# Information Sciences Corp. v. United States

> United States Court of Federal Claims · September 19, 2006 · 73 Fed. Cl. 70

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6655283

## Case

- **Full name:** INFORMATION SCIENCES CORP. v. The UNITED STATES, and Gallagher, Hudson, Hudson & Hunsberger, Inc. (d/b/a Development InfoStructure or DEVIS), Intervenor
- **Court:** United States Court of Federal Claims
- **Decided:** September 19, 2006
- **Citations:** 73 Fed. Cl. 70; 2006 U.S. Claims LEXIS 274; 2006 WL 2686753
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Braden
- **Judges:** Braden
- **Cited by:** 73 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6655283

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that comparing prices to each another and the government estimate, as well as reviewing the proposal for compliance with the solicitation and for mathematical accuracy, satisfied the agency’s obligation to conduct a price realism analysis (quoting Matter of Bums & Roe …
- holding that an agency violates FAR 15.306(c) when it fails to consider an evaluation factor when setting a competitive range
- stating that section 15.308 "requires evidence of the exercise of independent judgment,” which was not met in that case because the SSA did not indicate why he adopted certain evaluation ratings and rejected others
- finding source selection decision flawed where SSA did not adequately document independent rationale for adopting the reasoning of the Contracting Officer and the minority report of the Source Selection Evaluation Board

## Opinion text

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND FINAL ORDER *
BRADEN, Judge.
This action was filed by Information Sciences Corporation (“ISC”), an information *74 technology (“IT”) provider, to challenge the December 7, 2005 award of the Federal Business Opportunities Contract by the General Services Administration (“GSA”) to Symplicity Corporation (“Symplieity”), because GSA allegedly violated federal procurement statutes, regulations, and/or acted without a rational basis. On December 29, 2005, another IT provider, Gallagher, Hudson, Hudson, and Hunsberger, Inc. (“Development Infostructure” or “DEVIS”) also intervened in this action to challenge the award of the contract to Symplieity.
For the reasons discussed herein, the court has determined that GSA has violated certain federal procurement regulations that prejudiced plaintiff and intervenor. As a result, limited injunctive relief is appropriate.
To facilitate review of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, the court has provided the following outline:
I. RELEVANT FACTS. [76]
A. The Background Of The Procurement. [76]
B. The May 18, 2004 Request For Proposals No. TQN-04-RA-0001. [77]
C. The Chronology Of Major Procurement Events. [78]
D. The June 24, 2004 Competitive Range Determination. [79]
E. Subsequent Amendments 0004, 0005, 0006. [79]
F. The General Services Administration’s Technical Evaluations Of The Final Proposals. [80]
1. Technical Evaluations Of The Awardee.
a. The Majority Report.
b. The Minority Report.
c. The Mitretek Systems Inc. Report.
2. Technical Evaluations Of Plaintiff.
a. The Majority Report.
b. The Minority Report.
c. The Mitretek Systems Inc. Report.
3. Technical Evaluations Of Intervenor.
a. The Majority Report.
b. The Minority Report.
c. The Mitretek Systems Inc. Report.
4. Technical Evaluations Of Another Bidder.
a. The Majority Report.
b. The Minority Report.
c. The Mitretek Systems Inc. Report.
G. The General Services Administration’s Price Evaluations Of The Final Proposals. [85]
1. Price Evaluation Of The Awardee.
2. Price Evaluation Of Plaintiff.
3. Price Evaluation Of Intervenor.
4. Price Evaluation Of Another Bidder.
H. General Services Administration’s Initial “Best Value” Determination. [87]
1. The May 26,2005 Determination That Offers From The Awardee And Plaintiff Were Technically Acceptable.
2. The June 16, 2005 Recommendation For Award.
3. The June 16, 2005 “Best Value” Determination And June 17, 2005 Award Of Contract To The Awardee.
I. Post-Award Protests At The Government Accountability Office, Stop Work Order, And Reopening Of The Procurement. [88]
J. The General Services Administration’s Post-Protest “Best Value” Determination. [89]
1. The December 2, 2005 Determination That The Offers From The Awardee And Plaintiff Technically Were Acceptable.
2. The December 5,2005 Recommendation For Award.
*75 3. The December 5, 2005 “Best Value” Determination And December 7, 2005 Award To The Awardee.
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY. [92]
III. DISCUSSION. [92]
A. Jurisdiction. [92]
B. Standing. [92]
1. Plaintiff Has Standing.
a. As An “Interested Party.”
b. Had A “Substantial Chance” of Being Awarded The Contract.
2. The Intervenor Has Standing As A Matter Of Right, Pursuant To RCFC 24(a).
a. The Intervenor’s Motion Was Timely.
b. The Intervenor Has An Interest Relating To The Property Or Transaction At Issue.
c. The Intervenor’s Interest Was Not Adequately Represented By The Parties.
C. The Relevant Standards For Decision On The Administrative Record In A Bid Protest Case. [95]
D. The Court’s Resolution Of The Parties’ Motions For Judgment On The Administrative Record. [98]
1. Unspecified Actions Of The Office Of Federal Procurement Policy That Were Alleged In Paragraph 23 Of The Amended Complaint Are Dismissed.
2. The General Services Administration Had Authority To Award The Contract.
3. The General Services Administration Did Not Violate Federal Acquisition Regulation 15.208(b)(1) (Late Offers).
4. The General Services Administration Did Not Violate Federal Acquisition Regulation 15.305(a) (Factors Specified In Solicitation).
5. The General Services Administration’s Technical Evaluations Had A Rational Basis.
a. The General Services Administration’s Decision To Increase The Technical Ratings Of ISC And Symplicity Had A Rational Basis.
b. The General Services Administration’s Decision To Direct The Technical Evaluators To Consider Cost As A Technical Factor Had A Rational Basis.
c. The General Services Administration’s Decision That Plaintiff’s Elimination Of The Post-IOC Migration Period Was A Technical Weakness Had A Rational Basis.
d. The General Services Administration’s Decision That Plaintiff’s Failure To Schedule ‘Train-The-Trainer’ Classes Was A Technical Weakness Had A Rational Basis.
e. The General Services Administration’s Decision That Plaintiff’s Failure To Include Enhancements In CLIN 0001 Was A Technical Weakness And A Management Approach Weakness Had A Rational Basis.
6. The General Services Administration Did Not Misrepresent Mitretek Inc.’s Technical Assessment Of Plaintiffs Proposal.
7. The General Services Administration’s Price Evaluations That Had A Rational Basis.
a. The General Services Administration’s Evaluation Of Plaintiffs Price Proposal Had a Rational Basis.
b. The General Services Administration’s Evaluation Of Intervenor’s Price Proposal Had A Rational Basis.
8. The General Services Administration Made Other Decisions That Had A Rational Basis.
a. The General Services Administration’s Decision That Plaintiff’s Failure To Provide Adequate Outreach Programs Was A Management Approach Weakness Had A Rational Basis.
*76 b. The General Services Administration’s Decision That The Past Experience Of Plaintiff’s Proposed Staff Was A Personnel And Staffing Weakness Had A Rational Basis.
c. The General Services Administration Decision That Awardee’s Proposal Warranted A Rating Of “Confident” Had A Rational Basis.
