Agma Security Service, Inc. v. United States

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No. 20-926C

Filed: December 29, 2020

Redacted Version Issued for Publication: January 15, 20211

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **

*

AGMA SECURITY SERVICE, INC., *

*

*

Protestor,

*

v. *

*

UNITED STATES, *

Defendant, *

*

*

v. *

RANGER AMERICAN OF PUERTO *

RICO,

*

Defendant-Intervenor.

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **

Alan M. Grayson, Windermere, FL for protestor.

Kara M. Westercamp, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Trial Attorney,

Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for

defendant. With her were Elizabeth M. Hosford, Assistant Director, Commercial

Litigation Branch, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, and

Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division. Of counsel was

Matthew Lane, Office of Chief Counsel, Procurement and Fiscal Legal Division, Federal

Emergency Management Agency.

Jonathan D. Shaffer, Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC, Tysons Corner, VA for

intervenor. With him was Todd M. Garland, Smith Pachter McWhorter PLC, Tysons

Corner, VA.

1 This Opinion was issued under seal on December 29, 2020. The parties were asked to

propose redactions prior to public release of the Opinion. This Opinion is issued with the

redactions that the parties proposed in response to the court’s request and other

conforming redactions. Words which are redacted are reflected with the notation:

“[redacted].”

OPINION

HORN, J.

In the above-captioned, post-award bid protest, protestor AGMA Security Service,

Inc. (AGMA) challenges the decision of the Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA) to award a contract to intervenor Ranger American of Puerto Rico arguing that

the award was “arbitrary, capricious, irrational, unreasonable, incoherent, unsupported by

the record, and contrary to law.”

FINDINGS OF FACT

On November 19, 2019, FEMA issued Request for Proposal No.

70FBR220R00000002 (the RFP). The RFP indicated that “[t]his requirement is for

contracted Protective Service Officers (PSO) and Patrolled Services to safeguard federal

employees, visitors and property at both temporary and fixed facilities during disaster and

emergency declarations for DR-4339 (all counties and municipalities within the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico).” Ranger American of Puerto Rico was the incumbent

contractor for the predecessor contract which provided ”the same armed security services

for FEMA in Puerto Rico.”

The RFP’s statement of work explained that

[t]he Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) uses contracted

Protective Service Officers (PSO) to safeguard federal employees, visitors

and property at both temporary and fixed facilities during disaster and

emergency declarations. After the island of Puerto Rico was devastated by

[sic] Hurricane Maria disaster DR-4339-PR was declared by the President

placing FEMA locations around the entire island to support all Recovery

efforts.

The statement of work further explained that “[t]he contractor must perform duties/tasks

necessary to provide PSOs for physical security services throughout the entire island of

Puerto Rico including municipalities of Vieques and Culebra. Patrol vehicles shall be

provided when required by FEMA based on location characteristics, vulnerabilities and

risks.”

The RFP also indicated that “[t]he Government intends to award a Labor Hour type

contracts [sic] resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offerors whose offers,

conforming to the solicitation, are most advantageous to the Government, price and other

factors considered. Award will be made to the responsive, responsible contractor who

2

provides the best-valued solution to the Government.” The period of performance was a

one year base period, and then a one-year option period. 2 The RFP explained

[t]he acquisition and source selection are being conducted in accordance

with the procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Parts 12 and

15. The acquisition will be conducted using Best Value as the evaluation

methodology. Proposals will be evaluated and rated but not ranked using

the non-price factors listed below. A rating of “Unacceptable” in any of the

below technical factors will render the entire proposal technically

unacceptable and, therefore, not eligible for award.

1. Work Plan

2. Project Management Plan

3. Quality Control Plan

4. Past Performance

5. Price[.]

In addition, the RFP explained the methodology for making an award:

Factor 1 – Work Plan

Each offeror’s work plan shall be evaluated on its demonstrated ability to

provide staffing throughout the Commonwealth (all municipalities) of Puerto

Rico necessary to accomplish the tasks outlined in the Statement of Work

(SOW). The work plan shall fully describe the offeror’s proposed solution to

achieve requirements of the SOW and address the offeror’s technical

approach and methodology. The work plan shall be specific, detailed and

complete enough to demonstrate that the offeror has a thorough

understanding of the requirements in the SOW. The resume of the proposed

Key Personnel (Project Manager) shall be evaluated based on the depth

and breadth of the person’s experience in managing requirements similar

to the immediate requirement.

Factor 2 – Project Management Plan

Each offeror’s Project Management Plan shall evaluate on its demonstrated

project management and oversight capability. Significant emphasis shall be

placed on the offeror’s proposed plan to manage its workforce.

Factor 3 – Quality Control Plan

Each offeror’s Quality Control Plan shall be evaluated on how well it

demonstrates the offeror’s ability to establish and execute a quality control

2 As indicated in the parties’ submissions, “[n]ot relevant here, the original period of

performance was a three-month base contract with five option periods of three months

each, which was later adjusted to a one year base period, with a one-year option.”

(internal reference omitted).

3

plan, whereby the contractor manages and monitors the process and takes

the appropriate corrective action to correct performance to meet program

objectives.

The RFP further explained:

The Technical Approach Factor will be evaluated against the stated criteria

using the following descriptive adjectival ratings and definitions:

o Strength: An element of a proposal which exceeds a requirement of the

solicitation in a beneficial way

o Weakness: A flaw in a proposal that increases the chance of

unsuccessful performance.

o Omission: An element of the government’s requirement that has been

overlooked and excluded from the proposal

o Deficiencies: A serious flaw or a combination of weaknesses in a

proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to a

potential unacceptable level.

(all emphasis in original). The RFP also included the following chart to explain the rating

system for the Technical Factors.

Rating System for Technical Factor 1 -3

Rating Definition

Superior Proposal demonstrates an excellent understanding of the requirements and

an approach that significantly exceeds performance or capability

standards. Proposal strengths will significantly benefit the Government

and risk of unsuccessful performance is low. No significant weaknesses or

deficiencies exist.

Good Proposal demonstrates a thorough understanding of the requirements and

an approach that exceeds performance or capability standards. Proposal

has one or more strengths that will benefit the Government and risk of

unsuccessful performance is low. No significant weaknesses or

deficiencies exist.

Satisfactory Proposal demonstrates an understanding of the requirements and an

approach that meets performance or capability standards. Proposal

presents an acceptable solution with few or no strengths and risk of

unsuccessful performance is moderate. No significant weaknesses or

deficiencies exist.

Marginal Proposal demonstrates a shallow understanding of the requirements and an

approach that only marginally meets performance or capability standards

necessary for minimal but acceptable contract performance. Significant

weaknesses or deficiency exists that may be correctable without major

proposal revisions. The risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unsatisfactory Proposal fails to meet requirements and one or more deficiencies exist for

which correction would require a major revision or redirection of the

proposal. A contract cannot be awarded with this proposal.

4

(capitalization and emphasis in original).

The RFP explained that for Past Performance:

The Government shall evaluate the submitted past performance information

for each offeror as well as information obtained from any other available

sources. The past performance evaluation will assess the offeror's record

of how well the offeror performed on relevant work for government and

private sector clients. The Government will not restrict its consideration to

the information provided in the proposal and may consider any other

available information including any records in the Past Performance

Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). An offeror with no recent or relevant

past performance will be assigned a rating of neutral for this factor.

The RFP continued:

The Past Performance Factor will be evaluated against the stated criteria

and the rating assigned to each individual past performance record using

the following descriptive adjectival ratings and definitions:

Relevance - The Government is not bound by the offeror's opinion of

relevance. The following definitions apply:

Relevant Past/present performance effort involved the same or much of the

magnitude of effort, complexities, and contract dollars this RFP requires.

Not Relevant: Past/present performance effort did not substantially involve

the effort, complexities and contract dollars this RFP requires. An Offeror

with no relevant past performance history will receive a rating of "Neutral."

The RFP also included the following chart to explain the rating system for the Past

Performance factor:

Rating System for Past Performance Evaluation Factors

Rating Definition

Neutral No relevant performance record is identifiable upon which to base a

meaningful performance rating. A search was unable to identify any

relevant past performance information for the offeror, key personnel, or

subcontractors. This is neither a negative or positive assessment.

Superior Based on the offeror’s past performance record, it is highly likely that the

offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Based on the offeror’s past performance record, it is likely that the

offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Unsatisfactory Based on the offeror’s past performance record, it is not likely that the

offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

(capitalization and emphasis in original).

5

For the Price factor, the RFP simply indicated: “Sufficient competition is expected

for this procurement, therefore, price analysis will be utilized to determine a fair and

reasonable price. Price evaluation will be based on the total amount for all CLINs as

proposed on the attached Price Evaluation Worksheet including the base period and each

option period for each of the Locations.”3

The RFP’s “Basis for Award” explained:

The awards will be made based on a “Best Value-Tradeoff” basis. The

technical factors have been placed in descending order of importance.

Factor 1, Technical Specifications is the most important Factor, being more

important than Factors 2, 3 & 4 combined. In determining which proposal

provides the best value to the Government, non-price evaluation factors are

more important than evaluated price. These non-price factors, when

combined, are more important than Factor 5 Price. The Government intends

to award a Labor Hour type contracts resulting from this solicitation to the

responsible offerors whose offers, conforming to the solicitation, are most

advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

Award will be made to the responsive, responsible contractor who provides

the best-valued solution to the Government.

Among the FAR provisions the RFP incorporated was FAR 52.226-4, which stated in the

RFP:

(a) Set-aside area. Offers are solicited only from businesses residing or

primarily doing business in Puerto Rico (all municipalities). Offers received

from other businesses shall not be considered.

(b) This set-aside is in addition to any small business set-aside contained

in this contract.

One of the representations that an offeror was required to respond to was with regard to

FAR 52.226-3. As stated in the RFP:

E.8 52.226-3 Disaster or Emergency Area Representation (Nov 2007)

(a) Set-aside area. The area covered in this contract is the entire island of

Puerto Rico including municipalities of Vieques and Culebra.

3 Regarding options for pricing, the RFP also stated that “[t]he Government will evaluate

offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the

basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer [sic] is prices are

significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to

exercise the option(s).”

6

(b) Representations. The offeror represents that it [ ] does [ ] does not reside

or primarily do business in the set-aside area.[4]

(c) An offeror is considered to be residing or primarily doing business in the

set-aside area if, during the last twelve months—

(1) The offeror had its main operating office in the area; and

(2) That office generated at least half of the offeror's gross

revenues and employed at least half of the offeror's

permanent employees.

(d) If the offeror does not meet the criteria in paragraph (c) of this provision,

factors to be considered in determining whether an offeror resides or

primarily does business in the set-aside area include—

(1) Physical location(s) of the offeror's permanent office(s)

and date any office in the set-aside area(s) was established;

(2) Current state licenses;

(3) Record of past work in the set-aside area(s) (e.g., how

much and for how long);

(4) Contractual history the offeror has had with subcontractors

and/or suppliers in the set-aside area;

(5) Percentage of the offeror's gross revenues attributable to

work performed in the set-aside area;

(6) Number of permanent employees the offeror employs in

the set-aside area;

(7) Membership in local and state organizations in the set-

aside area; and

(8) Other evidence that establishes the offeror resides or

primarily does business in the set-aside area. For example,

sole proprietorships may submit utility bills and bank

statements.

(e) If the offeror represents it resides or primarily does business in the set-

aside area, the offeror shall furnish documentation to support its

representation if requested by the Contracting Officer. The solicitation may

require the offeror to submit with its offer documentation to support the

representation.

(emphasis in original). Additionally, the RFP included a “Local Area Documentation

Requirement:”

Pursuant to FAR 52.226-3(e), in addition to certification of FAR Provision

52.226-3(b), Offerors shall submit the following to support its representation

that it resides or primarily does business in the disaster or emergency area:

(c) An offeror is considered to be residing or primarily doing business in the

set-aside area if, during the last twelve months—

(1) The offeror had its main operating office in the area (offeror shall present

a copy of a current main operating office building ownership/lease

4The RFP included a notation that “(PARAGRAPH (b) OF THE ABOVE CLAUSE MUST

BE COMPLETED AND SUBMITTED WITH YOUR QUOTE).” (capitalization in original).

7

documentation as supporting evidence and evidence of domestic

registration with the office of the Puerto Rico Secretary of State); and

(2) That office generated at least half of the offeror's gross revenues and

employed at least half of the offeror's permanent employees (offeror shall

present supporting documents showing the offeror’s gross revenues during

the past 12 months, including previous IRS tax year records, as supporting

evidence and supporting documents demonstrating that its main operating

office in the set- aside area employed at least half of the offeror’s permanent

employees).

If the offeror does not meet the criteria in paragraph (c) of this provision,

in accordance with FAR 52.226-3(d), offerors shall provide at least:

1. Physical location(s) of the offeror's permanent office(s) and date any

office in the set aside area(s) was established

• Offeror shall present a copy of a current operating office building

ownership/lease documentation as supporting evidence of any permanent

office(s) and any office(s) in the set-aside area)

2. Current state licenses;

3. Other evidence that establishes the offeror resides or primarily does

business in the set-aside area.

(all emphasis in original).

Protestor AGMA and intervenor Ranger American of Puerto Rico were among nine

offerors which submitted timely proposals to FEMA in response to the RFP, which

required proposals to be submitted by December 19, 2019.5 Per the requirements of the

RFP, AGMA and Ranger American of Puerto Rico both checked the box to indicate “the

offeror represents that it does reside or primarily do business in the set-aside area.”

AGMA submitted supporting documentation with its proposal. Likewise, Ranger American

of Puerto Rico submitted supporting documentation with its proposal, which included the

following documents:

• Certificate of Incorporation

• Certificate of Existence

• Certificate of Good Standing

• Private Detectives Agency License

• Safety Agency License

• Total Waiver Certificate

• Municipal Patent

• Merchant Registration Certificate

• ASG - Eligibility Certificate

• CRIM - Personal Property Tax Certificate

5 As indicated in defendant’s cross-motions for judgment on the Administrative Record,

“both Ranger and AGMA submitted revised pricing proposals in response to the

contracting officer’s notification that the term of the contract had changed to a one-year

base period and one-year option period, rather than the contract’s duration stated in the

RFP.”

8

• CRIM - Statement of Account

• CRIM - Negative Certification of Property

• CRIM - Certification for all concepts

• Hacienda IVU - Certificate of Debts (Electronic Validation included)

• Hacienda IVU - Tax Certification (Electronic Validation included)

• Hacienda - Tax Contribution Certification

• Hacienda - Certificate of Debts

• Municipal Patent - Certificate of Debts

• ASUME - Certificate of Compliance Status

• CFSE - Certificate of Insurance

• CFSE - Certificate of Debts

• Labor Department

o Certificate of Drivers Insurance Program

o Certificate of Unemployment & Disability Insurance

In response to the contracting officer’s request for clarifications, on January 9,

2020, Ranger American of Puerto Rico submitted a letter which stated, in part:

Ranger American’s corporate headquarter is the most modern, customized,

and state of the art security facility in Puerto Rico and the Caribbean. We

are responsible and accountable for the security of our clients in Puerto Rico

and other islands. Therefore, our headquarters contain a unique

infrastructure to our survivability and the continuance of our field operations.

