procurement at issue. See KL3, 176 Fed. Cl. at 667. Thus, Dev Tech simply
needed to put forth some plausible factual allegations in its complaint that would have supported
its legal conclusion that it has standing as an interested party. For instance, Dev Tech could have
alleged that it performed IT services similar to those called for by the Alliant 3 procurement for
federal agencies or a comparable non-government customer. See Tab 44 at AR 6195–03. Yet,
from what is alleged in the complaint, the Court cannot even definitively ascertain whether Dev
Tech is an IT services company. Indeed, from its complaint, the sole indication that Dev Tech is
able to perform the IT services contemplated by Alliant 3 is that Dev Tech has “Technology” in
its company name. This, of course, is a far cry from the plausible factual allegations necessary to
establish standing.

Dev Tech’s allegations also fall well short of what other similarly situated protestors have
alleged to establish standing in protests in which they did not bid on the underlying procurement.
For instance, in a recent bid protest before the undersigned, the protestors needed to establish
that they were prospective offerors for the Department of Defense (“DOD”) Global Household
Goods Contract (“GHC”) for moving DOD personnel even though they did not compete for the
contract at issue. See Redacted Complaint, Suddath Cos. v. United States, No. 24-cv-1836, 2025
WL 2017240 (Fed. Cl. July 17, 2025), ECF No. 21. One of the protestors, Suddath, established
standing through the factual allegations in its complaint. Specifically, Suddath plausibly alleged
that it could perform the moving contract at issue by alleging that it already performs work for
DOD similar to that contemplated by the GHC. See id. ¶¶ 28–38. Suddath alleged, inter alia,
that it “is currently one of the largest military household goods providers . . . for domestic and
international moves,” id. ¶ 29, “has provided these services for more than 75 years and
successfully relocated over one million military families around the world,” id. ¶ 30, and has a

10
network of agents and carriers that can “handle the 350,000 moves DOD will require annually
under the [GHC] program,” id. ¶ 31. Furthermore, Suddath attached a declaration attesting to
similar facts about its capabilities. See Declaration, Suddath Cos., 2025 WL 2017240, ECF No.
21-1. Thus, Suddath plausibly alleged that it could perform the contract at issue,
notwithstanding its decision to refrain from competing for the GHC as solicited.

In that same bid protest, co-protestor Total Military Management, Inc. similarly pled that
it is “a leading technology-enabled provider of household goods relocation services to U.S.
servicemembers, government employees, and their families,” along with numerous other
supporting allegations that remain under seal. See Redacted Complaint, Total Mil. Mgmt., Inc. v.
United States, No. 24-cv-2029 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 10, 2024), ECF No. 2 ¶ 1. And the third protestor,
National Holding Company (“National”), made similar plausible allegations regarding its
subsidiaries, including that its subsidiary, National Forwarding Co., Inc. (“NFC”), “is currently
one of the largest participants in [the Defense Personal Property Program], managing over 80
companies and performing around 15,000 domestic and 5,000 international shipments per year,”
that “NFC is responsible for 10% of domestic moves under [the program],” and that “National
owns 20 transportation providers actively participating in the . . . program.” Redacted
Complaint, Nat’ Holding Co., Inc. v. United States, No. 24-cv-2112 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 23, 2024),
ECF No. 2 ¶ 1 (citations omitted).

Like the protestors in Suddath that did not bid on the procurement they were protesting,
Dev Tech could have alleged facts in its complaint that plausibly establish its underlying
capability to perform the Alliant 3 contract. Dev Tech could have made allegations related to
previous government IT contracting work or contracting work for private businesses. It could
have even made allegations regarding its workforce’s general capabilities to complete the work
required by the Alliant 3 contract. But what Dev Tech could not do to meet its burden was sit on
its hands and offer the Court nothing more than the legal conclusion that it “is a prospective
offeror with a direct economic interest in this procurement” that “would possess a substantial
chance of an award to a properly issued Solicitation.” ECF No. 1 ¶ 5. If such a bare legal
conclusion was all that was required to establish standing, the constitutional standing
requirement would be read right out of bid protest litigation. The Court cannot simply take a
protestor’s word that it would not have filed the protest were it incapable of performing the
contract that it is challenging.

Moreover, even in its MJAR, Dev Tech’s attempt to argue that it meets its standing
burden is limited to one conclusory statement: “Dev Tech is an interested party because it ‘(1) is
an actual or prospective bidder; and (2) possess[es] the requisite direct economic interest,’” ECF
No. 19 at 2 (quoting Sys. Applications & Techs. v. United States, 691 F.3d 1374, 1382 (Fed. Cir.
2012)). But again, Dev Tech’s factually unadorned recitation of the legal standard does not
prove its case. Dev Tech fails to put forth any argument, much less a fact-based one, to plausibly
allege that it could have been awarded the Alliant 3 procurement in the first place. Dev Tech
thus remains a “stranger to the procurement.” Superior Waste Mgmt., 169 Fed. Cl. at 272 n.30.
However, “[f]or a plaintiff to get in the federal courthouse door and obtain a judicial
determination of what the governing law is, the plaintiff cannot be a mere bystander, but instead
must have a ‘personal stake’ in the dispute.” FDA v. All. for Hippocratic Med., 602 U.S. 367,
379 (2024) (quoting TransUnion, 594 U.S. at 423).