9. The General Services Administration Did Not Waive Any Mandatory Requirements.
10. The General Services Administration Did Not Improperly Consider Software Rights In Making A “Best Value” Decision.
***
11. The General Services Administration Violated Federal Acquisition Regulation 15.306(c) (Competitive Range).
a. The Contracting Officer Failed To Consider Price In Establishing The Competitive Range.
b. Plaintiff And The Intervenor Viere Prejudiced.
12. The General Services Administration Violated Federal Acquisition Regulation 15.308 (Comparative Assessment, Independent Judgment, Documentation For Rationale).
a. The Source Selection Authority Engaged In A Comparative Assessment.
b. The Source Selection Authority Did Not Exercise Independent Judgment And Document That Exercise.
c. Plaintiff and Intervenor Were Prejudiced.
13. The General Services Administration Misrepresented Findings, But The Intervenor Was Not Prejudiced.
14. The General Services Administration’s Decisions That Did Not Have A Rational Basis.
a. The General Services Administration’s Decision That Plaintiff Did Not Provide An Adequate Incentive Structure Did Not Have A Rational Basis.
b. The General Services Administration’s Decision That Plaintiffs Proposed Staffing Was Excessive Did Not Have Rational Basis.
c. Plaintiff Was Not Prejudiced By These Errors.
E. Plaintiff And Intervenor Are Entitled To Limited Injunctive Relief. [126]
1. Plaintiff and Intervenor Have Demonstrated Success On The Merits As To Certain Issues.
2. Plaintiff and Intervenor Have Established Irreparable Harm, If The Court Does Not Grant Injunctive Relief.
3. In This Case, A Balance of the Hardships To The Parties Favors The Grant of Limited Injunctive Relief.
4. In This Case, The Public Interest Weighs in Favor of Limited Injunctive Relief.
IV. CONCLUSION. [129]
I. RELEVANT FACTS. 1
A. The Background Of The Procurement.
FedBizOpps.gov (“FBO”) is a website, providing “the single government point-of-entry (GPE) for Federal government procurement opportunities over $25,000.” AR 2384. Procuring agencies publicize business opportunities by posting information on FBO. See Fed. *77 Bus. Opportunities, U.S. Gen. Servs. Admin., available at http://www.fedbizopps.gov (last visited Aug. 31, 2006). Prospective government contractors can then search, monitor, and retrieve opportunities. The purpose of FBO is to:
(1) promote the use of cost-effective procedures and processes that employ electronic commerce in the conduct and administration of Federal procurement systems, (2) apply nationally and internationally recognized standards that broaden interoperability and ease the electronic interchange of information, and (3) allow publication of solicitation notices.
AR 2384.
On September 30, 2000, GSA awarded a contract for the original development and maintenance of FBO to Science Applications International Corporation (“SAIC”), who in turn subcontracted to ISC, a small business concern, for “development, design, and maintenance services for the FBO platform and technical environment.” AR 2. The final option year of the contract with SAIC was scheduled to expire on September 30, 2004, requiring the Government to award a new contract in order to continue the operation of FBO. See AR 87. GSA, however, decided to upgrade the current FBO system: “the offeror may propose a system solution that builds on the current FBO functionality or propose[s] an entirely new system.” AR 195; see also AR 266 (“The Government requires that the offerors propose innovative solutions.”).
B. The May 18, 2004 Request For Proposals No. TQN-04-RA-0001.
On May 18, 2004, GSA issued Request for Proposals No. TQN-04-RA-0001 (“the Solicitation”) to award a fixed price incentive contract for the development and management of a new system for the FBO electronic procurement system. See AR 86-155. On June 9, 2004, GSA issued Amendment No. 0002 that revised various sections of the May 18, 2004 Solicitation. See AR 192-93. The Solicitation, as modified by Amendment 0002, provided for a three-year base contract with five one-year options. See AR 196, 206. The Solicitation required an offeror be able to deliver a system that would meet the following minimum capacities:
• Support 2 million registered vendors/users;
• Support 1000 concurrent users;
•Store and archive 1 million + total documents per year;
• Process 60 million + page hits per month;
• Provide live technical and end user support between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., (Eastern Time); and
• Not exceed 8 hours per 12-month period system down time (approximately 99.9% system availability). 2
See AR 200.
The Solicitation identified three Evaluation Factors that GSA would use when making a “best value” determination: a) Technical Proposal; b) Oral Presentation and Operational Capability Demonstration; 3 c) Price; *78 and d) Incentive Plan. See AR 147, see also AR 55, 257, 264. The Solicitation also identified four Subfaetors for the Technical Proposal Factor: a) Technical Approach; b) Management Approach; e) Key Personnel Staffing and Experience; d) Past Performance. Id. The Solicitation set forth the specific elements that GSA was to consider, giving in equal weight to each Subfactor. See AR 259-61. In analyzing the proposals, GSA also was required to assign both an adjectival rating of: “Outstanding,” “Excellent,” “Acceptable,” “Marginal,” or “Unacceptable” and a confidence rating of: “High Confidence,” “Significant Confidence,” “Confidence,” “Little Confidence,” or “No Confidence.” See AR 262-63. 4 Likewise, the Solicitation required “fair, reasonable, balanced, and realistic prices,” and established a Price Team to perform a price and/or cost analysis to that end. See AR 264.
According to the Solicitation, the Technical Proposal Factor was “significantly more important” than the Price and Incentive Plan Factors. AR 258 (emphasis added); see also id. (“All technical evaluation factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price and incentive plan”). The Solicitation, however, advised that “if technical evaluations are close, [then] the price analysis and incentive plan analysis will take on more importance.” AR 258; see also AR 55. Of the five Subfactors for the Technical Proposal Factor, Technical Approach was the most important, followed by Management Approach, Key Personnel Staffing and Experience, and Past Performance. See AR 258.
A June 6, 2004 pre-Solicitation document, entitled the Source Selection Evaluation Plan (“SSEP”), stated that a Source Selection Evaluation Board (“SSEB”) would “conduct an in-depth review and evaluation of each proposal against the Solicitation requirements and the approved evaluation criteria.” AR 36; see also AR 33-82. The SSEP also provided that a SSEB Technical Team and a SSEB Price Team would be established and vested with the authority to analyze the technical merits and price of the proposals. See AR 35. The SSEP, however, specified that the Source Selection Authority (“SSA”) would have the power to “independently select[]” the offeror that presented the “best value” to the Government. See AR 35 (emphasis added). The SSEP also provided that a Contracting Officer (“CO”) would be appointed and vested with the authority to make a Competitive Range Determination, pursuant to FAR 15.306(c), serve as chair of the SSEB Technical and Price Teams, and prepare the Source Selection Decision Document for further review and approval by the SSA. Id. The Acquisition Council for E-Government (“ACE”) 5 appointed the SSA and members of the SSEB. See AR 34.
C. The Chronology Of Major Procure *79 ment Events. 6
To facilitate a better understanding of this procurement, a chronology of the significant events follows:
June 24, 2004 GSA received ten timely proposals.
July 27, 2004 Two offerors were eliminated from the competition after a preliminary requirement audit was completed.
Sept. 2,2004 The competitive range was determined. Four other offerors were eliminated from the competition. The four offerors that remained in the competition were: Aquilent; DEVIS; ISC; and Symplicity.
May 26,2005 SSA determined that the ISC and Symplicity proposals technically were acceptable.
June 16, 2005 CO issued a Recommendation for Award.
June 16, 2005 SSA completed a Best Value Determination.