Our headquarter in San Juan is a 48,000 square feet concrete building, with

over 100 parking spaces, protected by a concrete and barbed wire

perimeter fence. The facility houses our armored car operation, making this

one of the most secure structure anywhere. The infrastructure for our

headquarters was meticulously designed and engineered to provide

survivability, and sustainability of our operations.

For evaluation of the proposals, the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB)

evaluated the nine proposals received, and each member of the SSEB evaluated the

proposals’ strengths and weaknesses against the four evaluation factors in the RFP:

Factor 1 - Work Plan, Factor 2 - Project Management, Factor 3 - Quality Control, Plan,

Factor 4 – Past Performance. The SSEB “establish[ed] a consensus rating for each

proposal,” and adopted a “methodology used for overall rating results.” The SSEB created

a ratings chart to adjectival value and then “assign[ed] overall ranges based on the total

points received.” The SSEB noted that

[t]he SSEB understands Offeror 6 [Ranger American of Puerto Rico] poses

less risk of non-compliance to the Government and is the most diligent in

submitting an adequate and complete. Their statements included have

been vetted and are enough to comply with all required responsibilities. For

this reason, the SSEB recommends Offeror 6 for award. This decision is

based on an impartial and individual evaluation by each member of the

SSEB of all offeror proposals submitted. Each evaluation factor was

9

considered, as per the RFP, and results were weighted for a final overall

rating for each offeror.

After the SSEB completed the evaluation of the proposals, on March 3, 2020, the

contracting officer issued an initial Award Decision Memorandum, which summarized the

background of the procurement and the evaluations of the SSEB, and included a technical

evaluation, price evaluation, a best value analysis and finally an award decision. The

initial Award Decision Memorandum section titled, “Evaluation Results and Analysis,”

explained:

The proposal was evaluated separately against the Evaluation Factors

established in the Request for Proposal (RFP) Section E. The SSEB

conducted its evaluation in accordance with the evaluation plan. Each

evaluator independently evaluated and rated the proposal. The team then

convened with the results of their evaluation, and collectively agreed to the

ratings and technical acceptability of each proposal as shown below.

The Award Decision Memorandum section titled, “Consensus Rating Chart,” stated:

The chart below (Table 1- “RATING CHART”) reflects the consensus ratings

that the offerors received in each of the four (4) factors Workplan, Project

Plan, Quality Control, and Past Performance, plus an overall factor rating.

All four factors were evaluated by each individual evaluator considering the

requirement as per the Statement of Work (SOW) and the RFP in order to

increase the impartiality of a consensus evaluation. CPARS reviews were

considered for those that provided a contract number for a past agreement

with the Federal government. The offerors received overall ratings based

on the evaluation factor consensus results which was based on the

demonstrated ability to fulfill the requirement. The methodology used for

overall rating results was giving empirical values (See table 3- “RATING

CHART BREAKDOWN”) to each adjectival value (see table 2 “EMPIRICAL

VALUES RATING CHART”) and assign overall ranges based on the total

points received (See table 4- “OVERALL RATING RANGE”). An analysis of

the board’s findings to include the vendor’s strengths and/or weaknesses is

discussed below in Table 1: Consensus.

(all capitalization and emphasis in original). The Award Decision Memorandum next

included four charts for a summary of the technical ratings: a rating chart, an empirical

values rating chart, a ratings chart breakdown, and the overall rating range. The four

charts provided:

10

Summary of Technical Ratings

Table 1

RATING CHART

Offeror: Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Overall Factor

Rating

Offeror 1: Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Neutral Unsatisfactory

[redacted]

Offeror 2: Agma Good Satisfactory Satisfactory Neutral Satisfactory

Security Service

Inc.

#3 Offeror 3: Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Neutral Unsatisfactory

[redacted]

Offeror 4: Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Marginal Neutral Unsatisfactory

[redacted]

Offeror 5: Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

[redacted]

Offeror 6: Good Good Good Good Good

Ranger American

Offeror 8: Marginal Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory

[redacted]

Offeror 9: Marginal Marginal Marginal Satisfactory Marginal

[redacted] [6]

6 The SSEB explained that: “During the initial screening, Offeror 7 [redacted] was deemed

ineligible for award. Offeror does not reside or primarily doing [sic] business in the disaster

area in accordance with FAR 52.226-3 Disaster or Emergency Area Representation and

therefore were [sic] not evaluated.”

11

Table 2

EMPIRICAL VALUES RATING CHART

Total Converted Empirical

Offeror: Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Empirical Value to Overall

Value Rating

#1 1 1 1 0 3 Unsatisfactory

#2 [AGMA] 4 3 3 0 10 Satisfactory

#3 1 1 1 0 3 Unsatisfactory

#4 1 1 1 0 3 Unsatisfactory

#5 1 1 1 2 5 Unsatisfactory

#6 [Ranger] 4 4 4 4 16 Good

#8 1 3 3 2 9 Satisfactory

#9 1 1 1 2 5 Marginal

Table 3

RATING CHART BREAKDOWN

Factors 1 - Numerical Numerical

3 Rating Factor 4 Rating

Superior 5

Good 4 Superior 3

Satisfactory 3 Satisfactory 2

Marginal 1 Unsatisfactory 1

Unsatisfactory 1 Neutral 0

Table 4

OVERALL RATING

RANGE

Rating

Overall Rating

Range

Superior 18

Good 14 to 17

Satisfactory 10 to 13

Marginal 6 to 10

Unsatisfactory 3 to 5

(all capitalization and emphasis for all charts in original; brackets added).7 Although the

RFP makes no mention of “empirical values ratings” system, the contracting officer

included the empirical values ratings chart in the initial Award Decision Memorandum and

7Except for the brackets to identify the protestor and intervenor, the charts are as they

appear in the initial Award Decision Memorandum and not intuitively obvious as to the

method or organization.

12

changed the rating chart, as shown in Table 1, into the empirical values ratings, the rating

chart breakdown, and the overall rating range, as indicated in Tables 2, 3, and 4. In the

contracting officer’s July 31, 2020 declaration attached to defendant’s cross-motion for

judgment on the Administrative Record, the contracting officer stated, “[f]or assistance in

assessing relative technical strengths, I used a system that converted the adjectival

ratings into numerical scores.” Therefore, the initial Award Decision Memorandum

including both technical ratings assigned to the offerors and empirical values ratings

assigned to the offerors.

After including the charts with the adjectival and numerical ratings, the Award

Decision Memorandum included a detailed breakdown of each offeror.8 Below are the

breakdowns for AGMA and Ranger American of Puerto Rico:

Offeror 2: AGMA Security Service Inc [sic] Rating: Satisfactory

Offeror 2’s proposal demonstrated a probability of success to support

FEMA’s requirement. The offeror had previous experience with FEMA but

had no CPARS records. Offeror 2 provided in detail how they would execute

the requirement, with a good workplan including a proper transition, good

management considering most challenges, and a reasonable Quality

Control (QC) Plan.

Factor 1 - Workplan: Good

Strengths include:

o Demonstrated the ability to make a seamless transition and accounted for

the required services. (Section 1: Workplan, page 1, paragraph 2, 6; page

2 paragraph 1, 2; page 3, paragraph 3)

o Proper execution including a detailed description of a proper chain of

command and a well-planned timeline (Section 1: Workplan, page 1

paragraphs 3-5, page 2 paragraph 4-6 [sic]

o Offeror demonstrates to have the capability to fulfill the staffing demand

in this requirement (footnote page 2).

Weakness include:

o None

Deficiencies include:

8 The Award Decision Memorandum included a summary of all the offerors, but this

Opinion only quotes the evaluation of AGMA and Ranger American of Puerto Rico, as the

evaluations of the protestor and the intervenor are the only ones at issue in the current

protest.

13

o None

Factor 2 – Project Management Plan: Satisfactory

Strengths include:

o Demonstrated the ability to effectively manage the contract (Section 2:

Project Management Plan in its entirety page 3-4).

o Offeror has a proper plan in place to fulfill staffing island-wide (Section 2:

Project Management Plan page 3 paragraphs 5-6).

o Proper assigned supervision (Section 2: Project Management Plan page

4 paragraph 1-5).

o Detailed description of distribution of resources (Section 1: Workplan,

page 1 last paragraph, continued page 2 first paragraph and page 2

footnote).

Weakness include:

o None

Deficiencies include:

o None

Factor 3 – Quality Control Plan: Satisfactory

Strengths include:

o Offeror has staff designated for Quality Control (Section 3: Quality Control

Plan, page 5, paragraph 3).

o Good plan for physical inspections and reporting tools (Section 3, page 5,

paragraph 2, 5, 6; page 6 all paragraphs; page 7, paragraphs 1-4).

o Good corrective actions plan Section 3, Paragraph 5-6; page 8, paragraph

1-4).

Weakness include:

o None

Deficiencies include:

14

o None

Factor 4 – Past Performance: Neutral

Strengths include:

o None

Weakness include:

o None

Deficiencies include:

o None

...

Offeror 6: Ranger American of Puerto Rico Inc [sic] Rating: Good

Offeror 6 is the vendor for the current contract. They relied on their efficacy

to execute the new contract to the “successful” execution of the current

contract. The offeror demonstrates the capability to comply with the

requirement as established. The offeror demonstrates that they have vast

staffing capabilities to meet requirements and beyond. A detailed Project

Management Plan was provided. A rigorous training schedule was

presented with a good command/field operations structure to complement.

Offeror diligently provided the “Use of Force” policy and a sample of

physical inspections spreadsheet they use to ensure PSO compliance.

Factor 1 - Workplan: Good

Strengths include:

o Offeror references effective modus operandum in current contract

(Section: Introduction, page 1, paragraph 6).

o Offeror states a continuation of services would not require a transition

(Section 1: Workplan, page 2, paragraph 2).

o Vast staffing capabilities (Section 1, page 2, paragraph 3).

Weakness include:

o None

15

Deficiencies include:

o None

Factor 2 – Project Management Plan: Good

Strengths include:

o Offeror presents in detail the contract management responsibilities, risk

avoidance, and insurance of performance making the contract transition a

seamless continuity of operations (Section 1: Workplan, page 2, paragraph

3).

o Good command and field operations structure (Section 2: Project

Management Plan, subsection Site Leaders, page 5 graph, paragraphs 1-

3).

o Contingency plan set in place (Section 2, page 3, paragraph 4).

Weakness include:

o None

Deficiencies include:

o None

Factor 3 – Quality Control Plan: Good

Strengths include:

o The offeror demonstrates a rigorous Quality Control system in place

(Section 3: Quality Control Plan, page 5, paragraph 1-2).

o Quality Control for this offeror includes monitoring processes, field

inspections, supporting software, cost control software, reporting capacity,

disciplinary strategies, and internal investigations (Section 3, sub-section

Technology, page 8, paragraph 1).

o Monitoring documentation developed ensuring compliance (proposal

attachment).

o Robust training schedule potentially maximizing quality of work (Section

3, page 6, paragraph 3; and attachment “Training [sic] Manuals protocol).

16

Weakness include:

o None

Deficiencies include:

o None

Factor 4 – Past Performance: Good

Strengths include:

o In CPARS, offeror has two evaluations where they are described as “very

good” and exceptional in all categories on both.

Weakness include:

o None

Deficiencies include:

o None

(capitalization and emphasis in original). The Award Decision Memorandum section titled,

“Price Evaluation,” stated:

The final price evaluation was conducted after the Technical Evaluation

Team (TET) completed their evaluation. The price proposals were

evaluated separately from the technical evaluation. Of the Offerors nine (9)

received, one Offeror was deemed ineligible and was not evaluated for an

award; three (3) received a technical rating of Acceptable, and five (5)

received a technical rating of “Unacceptable” for Solicitation

70FBR220R00000002, Armed Security Guards for DR-4339 Puerto Rico.

Price reasonableness was conducted in accordance with solicitation

Section E.6 FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items.

Sufficient competition resulted from the solicitation; therefore, price

reasonableness was utilized to determine if pricing was fair and reasonable.

Price evaluation was based on the total amount for all CLINs as proposed

on the Price Evaluation Worksheet including the base period and option

period. All non-price factors, when combined, are slightly more important

than price.

17

(emphasis in original). Regarding price, the contracting officer in the Award Decision

Memorandum explained:

The price proposals for the remaining Offerors 2, 6, 8 and 9 were

evaluated separately from the Technical evaluation. Those Offerors that

were deemed technically acceptable were notified via email that the

performance period changed to one base period and a one-year option

period, and a price revision request was issued to Offerors 2, 6, 8 and

9.

OFFEROR NAMES Qty Revised Revised TOTAL

Labor Hrs. Hour Vehicles (3)

Rates Daily Rate

OFFEROR2: AGMA Security Service 295,288 $[redacted] $[redacted] $[redacted]

Inc. [redacted] per vehicle

OFFEROR 6: Ranger American of PR, Inc. 295,288 $[redacted] $[redacted] $[redacted]

[redacted]

OFFEROR 8: [redacted] 295,288 $[redacted] $[redacted] $[redacted]

OFFEROR 9: [redacted] 295,288 $[redacted] N/C $[redacted]

This determination was based off adequate competition and comparison

to the original independent government cost estimate of $[redacted].

AGMA’s total, proposed, evaluated price was of $[redacted] and Ranger American

of Puerto Rico’s total proposed evaluated price was $[redacted].

Defendant explained that, “[i]n reviewing the SSEB’s determination, the

contracting officer’s award memorandum adopted the board’s technical evaluations,

without changes.” Regarding the evaluation of AGMA’s and Ranger American of Puerto

Rico’s proposals in the best value trade-off analysis, the contracting officer in the Award

Decision Memorandum explained:

The non-price factors; Factor 1 – Work Plan, Factor 2 – Project

Management, Factor 3 – Quality Control Plan, Factor 4 – Past Performance

and Factor 5 – Price, are the contributing factors in awarding to AGMA

AGMA received a rating of Good for Factor 1, Satisfactory for Factors 2 - 3;

Factor 4 received a rating of Neutral.

Factor 6 [sic] Price was non-rated.

Offeror 2, AGMA Security Service Inc. proposed Work Plan demonstrates

a Good understanding a probability of success to support FEMA's

requirement. AMGA [sic] demonstrated the ability to make a seamless

transition and accounted for the required services. (Section 1: Workplan,

18

page 1, paragraph 2, 6; page 2 paragraph 1, 2; page 3, paragraph 3). AGMA

provided in detailed description of a proper chain of command and a well-

planned timeline (Section 1: Workplan, page 1 paragraphs 3-5, page 2

paragraph 4-6. Offeror demonstrates to have the capability to fulfill the

staffing demand in this requirement (footnote page 2).

AGMA's proposed Project Management Plan demonstrates in their ability

to effectively manage the contract (Section 2: Project Management Plan in

its entirety page 3-4). AGMA has a proper plan in place to fulfill staffing

island-wide (Section 2: Project Management Plan page 3 paragraphs 5-6).

AGMA proper assigned supervision (Section 2: Project Management Plan

page 4 paragraph 1-5) and provided a detailed description of distribution of

resources (Section 1: Workplan, page 1 last paragraph, continued page 2

first paragraph and page 2 footnote).

AGMA's proposed Quality Control Plan demonstrates a staff designated for

Quality Control (Section 3: Quality Control Plan, page 5, paragraph 3).

Quality Control includes a Good plan for physical inspections and reporting

tools (Section 3, page 5, paragraph 2, 5, 6; page 6 all paragraphs; page 7,

paragraphs 1-4) and a Good corrective action plan Section 3, Paragraph 5-

6; page 8, paragraph 1-4) was provided.