11
At bottom, Dev Tech ignores its standing burden. Instead, it voices generalized
grievances about the scoring provisions that will be used to award the seventy-six Alliant 3
contracts. Unfortunately for Dev Tech, “[t]he relevant showing for purposes of Article III
standing . . . is . . . injury to the plaintiff.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env’t Servs., 528
U.S. 167, 181 (2000) (emphasis added). Dev Tech fails to show how it plausibly could have
been injured by the alleged solicitation errors because it fails to plausibly allege that it could
even compete for the Alliant 3 procurement in the first place. 2 And when challenged at oral
argument whether it has standing as to one of its protest grounds, Dev Tech essentially asserted
that it has standing because it filed this bid protest. See ECF No. 31 at 106:19–23. But circular
arguments do not satisfy Dev Tech’s burden. If they did, every plaintiff whose standing has ever
been challenged would have a similar rejoinder, and Article III’s case or controversy requirement
would become a dead letter.

2. Additionally, Dev Tech Has Not Plausibly Alleged That It Has Article III
Standing to Protest Any of the Five Alleged Errors in the Solicitation.

Dev Tech’s failure to show that it has the capacity to perform an Alliant 3 contract alone
is fatal to its bid protest. But even when examining each alleged agency error, Dev Tech fails to
establish standing to raise any of its protest grounds. Moreover, as a closely related matter, Dev
Tech fails to prove on the merits that it was prejudiced by any of these alleged errors. While the
Court would not ordinarily discuss merits prejudice after determining that a protestor lacks
standing, the two issues are so intertwined here that analyzing merits prejudice helps exemplify
Dev Tech’s fatal standing flaws.

a. Dev Tech fails to allege standing or prove prejudice from the
solicitation’s limitation on awarding points for past experience to
contract teaming arrangements.

Although the solicitation allows offerors to earn points for their performance as a
subcontractor, Section L.5.6 (Organizational Risk Assessment) limits the circumstances in which
those points may be earned. This provision, inter alia, requires “all Members of a CTA [to] have
previously performed, exclusively together, for Primary NAICS Code Relevant Experience
projects outlined in Section L.5.2.2 for Organizational Risk Assessment.” Tab 44 at AR 6220
(emphasis omitted). Dev Tech alleges that this provision is irrational because it treats “single
offerors” differently from joint venture CTAs subject to these restrictions. See ECF No. 19 at
21. Dev Tech reasons that the “alleged GSA stated risk of ‘negative impact on performance’ . . .

2
Without plausibly alleging its capability to compete for the Alliant 3 procurement, Dev
Tech essentially concedes all three prongs of the standing test. A company that does not have
the capability to compete for a contract cannot have suffered an injury in fact by the alleged
procurement errors (unless, of course, fixing the procurement error would allow the company to
compete). Any “injury” that the company did suffer would be caused by the company’s lack of
capability, not by the government. And finally, any “injury” would not be redressable by the
Court because fixing the procurement error would not suddenly make the company capable of
performing the underlying contract.
12
applies equally to a single offeror that offered relevant experience projects performed by multi-
entities, i.e., the prime contractor and its subcontractors.” ECF No. 25 at 17 (quoting Tab 18 at
AR 1272).

But from the outset, Dev Tech fails to plausibly allege in its complaint that it has standing
to challenge this provision of the solicitation. And, on the merits, Dev Tech fails to prove that it
was prejudiced by this alleged error. That is, Dev Tech fails to prove that it suffered “a non-
trivial competitive injury.” Weeks Marine, 575 F.3d at 1363 (quoting WinStar Commc’ns., Inc.
v. United States, 41 Fed. Cl. 748, 763 (1998)). “[T]here is no presumption of prejudice when a
protestor demonstrates irrationality in an agency decision. The protestor must show prejudice
under the usual standard.” Sys. Stud., 22 F.4th at 998. In other words, on the merits, the
protestor must prove that the agency’s error was prejudicial, while at the pleading stage, a
protestor must, at minimum, plausibly allege that the agency’s error injured it, along with the
other Lujan factors.