June 17, 2005 Contract awarded to Symplicity.
June 24, 2005 ISC and DEVIS filed posbaward protests at the Government Accountability Office (Nos. B-295427.3 and B-295427.4, respectively).
June 29, 2005 Stop Work Order sent to Symplicity.
July 11, 2005 Amendment 0007 issued and the procurement evaluations of the four offerors in the competitive range were re-opened.
July 25, 2005 GSA received Price Proposal modifications from DEVIS, but the three other offerors did not submit any changes to their Technical or Price Proposals.
Dee. 2, 2005 SSA determined that the ISC and Symplicity proposals technically were acceptable.
Dec. 5, 2005 CO issued a posbprotest recommendation for award.
Dec. 5, 2005 SSA completed the posbprotest best value determination.
Dec. 7, 2005 Contract re-awarded to Symplicity.
Dec. 22, 2005 ISC filed a posbaward bid protest in the United States Court of Federal Claims (No. 05-1342).
Dec. 29,2005 DEVIS intervened in ISC’s posbaward bid protest (No. 05-1342).
D. The June 24, 2004 Competitive Range Determination.
By June 24, 2004, GSA received ten timely proposals. See AR 1176. Two of the proposals, however, failed to pass the initial requirement audit check and were eliminated from further consideration on July 27, 2004. Id.
After the SSEB conducted a preliminary technical evaluation, the CO determined that four offerors were in the competitive range: Aquilent, Inc. (“Aquilent”); DEVIS; ISC; and Symplicity. See AR 2486-539; see also AR 35 (stating that it is the responsibility of the CO, in accordance with FAR 15.306, to make the competitive range determination). 7 These four offerors were notified of the CO’s determination on September 2, 2004, but given the opportunity to submit a revised proposal by September 20, 2004. See AR 1176.
In determining the competitive range, the CO did not use proposed prices as a factor:
Proposed prices were not a factor in determining the competitive range. Due to the performance based nature of this acquisition, proposed solutions varied and therefore prices varied. A determination, not to eliminate any proposal from the competitive range, based on price, was made by the FBO Contracting Officer. The Contracting Officer concluded that once the competitive range was determined and technical discussion/priee negotiations commenced, offerors could adjust their prices accordingly, which could result in lower prices than initially proposed by each offeror.
***
A cursory review of the ten initial price proposals revealed that not all bidders provided proposals in the format that was requested, and all initial proposals required varying degrees of clarification.
AR 2538 (emphasis added). The Price Evaluation team was “not able to determine realistic pricing from Symplicity for each CLIN [ (“Contract Line Item Number”) ] on initial proposals ... we attempted a best guess.” AR 2387. 8 Likewise, ISC proposed [deleted], which created ambiguity as to whether the option is [deleted] on the part of ISC. See AR 2538.
E. Subsequent Amendments 0004, 0005, 0006.
Section B.2 of the Solicitation provided that the proposed FBO system must be avail *80 able for testing by January 10, 2005, and implemented no later than February 6, 2005. See AR 195 (“The government requires that offeror’s proposed FBO system be fully operational and implemented no later than February 6, 2005. The offeror’s proposed FBO system must be operational and available to the government for System Acceptance Test and Evaluation no later than January 10, 2005.”). The purpose of these deadlines was to “ensure continuity of operations during system transition ... [and] provide a seamless transition between the current contractor’s FBO system and the offeror’s FBO system[.]” AR 217. On October 29, 2004, however, GSA issued Amendment 0004, removing the January 10, 2005 and February 6, 2005 deadlines from Sections B.2, C.6, H.12, and L.8.2.1.4 of the Solicitation. See AR 566-67 (stating that all references to January 10 and February 6 be replaced "with the FBO System Transition Plan found in Attachment J.7.18, thereby eliminating the requirement that the FBO system be fully operational at an early and defined date).
In response to Amendment 0004, ISC filed a pre-award protest at the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) on November 15, 2004. ISC alleged that the elimination of the mandatory dates for delivery of a compliant system meant that the price team could not account for the cost savings associated with an early delivery. See Amend. Compl. ¶ 8; see also AR 1062. To remedy ISC’s concerns, GSA issued Amendments 0005 and 0006, collectively requiring offerors to ensure that their proposed FBO system be operational and available for testing 120 calendar days after the contract award and fully implemented 150 calendar days after the contract award. See AR 552-53, 604; see also AR 1062. Amendment 0006 also modified Section M.6, incorporating any savings associated with early implementation into the price analysis. See AR 605 (“Price of each CLIN will be evaluated by the Price Evaluation team for the following: total life cycle for development, the base operation and maintenance period, option period[,] and transition costs (e.g. savings associated with early implementation).” (emphasis added)). In addition, Amendment 0006 extended the deadline for proposal submissions to January 3,2005. See AR 606.
F. The General Services Administration’s Technical Evaluations Of The Final Proposals.
On January 3, 2005, GSA received Final Proposals from the four offerors in the competitive range. See AR 1178. After reviewing these proposals, the SSEB Technical Team decided that it was necessary to request written clarifications from the offerors. Id. Thereafter, each offeror submitted responses on February 2, 2005. Id. In their responses, ISC and Symplicity made changes to their Price Proposals. Id. The Technical Evaluators analyzed the proposals and provided evaluation reports to the CO and SSA on April 8, 2005. Id.; see also AR 1037 (“[Tjechnical reports ... were provided to the Contracting Officer and the Source Selection Authority!.]”).
Pursuant to the SSEP, the SSEB issued both a Majority Report and a Minority Report. See AR 61 (“If there is ... a significant difference of opinion between members of the evaluation panel, a minority opinion should be issued.... Minority opinions SHALL be made part of the evaluation reports.”). 9 The SSEP also designated an independent contractor, Mitretek Systems Inc. (“Mitretek”) as an unaffiliated technical ad-visor. See AR 46. On February 13, 2005, Mitretek submitted a technical evaluation report directly to the SSA. See AR 1065; see also AR 668-744.
The overall technical ratings for each offeror are summarized below:
*81
MAJORITY REPORT MINORITY REPORT MITRETEK REPORT
Adjectival Confidence Adjectival Confidence Adjectival Confidence Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating
10
Symplicity Unacceptable Little Confidence Acceptable Confidence Acceptable N/A
ISC Marginal Confidence Acceptable Confidence Acceptable N/A
DEVIS Excellent Significant Confidence Excellent Significant Confidence Excellent N/A
Aquilent Marginal Little Confidence Marginal Little Confidence Marginal N/A
See AR 1066, 1182.
1. Technical Evaluations Of The Awardee.
a. The Majority Report.
In the Majority Report, Symplicity was assigned an adjectival rating of “Unacceptable” and a confidence rating of “Little Confidence.” See AR 813. The Majority Report summarized Symplicity’s Proposal as follows: “The amount of resources to adequately manage and provide transition, maintenance, and support has been grossly underestimated by Symplicity and presents a significant risk of unsuccessful contract performance.” Id. (emphasis added). Underlying the Majority Report’s critique of Symplicity’s plan was the observation that Symplicity underestimated the amount of human resources required to complete performance. See AR 813-37.