AGMAs overall rating is Satisfactory on both technical and past

performance. Although Ranger received a rating of Good. Contracting

Officer determined that there was no rational that substantiates paying a

higher price to Ranger when the same services could be provided from

AGMA.

The contracting officer did not discuss the SSEB’s recommendation for award, but

concluded: “AGMA’s proposal offers the best overall value to the Government and price

is determined to be fair and reasonable.”

On March 13, 2020, FEMA made the award to AGMA, and notified Ranger

American of Puerto Rico of the same. Ten days later on March 23, 2020, Ranger

American of Puerto Rico filed a protest at the United States Government Accountability

Office (GAO). Ranger American of Puerto Rico’s GAO protest alleged that FEMA had not

properly evaluated the Technical Factors, and further argued that FEMA had not

conducted a proper trade-off and best-value determination. Specially, the GAO protest

state: “Contrary to the RFP and FAR, FEMA jettisoned the RFP evaluation criteria, which

gave greater weight to the non-price factors and awarded to AGMA based on an illusory

price only.” Ranger American of Puerto Rico also argued that at the GAO:

Among other things, Ranger American offered (1) a superior proposal for

the Work Plan, Project Management Plan, and Quality Control Plan factors,

with many strengths and discriminators; (2) overwhelming superior past

performance that substantially reduced risk and added value; and (3) a

19

proposed price to the agency that provided high confidence that the work

would be performed satisfactorily and efficiently within the price promised

and the Work Plan, Project Management Plan, and Quality Control Plan

proposed. Ranger American was materially prejudiced by the agency's

failure to properly evaluate proposals under Factors 1, 2, 3, and 4, and to

meaningfully consider the discriminators between the Ranger American and

AGMA proposals. FEMA's material evaluation errors and failure to conduct

a reasonable trade-off and best value determination were contrary to CICA

[the Competition in Contracting Act], the FAR, and the RFP terms. If the

agency had reasonably evaluated in accordance with the RFP, Ranger

American would have received the highest rating for the non-price factors

and AGMA would have received reduced ratings under the non-price

factors. Moreover, Ranger American had numerous strengths that the

agency failed to credit, contrary to the RFP's evaluation criteria and Ranger

American's proposal. The agency's failure to recognize strengths in Ranger

American's proposal resulted in an unfair and disparate evaluation of

Ranger American's proposal.

FEMA also ignored information too close at hand regarding AGMA's

deficient past performance. AGMA previously failed on a FEMA contract for

similar requirements and otherwise has a poor or inadequate past

performance history. If FEMA had reasonably evaluated in accordance with

the RFP terms, FEMA would have rated AGMA unsatisfactory or certainly

no higher than satisfactory.

The agency carried these errors over into the tradeoff and best value

determination. A tradeoff analysis and best value determination based on

errors in the evaluation is itself defective. Moreover, the errors in the

evaluation mean the agency failed to properly account for the actual

discriminators between the proposals in Ranger American's favor. If FEMA

had properly considered those discriminators in its evaluation, Ranger

American would have received award as best value.

The FEMA best value and trade-off analysis was further materially flawed

and unreasonable because it failed to reconcile apparent material

disconnects or contradictions between the AGMA non-price and price

factors. The AGMA price reflects a buy-in and failure to reasonably and

realistically price the RFP requirements. AGMA's non-price proposal may

have included some blanket statement of compliance, but AGMA's illusory

low price reflects a lack of understanding of contract and labor law

requirements and a failure to price what it proposed under the non-price

factors. Combined with AGMA's unsatisfactory past performance record,

the AGMA proposal presents substantial risk that FEMA failed to consider.

In response to Ranger American of Puerto Rico’s protest, on April 13, 2020, FEMA

notified GAO:

20

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA or Agency), of the

United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS), hereby requests

that you dismiss the above-captioned protest because, after careful

consideration of the protester’s allegations and the procurement record,

FEMA has decided to take corrective action. This corrective action will

consist of a reevaluation of the protester’s and awardee’s proposals as well

as a new award decision. FEMA may also take any other corrective action

it deems appropriate. Due to the Agency’s corrective action, the bases for

the protest are no longer valid and, therefore, this protest is academic and

should be dismissed. General Dynamics Mission Sys., Inc., B-414587, B-

414587.2, May 11, 2017, 2017 CPD ¶ 142 at 1. For the reasons set forth

above, FEMA respectfully requests that you dismiss Ranger American of

Puerto Rico’s protest in its entirety.

(emphasis in original). On April 15, 2020, GAO issued a decision which stated, in part:

“We dismiss the protest based on the corrective action taken by the agency.”

Defendant’s cross-motion for judgment on the Administrative Record in this court

indicates that after the GAO proceedings:

The contracting officer thereafter reevaluated the proposals and conducted

a new best value trade-off analysis based on the SSEB’s ratings of the

proposals. As with the initial award decision memorandum, in the corrective

action award decision memorandum (revised award decision), the

contracting officer largely adopted the SSEB’s technical findings. In other

words, the board did not meet again to conduct a new technical evaluation

of AGMA’s and Ranger’s proposals. The contracting officer, did, however,

change Ranger’s prior Good rating for past performance (seemingly a typo

by the SSEB because it was not an available adjectival rating in the RFP),

to Superior. She also modified the score of “4” to “3” for Ranger’s past

performance, which was the value corresponding to a Superior rating.

Ranger’s overall numerical rating was thus reduced to “15” from “16.”

(internal citations omitted).

On June 15, 2020, the contracting officer issued a Revised Award Decision

Memorandum. In the Revised Award Decision Memorandum, the contracting officer again

summarized the SSEB’s evaluation of AGMA and Ranger American of Puerto Rico:9

Offeror 2: AGMA Security Service Inc [sic] Rating: Satisfactory

9As with the initial Award Decision Memorandum, the Revised Award Decision included

a summary of the all the offerors, but this Opinion only quotes the evaluation of AGMA

and Ranger American of Puerto Rico.

21

Offeror 2’s proposal demonstrated a probability of success to support

FEMA’s requirement. The offeror had previous experience with FEMA but

had no CPARS records. Offeror 2 provided in detail how they would execute

the requirement, with a good workplan including a proper transition, good

management considering most challenges, and a reasonable Quality

Control Plan.

Factor 1 - Workplan: Good

Strengths include:

o Demonstrated the ability to make a seamless transition and accounted for

the required services. (Section 1: Workplan, page 1, paragraph 2, 6; page

2 paragraph 1, 2; page 3, paragraph 3)

o Proper execution including a detailed description of a proper chain of

command and a well-planned timeline (Section 1: Workplan, page 1

paragraphs 3-5, page 2 paragraph 4-6 [sic]

o Offeror demonstrates to have the capability to fulfill the staffing demand

in this requirement (footnote page 2).

Weakness include:

o None

Deficiencies include:

o None

Factor 2 – Project Management Plan: Satisfactory

Strengths include:

o Demonstrated the ability to effectively manage the contract (Section 2:

Project Management Plan in its entirety page 3-4).

o Offeror has a proper plan in place to fulfill staffing island-wide (Section 2:

Project Management Plan page 3 paragraphs 5-6).

o Proper assigned supervision (Section 2: Project Management Plan page

4 paragraph 1-5).

o Detailed description of distribution of resources (Section 1: Workplan,

page 1 last paragraph, continued page 2 first paragraph and page 2

footnote).

Weakness include:

22

o None

Deficiencies include:

o None

Factor 3 – Quality Control Plan: Satisfactory

Strengths include:

o Offeror has staff designated for Quality Control (Section 3: Quality Control

Plan, page 5, paragraph 3).

o Good plan for physical inspections and reporting tools (Section 3, page 5,

paragraph 2, 5, 6; page 6 all paragraphs; page 7, paragraphs 1-4).

o Good corrective actions plan Section 3, Paragraph 5-6; page 8, paragraph

1-4).

Weakness include:

o None

Deficiencies include:

o None

Factor 4 – Past Performance: Neutral

Strengths include:

o None

Weakness include:

o None

Deficiencies include:

o None

...

Offeror 6: Ranger American of Puerto Rico Inc [sic] Rating: Good

23

Offeror 6 is the incumbent contractor. They relied on their efficacy to

execute the new contract to the “successful” execution of the current

contract. The offeror demonstrates the capability to comply with the

requirement as established. The offeror demonstrates that they have vast

staffing capabilities to meet requirements and beyond. A detailed Project

Management Plan was provided. A rigorous training schedule was

presented with a good command/field operations structure to complement.

Offeror diligently provided the “Use of Force” policy and a sample of

physical inspections spreadsheet they use to ensure PSO compliance.

Factor 1 - Workplan: Good

Strengths include:

o Offeror references effective modus operandum in current contract

(Section: Introduction, page 1, paragraph 6).

o Offeror states a continuation of services would not require a transition

(Section 1: Workplan, page 2, paragraph 2).

o Vast staffing capabilities (Section 1, page 2, paragraph 3).

Weakness include:

o None

Deficiencies include:

o None

Factor 2 – Project Management Plan: Good

Strengths include:

o Offeror presents in detail the contract management responsibilities, risk

avoidance, and insurance of performance making the contract transition a

seamless continuity of operations (Section 1: Workplan, page 2, paragraph

3).

o Good command and field operations structure (Section 2: Project

Management Plan, subsection Site Leaders, page 5 graph, paragraphs 1-

3).

o Contingency plan set in place (Section 2, page 3, paragraph 4).

24

Weakness include:

o None

Deficiencies include:

o None

Factor 3 – Quality Control Plan: Good

Strengths include:

o The offeror demonstrates a rigorous Quality Control system in place

(Section 3: Quality Control Plan, page 5, paragraph 1-2).

o Quality Control for this offeror includes monitoring processes, field

inspections, supporting software, cost control software, reporting capacity,

disciplinary strategies, and internal investigations (Section 3, sub-section

Technology, page 8, paragraph 1).

o Monitoring documentation developed ensuring compliance (proposal

attachment).

o Robust training schedule potentially maximizing quality of work (Section

3, page 6, paragraph 3; and attachment “Training [sic] Manuals protocol).

Weakness include:

o None

Deficiencies include:

o None

Factor 4 – Past Performance: Good

Strengths include:

o In CPARS, offeror has two evaluations where they are described as “very

good” an exceptional in all categories on both.

Weakness include:

o None

Deficiencies include:

25

o None

(capitalization and emphasis in original).

The Revised Award Decision Memorandum included the following charts reflecting all the

offerors:

Table 1

RATING CHART

Offeror: Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Overall Factor

Rating

Offeror 1: Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Neutral Unsatisfactory

[redacted]

Offeror 2: Good Satisfactory Satisfactory Neutral Satisfactory

Agma Security

Service Inc.

#3 Offeror 3: Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Neutral Unsatisfactory

[redacted]

Offeror 4: Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Marginal Neutral Unsatisfactory

[redacted]

Offeror 5: Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

[redacted]

Offeror 6: Good Good Good Superior Good

Ranger American

Offeror 8: Marginal Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory

[redacted]

Offeror 9: Marginal Marginal Marginal Satisfactory Marginal

[redacted]

26

Table 2

EMPIRICAL VALUES RATING CHART

Total Converted Empirical

Offeror: Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Empirical Value to Overall

Value Rating

#1 1 1 1 0 3 Unsatisfactory

#2 [AGMA] 4 3 3 0 10 Satisfactory

#3 1 1 1 0 3 Unsatisfactory

#4 1 1 1 0 3 Unsatisfactory

#5 1 1 1 2 5 Unsatisfactory

#6 [Ranger] 4 4 4 43[10] 15 Good

#8 1 3 3 2 9 Satisfactory

#9 1 1 1 2 5 Marginal

Table 3

RATING CHART BREAKDOWN

Factors 1 - Numerical Numerical

3 Rating Factor 4 Rating

Superior 5

Good 4 Superior 3

Satisfactory 3 Satisfactory 2

Marginal 1 Unsatisfactory 1

Unsatisfactory 1 Neutral 0

Table 4

OVERALL RATING

RANGE

Rating

Overall Rating

Range

Superior 18

Good 14 to 17

Satisfactory 10 to 13

Marginal 6 to 10

Unsatisfactory 3 to 5

(all capitalization and emphasis for all charts in original; brackets added). Regarding

Price, the contracting officer indicated:

Based on the comparative analysis of the Base and Option Year 1, the

lowest priced offeror, AGMA’s, proposed price of $[redacted] was [ ]% lower

10 As explained below, defendant and intervenor assert that the number 43 was a

“typographical error.”

27

than the IGCE [Independent Government Cost Estimate]. The highest

priced offeror, Ranger’s, proposed price of $[redacted] was within

$[redacted] of the IGCE. Price reasonableness was based off adequate

competition, comparison to the revised independent government cost

estimate of $[redacted] and historical data.

For the best value trade-off analysis, the contracting officer stated:

Of the nine offerors, four received technical ratings higher than

Unsatisfactory. Of those, Ranger had the best technical proposal with an

overall rating of Good, while AGMA had an overall rating of Satisfactory but

offered the lowest price.

For the Work Plan (Factor 1), both AGMA and Ranger submitted proposals

that met the minimum solicitation requirement, and both were rated Good

for this factor. The TET determined that both AGMA and Ranger were found

to be technically equivalent in this area.

For the Project Management Plan (Factor 2), both AGMA and Ranger met

the minimum solicitation requirement. AGMA’s proposal demonstrated a

plan in place to fulfill staffing island wide, proper assigned supervision and

a detailed description of distribution of resources. AGMA received a rating

of Satisfactory. Ranger’s proposal demonstrated a detailed understanding

of the contract management responsibilities, risk avoidance, and insurance

of performance making the contract transition a seamless continuity of

operations, as well as good command and field operations structure and a

contingency plan in place. Ranger received a rating of Good.

For Factor 3, AGMA’s proposed Quality Control Plan demonstrates a staff

designated for quality control, a good plan for physical inspections and

reporting tools and a good corrective action plan. Ranger’s demonstrates a

rigorous quality control system in place, monitoring processes, field

inspections, supporting software, cost control software, reporting capacity,

disciplinary strategies, and internal investigations; and robust training

schedule potentially maximizing quality of work. Ranger received a rating of

Good. For the Past Performance factor, Ranger received a rating of

Superior and AGMA received a rating of Neutral. Neither offerors have

known past performance issues. Both Ranger and AGMA proposals met

the minimum solicitation technical requirements. Overall, AGMA and

Ranger were determined to be technically equivalent with regards to Work

Plan, but Ranger’s Project Management Plan and Quality Control Plan were

both technically superior to AGMA’s. Ranger received a Past Performance

rating of Superior, while AGMA received a Past Performance rating of

Neutral. Ranger received an overall rating of Good, while AGMA received

an overall rating of Satisfactory. However, AGMA’s proposed price was

lower than Rangers. [sic]

28

Offeror Name Overall Rating Total Award

Amount

AGMA Satisfactory $[redacted]

Ranger Good $[redacted]

The Solicitation stated that technical factors would be more important than

price. Offeror 6 (Ranger) had a 50% higher technical score than AGMA and

only a [redacted]% higher price. Ranger had a higher rating with regard to

the Project Management Plan, Quality Control Plan, and Past Performance.