Dev Tech misses the mark on both counts. Notably absent from Dev Tech’s complaint is
any plausible allegation that it was prejudiced by the points limitation provision for CTAs. Dev
Tech merely states that this provision “unreasonably limit[s] its ability to offer the Government a
highly ranked proposal by creating a proper joint venture.” ECF No. 1 ¶ 67. However, to
plausibly allege that it suffered a redressable injury from the CTA provision, Dev Tech needed to
allege, at the very least, that it explored forming a CTA but abandoned doing so because of the
CTA scoring provision. Without any allegation that Dev Tech even contemplated entering a
CTA, it lacks standing to challenge this provision. Only an entity that sought to enter a CTA but
was deterred from doing so by the CTA scoring provision could claim injury based on the
provision. Moreover, only such an entity would benefit from the Court’s redressing of the
alleged error by requiring the agency to fix it (assuming it is in error). In other words, unless
Dev Tech wanted to enter a CTA to become more competitive for the procurement (a fact that it
does not allege, plausibly or otherwise) and was essentially prevented from doing so by this
provision (again, not alleged), Dev Tech has no personal stake in the adjudication of this
provision’s rationality. All. for Hippocratic Med., 602 U.S. at 382 (“[T]o sue in federal court, a
plaintiff must show that he or she has suffered or likely will suffer an injury in fact.”).

This standing flaw is reemphasized on the merits, as Dev Tech’s MJAR does not even
make an argument, much less prove, that it was prejudiced by the alleged error. Instead, Dev
Tech states in conclusory fashion that it was “prejudiced in its ability to decide the best possible
bidding strategy for being awarded a contract under the terms of the Solicitation.” ECF No. 19
at 23. Dev Tech’s tenuous and conclusory hypothetical injury—that the alleged error hindered
its ability to decide on the best bidding strategy (for a bid it did not submit)—is not enough to
prove merits prejudice. As with its insufficient allegations related to standing to challenge this
provision, Dev Tech makes no effort to prove on the merits that it either entered a teaming
arrangement or would have entered into such an arrangement absent the allegedly erroneous
provision. Thus, Dev Tech’s challenge is an academic exercise at best. As the government
notes, “Dev Technology has not shown that making it easier for all offerors to earn points for
certain relevant experiences, business systems, or organizational risk would advance Dev
Technology in the competition for one of the 76 total slots.” ECF No. 20 at 42. Accordingly,
Dev Tech’s challenge to Section L.5.6 of the solicitation would fail on the merits because it has

13
not proved that it was prejudiced by the agency’s alleged error, even if it had standing to
challenge the provision in the first place.

b. Dev Tech fails to allege standing or prove prejudice from the
solicitation provision awarding more points for systems audited by
DCAA, DCMA, or a CFA.

Dev Tech next challenges Section L.5.4 of the solicitation, which awards offerors points
for their accounting, estimating, and purchasing systems. Tab 44 at AR 6212–14. Recall, the
solicitation awards offerors 6,000 points for accounting systems audited and found adequate by
DCMA, DCAA, or a CFA; 1,500 points for purchasing systems reviewed and approved by
DCMA or a CFA; and 200 points for estimating systems audited and approved by DCMA,
DCAA, or a CFA. Id. at AR 6233. Offerors earn half the numbers of points (3,000, 750, and
100 points respectively) for their accounting, purchasing, and estimating systems if these systems
are audited and found acceptable by a CPA. Id. The agency asserts that “[t]he maximum
potential of 8,100 points for business system audits (9% of total available points) reflects the
overall value of audits towards obtaining the optimal contractor quality.” Tab 25 at AR 1418.

Dev Tech concedes that “[i]t is reasonable for GSA to award points to offerors that have
accounting systems, purchasing systems, and estimating systems that are compliant with federal
standards.” ECF No. 19 at 21. However, Dev Tech challenges the twofold point difference
between systems audited by government agencies and those audited by a CPA. Id. Dev Tech
asserts that the agency’s justification for awarding twice as many points for government-audited
systems is flawed because the agency incorrectly reasoned that “third-party independent auditors
determine the acceptability of a vendor’s accounting system based on their application of
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), while the government determines adequacy
of an accounting system based on the higher standard of Generally Accepted Government
Accounting Standards (GAGAS), which also requires audit peer review.” Id. at 18 (quoting Tab
25 at AR 1418). Dev Tech claims that “CPA firms with peer review are able to perform detailed
audits and reviews of [business] systems in accordance with the [government’s] requirements
and standards.” Id. at 19–20. Additionally, Dev Tech argues that the agency’s assertation that
“CPA audit contributions are of limited value, as CPAs are not authorized by federal law and
regulation to act as a certifying body (such as DCMA or a CFA), and CPAs can not [sic] approve
or determine the adequacy of a system” is false because “it is only the government contracting
officer who approves the adequacy of accounting systems, purchasing systems, and estimating
systems.” Id. at 20 (quoting Tab 25 at AR 1418). Thus, Dev Tech asserts that awarding twice as
many points for government-audited business systems is irrational when CPAs can audit systems
to the same substantive standard. See id. at 18, 21. Moreover, according to Dev Tech, because
an offeror cannot merely request to be audited by the government but rather must be selected for
review, the agency’s decision to award twice as many points for offerors who happened to have
their systems audited was unreasonable. Id. at 21.