The Majority Report documented several weaknesses and a few strengths under the “Technical Approach” Subfactor. See AR 815-31. For example, the Majority Report observed that Symplicity failed to propose a technical solution for handling the Central Contractor Registration (“CCR”) exemptions to the FAR requirements and did not propose to integrate CCR information into the FBO system during the first 12 months of performance. See AR 815-16. 11 The Majority Report also was concerned that Symplicity made “a number of unrealistic assumptions in their proposal ... [which] suggest there could be numerous instances where Symplicity will claim that various issues are out of scope as its proposal assumed they did not exist.” AR 818. Regarding Symplicity’s transition plan, the Majority Report explained that, “Symplicity appears not to have proposed the needed level of outreach for its seamless system transition____ [T]he labor hours proposed do not appear to be adequately [sic] to support the level of activity Symplicity is proposing for ongoing outreach and training.” AR 829-30.
Assessing the Management Approach Sub-factor, the Majority Report concluded that:
Symplicity’s proposed hours for labor over the entire 8-year project, cause concern about the level of effort forecasted by Symplicity. Minimal amounts of labor hours are proposed over the duration of the contract and they seem severely underestimated. First, Symplicity is proposing to migrate data with a System Engineer working only 120 hours in year one. This seems low considering the complexities necessary for a conversion the size of FBO[.] ... Secondly, Symplicity is only proposing 90 hours for demonstration and training. This does not seem realistic since their technical approach includes the development of flash movies on the website for users to understand the new application.... Finally, Symplicity is proposing a total of 220 hours for Business Process Analysis, which seems unrealistic.
***
Based on the analysis of the labor hours proposed[,] Symplieity’s management ap *82 proach could put the government at risk for increased costs over the life of the contract.
AR 831-32 (footnotes omitted).
In evaluating the “Past Performance” Sub-factor, the Majority Report acknowledged that Symplieity received favorable reviews from past customers, but was concerned that the “[rjeferences do not appear to be similar projects nor were they of the same complexity and size compared to FBO; dollar values are small — largest was around 800K.” AR 835.
In evaluating the “Key Personnel Staffing and Experience” Subfactor, the Majority Report also identified concerns about a possible staffing shortage. See AR 835-37.
b. The Minority Report.
The Minority Report assigned Symplieity an adjectival rating of “Acceptable” and a confidence rating of “Confidence.” See AR 1037; see also AR 929-1000. Responding to the Majority Report’s concern that Symplieity did not understand the CCR exemption to the FAR requirements, the Minority Report rationalized that “[djemonstrating any knowledge of FBO subject areas is a plus. Symplicity will require customer involvement during its proposed Business Process Analysis in order to develop business rule processing for ... LRAR and this is a perfectly legitimate and acceptable approach.” AR 933 (emphasis omitted) (quoting the Solicitation, Section E.3: “The Government Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR) may provide technical direction and general guidance to the Contractor and key resource personnel.”). Therefore, the Minority Report concluded that Symplicity’s Proposal regarding CCR exemptions met the Solicitation’s minimal requirements, because Symplieity “do[es] not know the answer. They need government involvement in shaping the solution. This is perfectly acceptable.” AR 934 (emphasis omitted) (applying Section E.3 of the Solicitation). 12 The Minority Report also explained that “[ejxpecting the awardee to operate in an informational vacuum without providing direction or input, is unrealistic and is not how federal contracts are technically managed.” AR 937-38.
Regarding the “unrealistic” assumptions that the Majority Report found objectionable. The Minority Report explained that the Government “requires a firm fixed price contract” and, therefore, Symplieity identified a number of assumptions to “provid[e] a more realistic offer by setting limits and boundaries rather than offering the risk associated with an open-ended commitment.” Id. (emphasis omitted). The Minority Report also pointed out that “[ejvery offeror within the competitive range has identified a similar list of assumptions.” AR 945^6.
With regard to the staffing problem identified in the Majority Report, the Minority Report agreed: “The weakness about Symplicity having enough staff to carry out planned activity is considered to have merit. However, the severity of this weakness is subject to interpretation and is still considered to be within the range of acceptable.” AR 972 (emphasis added & omitted); see also AR 963 (observing that Symplicity’s planned activities are understaffed); AR 975 (“[T]he Minority opinion-holders believe that the aggregate hours available are the absolute minimum to support Symplicity’s planned approach. It is possible that they have understated their proposed hours.” (emphasis omitted)); AR 986 (stating the same); AR 976 (stating the same and reporting that Symplicity’s proposed hours for labor over the entire 8-year project cause concern about the level of effort forecasted by Symplieity). To summarize, the Minority Report agreed with the Majority Report’s general assessment that Symplieity understated the amount of labor required to complete performance, but nevertheless concluded that Symplicity’s proposal still fell within the acceptable range.
c. The Mitretek Systems Inc. Report.
In the Mitretek Report, Symplieity was assigned an adjectival rating of “Acceptable.” *83 See AR 719. The Mitretek Report also concluded that any technical weaknesses in the Symplicity Proposal were “correctable.” Id,.; see also AR 724-A4. Consistent with the Majority and Minority Reports, the Mitretek Report acknowledged that the proposal does not identify sufficient labor for training and outreach, “proposes FBO with very little staff support,” and has “probably proposed the minimum feasible staffing.” AR 719-20.
2. Technical Evaluations Of Plaintiff.
a. The Majority Report.
In the Majority Report, ISC was assigned an adjectival rating of “Marginal” and a confidence rating of “Little Confidence.” See AR 774; but see AR 1037 (May 26, 2005 Determination that Proposals from Two Offerors be Considered Technically Acceptable: stating that ISC’s majority confidence Rating was “Confidence”); AR 1189 (Dec. 2, 2005 Determination that Proposals from Two Offerors be Considered Technically Acceptable: stating the same). Summarizing ISC’s plan, the Majority Report stated:
ISC proposes an implementation of a new FBO that is in effect a maintenance release of the current FBO. ISC’s technical proposal continually referenced their previous history and prior acknowledgments of the system since inception and describes minimal additional application functionality as part of the new FBO. These references to its past performance constitute the core of ISC’s contention that the current FBO system should be retained, with some enhancement, along with ISC.
AR 775-76.
The Majority Report also gave weight to ISC’s familiarity with the existing FBO system, as the subcontractor for the incumbent contractor was a “Technical Approach” Sub-factor strength, and ISC was aware of the objectives and performance goals required by the Government. See AR 776-77; see also AR 792 (“ISC has demonstrated that they are the developer and owner of the [current FBO] software, which gives confidence that they know the application thoroughly which includes, install, operate, and update and maintain the application.”). The Majority Report, however, conceded that ISC’s Proposal evolved over the course of the Solicitation, creating an inconsistency between ISC’s Price and Technical Proposals. See AR 779. When asked by GSA to clarify, ISC responded with a letter that the Majority Report considered to be “vague and inconclusive.” Id.; see also AR 781-83 (“ISC’s proposed technical approach conflicts with their Business Proposal____ISC’s response was vague and inconclusive____ The Government requested further clarification of what those reports would included [sic] and ISC’s response ... NEVER answers the question.”).
In evaluating the “Management Approach” Subfactor, the Majority Report, however, was satisfied with ISC’s reliance on existing technology: “The proposed software development lifecycle appears to be a reformulation of the classic waterfall method, which has been in use for over 25 years. This model has known deficiencies and is not well adapted to web development projects.” AR 795. The Majority Report concluded that “although rigid, the waterfall method is popular and describes a development method that is linear, sequential, and easy to understand.” Id.