While Offeror 2’s (AGMA) proposal was perfectly adequate, Offeror 6’s

(Ranger) was significantly better.

For the award decision, the contracting officer concluded:

Based on the integrated assessment of all proposals in accordance with the

specified evaluation factors, it is hereby recommended that the award be

made to Ranger under contract No. 70FBR220C00000019. Ranger’s

proposal is significantly stronger and offers the best-valued solution to the

Government, and the price is determined to be fair and reasonable.

The same day the contracting officer issued the Revised Award Decision

Memorandum, June 15, 2020, the contracting officer made the award to Ranger American

of Puerto Rico. On June 23, 2020, FEMA terminated for convenience AGMA’s previously

awarded contract, after the contracting officer awarded the contract to Ranger American

of Puerto Rico. As indicated in protestor’s complaint in this court, on June 23, 2020,

“FEMA issued Modification No. 2 to the AGMA Contract, terminating it for convenience.”11

On July 1, 2020, FEMA sent AGMA a debriefing letter. The July 1, 2020 AGMA debriefing

letter stated that “[t]he technical and past performance evaluations did not change as a

result of the corrective action in this matter.” The July 1, 2020 AGMA debriefing letter also

explained:

The Solicitation stated that technical factors would be more important than

price. Offeror 6 (Ranger) had a 50% higher technical score than AGMA and

only a [redacted]% higher price. Ranger had a higher rating with Quality

Control Plan, and Past Performance. While Offeror 2’s (AGMA) proposal

was perfectly adequate, Offeror 6’s (Ranger) was significantly better. The

basis of award for the contract is a best value determination based on

technical, past performance and price. Technical and past performance

11Modification No. P0002 stated in part: “This [sic] purpose of this Modification Number

P0002 hereby completely terminates subject contract for the convenience of the

Government pursuant to FAR 52.249-2 as a result of the corrective action after the

protest.”

29

when combined, are more important than price. The Government evaluated

your technical and past performance and conducted a price analysis.

Because the technical evaluation was more important than price, it was

determined that Ranger’s proposal was the best value to the government in

accordance with the Solicitation.

In response to the award to Ranger American of Puerto Rico, protestor filed a post-

award bid protest in this court, as well as a motion for injunctive relief. The complaint

alleges that “FEMA improperly accepted Ranger’s certification as a local firm, and FEMA

should have rejected Ranger’s proposal on this basis. This action was a violation of the

Stafford Act and FAR Subpart 26.2 provisions regarding local-firm set-asides, related

procurement law and the APA.” In addition, protestor contends in this court that “after

Ranger’s protest, FEMA improperly reevaluated the Ranger and AGMA proposals, and

decided to terminate the AGMA Contract and make award to Ranger.” Therefore,

protestor contends that FEMA’s award to Ranger American of Puerto Rico “was arbitrary,

capricious, an abuse of discretion, contrary to law and without the procedures required

by law.” Protestor requests that the court declare “that the award of the Ranger Contract

was and is contrary to law,” and should issue an order “[e]njoining any performance of

the Ranger Contract, and directing that it be terminated for convenience,” as well as

“[d]irecting that the agency reinstate the AGMA Contract, or issue a new contract to

AGMA in accordance with the terms of the Solicitation.”

Defendant and intervenor responded to the motion for injunctive relief and filed

cross-motions for judgment on the Administrative Record.12 Regarding the Stafford Act,

defendant argues that the “RFP required offerors to represent they were a local firm

primarily doing business in Puerto Rico, and the contracting officer was not required to

undertake further analysis.” Defendant also argues that “[t]he contracting officer’s revised

award memorandum is supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law.”

Intervenor contends that regarding the protestor’s Stafford Act arguments, protestor

ignores “the Ranger PR proposal and information known to FEMA through Ranger PR's

incumbent contract, and AGMA otherwise relies on an unreasonable interpretation of the

RFP and FAR contrary to all canons of interpretation.” Additionally, intervenor contends

that “FEMA reasonably determined Ranger PR met the requirements and was an offeror

that resides or primarily does business in the designated set-aside area.” Furthermore,

intervenor argues “[r]egarding any challenge to the post-corrective action best-value

determination: (a) the Court affords FEMA substantial deference; (b) FEMA met its

12 The court notes the unusual procedural history in this protest, as defendant and

intervenor filed cross-motions for judgment on the Administrative Record even though

protestor did not file an initial motion for judgment on the Administrative Record, but only

a motion for injunctive relief. Interestingly, protestor’s reply to its motion for injunctive relief

is titled: “Plaintiff’s reply in support of its motion for judgment on the Administrative Record

and permanent injunction, and injunction to Defendant [sic] and Intervenor [sic] motions

for judgment on the Administrative Record.” Although protestor did not file a motion for

judgment on the Administrative Record, the court nevertheless refers to defendant’s and

intervenor’s motions in the same way as the parties refer to the motions.

30

burden to document and explain its decision; and (c) the determination was consistent

with the RFP.”

DISCUSSION

The Stafford Act

Protestor argues that the award to intervenor should be “enjoined for failure to

observe the required Stafford Act procedure.” In its complaint, protestor alleged that

“FEMA improperly accepted Ranger’s certification as a local firm, and FEMA should have

rejected Ranger’s proposal on this basis. This action was a violation of the Stafford Act

and FAR Subpart 26.2 provisions regarding local-firm set-asides, related procurement

law and the APA.” Defendant responds that the “RFP required offerors to represent they

were a local firm primarily doing business in Puerto Rico, and the contracting officer was

not required to undertake further analysis.” Intervenor argues that protestor’s arguments

“ignore the Ranger PR proposal and information known to FEMA through Ranger PR's

incumbent contract, and AGMA otherwise relies on an unreasonable interpretation of the

RFP and FAR contrary to all canons of interpretation.” According to intervenor, “FEMA

reasonably determined Ranger PR met the requirements and was an offeror that resides

or primarily does business in the designated set-aside area.”

As explained by a Judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims:

The Stafford Act provides, in pertinent part:

In the expenditure of Federal funds for debris clearance,

distribution of supplies, reconstruction, and other major

disaster or emergency assistance activities which may be

carried out by contract or agreement with private

organizations, firms, or individuals, preference shall be given,

to the extent feasible and practicable, to those organizations,

firms and individuals residing or doing business primarily in

the area affected by such major disaster or emergency.

42 U.S.C. § 5150(a)(1). Substantially the same language appears in the

FAR, which requires the defendant to apply the Stafford Act preference

“when awarding emergency response contracts,” either through a local area

set aside or as an evaluation preference.

Crewzers Fire Crew Transport, Inc. v. United States, 98 Fed. Cl. 71, 82 (2011) (quoting

FAR 26.202) (emphasis removed).13 The current version of 42 U.S.C. § 5150(a)(1) is the

13 The current version of FAR 26.202(a) (2019) retains the same language and states in

full:

When awarding emergency response contracts during the term of a major

disaster or emergency declaration by the President of the United States

31

same as quoted above in Crewzers Fire Crew Transport, Inc. v. United States. The full

text of 42 U.S.C. § 5150, titled: “Use of local firms and individuals,” provides:

(a) Contracts or agreements with private entities

(1) In general

In the expenditure of Federal funds for debris clearance,

distribution of supplies, reconstruction, and other major

disaster or emergency assistance activities which may be

carried out by contract or agreement with private

organizations, firms, or individuals, preference shall be given,

to the extent feasible and practicable, to those organizations,

firms, and individuals residing or doing business primarily in

the area affected by such major disaster or emergency.

(2) Construction

This subsection shall not be considered to restrict the use of

Department of Defense resources under this chapter in the

provision of assistance in a major disaster.

(3) Specific geographic area

In carrying out this section, a contract or agreement may be

set aside for award based on a specific geographic area.

(b) Implementation

(1) Contracts not to entities in area

Any expenditure of Federal funds for debris clearance,

distribution of supplies, reconstruction, and other major

disaster or emergency assistance activities which may be

carried out by contract or agreement with private

organizations, firms, or individuals, not awarded to an

organization, firm, or individual residing or doing business

primarily in the area affected by such major disaster shall be

justified in writing in the contract file.

(2) Transition

Following the declaration of an emergency or major disaster,

an agency performing response, relief, and reconstruction

activities shall transition work performed under contracts in

under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency

Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. [§] 5121, et seq.), preference shall be given, to

the extent feasible and practicable, to local firms. Preference may be given

through a local area set-aside or an evaluation preference.

FAR 26.202(a) (brackets added).

32

effect on the date on which the President declares the

emergency or major disaster to organizations, firms, and

individuals residing or doing business primarily in any area

affected by the major disaster or emergency, unless the head

of such agency determines that it is not feasible or practicable

to do so.

(3) Formulation of requirements

The head of a Federal agency, as feasible and practicable,

shall formulate appropriate requirements to facilitate

compliance with this section.

(c) Prior contracts

Nothing in this section shall be construed to require any Federal agency to

breach or renegotiate any contract in effect before the occurrence of a major

disaster or emergency.

42 U.S.C. § 5150 (emphasis in original).

As noted by the parties, a number of provisions in the FAR address the Stafford

Act. Relevant to the allegations raised by protestor, FAR 18.203(a) states that for disaster

or emergency assistance activities, “[p]reference will be given to local organizations,

firms, and individuals when contracting for major disaster or emergency assistance

activities when the President has made a declaration under the Robert T. Stafford

Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. Preference may take the form of local

area set-asides or an evaluation preference.” FAR 18.203(a) (2019).14 As noted above,

FAR 26.202, “Local area preference” provides:

(a) When awarding emergency response contracts during the term of a

major disaster or emergency declaration by the President of the United

States under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and

Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. [§] 5121, et seq.), preference shall

be given, to the extent feasible and practicable, to local firms. Preference

may be given through a local area set-aside or an evaluation preference.

FAR 26.202(a) (2019) (brackets added). FAR 26.202-1, “Local area set-aside,” provides:

The contracting officer may set aside solicitations to allow only local firms

within a specific geographic area to compete (see 6.208[15]).

14Pursuant to FAR 26.201: “Local firm means a private organization, firm, or individual

residing or doing business primarily in a major disaster or emergency area.” FAR 26.201

(2019).

15FAR 6.208 addresses “[s]et-asides for local firms during a major disaster or

emergency,” and states:

33

(a) The contracting officer, in consultation with the requirements office, shall

define the specific geographic area for the local set-aside.

(b) A major disaster or emergency area may span counties in several

contiguous States. The set-aside area need not include all the counties in

the declared disaster/emergency area(s), but cannot go outside it.

(c) The contracting officer shall also determine whether a local area set-

aside should be further restricted to small business concerns in the set-

aside area (see Part 19).

FAR 26.202-1 (2019).16

FAR 52.226-3, “Disaster or Emergency Area Representation,” states:

As prescribed in 26.206(a), insert the following provision:

Disaster or Emergency Area Representation (NOV 2007)

(a) To fulfill the statutory requirements relating to 42 U.S.C. [§] 5150,

contracting officers may set aside solicitations to allow only offerors residing

or doing business primarily in the area affected by such major disaster or

emergency to compete (see Subpart 26.2).

(b) No separate justification or determination and findings is required under

this part to set aside a contract action. The set-aside area specified by the

contracting officer shall be a geographic area within the area identified in a

Presidential declaration(s) of major disaster or emergency and any

additional geographic areas identified by the Department of Homeland

Security.

FAR 6.208 (2019) (brackets added).

16 FAR 26.204, “Justification for expenditures to other than local firms,” states:

(a) 42 U.S.C. [§] 5150(b)(1) requires that, subsequent to any Presidential

declaration of a major disaster or emergency, any expenditure of Federal

funds, under an emergency response contract not awarded to a local firm,

must be justified in writing in the contract file. The justification should include

consideration for the scope of the major disaster or emergency and the

immediate requirements or needs of supplies and services to ensure life is

protected, victims are cared for, and property is protected.

(b) The justification may be made on an individual or class basis. The

contracting officer approves the justification.

FAR 26.204 (2019) (brackets added).

34

(a) Set-aside area. The area covered in this contract is: __________

[Contracting Officer to fill in with definite geographic boundaries.]

(b) Representations. The offeror represents that it __ does __ not reside or

primarily do business in the set-aside area.

(c) An offeror is considered to be residing or primarily doing business in the

set-aside area if, during the last twelve months—

(1) The offeror had its main operating office in the area; and

(2) That office generated at least half of the offeror's gross

revenues and employed at least half of the offeror's

permanent employees.

(d) If the offeror does not meet the criteria in paragraph (c) of this provision,

factors to be considered in determining whether an offeror resides or

primarily does business in the set-aside area include—

(1) Physical location(s) of the offeror's permanent office(s)

and date any office in the set-aside area(s) was established;

(2) Current state licenses;

(3) Record of past work in the set-aside area(s) (e.g., how

much and for how long);

(4) Contractual history the offeror has had with subcontractors

and/or suppliers in the set-aside area;

(5) Percentage of the offeror's gross revenues attributable to

work performed in the set-aside area;

(6) Number of permanent employees the offeror employs in

the set-aside area;

(7) Membership in local and state organizations in the set-

aside area; and

(8) Other evidence that establishes the offeror resides or

primarily does business in the set-aside area. For example,

sole proprietorships may submit utility bills and bank

statements.

(e) If the offeror represents it resides or primarily does business in the set-

aside area, the offeror shall furnish documentation to support its

35

representation if requested by the Contracting Officer. The solicitation may

require the offeror to submit with its offer documentation to support the

representation.

FAR 52.226-3 (2019) (capitalization in original). FAR 52.226-4, “Notice of Disaster or

Emergency Area Set-Aside,” states:

As prescribed in 26.206(b), insert the following clause:

Notice of Disaster or Emergency Area Set–Aside (NOV 2007)

(a) Set-aside area. Offers are solicited only from businesses

residing or primarily doing business in __________

[Contracting Officer to fill in with definite geographic

boundaries.] Offers received from other businesses shall not

be considered.

(b) This set-aside is in addition to any small business set-

aside contained in this contract.

FAR 52.226-4 (capitalization in original). The language of FAR 52.226-4 was adapted to

meet the requirements of the RFP and the RFP stated:

(a) Set-aside area. Offers are solicited only from businesses residing or

primarily doing business in Puerto Rico (all municipalities). Offers received

from other businesses shall not be considered.

(b) This set-aside is in addition to any small business set-aside contained

in this contract.

Protestor argues that “[t]he Stafford Act restricts certain FEMA contract awards to

‘local firms,’ as that term is defined in the Act and its associated regulations and contract

clauses,” and that “Ranger, apparently acting through two subsidiaries, has received

‘local firm’ contract awards from FEMA for both Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, at the

same time,” in violation of the Stafford Act. Protestor continues, “Ranger’s proposal for

this Puerto Rico local set-aside is replete with dozens of references to Ranger’s work in

the Virgin Islands, Ranger actually touts the interweaving of its Puerto Rico and Virgin

Islands operations, and Ranger freely refers to the Ranger Virgin Islands subsidiary as

its ‘affiliate.’”17 (emphasis in original). As it relates to the above captioned protest,

protestor contends:

FEMA is required to make two threshold determinations:

(c) An offeror is considered to be residing or primarily doing business in the

set-aside area if, during the last twelve months-

17 In response to this argument, intervenor states that “AGMA fails to cite provisions of

the Stafford Act or FAR 52.226-3 and -4, which implement the Act, prohibiting an offeror

from referencing in its proposal work in different localities or performing work in different

localities. The Ranger PR proposal thoroughly demonstrates Ranger PR, the offeror here,

resides in Puerto Rico.” (internal reference omitted).