However, Dev Tech did not put forth factual allegations in its complaint that plausibly
allege (or prove in its MJAR) that it would be eligible to receive points through a CPA-audited
system. Without such an allegation, Dev Tech leaves unanswered the all too important question
for Article III standing of “What’s it to you?” TransUnion, 594 U.S. at 423 (quoting Antonin

14
Scalia, The Doctrine of Standing as an Essential Element of the Separation of Powers, 17
SUFFOLK U.L. REV. 881, 882 (1983)). Again, Dev Tech merely alleges that it “is prejudiced
simply because it has not been unilaterally selected by the Government for a Government audit.”
ECF No. 1 ¶ 52. This is not enough to plausibly allege standing. Nor is its allegation that

an offeror which has been selected by the Government at the Government’s
exclusive decision to audit and review the offeror’s accounting system, purchasing
system and estimating system will receive 5,250 points, while an offeror who has
equally acceptable, if not better, systems that are compliant with all applicable
regulatory requirements, but did not have the good fortune of having its systems
audited by the government, will only receive 2,625 points for these three Systems.

ECF No. 1 ¶ 31 (emphasis added). For purposes of standing, the injury that might occur to “an
offeror” is irrelevant. What matters is the injury that might occur to Dev Tech if the alleged
procurement error is not fixed. That is, the injury must affect Dev Tech “‘in a personal and
individual way’ and not be a generalized grievance.” All. for Hippocratic Med., 602 U.S. at 381
(quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560, n.1). Under Dev Tech’s own argument, for it to have suffered
the injury that could result from this alleged error, Dev Tech would need to have a CPA-audited
system. Yet nowhere in the complaint does Dev Tech make the necessary allegation that it has,
to use its own words, “equally acceptable, if not better, systems that are compliant with all
applicable regulatory requirements.” ECF No. 1 ¶ 31.

Without such information, the Court cannot assess what differences, if any, exist between
a hypothetical CPA-audited system and a government-audited system. In fact, the Court does
not know if Dev Tech even has a system that could pass a CPA audit. All Dev Tech offers the
Court is extra-record information from the websites of accounting firms that claim that they can,
if asked, audit systems to the government standard. See ECF No. 19 at 19 n.8. Beyond being
outside the administrative record, this information does not relate in any way to Dev Tech’s
systems. Instead, it merely speaks to the fact that several accounting firms advertise the
capability to audit to federal standards—not to Dev Tech’s capability to meet those standards.

Dev Tech did not need to go to extraordinary lengths to allege standing related to this
alleged agency error. Rather, Dev Tech could have alleged that it has a CPA-audited system or
would and could have attained one in time to bid on the solicitation, if that was in fact the case.
See Magnum Opus Techs., Inc. v. United States, 94 Fed. Cl. 512, 532–33 (2010) (finding that
standing existed where the plaintiff “has shown that it engages in the type of business that is the
subject of the contract, has in fact successfully performed such contracts in the past, and has
represented that it could find another teaming partner in the event it submitted an offer in a re-
competition . . .”). The injury Dev Tech alleges only relates to the differential between the
maximum number of points an offeror with a government-audited system could be awarded
versus the maximum number of points an offeror with a CPA-audited system could be awarded.
Therefore, standing to pursue this alleged injury requires a protestor to have a CPA-audited
system or, at the very least, plausibly allege that it could have attained a CPA audit of its systems
prior to the solicitation deadline. Instead of making any allegations along these lines in its
complaint, Dev Tech simply states in three places that “Dev Technology is prejudiced simply
because it has not been unilaterally selected by the Government for a Government audit.” ECF

15
No. 1 ¶¶ 52, 57, 61. 3 Beyond being a legal conclusion, this single statement says nothing about
the key fact to show standing: Dev Tech’s possession of, or ability to attain, a CPA-audited
system.

Dev Tech fares no better on the merits. Rather than even attempting to meet its burden to
prove that it was prejudiced by the alleged error, Dev Tech merely states that it “could” ensure
that its systems meet the government’s standards but fails to point to any facts to attempt to
prove this. See ECF No. 19 at 21 (“Dev Technology is directly prejudiced as it has not been
selected for audit/review of its systems by the government, but could ensure that its systems meet
all federal requirements through a CPA audit.”) (emphasis added). A one-sentence, conclusory
statement that Dev Tech “could” do something, without more, does not meet Dev Tech’s burden
of proof on prejudice. Dev Tech cannot be prejudiced by this alleged error without showing that
it could earn any points for its business systems.