In evaluating the “Past Performance” Sub-factor, the Majority Report was concerned that “projects for which ISC was the prime contractor were much smaller than the envisioned new FBO contract.” AR 800. In addition, a problem with the existing FBO help desk, was categorized as a weakness. See AR 799 (“One person indicated difficulty in having the FBO Help Desk handle problems before referring them to agency administrators.”).
b. The Minority Report.
The Minority Report assigned ISC an adjectival rating of “Acceptable” and a confidence rating of “Confidence.” See AR 1066. Addressing the inconsistency between the Price and Technical Proposals identified by the Majority Report, the Minority Report explained:
Because the personalization features within ‘MyFBO’ are much more commonplace in today’s web applications, and the need *84 for these features to be part of FBO was recently recognized in an internal GSA Inspectors General Report, it is in the government’s best interest to consider this functionality as being part of ISC’s new-FBO offering!.] ... Assessing from this perspective virtually eliminates the Majority identified inconsistency, neutralizes this identified weakness, and permits this offer to be evaluated on a more level basis with others in the competitive range.
AR 882 (footnote omitted).
The Minority Report also described the Majority Report’s concern about ISC’s reliance on the waterfall method as “at most a mild weakness,” explaining that the proposed waterfall method is acceptable, because ISC does not have a significant amount of remaining lines of code to develop. AR 906 (emphasis omitted).
Regarding the “Past Performance” Subfactor, the Minority Report rebutted the Majority Report’s classification that one person’s complaint with the help desk was a weakness: “One person expressing difficulty about a system as visible and heavily used as FBO over seven years is not a weakness! The [M]inority interprets it as a significant strength.” AR 908 (emphasis added and omitted).
c. The Mitretek Systems Inc. Report.
The Mitretek Report assigned ISC an adjectival rating of “Acceptable.” See AR 1066, 1090. Mitretek concluded that ISC’s reliance on the current FBO system was problematic. AR 689; see also id. (“ISC was in the perfect position to identify weaknesses in the existing FBO and propose improvements since it has the advantage of knowledge of what the current system users have been requesting. Instead of leveraging this advantage, ISC has ... proposed to satisfy IOC with the current system functionality which is an inherent deficiency.”).
3. Technical Evaluations Of Intervenor.
a. The Majority Report.
The Majority Report assigned DEVIS an adjectival rating of “Excellent” and a confidence rating of “Significant Confidence.” See AR 745. Summarizing DEVIS’ Proposal, the Majority Report explained that, “Devis’s proposal demonstrated a strong technical approach and was well thought out and presented.” Id.
The Majority Report analyzed each element of the “Technical Approach” Subfactor and documented the various strengths, weaknesses, and risks associated with the offer. See AR 747-57. Within the seven elements, the Majority Report identified one ostensible weakness, i.e., DEVIS’ assumption that “early involvement of interested agencies for ‘acceptance’ of the new FBO authority to operate ... will lead to an expedited approval by the interested agencies.” AR 753; see also AR 747-57. In contrast, the Majority Report identified numerous strengths across the seven elements, including DEVIS’ “ability to meet the performance goals [and] objectives,” and DEVIS “exceeding] the cited requirements in a conceptual framework, allowing growth and improvement in an effective system solution!.]” AR 748; see also AR 747-57.
The Majority Report identified one weakness in the “Management Approach” Subfactor, namely that DEVIS did not have Capability Maturity Model (“CMM”) certifications. See AR 760; see also AR 757-60. The Majority Report, however, noted that “Devis’s management methodology is ... compliant with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), and Program Management Institute (PMI).” AR 760. The Majority Report further stated that DE-VIS, “provides confidence that the [proposed] system [will] be[]managed at optimum performance!.]” AR 758.
In assessing the “Past Performance” Sub-factor, the Majority Report discussed that “Devis has received affirmative comments from respondents where they delivered successful solutions!, the USAID’s Trail Net Project,] of a similar nature and have met customer’s expectations.” AR 761 (emphasis added). Since all of the feedback to the SSEB was positive, the Majority Report concluded that DEVIS easily met the minimum *85 requirements of the “Past Performance” Subfactor. See 760-61.
In evaluating the “Key Personnel Staffing and Experience” Subfactor, the Majority Report concluded that “Devis has demonstrated through their proposed key personnel ... a good understanding of the FBO program and objectives.” AR 762. The Majority Report did not identify any weaknesses or risks for this Subfactor. See AR 762-68.
b. The Minority Report.
The Minority Report assigned DEVIS an adjectival rating of “Excellent” and a confidence rating of “Significant Confidence.” See AR 1064. The Minority Report, however, took exception to the weaknesses identified in the Majority Report, noting that DE-VIS “provided an excellent description of its technical approach to meet its proposed performance goals, objectives, and outcomes of the new FBO that is consistent within its proposed management approach and addresses items within the RFP and the attachments.” AR 848-49, 855 (emphasis in the original).
c. The Mitretek Systems Inc. Report.
The Mitretek Report assigned DEVIS an adjectival rating of “Excellent.” See AR 668. Mitretek recommended that DEVIS’ Proposal “should be characterized as Excellent moving into the best value analysis. Devis has combined an effective management approach with a solid technical proposal in a manner that makes this proposal very attractive. There are several negative issues to be considered, none of which is major from an execution standpoint. Numerous advantages have been identified; the weaknesses cited are minor.” Id.
4. Technical Evaluations Of Another Bidder.
a. The Majority Report.
The Majority Report assigned Aquilent an adjectival rating of “Marginal” and a confidence rating of “Little Confidence.” See AR 1066. The Administrative Record, however, does not contain the full text of the Majority’s assessment of Aquilent’s Proposal.
b. The Minority Report.
The Minority Report assigned Aquilent an adjectival rating of “Marginal” and a confidence rating of “Little Confidence.” Id. The Administrative Record, however, does not contain the full text of the Minority’s assessment of Aquilent’s Proposal.
c. The Mitretek Systems Inc. Report.
The Mitretek Report assigned Aquilent an adjectival rating of “Marginal.” Id. The Administrative Record, however, does not contain the full text of Mitretek’s assessment of Aquilent’s Proposal.
G. The General Services Administration’s Price Evaluations Of The Final Proposals.
On February 11, 2005, the SSEB Price Team (“Price Team”) issued a document to the SSA that detailed the Price Team’s evaluation of the four offerors found to be in the competitive range. See AR 2383-2429; see also AR 1064 (“The Price Analysis, dated February 11, 2005, was provided to the SAA under separate cover.”). Section M of the Solicitation required the Government to evaluate the Price Proposals “for realistic and reasonable price proposal/information that indicates compatibility of the proposed prices with the proposed scope and effort.” AR 264 (“To ensure fair, reasonable, balanced, and realistic prices, the Government will perform a price analysis.” (emphasis added)). The Price Team explained that their price evaluations “focus[ed] on the realism of the proposed prices as a whole for the scope and nature of the solution/services proposed.” AR 2387 (emphasis in the original) (“All proposed prices were subject to price and/or cost analysis”).
The original ten offerors provided initial price submissions to the Government on June 24, 2004. Id. The initial submissions, however, contained numerous ambiguities and “not all of the bidders provided pricing proposals in the format requested.” AR 2387 (noting that it was impossible to determine realistic *86 pricing from Symplicity for each CLIN and that some of the other proposals did not specify how they would account for equipment and hosting expenses). The Price Team, therefore, compiled a list of questions that were sent out to each of the four offerors in the competitive range, to afford them the opportunity to revise their original Pricing Proposals. See AR 2388 (stating that the Government received second, more detailed, price proposals on September 20, 2004). On January 3, 2005, Aquilent and DEVIS submitted their final Price Proposals. See AR 2408-09. On February 8, 2005, ISC and Symplicity submitted their final Price Proposals. See AR 2410-11.