36

(1) The offeror had its main operating office in the area; and

(2) That office generated at least half of the offeror’s gross revenues and

employed at least half of the offeror’s permanent employees.

FAR 52.226-3(c). If an offeror fails either of these two tests, then FEMA can

consider other evidence under FAR 52.226-3(d)(1)-(8). But here, the

Stafford Act process never reached that point, because Ranger didn’t

provide the information, FEMA didn’t follow up on this, and FEMA never

made the necessary determination.

(emphasis in original; footnote omitted).

As noted above, Ranger American of Puerto Rico’s proposal reflected the

framework of FAR 52.226-3 and the RFP, and Ranger American of Puerto Rico’s

proposal indicated:

2. Representations, Certifications & Other Statements of Offers

a. Disaster or Emergency Area Representation (Nov 2007)

(a) Set-aside area. The area covered in this contract is the entire island of Puerto

Rico including municipalities of Vieques and Culebra.

(b) Representations. The offeror represents that it [X ] does [ ] does not reside or

primarily do business in the set-aside area.

*(PARAGRAPH (b) OF THE ABOVE CLAUSE MUST BE COMPLETED AND

SUBMITTED WITH YOUR QUOTE)*

b. Offeror Representations and Certifications-Commercial Items

b. Ranger American has completed the annual representations and certifications

electronically in SAM accessed through http://www.sam.gov. After reviewing SAM

information, the Offeror verifies by submission of this offer that the representations and

certifications currently posted electronically at FAR 52.212-3, Offeror Representations

and Certifications-Commercial Items, have been entered or updated in the last 12

months, are current, accurate, complete, and applicable to this solicitation (including the

business size standard applicable to the NAICS code referenced for this solicitation), at

the time this offer RFP#: 70FBR220R00000002 Continuation of any block from the SF

1449 74 is submitted and are incorporated in this offer by reference (see FAR 4.1201),

except for paragraphs.

(all capitalization, emphasis, and highlight in original).

Intervenor Ranger American of Puerto Rico argues that “FEMA’s determination

that Ranger PR met the RFP's Stafford Act locality provision as a local contractor in

Puerto Rico was reasonable. Ranger PR provided numerous certifications evidencing its

status as a long-standing contractor that has resided in Puerto Rico since April 2, 1982,”

and “Ranger PR provided a map reflecting availability of its security officers throughout

Puerto Rico, and confirmed its 48,000 square foot headquarters is in Puerto Rico.”

Included as an appendix to Ranger American of Puerto Rico’s proposal were the following

documents:

37

• Certificate of Incorporation

• Certificate of Existence

• Certificate of Good Standing

• Private Detectives Agency License

• Safety Agency License

• Total Waiver Certificate

• Municipal Patent

• Merchant Registration Certificate

• ASG - Eligibility Certificate

• CRIM - Personal Property Tax Certificate

• CRIM - Statement of Account

• CRIM - Negative Certification of Property

• CRIM - Certification for all concepts

• Hacienda IVU - Certificate of Debts (Electronic Validation included)

• Hacienda IVU - Tax Certification (Electronic Validation included)

• Hacienda - Tax Contribution Certification

• Hacienda - Certificate of Debts

• Municipal Patent - Certificate of Debts

• ASUME - Certificate of Compliance Status

• CFSE - Certificate of Insurance

• CFSE - Certificate of Debts

• Labor Department

o Certificate of Drivers Insurance Program

o Certificate of Unemployment & Disability Insurance

In addition, in Ranger American of Puerto Rico’s proposal, consistent with FAR 52.226-

3, “Disaster or Emergency Area Representation,” intervenor represented that it does

reside or primarily does business in the set-aside area. Regarding protestor’s claims that

Ranger American of Puerto Rico, “apparently acting through two subsidiaries,” has

received local firm set-asides in “violation of the Stafford Act,” Ranger American of Puerto

Rico contends that “[n]othing in the Stafford Act or the FAR provisions implementing the

Act requires, or permits, an agency to consider an offeror's affiliates. Stated differently,

the residency of any Ranger PR affiliate, including Ranger VI, is irrelevant to whether

Ranger PR, the offeror here, resides or primarily conducts business in Puerto Rico.”

The court notes that the offeror listed on intervenor’s proposal is “Ranger PR.”18

As intervenor notes, “AGMA admits in its Complaint that Ranger PR was the offeror for

this procurement.” The FAR provisions that AGMA relies on FAR 52.226-3 and FAR

52.226-4 simply refer to “offeror” and, as Ranger American of Puerto Rico notes in its

cross-motion for judgment on the Administrative Record, “[n]othing in the Stafford Act or

the FAR provisions implementing the Act requires, or permits, an agency to consider an

18 Intervenor’s proposal also indicates it is from “Ranger American” that “‘RANGER

AMERICAN’ collectively refers to Ranger American of Puerto Rico and the following

affiliated companies: [redacted]; Ranger American of the Virgin Islands; [redacted];

[redacted]; and [redacted].” (capitalization in original).

38

offeror's affiliates. Stated differently, the residency of any Ranger PR affiliate, including

Ranger VI, is irrelevant to whether Ranger PR, the offeror here, resides or primarily

conducts business in Puerto Rico.” To Ranger American of Puerto Rico’s point, neither

the Stafford Act, nor the relevant FAR provisions quoted above, use the word affiliate.

Defendant notes that “AGMA repeatedly conflates Ranger[19] and Ranger V.I. as

one and the same company and argues that one company cannot be a ‘local firm’ in two

separate jurisdictions, the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. But Ranger [Ranger American

of Puerto Rico] and Ranger V.I. are two separate companies and there is no record

support to conclude otherwise.” (emphasis in original; internal reference omitted). In

essence, protestor assumes the two entities, Ranger American of Puerto Rico and Range

V.I., are the same company, without offering proof to the contrary.

Ranger American of Puerto Rico, represented in its proposal that the entity of

Ranger American of Puerto Rico does reside or primarily does business in the set-aside

area, and further represented that Ranger American of Puerto Rico submitted the

required documentation, and met its obligations to establish eligibility for the contract in

Puerto Rico. Defendant notes that “in no less than three places, Ranger represented that

it was incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in 1982, close to

40 years ago,” and argues that “AGMA ignores the financial statements that Ranger

submitted as part of its proposal, the commercial and government certifications, and its

technical and business proposals.” (footnote and internal references omitted). Indeed,

AGMA offers nothing to contradict that Ranger American of Puerto Rico made those

representations to FEMA in the procurement at issue. Furthermore, nothing in the record

before the court contradicts Ranger American of Puerto Rico’s representations. AGMA’s

unsubstantiated claims to the contrary are not sufficient to demonstrate Ranger American

of Puerto Rico did not comply with the Stafford Act and its implementing regulations, or

the requirements of the RFP, or that FEMA did not act in compliance with the Stafford

Act.

Protestor also cites to the GAO decision in Falken USVI, LLC. See Falken USVI,

LLC, B-416581.2, 2019 WL 157737 (Comp. Gen. 2019). Protestor argues that in Falken,

“Ranger American went so far as to protest an award to a Virgin Islands competitor on

the basis that because of affiliates, that competitor was not ‘doing business primarily' in

the Virgin Islands.” Using strong language, protestor contends,

19 The court notes that defendant defined “Ranger” in its filings as “Ranger American of

Puerto Rico, Inc.” Protestor at times in its filings also refers to “Ranger American of Puerto

Rico, Inc.” as “Ranger,” or “Ranger P.R.” Given the different corporate entities with the

name Ranger involved in the above captioned protest, the court finds that the lack of

precision in the briefs troubling and results in confusion in some of the arguments. Except

in quotations, the court uses the name the intervenor used in its filings: “Ranger American

of Puerto Rico.” The court does, however, note, that the certificate of incorporation and

the certificate of existence in the appendix to Ranger American of Puerto Rico’s proposal,

and included in the Administrative Record, refer to the entity as “Ranger American of

Puerto Rico, Inc.” Regarding Ranger American of the Virgin Islands, Inc., all parties use

the same abbreviation: “Ranger V.I.” or “Ranger VI.”

39

Ranger thus is engaging in two-faced, two-timing, double-dealing duplicity

here, by certifying itself as a local firm in both Puerto Rico and in the Virgin

Islands, through affiliated entities. This undermines the central purpose of

Stafford Act local-firm set-asides. Moreover, with Ranger having argued

that Falken was disqualified from Virgin Islands local-firm set-asides

because of affiliation, Ranger is estopped from claiming anything different

here.

Regarding Falken, Ranger American of Puerto Rico contends that “AGMA misstates the

basis for the protest by Ranger VI, a different company than Ranger PR. The AR

[Administrative Record] lacks any evidence that Ranger PR – or an affiliate – has ever

argued ‘affiliates must be considered when FEMA makes a Stafford Act local-firm

determination.’” (brackets added).

The court notes that despite protestor’s overheated rhetoric, the rationale for the

GAO to conclude Falken had not met the requirements under the Stafford Act was far

more nuanced. The GAO decision in Falken stated, in part:

With respect to Falken, the contracting officer concluded that the firm did

not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it resides or primarily

does business in the set-aside area pursuant to FAR provision 52.226–3(d).

AR, Tab U, Falken Final Locality Determination, at 1, 5. In this regard, the

contracting officer noted that Falken identified two operating offices in the

U.S. Virgin Islands, a St. Croix location established in October 2017, and a

St. Thomas location established in February 2018, with a total of 113

permanent employees in the two locations. Id. at 1–4. The contracting

officer also noted that Falken's licenses were not issued until October 2017

after the company's establishment in the U.S. Virgin Islands on October 13,

2017. Id. at 2. The contracting officer further stated that while Falken

identified contracts it had entered into with businesses in the U.S. Virgin

Islands, these contracts did not establish a history of local business

relationships because all of the contracts arose within the last five months

and were for small dollar amounts. Id. at 2–3. With respect to gross

revenues, the contracting officer also concluded that the information

provided did not demonstrate what portion of Falken's gross revenues were

attributable to work performed in the set-aside area. Id. at 3. Moreover, the

contracting officer found that most if not all of Falken's revenues in the set-

aside area were from a FEMA contract awarded to Falken in February 2018.

Id. Based on this information, the contracting officer concluded that Falken

Industries is a “15 year old Virginia based company that set up a temporary,

post-disaster operation in the U.S. Virgin Islands.” Id. at 4.

Falken USVI, LLC, B-416581.2, 2019 WL 157737, at *5 (emphasis in original). Ranger

American of Puerto Rico notes that the entity at issue in Falken was not Ranger American

40

of Puerto Rico, the offeror in this protest and the procurement was unrelated to this

procurement.20

In the protest before this court, in addition to questioning Ranger American of

Puerto Rico’s status to be qualified as a local business, AGMA contends that “FEMA

improperly accepted Ranger’s certification as a local firm, and FEMA should have

rejected Ranger’s proposal on this basis. This action was a violation of the Stafford Act.”

Defendant responds that “both the FAR and the terms of the solicitation allow a company

to self-represent as local, so long as it also submits the documentation, which both

Ranger and AGMA did here. AGMA points to no case law, nor are we aware of any, that

a contracting officer must make a written Stafford Act locality determination.” Further,

defendant argues,

to put a finer point on AGMA’s argument, AGMA presumably argues that a

FEMA contracting officer should not accept a company’s representation as

to its eligibility to perform local business in a disaster zone, and, instead,

should independently determine whether a company is “local,” where a

company has affiliates that are qualified as local in other jurisdictions. Such

an interpretation of the “spirit” of the Stafford Act is not only untenable, but

also unworkable.

(internal reference omitted). The court agrees that AGMA’s reading of the Stafford Act

and FAR would impose a burden on the agency that is not present in the Stafford Act, nor

in the regulations. Protestor’s suggestions that FEMA should not accept an offeror’s

representation with respect to Stafford Act eligibility, but must also verify that each offeror

is a local firm, is not required of the agency. FAR 52.226-3 requires the offeror to make

representations and submissions that meet the requirement of local firm status and FEMA

may rely on the offeror’s representation. Neither the contracting officer nor another FEMA

representative for the procurement at issue in this protest was obligated to independently

verify an offeror’s status as qualifying as a local firm. To conclude otherwise would read

out the self-representation available to offerors under FAR 52.226-3. In sum, Ranger

American of Puerto Rico’s representations were sufficient to meet the requirements of the

Stafford Act and FEMA acted reasonably to rely on those representations, despite the

colorful rhetoric without evidentiary substantiation offered by AGMA.

Finally, the court notes that this procurement evidences how the Stafford Act still

operates as intended in a procurement, despite protestor’s insinuations that defendant’s

20 Intervenor Ranger American of Puerto Rico also notes in a separate Falken matter,

Ranger VI argued, among other things, the actual offeror (Falken) had its

“main operating office . . . in Virginia, rather than St. Thomas. See Ranger

American of the Virgin Islands, Inc., 2020 WL 3447749, at *5. The protest

challenged that the offeror itself – not a purported “affiliate” – had its “main

operating office . . . in Virginia.”

(emphasis in original).

41

and intervenor’s interpretation of the Stafford Act and the regulations would render the

Stafford Act toothless. As explained by the SSEB: “During the initial screening, Offeror 7

[redacted] was deemed ineligible for award. Offeror does not reside or primarily doing

[sic] business in the disaster area in accordance with FAR 52.226-3 Disaster or

Emergency Area Representation and therefore were not evaluated.” FEMA reviewed the

[redacted] proposal, and determined that [redacted] was not eligible for award because

the company did not reside or did not primarily do business in the disaster area, and,

therefore, did not evaluate the proposal further.

FEMA’s Corrective Action Evaluation

Based on the record before the court, having determined that the Stafford Act was

not violated with respect to Ranger American of Puerto Rico, the court turns to the

protestor’s arguments regarding FEMA’s actions after the corrective action. Protestor

argues in its motion for injunctive relief, “after Ranger’s protest, FEMA improperly

reevaluated the Ranger and AGMA proposals, and decided to terminate the AGMA

Contract and make award to Ranger. Specifically, FEMA not only improperly reversed its

original best-value judgment, but it also: (a) employed an undisclosed, irrational and

misapplied evaluation scheme;” and “(b) improperly evaluated past performance and the

quality control plan.” In its cross-motion for judgment on the Administrative Record,

defendant argues that “[t]he contracting officer’s revised award memorandum is

supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law.”

Rule 52.1(c)(1) (2020) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims

(RCFC) governs motions for judgment on the administrative record. The court’s inquiry is

directed to “‘whether, given all the disputed and undisputed facts, a party has met its

burden of proof based on the evidence in the record.’” Mgmt. & Training Corp. v. United

States, 115 Fed. Cl. 26, 40 (2014) (quoting A & D Fire Prot., Inc. v. United States, 72 Fed.

Cl. 126, 131 (2006); see also Superior Optical Labs, Inc. v. United States, 2020 WL

6375739, at *7 (Fed. Cl. Oct. 21, 2020) (citing Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d

1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); AAR Manufacturing, Inc. v. United States, 149 Fed. Cl.