In sum, based on Dev Tech’s complaint and its MJAR (and the administrative record
itself), there is no basis for the Court to conclude that the alleged error, if corrected, would have
any effect on Dev Tech. Pleading and proving injury are not mere formalities; they are
requirements under Article III (standing) and 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1) (prejudice). As Judge Tapp
put it, “even ‘violations of law,’ let alone innocuous mistakes, should not result in setting aside
awards unless those mistakes have some significance, for ‘[a]ny good lawyer can pick lint off
any Government procurement.’” Ginn Grp., Inc. v. United States, 159 Fed. Cl. 593, 608 (2022)
(alteration in original) (quoting Andersen Consulting v. United States, 959 F.2d 929, 932 (Fed.
Cir. 1992)). Here, Dev Tech fails to either plausibly allege or prove that this alleged
procurement error is of any individualized significance to it.

c. Dev Tech fails to allege standing or prove prejudice from the
solicitation’s subcontractor verification requirements for emerging
technology experiences.

Next, Dev Tech challenges Section L.5.2.4.2 of the solicitation, which allows an offeror
to use services it provided as a subcontractor to earn points for emerging technology relevant
experiences. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 42–45; ECF No. 19 at 16–17; see Tab 44 at AR 6204–06. Dev Tech
contends that this provision is unreasonable and unnecessary to satisfy the agency’s legitimate
needs because it requires the signature of the prime contract’s contracting officer for a
subcontractor to earn points for verified experiences in emerging technologies. ECF No. 19 at
16. Dev Tech asserts that “[w]hile it is reasonable to require verification of the scope of work an
offeror performed as a subcontractor, subcontractors are . . . not in privity with the government
and often are restricted by subcontract language from contacting government contract officials
concerning the work performed.” Id. Accordingly, Dev Tech argues that the existence of other
more reasonable alternatives for verification makes this requirement irrational and “prevents an
offeror from utilizing its experience as a subcontractor . . . .” Id. at 17. Specifically, Dev Tech
asserts that “a signed verification of the work performed by the prime contractor’s contracting
official . . . would provide the same assurance as a government contracting officer’s
verification.” Id. Dev Tech alleges that it “is prejudiced by this unreasonable provision by

3
The third iteration of this quotation substitutes the word “review” for “audit.”
16
eliminating the presentation of prior experience as a subcontractor that demonstrates its
capability to perform future task[] orders to be completed under Alliant 3.” Id.

Here again, Dev Tech attempts to walk the Court through an alleged error in the
solicitation without alleging (or proving) that it could earn points if the error were corrected.
Dev Tech’s conclusory allegation that it is prejudiced because “an offeror” might be prevented
from utilizing its subcontractor experience is insufficient to meet its burden of showing that it
was prejudiced by the provision. Dev Tech must allege that it was “an offeror” that could not
earn points because of this alleged error. Instead, Dev Tech only states that it was “prejudiced
by this unreasonable provision” where it offers its experience as a subcontractor and not a prime
contractor. Id. at 17. But Dev Tech does not allege facts supporting this conclusory statement.
Indeed, from Dev Tech’s complaint, it is unclear whether Dev Tech has ever been a government
subcontractor—a question Dev Tech failed to satisfactorily answer when it was raised at oral
argument. See ECF No. 31 at 106:10–107:18 (discussion between Court and Dev Tech’s counsel
at oral argument regarding this flaw in pleading to which Dev Tech’s only response was to assert
that standing was supported by the circular “self-evidence rule . . . we wouldn’t be here pleading
this if [we didn’t have standing]”). Absent “further factual enhancement,” Dev Tech’s
conclusion that it was prejudiced constitutes a “naked assertion” that the Court need not heed.
See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557. The Court simply cannot assess the impact of this alleged error
without more from Dev Tech. Dev Tech’s allusions to the fact that subcontractors are “often”
restricted by subcontract language from engaging with government officials does not resuscitate
its case—its generalizations are unmoored from how it, the protestor, is affected by the alleged
error. See ECF No. 19 at 16. In sum, Dev Tech fails to plausibly allege that it has standing to
bring this protest ground or, on the merits, to prove that it was prejudiced by the error it alleges.

Dev Tech could have demonstrated that it had standing and was prejudiced in a number
of ways. Dev Tech could have alleged that it was a subcontractor to a government contract that
was prohibited by that contract’s terms from contacting government officials. Likewise, it could
have alleged that it had tried to get a contracting officer’s signature to verify its subcontract work
but was unable to do so. Even more fundamentally, Dev Tech does not even outright state that it
has verifiable subcontractor experience in emerging technologies or tried to verify its subcontract
work under its understanding of this solicitation provision. Rather, all Dev Tech alleges is that
“Dev Technology is prejudiced by the unreasonable requirement where it offers its experience as
a subcontractor and not a prime contractor.” ECF No. 1 ¶ 45. Dev Tech leaves the Court with
no information whatsoever on whether Dev Tech has a subcontract that this solicitation provision
prevented it from using. Instead, Dev Tech asks the Court to overturn the agency’s decision on
the basis that some hypothetical prospective offeror might have difficulty satisfying this
solicitation requirement because of hypothetical subcontract language restricting the hypothetical
prospective offeror from contacting the government. See, e.g., Dollison v. Wilkie, 750 F. App’x
986, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (dismissing the case because “unsubstantiated and hypothetical
statements fail to demonstrate a concrete and particularized injury in fact”); Pernix Grp., Inc. v.
United States, 121 Fed. Cl. 592, 599 (2015) (with regard to ripeness, observing that “[i]n the bid
protest context, there is no measurable hardship, at the time of the protest, flowing from a future,
hypothetical agency decision adverse to the protestor”). None of this amounts to plausibly
alleging standing in its complaint nor proving on the merits that the agency’s alleged error was
prejudicial.