The offerors’ final price submissions were as follows:
Offeror Price
DEVIS_[deleted]
Symplicity_[deleted]
ISC_[deleted]
Aquilent_[deleted]
See AR 2408-11.
1. Price Evaluation Of The Awardee.
Symplicity’s final Price Proposal was [deleted]. See AR 2411. Acknowledging that Symplicity proposed a significantly lower proposed price, the Price Team explained: “Symplicity proposed a totally automated approach that offers the Government a substantial reduction of operating costs.” AR 2402 (emphasis added). Like the DEVIS Price Proposal, all of Symplicity’s proposed labor rates, with the exception of the Data Entry Specialist, were lower than the comparable rates published by the GSA schedule. See AR 2402 (stating that, because of these lower rates, Symplicity’s Price Proposal for Direct Labor Rates is “fair and reasonable”). The Price Team also concluded that Simplicity's Price Proposal for Web Hosting was fair and reasonable, since it was only “slightly higher” than the fair and reasonable price obtained from the Sprint FTS 2001/Crossover Contract. AR 2403 (comparing the Symplicity Price Proposal prices obtained from Sprint on a comparable web hosting project). The Price Team also concluded that Symplicity’s Price Proposal for hardware is fair and reasonable, because their Proposal has “inherent economic efficiencies” that “allows Symplicity to acquire system hardware without a significant initial onset of cost and [deleted] [.]” AR 2404. Symplicity, therefore, was able to propose reduced costs for hardware that were both fair and reasonable. Id.
2. Price Evaluation Of Plaintiff.
ISC’s final Price Proposal was [deleted]. See AR 2410. The Price Team concluded that ISC’s Price Proposal for direct labor rates was fair and reasonable, because the proposed rates were [deleted]. See AR 2399. The Price Team also concluded that the ISC Price Proposal for Web Hosting as a whole was fair and reasonable, because it was [deleted]. See AR 2400 (comparing the ISC Price Proposal with prices obtained from Qwest and AT & T). The Price Team further provided that ISC’s proposed software and hardware costs were fair and reasonable upon a favorable comparison with [deleted]. See AR 2401.
3. Price Evaluation Of Intervenor.
DEVIS’ final Price Proposal was [deleted]. See AR 2409. The Price Team concluded that the “price proposal for [DEVIS’] Direct Labor Rates is fair and reasonable,” because DEVIS’ “proposed rates were lower than the published rates on the GSA schedule[.]” 13 AR 2396 (emphasis omitted). The Price Team also concluded that the DEVIS Price Proposals for software and hardware were fair and reasonable, since they were comparable to GSA Advantage pricing schedule. See AR 2398. In addition, the Price Team concluded that DEVIS’ Price Proposal for Web Hosting, software, hardware, and other direct costs were all fair and reasonable, because they were less than another IT developer charged on a comparable project. See AR 2397-98 (comparing the DEVIS *87 Price Proposal with a Qwest on the FTS2001/Crossover price list).
4. Price Evaluation Another Bidder.
Aquilent’s final Price Proposal was [deleted]. See AR 2408. The Price Team concluded that Aquilent’s Price Proposal for Web Hosting was neither fair nor reasonable, since the annual prices in the Aquilent Price Proposal were “much higher” than the GSA schedule. AR 2395.
H. The General Services Administration’s Initial “Best Value” Determination.
1. The May 26, 2005 Determination That Offers From The Awardee And Plaintiff Were Technically Acceptable.
On May 26, 2005, the SSA issued a document entitled, “Determination that Proposals Received from Two Offerors be Considered Technically Acceptable.” See AR 1037-45; but see AR 1057 (June 3, 2005 Award Briefing: “Contracting Officer (CO) provided a Determination & Finding to the SSA that proposals from Symplicity and ISC are technically Acceptable[.] ... SSA concurred that the Symplicity and ISC proposals are technically Acceptable.” (emphasis added)).
In that document, the SSA explained that, “[t]he Final Technical Reports associated with the Aquilent and Devis proposals will not be discussed as part of this Determination and Findings.” AR 1038 (emphasis omitted). 14 The SSA then briefly summarized the specific technical evaluations for ISC and Symplicity, and restated verbatim selections of the Minority’s rebuttal to the Majority Report. Compare AR 1038-45, with AR 929-1000. 15 The SSA, however, miscategorized the confidence rating associated with the ISC Proposal and the adjectival rating associated with the Symplicity Proposal. 16
After a seven-page recapitulation of the Minority Report assessment, the SSA concluded with a brief one-sentence determination that both the Symplicity and ISC Proposals were technically acceptable:
The SSA, after a review of the minority opinion reports and the independent technical advisor’s assessment, agrees with the minority reports and their criticisms of the majority report, and that the proposals received from ISC Corporation and Symplicity Corporation be considered acceptable.
AR 1045 (italics omitted).
2. The June 16, 2005 Recommendation For Award.
Following the determination that Symplicity and ISC’s offers were technically acceptable, the CO prepared on June 16, 2004 a “Recommendation for Award,” in which the SSA concurred. See AR 1088-91; but see *88 AR 1082, 1085 (suggesting that this document was drafted as early as June 7, 2005, because the document is attached to the CO’s June 7, 2005 Summary of the Acquisition Process). In the Recommendation for Award the CO stated:
I recommend award to Symplicity Corporation, whose offer provides the best overall value to satisfy the government’s need. This decision is based upon careful review of the factors and subfactors identified within the Solicitation, and comparison of the strengths, weaknesses, and risks that were documented in the technical and price evaluations reports. This memorandum documents the basis for my decision.
AR 1088 (emphasis added).
The remainder of the Recommendation for Award, however, merely reiterates the Solicitation’s requirements, the final Price Proposals, and the various technical assessments, without any analysis. See AR 1088-90 (restating the technical findings and estimated costs). After summarizing the requirements, the CO concluded: “I recommend award to Symplicity Corporation, whose offer provides the best overall value to satisfy the government’s need.” AR 1091.
3. The June 16, 2005 “Best Value” Determination And June 17, 2005 Award Of Contract To The Awardee.
The same day that the CO’s Recommendation was issued, a document titled “Best Value Determination” was issued and signed by the SSA and the CO. 17 See AR 1092; but see AR 1075, 1085 (suggesting that this document was drafted as early as June 7, 2005, because the document is attached to the CO’s June 7, 2005 Summary of the Acquisition Process). The Determination emphasized that “the perceived benefits of higher priced proposals will not offset the lowest priced offer from Symplicity[.]” AR 1092.
The SSA and CO then listed the various Technical Proposal strengths for each of the three offerors that were deemed to be within the acceptable range. 18 See AR 1093-97. The SSA and CO, however, failed to mention or analyze any of the weaknesses associated with the three Technical Proposals. See AR 1094-97. The SSA and CO also explained the cost savings associated with early implementation, pursuant to Amendment 0006. See AR 1098-1107. Finally, the SSA and CO concluded:
For [DEVIS], it is determined that the savings associated with its proposed earlier transition ([deleted]) (total evaluated price of [deleted]), and other perceived benefits of its higher priced proposal, does not offset the lowest priced, technically “acceptable” offer from Symplicity.