514, 522 (2020); Glocoms, Inc. v. United States, 149 Fed. Cl. 725, 731 (2020); Centerra

Grp., LLC v. United States, 138 Fed. Cl. 407, 412 (2018) (citing Bannum, Inc. v. United

States, 404 F.3d at 1356-57); Informatics Applications Grp., Inc. v. United States, 132

Fed. Cl. 519, 524 (2017) (citation omitted); Strategic Bus. Sols., Inc. v. United States, 129

Fed. Cl. 621, 627 (2016), aff’d, 711 F. App’x 651 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Pursuant to RCFC

52.1, in a bid protest, the court reviews the agency’s procurement decision to determine

whether it is supported by the administrative record. See CW Gov’t Travel, Inc. v. United

States, 110 Fed. Cl. 462, 481 (2013); see also CR/ZWS LLC v. United States, 138 Fed.

Cl. 212, 223 (2018) (citing Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d at 1353-54).

The Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996 (ADRA), Pub. L. No. 104-320,

§§ 12(a), 12(b), 110 Stat. 3870, 3874 (1996) (codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1)–(4)),

amended the Tucker Act to establish a statutory basis for bid protests in the United States

Court of Federal Claims. See Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United

States, 238 F.3d 1324, 1330-32 (Fed. Cir. 2001); see also Sys. Application & Techs., Inc.

42

v. United States, 691 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (explaining that the Tucker Act

expressly waives sovereign immunity for claims against the United States in bid protests).

The statute provides that protests of agency procurement decisions are to be reviewed

under APA standards, making applicable the standards outlined in Scanwell Labs., Inc.

v. Shaffer, 424 F.2d 859 (D.C. Cir. 1970), and the line of cases following that decision.

See, e.g., Per Aarsleff A/S v. United States, 829 F.3d 1303, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2016)

(“Protests of agency procurement decisions are reviewed under the standards set forth

in the Administrative Procedure Act (‘APA’), see 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(4) (citing 5 U.S.C.

§ 706), ‘by which an agency’s decision is to be set aside only if it is arbitrary, capricious,

an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law[.]’” (quoting NVT Techs.,

Inc. v. United States, 370 F.3d 1153, 1159 (Fed. Cir. 2004)) (citing PAI Corp. v. United

States, 614 F.3d 1347, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010))); Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico

Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d at 1332; Res. Conservation Grp., LLC v. United States,

597 F.3d 1238, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“Following passage of the APA in 1946, the District

of Columbia Circuit in Scanwell Labs., Inc. v. Shaffer, 424 F.2d 859 (D.C. Cir. 1970), held

that challenges to awards of government contracts were reviewable in federal district

courts pursuant to the judicial review provisions of the APA.”); Galen Med. Assocs., Inc.

v. United States, 369 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir.) (citing Scanwell Labs., Inc. v. Shaffer,

424 F.2d at 864, 868, for its “reasoning that suits challenging the award process are in

the public interest and disappointed bidders are the parties with an incentive to enforce

the law”), reh’g denied (Fed. Cir. 2004). In Banknote Corp. of Am., Inc. v. United States,

365 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2004), the Federal Circuit explained that “[u]nder the APA

standard as applied in the Scanwell line of cases, and now in ADRA cases, ‘a bid award

may be set aside if either (1) the procurement official’s decision lacked a rational basis;

or (2) the procurement procedure involved a violation of regulation or procedure.’” Id. at

1351 (quoting Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d

at 1332)); see also Palantir USG, Inc. v. United States, 904 F.3d 980, 990 (Fed. Cir.

2018); AgustaWestland North Am., Inc. v. United States, 880 F.3d 1326, 1332 (Fed. Cir.

2018); Info. Tech. & Applications Corp. v. United States, 316 F.3d at 1319.

When discussing the appropriate standard of review for bid protest cases, the

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed subsections (2)(A) and

(2)(D) of 5 U.S.C. § 706, see Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United

States, 238 F.3d at 1332 n.5, but focused its attention primarily on subsection (2)(A). See

Croman Corp. v. United States, 724 F.3d 1357, 1363 (Fed. Cir.) (“‘[T]he proper standard

to be applied [to the merits of] bid protest cases is provided by 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)

[(2006)]: a reviewing court shall set aside the agency action if it is “arbitrary, capricious,

an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”’” (alterations in original)

(quoting Banknote Corp. of Am. v. United States, 365 F.3d at 1350-51 (citing Advanced

Data Concepts, Inc. v. United States, 216 F.3d 1054, 1057-58 (Fed. Cir.), reh’g denied

(Fed. Cir. 2000)))), reh’g and reh’g en banc denied (Fed. Cir. 2013). The statute says that

agency procurement actions should be set aside when they are “arbitrary, capricious, an

abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” or “without observance of

procedure required by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (D) (2018);21 see also Veterans

21 The language of 5 U.S.C. § 706 provides in full:

43

Contracting Grp., Inc. v. United States, 920 F.3d 801, 806 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“In a bid

protest, we follow Administrative Procedure Act § 706 and set aside agency action ‘if it is

arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.’”

(quoting Palladian Partners, Inc. v. United States, 783 F.3d 1243, 1252 (Fed. Cir. 2015));

Tinton Falls Lodging Realty, LLC v. United States, 800 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2015);

Orion Tech., Inc. v. United States, 704 F.3d 1344, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2013); COMINT Sys.

Corp. v. United States, 700 F.3d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“We evaluate agency

actions according to the standards set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act; namely,

for whether they are ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in

accordance with law.’” (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); and Bannum, Inc. v. United States,

404 F.3d at 1351)); Savantage Fin. Servs. Inc., v. United States, 595 F.3d 1282, 1285-86

(Fed. Cir. 2010); Weeks Marine, Inc. v. United States, 575 F.3d 1352, 1358 (Fed. Cir.

2009); Axiom Res. Mgmt., Inc. v. United States, 564 F.3d at 1381 (noting arbitrary and

capricious standard set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), and reaffirming the analysis of

Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d at 1332); Blue

& Gold Fleet, L.P. v. United States, 492 F.3d 1308, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“‘[T]he inquiry

is whether the [government]’s procurement decision was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse

of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”’” (quoting Bannum, Inc. v. United

States, 404 F.3d at 1351 (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) (2000)))); NVT Techs., Inc. v.

United States, 370 F.3d at 1159 (“Bid protest actions are subject to the standard of review

To the extent necessary to decision and when presented, the reviewing

court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and

statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms

of an agency action. The reviewing court shall—

(1) compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed;

and

(2) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions

found to be—

(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in

accordance with law;

(B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity;

(C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short

of statutory right;

(D) without observance of procedure required by law;

(E) unsupported by substantial evidence in a case subject to sections

556 and 557 of this title or otherwise reviewed on the record of

an agency hearing provided by statute; or

(F) unwarranted by the facts to the extent that the facts are subject

to trial de novo by the reviewing court.

In making the foregoing determinations, the court shall review the whole

record or those parts of it cited by a party, and due account shall be taken

of the rule of prejudicial error.

5 U.S.C. § 706.

44

established under section 706 of title 5 of the Administrative Procedure Act (‘APA’), 28

U.S.C. § 1491(b)(4) (2000), by which an agency’s decision is to be set aside only if it is

‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,’ 5

U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) (2000).” (internal citations omitted)); Info. Tech. & Applications Corp.

v. United States, 316 F.3d at 1319 (“Consequently, our inquiry is whether the Air Force’s

procurement decision was ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not

in accordance with law.’ 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) (2000).”); Synergy Sols., Inc. v. United

States, 133 Fed. Cl. 716, 734 (2017) (citing Banknote Corp. of Am. v. United States, 365

F.3d at 1350); Eco Tour Adventures, Inc. v. United States, 114 Fed. Cl. at 22; Contracting,

Consulting, Eng’g LLC v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 334, 340 (2012). “In a bid protest

case, the agency’s award must be upheld unless it is ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of

discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.’” Turner Constr. Co. v. United States,

645 F.3d 1377, 1383 (Fed. Cir.) (quoting PAI Corp. v. United States, 614 F.3d at 1351),

reh’g en banc denied (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also Tinton Falls Lodging Realty, LLC v. United

States, 800 F.3d at 1358 (“In applying this [arbitrary and capricious] standard to bid

protests, our task is to determine whether the procurement official’s decision lacked a

rational basis or the procurement procedure involved a violation of a regulation or

procedure.” (citing Savantage Fin. Servs., Inc. v. United States, 595 F.3d at 1285-86));

Glenn Def. Marine (ASIA), PTE Ltd. v. United States, 720 F.3d 901, 907 (Fed. Cir.), reh’g

en banc denied (Fed. Cir. 2013); McVey Co., Inc. v. United States, 111 Fed. Cl. 387, 402

(2013) (“The first step is to demonstrate error, that is, to show that the agency acted in an

arbitrary and capricious manner, without a rational basis or contrary to law.”);

PlanetSpace, Inc. v. United States, 92 Fed. Cl. 520, 531-32 (“Stated another way, a

plaintiff must show that the agency’s decision either lacked a rational basis or was

contrary to law.” (citing Weeks Marine, Inc. v. United States, 575 F.3d at 1358)),

subsequent determination, 96 Fed. Cl. 119 (2010).

The United States Supreme Court has identified sample grounds which can

constitute arbitrary or capricious agency action:

[W]e will not vacate an agency’s decision unless it “has relied on factors

which Congress has not intended it to consider, 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 is so implausible

that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency

expertise.”

Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644, 658 (2007) (quoting

Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)); see

also F.C.C. v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 552 (2009); Tinton Falls

Lodging Realty, LLC v. United States, 800 F.3d at 1358; Ala. Aircraft Indus., Inc.-

Birmingham v. United States, 586 F.3d 1372, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2009), reh’g and reh’g en

banc denied (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Sang Su Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2002)

(“[T]he agency tribunal must present a full and reasoned explanation of its decision. . . .

The reviewing court is thus enabled to perform meaningful review . . . .”); Textron, Inc. v.

United States, 74 Fed. Cl. 277, 285-86 (2006), appeal dismissed sub nom. Textron, Inc.

45

v. Ocean Technical Servs., Inc., 223 F. App’x 974 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The United States

Supreme Court also has cautioned, however, that “courts are not free to impose upon

agencies specific procedural requirements that have no basis in the APA.” Pension

Benefit Guar. Corp. v. LTV Corp., 496 U.S. 633, 654 (1990).

Under an arbitrary or capricious standard, the reviewing court should not substitute

its judgment for that of the agency, but should review the basis for the agency decision to

determine if it was legally permissible, reasonable, and supported by the facts. See Motor

Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. at 43 (“The scope of

review under the ‘arbitrary and capricious’ standard is narrow and a court is not to

substitute its judgment for that of the agency.”); see also Dell Fed. Sys., L.P. v. United

States, 906 F.3d 982, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Turner Constr. Co., Inc. v. United States, 645

F.3d at 1383; R & W Flammann GmbH v. United States, 339 F.3d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.

2003) (citing Ray v. Lehman, 55 F.3d 606, 608 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 916

(1995)); Synergy Sols., Inc. v. United States, 133 Fed. Cl. at 735 (citing Impresa

Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d at 1332-33). “‘“If the

court finds a reasonable basis for the agency’s action, the court should stay its hand even

though it might, as an original proposition, have reached a different conclusion as to the

proper administration and application of the procurement regulations.”’” Weeks Marine,

Inc. v. United States, 575 F.3d at 1371 (quoting Honeywell, Inc. v. United States, 870

F.2d 644, 648 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting M. Steinthal & Co. v. Seamans, 455 F.2d 1289,

1301 (D.C. Cir. 1971))); Limco Airepair, Inc. v. United States, 130 Fed. Cl. 544, 550 (2017)

(citation omitted); Jordan Pond Co., LLC v. United States, 115 Fed. Cl. 623, 631 (2014);

Davis Boat Works, Inc. v. United States, 111 Fed. Cl. 342, 349 (2013); Norsat Int’l

[America], Inc. v. United States, 111 Fed. Cl. 483, 493 (2013); HP Enter. Servs., LLC v.

United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 230, 238 (2012); Vanguard Recovery Assistance v. United

States, 101 Fed. Cl. 765, 780 (2011).

Stated otherwise by the United States Supreme Court:

Section 706(2)(A) requires a finding that the actual choice made was not

“arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance

with law.” To make this finding the court must consider whether the decision

was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has

been a clear error of judgment. Although this inquiry into the facts is to be

searching and careful, the ultimate standard of review is a narrow one. The

court is not empowered to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.

Citizens to Pres. Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416 (1971) (internal citations

omitted), abrogated on other grounds by Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (1977); see

also U.S. Postal Serv. v. Gregory, 534 U.S. 1, 6-7 (2001); Bowman Transp., Inc. v.

Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 419 U.S. 281, 285 (1974), reh’g denied, 420 U.S. 956

(1975); Co-Steel Raritan, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 357 F.3d 1294, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2004)

(In discussing the “arbitrary, capricious, and abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in

accordance with the law” standard, the Federal Circuit stated: “the ultimate standard of

review is a narrow one. The court is not empowered to substitute its judgment for that of

46

the agency.”); In re Sang Su Lee, 277 F.3d at 1342; Advanced Data Concepts, Inc. v.

United States, 216 F.3d at 1058 (“The arbitrary and capricious standard applicable here

is highly deferential. This standard requires a reviewing court to sustain an agency action

evincing rational reasoning and consideration of relevant factors.” (citing Bowman

Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 419 U.S. at 285)); Lockheed Missiles &

Space Co. v. Bentsen, 4 F.3d 955, 959 (Fed. Cir. 1993); ); Sys. Studies & Simulation, Inc.

v. United States, 146 Fed. Cl. 186, 199 (2019); By Light Prof’l IT Servs., Inc. v. United

States, 131 Fed. Cl. 358, 366 (2017); BCPeabody Constr. Servs., Inc. v. United States,

112 Fed. Cl. 502, 508 (2013) (“The court ‘is not empowered to substitute its judgment for

that of the agency,’ and it must uphold an agency’s decision against a challenge if the

‘contracting agency provided a coherent and reasonable explanation of its exercise of

discretion.’” (internal citations omitted) (quoting Keeton Corrs., Inc. v. United States, 59

Fed. Cl. 753, 755, recons. denied, 60 Fed. Cl. 251 (2004); and Axiom Res. Mgmt., Inc. v.

United States, 564 F.3d at 1381)), appeal dismissed, 559 F. App’x 1033 (Fed. Cir. 2014);

Supreme Foodservice GmbH v. United States, 109 Fed. Cl. at 382; Alamo Travel Grp.,

LP v. United States, 108 Fed. Cl. 224, 231 (2012); ManTech Telecomms. & Info. Sys.

Corp. v. United States, 49 Fed. Cl. 57, 63 (2001), aff’d, 30 F. App’x 995 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

According to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit:

Effective contracting demands broad discretion. Burroughs Corp. v. United

States, 223 Ct. Cl. 53, 617 F.2d 590, 598 (1980); Sperry Flight Sys. Div. v.

United States, 548 F.2d 915, 921, 212 Ct. Cl. 329 (1977); see NKF Eng’g,

Inc. v. United States, 805 F.2d 372, 377 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Tidewater

Management Servs., Inc. v. United States, 573 F.2d 65, 73, 216 Ct. Cl. 69

(1978); RADVA Corp. v. United States, 17 Cl. Ct. 812, 819 (1989), aff’d, 914

F.2d 271 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Accordingly, agencies “are entrusted with a good

deal of discretion in determining which bid is the most advantageous to the

Government.” Tidewater Management Servs., 573 F.2d at 73, 216 Ct. Cl.