17
Additionally, the government asserts that Dev Tech’s interpretation of the verification
requirement is incorrect. Indeed, the government presents evidence that “the solicitation already
permits [the] alternative verification method” that Dev Tech contends is reasonable. ECF No. 20
at 29 (emphasis in original); see Tab 44 at AR 6206. Attachment J.P-3 of the solicitation “allows
for a signature by a ‘Cognizant Project Official’—not merely a cognizant government official.”
ECF No. 20 at 30 (quoting Tab 44c at AR 6242). In short, the government contests the premise
of Dev Tech’s entire argument on this matter. Tellingly, Dev Tech’s failure to attempt to verify
its subcontract experience or offer other facts asserting its prejudice does little to illuminate this
purported ambiguity in the solicitation’s terms. See ECF No. 31 at 110:3–920.

d. Dev Tech fails to allege standing or prove prejudice from the points
award scheme for emerging technology experiences.

Penultimately, Dev Tech protests Section L.5.2.4 of the solicitation, which awards points
for emerging technology relevant experience submissions. See ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 39–41; Tab 44 at
AR 6231–32. While Dev Tech states it “understands the importance of [emerging] technologies
for the next decade, during which the Alliant 3 contract will be active[,]” ECF No. 25 at 8, it
asserts that it was unreasonable for the agency to award higher points for the third set of relevant
experience submissions in each emerging technology category, see ECF No. 19 at 15–16.
Specifically, the solicitation “awards 100 points each for the first eleven Emerging Technology
Relevant Experience Projects, 200 points for the second eleven, and 300 points for the third
eleven . . . .” ECF No. 19 at 15. Dev Tech contends that it is unreasonable to score “the third
eleven projects as being three times more valuable than the first eleven projects.” Id.

The government responds that “[a]warding increasing points to offerors with the 22 or 33
occurrences of emerging technology projects is a rational way for GSA to advance its goal of
evaluating and scoring offerors ‘based on their technical experience with [emerging
technologies].’” ECF No. 20 at 28 (alteration in original) (quoting Tab 12 at AR 1256). The
government argues that awarding “more points corresponding to more experience with each
instance of emerging technology” allows for the agency to select a more qualified pool of
contractors for Alliant 3 that are capable of performing IT services over the duration of the
procurement. Id. Furthermore, in its decisional documents, the agency stated that “many
[Alliant 3] task orders involve multiple technologies and multiple emerging technologies. It is
important that Alliant 3 awardees are prepared to handle complex integrated IT service projects
involving multiple emerging technologies, thus the planned scoring element is reflective of the
required evaluation factors to satisfy agency customer needs.” Tab 12 at AR 1256.

Dev Tech again relies on speculative generalities to allege its standing to challenge, and
prove that it was prejudiced by, this provision. In its complaint, Dev Tech only alleges that it,
“as a mid-sized company, is prejudiced by the unreasonable requirement that benefits only the
largest of companies.” ECF No. 1 ¶ 41. But Dev Tech fails to allege any facts that support this
sole conclusory sentence. Moreover, in its MJAR briefing, Dev Tech asserts it is prejudiced “by
not being able to earn the exaggerated number of points that will be earned by the very largest of
companies.” ECF No. 19 at 16. Yet Dev Tech does not offer any proof in its MJAR briefing
that it has any emerging technology relevant experience projects. Thus, the Court cannot assess
how this provision affects Dev Tech other than by impermissibly speculating that as a “mid-sized

18
company,” Dev Tech might have fewer emerging technology projects than a larger business.
However, the Court cannot rely on speculation to supply an injury-in-fact or merits prejudice
bereft of supporting factual allegations. The Court cannot categorically assume that every
offeror that is not a large business is prejudiced by this provision without more, and Dev Tech
has provided the Court with nothing to support how it specifically is injured by the provision.