***
ISC’s proposed price of [deleted], and the savings of [deleted] associated with early implementation (total evaluated price of [deleted]), along with other perceived benefits of its higher priced proposal, does not offset the lowest priced, technically “acceptable” offer from Symplicity.
AR 1106 (emphasis added).
On June 17, 2005, GSA awarded the Contract No. GSOOT05NSC0002 to Symplicity. See AR 1109.
I. Post-Award Protests At The Government Accountability Office, Stop Work Order, And Reopening Of The Procurement.
On June 24, 2005, ISC filed a post-award protest at GAO (No. B-295427.3), alleging *89 defects with the evaluation and procurement process. See Amend. Compl. ¶ 9 (stating nine alleged defects); see also AR 1179. On the same day, DEVIS also filed a post-award protest at GAO (No. B-295427.4) alleging that it was the only offeror that responded to the requirement to price Supplemental Security Services. See AR 1179. The Government responded by sending a Stop Work Order to Symplicity and issuing Amendment 0007. See AR 1143-50, 1179. Amendment 0007 addressed the security concerns raised in DEVIS’ protest, but explicitly stated, “You are given an opportunity to revise your Final Technical Proposal (Volume I) and your Final Price Proposal (Volume II), only as it pertains to the changes made to Attachment J. 7.1 ‘Information Security Requirements [J’” 19 AR 1150 (certain emphasis omitted and added); see also AR 1154 (“GSA will not consider any changes to the final proposals that do not relate to the removal of the supplemental security services requirement.” (emphasis added)). Based on GSA’s corrective action, GAO dismissed both protests on July 24, 2005. See AR 1180.
In response to Amendment 0007, DEVIS issued a revised Proposal that was forwarded to GSA on July 25, 2005. See AR 1226-28; but see AR 1180 (“No changes to [DEVIS’] technical proposal, but [DEVIS] reduced its price proposal by [deleted]”). ISC, Aquilent, and Symplicity, however, did not make any changes their technieal/price proposals. See AR 1180.
J. The General Services Administration’s Post-Protest “Best Value” Determination.
After re-evaluating the revised proposals, the Government concluded that Symplicity still provided the overall best value to the Government. See AR 1170. Like the initial “Best Value Determination,” three documents provided the Government’s rationale for this decision.
1. The December 2, 2005 Determination That The Offers From The Awardee and Plaintiff Were Technically Acceptable.
On December 2, 2005, “Determination that Proposals Received from Two Offerors be Considered Technically Acceptable,” was issued. See AR 1189-97. This document was signed by the SSA and the CO concurred. See AR 1197; but see AR 1057 (June 3, 2005 Source Selection Advisory Council (“SSAC”) Award Briefing: “Contracting Officer (CO) provided a Determination & Finding to the SSA that proposals from Symplicity and ISC are technically Acceptable].] ... SSA concurred that the Symplicity and ISC proposals are technically Acceptable.” (emphasis added)); AR 1197 (indicating that the CO issued his concurring signature on November 21, 2005, twelve days before the SSA’s primary signature).
This document was copied verbatim from the May 26, 2005 Determination that Proposals Received from Two Offerors be Considered Technically Acceptable. See AR 1189-97; compare id., with AR 1037—45.
2. The December 5, 2005 Recommendation For Award.
On December 5, 2005, the CO issued “Recommendation for Award.” See AR 1198-1208. The SSA concurred. See AR 1208. First, the CO briefly summarized the preaward price and technical evaluations of the four competitive Proposals. See AR 1201-OS. 20 The CO then summarized the post-award revised Price and Technical Proposals taking into account Amendment 0007. See AR 1203-06. 21 DEVIS, however, was the *90 only offeror that submitted a revised Price Proposal in the intervening months. See AR 1204. The price analysis for Symplicity and ISC, however, did not change. Id.
After summarizing the procurement, the CO justified recommending award to Symplicity by referencing four documents and copying verbatim from the November 21, 2005 “CO’s Summary of the Acquisition Process.” See AR 1206-08; compare id. (“The ‘Recommendation For Award Process’ was a four-step process, which included three documents generated by the Contracting Officer for [the] Source Selection Authority (SSA) approval/concurrence, and one Source Selection Advisory Council SSAC [sic] recommendation briefing.”), with AR 1186-88 (“The ‘Recommendation For Award Process’ was a four-step process, which included three documents generated by the Contracting Officer for [the] Source Selection Authority (SSA) approval/concurrence, and one Source Selection Advisory Council SSAC [sic] recommendation briefing.”).
After referencing the documents that justified the award recommendation, 22 the CO concluded:
The recommendation to award to Symplicity Corporation, whose offer still provides the best overall value to satisfy the government’s need, is still valid. This decision is based upon careful review of the factors and subfactors identified within the Solicitation, and comparison of the strengths, weaknesses, and risks that were documented in the technical and price evaluation reports.
AR 1208; compare id., with AR 1188 (“The recommendation to award to Symplicity Corporation, whose offer still provides the best overall value to satisfy the government’s need, is still valid.”).
3. The December 5, 2005 “Best Value” Determination And December 7, 2005 Award To The Awardee.
On December 5, 2005, a document entitled “Best Value Determination” was issued and signed by both the SSA and CO. 23 See AR 1209-25. First, the SSA and CO summarized the technical evaluation of the offerors, but did not mention of any documented weaknesses. 24 See AR 1210-15.
Next, the SSA analyzed the cost savings associated with early implementation, pursuant to Amendments 0004, 0005, and 0006:
The ISC proposed accelerated delivery schedule establishes an FOC 25 date of [deleted] calendar days after contract award vice the Government delivery schedule of 180 days after Government Acceptance of IOC, or [deleted] calendar days after contract award. However, the Government envisions that the Government Acceptance Test and Evaluation, and Vendor and Agency Migration phases of either the ISC FBO system or another offeror’s FBO system will be identical. For example, the Government might decide to use the Current FBO system release methods prior to transitioning to the FOC system. For this reason, the Government can not [sic] identify and quantify any significant cost savings associated with implementation of the ISC FOC system delivery vice another’s [sic] offeror’s FOC system.
*91 ***
Even if the Government were to consider ISC’s assertion that the ISC FBO system was available on day [deleted] for use, such an assertion only adds [deleted] calendar days of time and would only increase the cost savings by [deleted] and bring the total cost savings to [deleted]. These carefully evaluated cost savings, associated with early implementation, were determined to not be dispositive, because of the significant price difference between the offeror’s prices, and do not have significant impact on the award decision. Further discussion on this topic is not warranted as the cost savings difference does not change the best value analysis.
AR 1218 (emphasis and footnote added). The SSA and CO further concluded that the cost savings associated with early implementation of the DEVIS Proposal were “not dis-positive” and did not “have a significant impact on the award decision.” AR 1223.
In addition, the SSA and CO justified the decision to re-award the contract to Symplicity, as follows:
As part of the trade-off analysis, the strength of the [DEVIS] proposal, which included early implementation, hardware architecture, data archive strategy, software architecture, functionality, transition planning, management and key personnel were reviewed by the Program Office and found to be attractive, however, it was determined that there is no rationale for spending an additional [deleted] for the perceived technical strengths of the Devis proposal. A trade-off for the non-cost factors could not justify the price premium when we believe that Symplicity can provide an acceptable technical solution that fulfills the Government’s requirements at a significantly lower price.