69.

Lockheed Missiles & Space Co. v. Bentsen, 4 F.3d at 958-59; see also Res-Care, Inc. v.

United States, 735 F.3d 1384, 1390 (Fed. Cir.) (“DOL [Department of Labor], as a federal

procurement entity, has ‘broad discretion to determine what particular method of

procurement will be in the best interests of the United States in a particular situation.’”

(quoting Tyler Constr. Grp. v. United States, 570 F.3d 1329, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009))), reh’g

en banc denied (Fed. Cir. 2014); Grumman Data Sys. Corp. v. Dalton, 88 F.3d 990, 995

(Fed. Cir. 1996); Geo-Med, LLC v. United States, 126 Fed. Cl. 440, 449 (2016); Cybertech

Grp., Inc. v. United States, 48 Fed. Cl. 638, 646 (2001) (“The court recognizes that the

agency possesses wide discretion in the application of procurement regulations.”);

Furthermore, according to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit:

Contracting officers “are entitled to exercise discretion upon a broad range

of issues confronting them in the procurement process.” Impresa

Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324,

47

1332 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly,

procurement decisions are subject to a “highly deferential rational basis

review.” CHE Consulting, Inc. v. United States, 552 F.3d 1351, 1354 (Fed.

Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).

PAI Corp. v. United States, 614 F.3d at 1351; see also AgustaWestland N. Am., Inc. v.

United States, 880 F.3d at 1332 (“Where, as here, a bid protester challenges the

procurement official’s decision as lacking a rational basis, we must determine whether

‘the contracting agency provided a coherent and reasonable explanation of its exercise

of discretion,’ recognizing that ‘contracting officers are entitled to exercise discretion upon

a broad range of issues confronting them in the procurement process.’” (quoting Impresa

Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d at 1332-33 (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted))); Weeks Marine, Inc. v. United States, 575 F.3d at

1368-69 (“We have stated that procurement decisions ‘invoke [ ] “highly deferential”

rational basis review.’ Under that standard, we sustain an agency action ‘evincing rational

reasoning and consideration of relevant factors.’” (alteration in original) (quoting CHE

Consulting, Inc. v. United States, 552 F.3d at 1354 (quoting Advanced Data Concepts,

Inc. v. United States, 216 F.3d at 1058))).

“Contracting officers ‘are entitled to exercise discretion upon a broad range of

issues confronting them in the procurement process,’” PAI Corp. v. United States, 614

F.3d at 1351 (quoting Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States,

238 F.3d at 1332), and “[a]ccordingly, procurement decisions are subject to a ‘highly

deferential rational basis review.’” Id. (quoting CHE Consulting, Inc. v. United States, 552

F.3d at 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).

When the contracting officer’s discretion grows, so does the burden on the

protestor. As noted in D & S Consultants, Inc. v. United States:

The protestor’s burden becomes more difficult the greater the degree of

discretion vested in the contracting officer. DynCorp Int’l v. United States,

76 Fed. Cl. 528, 537 (2007). Negotiated procurements afford the contracting

officer a “breadth of discretion;” “best-value” awards afford the contracting

officer additional discretion. Id. Therefore, in a negotiated, best-value

procurement, the “protestor’s burden is especially heavy.” Id.

D & S Consultants, Inc. v. United States, 101 Fed. Cl. 23, 33 (2011), aff’d, 484 F. App’x

558 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also Galen Med. Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 369 F.3d at

1330 (noting that contracting officers have great discretion in negotiated procurements

but even greater discretion in best-value determinations than in procurements based on

cost alone); PHT Supply Corp. v. United States, 71 Fed. Cl. 1, 11 (2006) (“It is critical to

note that ‘a protestor’s burden is particularly great in negotiated procurements because

the contracting officer is entrusted with a relatively high degree of discretion, and greater

still, where, as here, the procurement is a “best-value” procurement.’” (citations omitted)).

“It is well-established that contracting officers have a great deal of discretion in making

contract award decisions, particularly when, as here, the contract is to be awarded to the

48

bidder or bidders that will provide the agency with the best value.” Banknote Corp. of Am.

Inc. v. United States, 365 F.3d at 1355 (citing TRW, Inc. v. Unisys Corp., 98 F.3d at 1327-

28; E.W. Bliss Co. v. United States, 77 F.3d at 449; Lockheed Missiles & Space Co. v.

Bentsen, 4 F.3d at 958–59); see also Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. United States, 307 F.3d at

1379; Lockheed Missiles & Space Co. v. Bentsen, 4 F.3d at 958; Brooks Range Contract

Servs., Inc. v. United States, 101 Fed. Cl. 699, 707 (2011) (“[A] plaintiff’s burden ‘is

elevated where the solicitation contemplates award on a “best value” basis.’” (internal

citations omitted)); Matt Martin Real Estate Mgmt. LLC v. United States, 96 Fed. Cl. 106,

113 (2010); Serco v. United States, 81 Fed. Cl. 463, 496 (2008) (“To be sure, as noted at

the outset, plaintiffs have a significant burden of showing error in that regard because a

court must accord considerable deference to an agency’s best-value decision in trading

off price with other factors.”).

A disappointed bidder has the burden of demonstrating the arbitrary and capricious

nature of the agency decision by a preponderance of the evidence. See Tinton Fall

Lodging Realty, LLC v. United Sates, 800 F.3d at 1364; see also Grumman Data Sys.

Corp. v. Dalton, 88 F.3d at 995-96; Enhanced Veterans Sols., Inc. v. United States, 131

Fed. Cl. 565, 578 (2017); Davis Boat Works, Inc. v. United States, 111 Fed. Cl. at 349;

Contracting, Consulting, Eng’g LLC v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. at 340. The Federal

Circuit has indicated that “[t]his court will not overturn a contracting officer’s determination

unless it is arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise contrary to law. To demonstrate that such a

determination is arbitrary or capricious, a protester must identify ‘hard facts’; a mere

inference or suspicion . . . is not enough.” PAI Corp. v. United States, 614 F.3d at 1352

(citing John C. Grimberg Co. v. United States, 185 F.3d 1297, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 1999)); see

also Turner Constr. Co., Inc. v. United States, 645 F.3d at 1387; Sierra Nevada Corp. v.

United States, 107 Fed. Cl. 735, 759 (2012); Filtration Dev. Co., LLC v. United States, 60

Fed. Cl. 371, 380 (2004).

A bid protest proceeds in two steps. First . . . the trial court determines

whether the government acted without rational basis or contrary to law when

evaluating the bids and awarding the contract. Second . . . if the trial court

finds that the government’s conduct fails the APA review under 5 U.S.C.

§ 706(2)(A), then it proceeds to determine, as a factual matter, if the bid

protester was prejudiced by that conduct.

Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d at 1351; T Square Logistics Servs. Corp. v.

United States, 134 Fed. Cl. 550, 555 (2017); FirstLine Transp. Sec., Inc. v. United States,

119 Fed. Cl. 116, 126 (2014), appeal dismissed (Fed. Cir. 2015); Eco Tour Adventures,

Inc. v. United States, 114 Fed. Cl. at 22; Archura LLC v. United States, 112 Fed. Cl. at

496. To prevail in a bid protest case, the protestor not only must show that the

government’s actions were arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with the

law, but the protestor also must show that it was prejudiced by the government’s actions.

See 5 U.S.C. § 706 (“[D]ue account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error.”); see

also Glenn Def. Marine (ASIA), PTE Ltd. v. United States, 720 F.3d at 907 (“In a bid

protest case, the inquiry is whether the agency’s action was arbitrary, capricious, an

abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law and, if so, whether the error

49

is prejudicial.”); IT Enter. Sols. JV, LLC v. United States, 132 Fed. Cl. 158, 173 (2017)

(citing Bannum v. United States, 404 F.3d at 1357-58); Linc Gov’t Servs., LLC v. United

States, 96 Fed. Cl. 672, 694-96 (2010). In describing the prejudice requirement, the

Federal Circuit also has held that:

To prevail in a bid protest, a protester must show a significant, prejudicial

error in the procurement process. See Statistica, Inc. v. Christopher, 102

F.3d 1577, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Data Gen. Corp. v. Johnson, 78 F.3d

1556, 1562 (Fed. Cir. 1996). “To establish prejudice, a protester is not

required to show that but for the alleged error, the protester would have

been awarded the contract.” Data General, 78 F.3d at 1562 (citation

omitted). Rather, the protester must show “that there was a substantial

chance it would have received the contract award but for that error.”

Statistica, 102 F.3d at 1582; see CACI, Inc.-Fed. v. United States, 719 F.2d

1567, 1574-75 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (to establish competitive prejudice, protester

must demonstrate that but for the alleged error, “‘there was a substantial

chance that [it] would receive an award--that it was within the zone of active

consideration.’” (citation omitted)).

Alfa Laval Separation, Inc. v. United States, 175 F.3d 1365, 1367 (Fed. Cir.), reh’g denied

(Fed. Cir. 1999); see also Glenn Def. Marine (ASIA), PTE Ltd. v. United States, 720 F.3d

at 912; Allied Tech. Grp., Inc. v. United States, 649 F.3d 1320, 1326 (Fed. Cir.), reh’g en

banc denied (Fed. Cir. 2011); Info. Tech. & Applications Corp. v. United States, 316 F.3d

at 1319; Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d at

1332-33; OMV Med., Inc. v. United States, 219 F.3d 1337, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2000);

Advanced Data Concepts, Inc. v. United States, 216 F.3d at 1057; Stratos Mobile

Networks USA, LLC v. United States, 213 F.3d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

In making a request to the GAO to dismiss Ranger American of Puerto Rico’s

protest of the agency’s award to AGMA, FEMA indicated that “corrective action will

consist of a re-evaluation of the protester’s and awardee’s proposals as well as a new

award decision.” The defendant’s cross-motion for judgment on the Administrative Record

claims “that the SSEB [Source Selection Evaluation Board] did not reconvene to re-

evaluate only the proposals of AGMA and Ranger; rather, the contracting officer made a

new best value trade-off analysis award decision based upon the SSEB’s prior

decision.”22 (brackets added). Additionally, defendant’s cross-motion for judgment on the

Administrative Record indicates that

[t]he contracting officer thereafter reevaluated the proposals and conducted

a new best value trade-off analysis based on the SSEB’s ratings of the

proposals. As with the initial award decision memorandum, in the corrective

action award decision memorandum (revised award decision), the

22Although defendant only addresses the proposals submitted by Ranger American of

Puerto Rico and AGMA, the Administrative Record does not reflect that the Source

Selection Evaluation Board re-evaluated any of the offerors’ proposals or ever met after

the Source Selection Evaluation Board’s initial evaluations.

50

contracting officer largely adopted the SSEB’s technical findings. In other

words, the board did not meet again to conduct a new technical evaluation

of AGMA’s and Ranger’s proposals. The contracting officer, did, however,

change Ranger’s prior Good rating for past performance (seemingly a typo

by the SSEB because it was not an available adjectival rating in the RFP),

to Superior. She also modified the score of “4” to “3” for Ranger’s past

performance, which was the value corresponding to a Superior rating.

Ranger’s overall numerical rating was thus reduced to “15” from “16.”

(internal citations omitted).

The virtually unchanged technical evaluation process and analysis by the

contracting officer is notable given the numerous evaluation issues raised by Ranger

American of Puerto Rico at the GAO, which questioned FEMA’s evaluation of Factors 1,

2, 3, and 4, and remained unaddressed after the agency indicated it would take corrective

action.

As noted above, in its GAO protest, Ranger American of Puerto Rico contended:

Among other things, Ranger American offered (1) a superior proposal for

the Work Plan, Project Management Plan, and Quality Control Plan factors,

with many strengths and discriminators; (2) overwhelming superior past

performance that substantially reduced risk and added value; and (3) a

proposed price to the agency that provided high confidence that the work

would be performed satisfactorily and efficiently within the price promised

and the Work Plan, Project Management Plan, and Quality Control Plan

proposed. Ranger American was materially prejudiced by the agency's

failure to properly evaluate proposals under Factors 1, 2, 3, and 4, and to

meaningfully consider the discriminators between the Ranger American and

AGMA proposals. FEMA's material evaluation errors and failure to conduct

a reasonable trade-off and best value determination were contrary to CICA,

the FAR, and the RFP terms. If the agency had reasonably evaluated in

accordance with the RFP, Ranger American would have received the

highest rating for the non-price factors and AGMA would have received

reduced ratings under the non-price factors. Moreover, Ranger American

had numerous strengths that the agency failed to credit, contrary to the

RFP's evaluation criteria and Ranger American's proposal. The agency's

failure to recognize strengths in Ranger American's proposal resulted in an

unfair and disparate evaluation of Ranger American's proposal.

FEMA also ignored information too close at hand regarding AGMA's

deficient past performance. AGMA previously failed on a FEMA contract for

similar requirements and otherwise has a poor or inadequate past

performance history. If FEMA had reasonably evaluated in accordance with

the RFP terms, FEMA would have rated AGMA unsatisfactory or certainly

no higher than satisfactory.

51

The agency carried these errors over into the tradeoff and best value

determination. A tradeoff analysis and best value determination based on

errors in the evaluation is itself defective. Moreover, the errors in the

evaluation mean the agency failed to properly account for the actual

discriminators between the proposals in Ranger American's favor. If FEMA

had properly considered those discriminators in its evaluation, Ranger

American would have received award as best value.

The FEMA best value and trade-off analysis was further materially flawed

and unreasonable because it failed to reconcile apparent material

disconnects or contradictions between the AGMA non-price and price

factors. The AGMA price reflects a buy-in and failure to reasonably and

realistically price the RFP requirements. AGMA's non-price proposal may

have included some blanket statement of compliance, but AGMA's illusory

low price reflects a lack of understanding of contract and labor law

requirements and a failure to price what it proposed under the non-price

factors. Combined with AGMA's unsatisfactory past performance record,

the AGMA proposal presents substantial risk that FEMA failed to consider.

Despite the foregoing, after FEMA took corrective action, the contracting officer

made no further technical evaluation changes and did not seek revised proposals from

the offerors.23 Compared to its evaluation in the initial Award Decision Memorandum,

FEMA assigned the same technical ratings to AGMA in the Revised Award Decision

Memorandum for factors 1 to 4, and the same overall rating of Satisfactory,” and likewise

assigned AGMA the same empirical values ratings factors 1 to 4, and the same overall

rating of Satisfactory.” For Ranger American of Puerto Rico, FEMA assigned the same

technical ratings for factors 1, 2, and 3, and the same overall rating of “Good,” in the

Revised Award Decision Memorandum as in the initial Award Decision Memorandum but

changed factor 4, Past Performance, from “Good” to “Superior.” For the empirical values

ratings, FEMA assigned Ranger American of Puerto Rico the same ratings for factors 1,

2, and 3, but changed Factor 4 from a value of 4 to a value of 43, and FEMA changed the

total rating for from 16 to 15. The court notes that the revisions to Ranger American of

Puerto Rico’s past performance rating were not the result of revised proposals or re-

evaluation, but to correct mistakes by FEMA in its initial Award Decision Memorandum,

as the only ratings available for past performance were: Superior, Satisfactory,

Unsatisfactory, and Neutral, and the only empirical values ratings for Past Performance

were 3, 2, 1, and 0, and, therefore, Ranger American of Puerto Rico could not be assigned

either a technical rating of Good for Past Performance, nor an empirical values rating of

4.