Moreover, the provision rationally awards offerors more points for more experience with
emerging technologies. The agency stated that it wanted to implement a scoring system that
“reflects the anticipated future importance of these [eleven] ETs,” because “[these ETs are]
integral to the future of IT services . . . [and it is important] that Offerors are evaluated and
scored based on their technical experience with ETs.” Tab 12 at AR 1255, 1256. It follows that
the agency would award points commensurate to greater experience in emerging technologies
because they are critical to Alliant 3. More relevant experience with these technologies is an
indicator of an offeror’s ability to “handle complex integrated IT service projects involving
multiple emerging technologies.” Id. at AR 1256. Contrary to Dev Tech’s assertions, the
agency did not need to spell this out explicitly in its decisional documents—this rationale was
self-evident on the face of the provision awarding more points for more experience. Indeed,
solicitations commonly rate offerors more favorably if they have greater relevant experience.
See, e.g., Newimar S.A. v. United States, 160 Fed. Cl. 97, 130 (2022), aff’d, No. 2022-1949, 2023
WL 8534614 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 11, 2023) (finding that it was permissible for the government to
weigh relevant experience). Effectively, Dev Tech argues that the agency should eliminate the
highest rated category of this scoring provision because Dev Tech might not be able to achieve
the highest score. Dev Tech’s argument is akin to arguing that an agency should eliminate the
“Outstanding” or “Very Relevant” adjectival ratings in a more typical solicitation scoring system
because an “Acceptable” or “Somewhat Relevant” rating is good enough.

Furthermore, Dev Tech does not question the agency’s identification of the eleven
emerging technology categories that the agency determined are “the most likely ETs to become
relevant for use in Alliant 3.” Tab 12 at AR 1255. Nor does Dev Tech challenge the agency’s
decision to award points for relevant experiences in these emerging technologies. Dev Tech
does not even challenge the agency awarding points for up to thirty-three submissions of
emerging technology experience. See Tab 44 at AR 6158. It also does not challenge that the
agency awarded twice as many points for the second eleven projects than it did for the first
eleven. See id. at AR 6231. Rather, Dev Tech solely challenges how these points are distributed
for the third set of eleven projects. See ECF No. 19 at 16 (“Valuing certain emerging technology
projects at three times the value of others runs counter to the evidence before the agency . . . .”)
(emphasis added). In essence, the agency built a ladder of reasoning to support its decision to
implement its points award system for emerging technology. Here, Dev Tech concedes all but
the top rung of the ladder yet fails to allege or prove it could even climb up to that topmost rung.

e. Dev Tech fails to allege standing or prove prejudice from the
solicitation’s provisions awarding points for relevant experience
projects with up to seven unique federal agencies.

Finally, Dev Tech argues that the agency’s decision to award additional points for
relevant experience projects with up to seven unique federal government customers is irrational.

19
ECF No. 25 at 7 (“The Government provides no explanation or reasonable basis for requiring
seven different federal customers . . . .”) (emphasis in original); see also ECF No. 19 at 14 (“It
prejudices Dev Technology . . . without the experience of working for seven different federal
agencies but a long history of working with government customers.”) (emphasis in original).
Dev Tech asserts that because just twelve of the forty-nine Alliant 2 contractors did work for
seven or more agencies, this provision “favor[s] the very largest of offerors without a rational
basis of showing that the number of agency customers is a reliable distinguishing factor among
companies.” ECF No. 19 at 13–14. Dev Tech states that most solicitations “make no distinction
as to requiring performance at different agencies”; accordingly, “[u]tilizing multiple agency
experience runs counter to the evidence before the agency and is a restrictive provision that
exceeds the necessary needs of GSA.” Id. at 14.

The government responds that “[t]his provision rationally advances GSA’s needs to
ensure a proficient contractor pool for this Governmentwide IT procurement.” ECF No. 20 at
20. The agency found that “the historical multi-agency usage rates from Alliant 2 will likely
continue into the Alliant 3 contract,” and “enlisting contractors with experience in managing
multiple agency customers should play a moderate role in the evaluation scoring of the
[solicitation],” Tab 23 at AR 1409. Therefore, the agency decided to award 500 points for each
relevant experience project with a unique federal customer, comprising less than four percent of
the maximum possible points. See Tab 44 at AR 6230, 6234 (showing that this provision
comprises 3,500 out of 88,200 maximum points).