23 The court includes in the technical evaluations past performance, because even though

the RRP identified Past Performance as a separate factor from the three Technical

Factors, and included a separate chart to explain the rating system for the Past

Performance factor in the Revised Award Decision Memorandum as in the initial Award

Decision Memorandum, the contracting officer included Past Performance in the

“technical evaluation.”

52

The majority of the Revised Award Decision Memorandum was background

information on the procurement and the evaluations previously conducted by the SSEB.

The new analysis by the contracting officer in the Revised Award Decision Memorandum

was limited to the best value trade-off analysis, as follows:

Of the nine offerors, four received technical ratings higher than

Unsatisfactory. Of those, Ranger[24] had the best technical proposal with an

overall rating of Good, while AGMA had an overall rating of Satisfactory but

offered the lowest price.

For the Work Plan (Factor 1), both AGMA and Ranger submitted proposals

that met the minimum solicitation requirement, and both were rated Good

for this factor. The TET determined that both AGMA and Ranger were found

to be technically equivalent in this area.

For the Project Management Plan (Factor 2), both AGMA and Ranger met

the minimum solicitation requirement. AGMA’s proposal demonstrated a

plan in place to fulfill staffing island wide, proper assigned supervision and

a detailed description of distribution of resources. AGMA received a rating

of Satisfactory. Ranger’s proposal demonstrated a detailed understanding

of the contract management responsibilities, risk avoidance, and insurance

of performance making the contract transition a seamless continuity of

operations, as well as good command and field operations structure and a

contingency plan in place. Ranger received a rating of Good.

For Factor 3, AGMA’s proposed Quality Control Plan demonstrates a staff

designated for quality control, a good plan for physical inspections and

reporting tools and a good corrective action plan. Ranger’s demonstrates a

rigorous quality control system in place, monitoring processes, field

inspections, supporting software, cost control software, reporting capacity,

disciplinary strategies, and internal investigations; and robust training

schedule potentially maximizing quality of work. Ranger received a rating of

Good. For the Past Performance factor, Ranger received a rating of

Superior and AGMA received a rating of Neutral. Neither offerors have

known past performance issues. Both Ranger and AGMA proposals met

the minimum solicitation technical requirements. Overall, AGMA and

Ranger were determined to be technically equivalent with regards to Work

Plan, but Ranger’s Project Management Plan and Quality Control Plan were

both technically superior to AGMA’s. Ranger received a Past Performance

rating of Superior, while AGMA received a Past Performance rating of

Neutral. Ranger received an overall rating of Good, while AGMA received

24Like defendant, FEMA and the contracting officer sometimes refer to intervenor as

“Ranger.” At other times, the agency refers to intervenor as “Ranger American.”

53

an overall rating of Satisfactory. However, AGMA’s proposed price was

lower than Rangers.[25] [sic]

Offeror Name Overall Rating Total Award

Amount

AGMA Satisfactory $[redacted]

Ranger Good $[redacted]

The Solicitation stated that technical factors would be more important than

price. Offeror 6 (Ranger) had a 50% higher technical score than AGMA and

only a [redacted]% higher price. Ranger had a higher rating with regard to

the Project Management Plan, Quality Control Plan, and Past Performance.

While Offeror 2’s (AGMA) proposal was perfectly adequate, Offeror 6’s

(Ranger) was significantly better.

Despite listing the numerical and adjectival ratings, the contracting officer did not explain

why Ranger American of Puerto Rico’s proposal “was significantly better” than AGMA’s

proposal. In the Revised Award Decision Memorandum, after the corrective action, the

contracting officer concluded:

Based on the integrated assessment of all proposals in accordance with the

specified evaluation factors, it is hereby recommended that the award be

made to Ranger under contract No. 70FBR220C00000019. Ranger’s

proposal is significantly stronger and offers the best-valued solution to the

Government, and the price is determined to be fair and reasonable.

At no point did the contracting officer explain why the corrective action had been

taken after Ranger American of Puerto Rico’s GAO protest was filed. Despite the detailed

accusations by Ranger American of Puerto Rico regarding AGMA’s proposal, FEMA’s

evaluation process, and the award decision, AGMA’s evaluation remained largely

unchanged from the prior evaluation. FEMA again evaluated AGMA as “Good” for Factor

1, “Satisfactory” for Factor 2, “Satisfactory,” for Factor 3, “Neutral” for Factor 4, with no

“known past performance issues.” The Revised Award Decision Memorandum noted that

AGMA met “the minimum solicitation technical requirements,” “AGMA received an overall

rating of Satisfactory,” and the “(AGMA) proposal was perfectly adequate.” The Revised

Award Decision Memorandum again concluded that AGMA offered a lower evaluated

25 The contracting officer also indicated that

[b]ased on the comparative analysis of the Base and Option Year 1, the lowest

priced offeror, AGMA’s, proposed price of $[redacted] was [redacted]% lower than

the IGCE. The highest priced offeror, Ranger’s, proposed price of $[redacted] was

within $[redacted] of the IGCE. Price reasonableness was based off adequate

competition, comparison to the revised independent government cost estimate of

$[redacted] and historical data.

54

price than Ranger American of Puerto Rico. If Ranger American of Puerto Rico’s claims

about the failures of AGMA’s proposal were the cause of the corrective action it was not

articulated by the contracting officer, nor is there a reflection in the analysis after the

corrective action. There is not even an explanation for why corrective action was

warranted in the above captioned protest in the Revised Award Decision Memorandum.

It is equally unexplained in the record before the court why the contracting officer

reached a different conclusion in the Revised Award Decision Memorandum than the

initial Award Decision Memorandum. Although the contracting officer referenced each

technical factor, past performance, and price, and concluded that “Ranger’s proposal is

significantly stronger and offers the best-valued solution to the Government, and the price

is determined to be fair and reasonable,” the contracting officer made no effort to

distinguish the new award decision from the original decision by the contracting officer

awarding the contract to AGMA, or even compare the two decisions. In fact, the

contracting officer did not even mention the initial award decision in her analysis.

Additionally, there is no explanation for why FEMA did not give offerors a chance to submit

revised proposals after the corrective action.

The Revised Award Decision Memorandum also retained mostly unchanged

numerical ratings from the initial Award Decision Memorandum. As described above, the

Revised Award Decision Memorandum included the following tables.

55

Table 1

RATING CHART

Offeror: Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Overall Factor

Rating

Offeror 1: Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Neutral Unsatisfactory

[redacted]

Offeror 2: Good Satisfactory Satisfactory Neutral Satisfactory

Agma Security

Service Inc.

#3 Offeror 3: Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Neutral Unsatisfactory

[redacted]

Offeror 4: Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Marginal Neutral Unsatisfactory

[redacted]

Offeror 5: Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

[redacted]

Offeror 6: Good Good Good Superior Good

Ranger American

Offeror 8: Marginal Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory

[redacted]

Offeror 9: Marginal Marginal Marginal Satisfactory Marginal

[redacted]

56

Table 2

EMPIRICAL VALUES RATING CHART

Total Converted Empirical

Offeror: Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Empirical Value to Overall

Value Rating

#1 1 1 1 0 3 Unsatisfactory

#2 [AGMA] 4 3 3 0 10 Satisfactory

#3 1 1 1 0 3 Unsatisfactory

#4 1 1 1 0 3 Unsatisfactory

#5 1 1 1 2 5 Unsatisfactory

#6 [Ranger] 4 4 4 43 15 Good

#8 1 3 3 2 9 Satisfactory

#9 1 1 1 2 5 Marginal

Table 3

RATING CHART BREAKDOWN

Factors 1 - Numerical Numerical

3 Rating Factor 4 Rating

Superior 5

Good 4 Superior 3

Satisfactory 3 Satisfactory 2

Marginal 1 Unsatisfactory 1

Unsatisfactory 1 Neutral 0

Table 4

OVERALL RATING

RANGE

Rating

Overall Rating

Range

Superior 18

Good 14 to 17

Satisfactory 10 to 13

Marginal 6 to 10

Unsatisfactory 3 to 5

As noted above, Offeror #2 was AGMA, and Offeror #6 was Ranger American of Puerto

Rico in both the original evaluation and the post-corrective action evaluation.

Protestor observes that for Factors 1-3, there is the same numerical rating for

marginal and unsatisfactory despite a stark difference in adjectival rating system, which

stated:

57

Most significantly, an “Unsatisfactory” rating prevents the award of the contract to an

offeror, which a “Marginal” rating does not.

Protestor also contends that for the Past Performance factor the numerical rating

provided a 0 for neutral and a 1 for unsatisfactory, whereas the rating system for the

Past Performance factor provided:

Defendant responds that “[t]he Ratings Chart assigned the same numerical value of ‘1’ to

Unsatisfactory and Marginal for the three technical factors, but that error did not affect

AGMA because its lowest adjectival rating was Satisfactory, which converted to a ‘3,” and

58

“the adjectival ratings ultimately controlled the evaluation of the offers because offers

rated as Unacceptable were rejected as technically unacceptable, even if the numerical

rating assigned to Unacceptable was in error.” (internal reference omitted). For Past

Performance factor, defendant states

for the past performance adjectival rating of Unsatisfactory to convert to “1,”

whereas Neutral converted to “0,” that was similarly a de minimis error. The

RFP explained that if an offeror received a Neutral rating, “[t]his is neither a

negative or positive assessment,” so it follows that a Neutral rating would

convert to “0.” And in practical effect, consistent with the RFP, all offerors’

whose ratings were Unacceptable were excluded from further award

consideration by the contracting officer.

(internal reference omitted).

Defendant also alleges that there was a typographical error for Ranger American

of Puerto Rico’s numerical past performance rating in the Revised Award Decision

Memorandum, albeit framed as a critique of protestor’s brief. Defendant contends:

AGMA’s spurious allegation that Ranger received a rating of “43” for past

performance, blithely ignores that it was clearly a typographical error in the

revised award memorandum, given that Ranger’s total score was “15.” Had

Ranger been given a rating of 43, rather than 3, for past performance, it

would have been impossible for it to achieve a score of 15.

(internal reference omitted). Even if errors identified by protestor in this court were de

minimis, as argued by defendant, and echoed by intervenor, it throws into sharp relief the

decision by the contracting officer not to question the numerical ratings when the initial

evaluation was conducted, and not explain when changes were made to the evaluations

after the corrective action. The agency had an opportunity after Ranger American of

Puerto Rico’s GAO protest was dismissed to address any errors the agency may have

made in the initial evaluation. Moreover, FEMA could have issued an amendment to the

explain the numerical rating system or make the numerical rating a part of the RFP

evaluation factors. The court notes that FEMA issued at least seven amendments during

the pendency of the GAO protest and then issued additional amendments after GAO

dismissed Ranger American of Puerto Rico’s protest for corrective action to be taken.

Furthermore, the revised Award Decision Memorandum does not explain why the

numerical ratings were adopted in the initial Award Decision Memorandum and included

again in the Revised Award Decision Memorandum. As noted above, in the contracting

officer’s July 31, 2020 declaration attached to defendant’s cross-motion for judgment on

the Administrative Record, the contracting officer stated, “[f]or assistance in assessing

relative technical strengths, I used a system that converted the adjectival ratings into

numerical scores.” Neither the contracting officer’s declaration, nor the record before the

court explains why the contracting officer needed “assistance in assessing relative

technical strengths,” nor why converting the adjectival ratings into numerical scores for

59

the technical factors would assist the contracting officer in reaching a decision. Nor does

it explain why the contracting officer also converted the adjectival ratings into numerical

scores for the Past Performance factor. Moreover, regarding the Past Performance factor,

left unexplained by the contracting officer is why a neutral pass performance rating would

be a “0,” but an Unsatisfactory rating, which calls for a conclusion that it is unlikely the

offeror could successfully perform the required effort, would be a higher rating of “1.” It is

equally unclear why for the Technical Factors, a “Marginal” rating and a “Unsatisfactory”

rating would be given the same numerical rating of 1, given the difference of the adjectival

rating of the two levels in both the RFP and the initial evaluation. 26 Furthermore, it is

unexplained why the contracting officer did not address either of these issues in the

Revised Award Decision Memorandum.

Protestor further argues that “the entire numerical evaluation scheme was

undisclosed (and also irrational, and misapplied),” and contends that “without the use of

the spurious numerical rating system, award was made to AGMA, but with it, award was

made to Ranger.” (emphasis in original). AGMA therefore, argues that “[t]he prejudice to

any offeror from an undisclosed evaluation scheme is virtually automatic, moreover,

because it denies an offeror the opportunity to frame its proposal in a manner that is most

likely to result in award.” (emphasis in original; footnote omitted). Defendant responds

that regardless of the numerical ratings

in the revised decision memorandum, the contracting officer complied with

the terms of the RFP when she explained that technical factors were of

descending order of importance (that is, Work Plan, Project Management,

Quality Control, and Past Performance), with price least important. The

contracting officer also referred to the adjectival ratings that the SSEB had

assigned, and determined that Ranger was the best value. AGMA cannot

show that the contracting officer relied on the alleged unstated evaluation

criteria, that is, the arithmetic conversion of adjectival ratings, rather than

adjectival ratings, when she determined that Ranger’s proposal was the

best value to the Government.

(internal reference omitted).

As cited by the protestor and defendant, the undersigned noted in Framaco,

International, Inc. v. United States: “‘It is hornbook law that agencies must evaluate

proposals and make awards based on the criteria stated in the solicitation.. . . .’” Framaco

Int’l, Inc. v. United States, 119 Fed. Cl. 311, 337 (2014) (quoting Banknote Corp. of Am.,

26 As noted above, a “Marginal” rating was defined as “[p]roposal demonstrates a shallow

understanding of the requirements and an approach that only marginally meets

performance or capability standards necessary for minimal but acceptable contract

performance. Significant weaknesses or deficiency exists that may be correctable without

major proposal revisions. The risk of unsuccessful performance is high.” An

“Unsatisfactory” rating was defined as “[p]roposal fails to meet requirements and one or

more deficiencies exist for which correction would require a major revision or redirection

of the proposal. A contract cannot be awarded with this proposal.”

60

Inc. v. United States, 56 Fed. Cl. 377, 386 (2003), aff’d, 365 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).27

Similarly, another Judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims explained: “‘It . . .

is beyond peradventure that the government may not rely upon undisclosed evaluation

criteria in evaluating proposals.’” PlanetSpace, Inc. v. United States, 92 Fed. Cl. 520, 536

(2010) (quoting NEQ, LLC v. United States, 88 Fed. Cl. 38, 48 (2009)). The Judge in

PlanetSpace, however, emphasized that

[n]evertheless, a solicitation need not identify criteria intrinsic to the stated

evaluation factors, and agencies retain “great discretion” in determining the

scope of a given evaluation factor. Accordingly, for a plaintiff to succeed on

a claim of undisclosed evaluation criteria, it must show that the procuring

agency used a “significantly different basis in evaluating the proposals than

was disclosed” in the solicitation.

Id. at 536-37 (quoting NEQ, LLC v. United States, 88 Fed. Cl. at 48).

Given the paucity of information in the initial Award Decision Memorandum or

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.