As is obviously an all too familiar pattern at this point, in its complaint Dev Tech only
makes the conclusory allegation that “Dev Technology, as a mid-sized company, is prejudiced
by the unreasonable requirement that benefits only the largest of companies.” ECF No. 1 ¶ 38.
Dev Tech states that this provision favors only the largest of offerors, “as they are most likely to
have a broader portfolio of work with different federal agencies.” Id. Dev Tech offers no factual
allegations in its complaint to support this conclusion or that relate to Dev Tech’s capabilities—
or even the capabilities of mid-sized companies more generally (an undefined category in Dev
Tech’s complaint). On the merits, Dev Tech states that it was prejudiced by this provision
because it is “a mid-sized company with the skill level to perform the type of work anticipated to
be completed under Alliant 3, but without the experience of working for seven different federal
agencies but a long history of working with government customers.” ECF No. 19 at 14
(emphasis omitted). But Dev Tech’s broad conclusory statements do not provide the Court with
any factual allegations regarding Dev Tech’s capabilities and its experience with different federal
agencies. Without such factual allegations, Dev Tech does not meet its burden of plausibly
alleging standing or proving prejudice on the merits. Warth, 422 U.S. at 518 (“It is the
responsibility of the complainant clearly to allege facts demonstrating that he is a proper party to
invoke judicial resolution of the dispute and the exercise of the court’s remedial powers.”). Dev
Tech would have the Court assume, without laying any factual foundation, that it is a “mid-sized
company”; that being a “mid-sized company” has some significance with regard to the number
of federal agencies for which such a company has performed services; and, most importantly,
that if the cap on the number of relevant experience projects was lower than seven, Dev Tech
would be able to more competitively compete for the procurement at issue. The Court cannot
draw all these conclusions in Dev Tech’s favor without plausible factual allegations in Dev
Tech’s complaint and support in its merits briefing.

20
Moreover, Dev Tech ignores the fact that this provision operates equally as a ceiling to
the number of points that an offeror can earn for servicing unique federal customers. Indeed, a
company like Science Applications International Corporation, which worked with fifteen
different federal customers for Alliant 2, is actually disadvantaged by this upward limit on points
earned from providing services to different federal clients. Tab 23b at AR 1413. In fact, twelve
of the forty-nine Alliant 2 contractors worked with more than seven federal agencies and are thus
unable to earn points over the seven-agency limit. Id. Without Dev Tech contextualizing its
own capabilities, the Court cannot determine how the ceiling affects Dev Tech. Does the ceiling
harm Dev Tech? Or rather, does it function to benefit Dev Tech? Dev Tech’s failure to
plausibly allege how it is affected by this ceiling fatally leaves these questions unanswered.

Furthermore, Dev Tech’s argument that “most solicitations . . . make no distinction as to
requiring performance at different agencies” does not help its case. ECF No. 19 at 14. First, this
argument says nothing about Dev Tech’s standing or merits prejudice. Second, as the agency
notes, the Alliant 3 contract is not “most solicitations.” See ECF No. 20 at 4. Rather, it is a
GWAC intended to provide IT services across the federal government. See id.; Tab 44 at AR
5926. Alliant 3 is the intended successor of Alliant 2, which is currently the largest GWAC
administered by any agency. Tab 9 at AR 1145. It is not unreasonable for the agency to fashion
unique means to service unique ends, so long as they are supported by record evidence. Here,
the agency provides ample reasoning for its decisions regarding the solicitation, finding that
“75% of Alliant 2 prime contractors support multiple agency customers.” Tab 23 at AR 1409.
Accordingly, the agency decided that “enlisting contractors with experience in managing
multiple agency customers should play a moderate role in the evaluation scoring of the Alliant 3
contract.” Id.

Additionally, the Court notes that Dev Tech effectively challenges the wrong provision of
the solicitation. Section L.5.2.3.4 is linked to Sections L.5.2.3.1 and L.5.2.3.2 of the solicitation,
which allow an offeror to submit “a maximum of seven (7) distinct Primary NAICS Code
Relevant Experience Projects,” reflecting past performance in one of the acceptable NAICS
codes outlined in the solicitation. Tab 44 at AR 6186 (emphases omitted). Once the agency
determined that allowing seven submissions was rational, it was also rational for the agency to
conclude that awarding additional points for servicing different agency customers would ensure a
contractor pool capable of working with different agencies. If Dev Tech’s only qualm is that
seven is too high a number, Dev Tech again allows the agency to build a ladder of reasoning to
support its decision but only takes issue with the last rung. Dev Tech does not challenge the
agency’s decision to allow seven relevant experience project submissions. According to its
representations at oral argument, it does not even appear to object to the premise of awarding
extra points for experience with different agencies. See ECF No. 31 at 13:10–23. Rather, Dev
Tech contests that seven is too many federal agencies. See id. at 13:20-23. But, as the
government puts it, “there is no reason why Dev Technology’s experience should provide the
cap for the number of experiences with unique Federal agencies that may be advantageous for a
contractor on the Alliant 3 procurement.” ECF No. 28 at 7; see also ECF No. 31 at 17:24–18:5.
And thus, Dev Tech once again challenges the top rung of the ladder, without making the
requisite showing that it can reach that last rung in the first place.

21
CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Dev Tech fails to establish that it has standing to bring
this bid protest broadly or, more specifically, that it has standing to challenge any of the
solicitation provisions for which it alleges error. Accordingly, the Court must dismiss Dev
Tech’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk shall enter JUDGMENT
accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Zachary N. Somers
ZACHARY N. SOMERS
Judge

22

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11214026. Public record. Not legal advice.