For [DEVIS], it is determined, through the Best Value trade-off analysis, that the savings of [deleted] for early transition leading to a total evaluated price of [deleted], and other perceived non-cost benefits of its higher priced proposal does offset the lower priced, technically “Acceptable with Confidence” offer from Symplicity.
AR 1224 (emphasis omitted and added).
Comparing Symplieity’s bid with the ISC Proposal, the SSA provided that “ISC and Symplicity both received similar technical adjectival ratings of ‘Acceptable’ with Confidence, so according to the RFP, provision M.2, the price analysis took on more importance.” AR 1224. Accordingly, the SSA concluded:
As part of the trade-off analysis, the strengths of the ISC proposal, [which] includes its experience as the incumbent subcontractor, a proposal for early implementation, strong interagency coordination, plans for maintaining existing and familiar interfaces, partnering with IMSI [,a software development company] for C & A [ (“Certification and Accreditation)” ] process, maximizing return on investment in the current FBO, understanding of the issues associated with the software development life cycle, approach to delivering software, management, and key personnel were reviewed by the Program Office and found to be attractive, however it was determined that there is no rationale for spending an additional [deleted] for the perceived technical strengths of the ISC proposal. A trade-off for the non-cost factors, including past experience, could not justify the price premium, when we believe that Symplicity can provide an acceptable technical solution that fulfills the Government’s requirements at a significantly lower price.
For ISC, it is determined, through the Best Value trade-off analysis, that the savings of [deleted] for early transition leading to a total evaluated price of [deleted], and other perceived non-cost benefits of its higher priced proposal does offset the lower priced, technically “Acceptable with Confidence ” offer from Symplicity.
AR 1224 (emphasis omitted and added).
On December 7, 2005, GSA reaffirmed the decision to award the FBO contract to Symplicity. See AR 1170,1172,1174.
*92 II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY.
On December 22, 2005, ISC filed a Complaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1491 (b)(1). On the same day, the court convened a telephone conference to set a schedule. On December 23, 2005, the Court entered a Protective Order.
On December 29, 2005, DEVIS filed a Motion to Intervene, pursuant to RCFC 24(a). On December 29, 2005, the court granted DEVIS’ motion. On January 9, 2006, the court convened a telephone conference after the Government filed the Administrative Record to set a schedule. On January 11, 2006, the court convened another status conference to discuss scheduling. On January 13, 2006, the court issued a scheduling order. On January 17, 2005, ISC filed an Amended Complaint. On January 24, 2006, the court convened another status conference. On January 24, 2006, the court issued an order regarding Plaintiffs discovery request.
On February 1, 2006, DEVIS filed a Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record, together with a Memorandum in Support and a statement of facts. On February 1, 2006, ISC filed a Motion for a Permanent Injunction, that was converted into a Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record on February 6, 2006. ISC also filed a Memorandum in Support of the February 1, 2006 Motion and a Statement of Facts on February 6, 2006. On February 17, 2005, the Government filed a Consolidated Opposition, together with a Memorandum in Support and a Statement of Facts.
On February 23, 2006, the Government filed a first supplemental Administrative Record, by leave of the court. On February 23, 2006, ISC filed a Reply to the February 17, 2005 Consolidated Opposition, together with a Counter-Statement of Facts. On February 24, 2006, DEVIS filed a Reply, together with a Counter-Statement of Facts.
On March 1, 2006, the court convened an oral argument. On March 15, 2006, the court set a scheduling order for post-hearing briefs. On April 4, 2006, the parties filed post-argument briefs. On April 6, 2006, the Government filed a second supplemental Administrative Record, by leave of the court.
III. DISCUSSION.
A. Jurisdiction.
The Tucker Act, as amended by the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996 (“ADRA”), Pub.L. No. 104-320, §§ 12(a), (b), 110 Stat. 3870 (Jan. 3, 1996), authorizes the United States Court of Federal Claims to “render judgment on an action by an interested party objecting to a solicitation by a Federal agency for bids or proposals for a proposed contract or to a proposed award or the award of a contract or any alleged violation of statute or regulation in connection with a procurement or a proposed procurement.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (b)(1); see also Banknote Corp. of Am., Inc. v. United States, 365 F.3d 1345 , 1350 (Fed.Cir.2004) (“The [United States] Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction to review both preaward and post-award bid protests pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ¶ 1491(b), enacted as part of the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996[.]”).
The Amended Complaint alleges that GSA violated numerous Federal Acquisition Regulations (“FAR”) in awarding the contract to Symplicity. See Amend. Compl. ¶¶ 21, 22. These allegations recite a sufficient basis for the court to exercise jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (b)(1).
B. Standing.
As a threshold matter, a protester must establish that it is an “interested party.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (b)(1). The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has construed the term “interested party” as synonymous with “interested party,” as defined by the Competition in Contracting Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3551 . 26 See Rex Sen. Corp. v. United States, 448 F.3d 1305, 1307 (Fed. *93 Cir.2006); see also Banknote Corp., 365 F.3d at 1352 (holding that the United States Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, as amended, is “limited to actual or prospective bidders or offerors whose direct economic interest would be affected by the award of the contract or by failure to award the contract”). A two-part test is applied to determine whether a protester is an “interested party” i.e., the protestor must show that it was an actual or prospective bidder and the protester must have a direct economic interest in the procurement. See Rex Serv. Corp., 448 F.3d at 1307 (“[T]o come within the [United States] Court of Federal Claims’ section 1491(b)(1) bid protest jurisdiction, [the protester] is required to establish that it (1) is an actual or prospective bidder, and (2) possesses the requisite direct economic interest.”) (citations omitted).
In addition to establishing status as an “interested party,” under 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (b)(1), a protestor must also show that any alleged errors caused “prejudice.” See Galen Med. Assocs. v. United States, 369 F.3d 1324, 1330 (Fed.Cir.2004) (“[T]o prevail in a protest the protestor must show not only a significant error in the procurement process, but also that the error prejudiced it.”) (quoting Data Gen. Corp. v. Johnson, 78 F.3d 1556 , 1562 (Fed.Cir.1996) (alterations in original)); see also Myers Investigative & Sec. Servs., Inc. v. United States, 275 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed.Cir.2002) (“prejudice (or injury) is a necessary element of standing.”). The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has advised that “because the question of prejudice goes directly to the question of standing, the prejudice issue must be reached before addressing the merits.” Info. Tech. & Applications Corp. v. United States, 316 F.3d 1312, 1319 (Fed.Cir. 2003) (emphasis added); see also Myers, 275 F.3d at 1369 (“standing is a threshold jurisdictional issue[.]” (citations omitted)).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that a protestor can establish prejudice by showing a
“substantial chance” that it would have received the award if the error was corrected. See Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346, 1351 (Fed.Cir.2005) (“To establish prejudice Bannum was required to show that there was a ‘substantial chance’ it would have received the contract award but for ... errors in the bid process.”); see also Statistica, Inc. v. Christopher, 102 F.3d 1577 (Fed.Cir. 1996) (“To establish competitive prejudice, a protestor must demonstrate that but for the alleged error, there was a ‘substantial chance’ that [it] would receive an award-that is was within the zone of active consideration.” (internal citations omitted) (emphasis and alterations in the original)). Panels of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, however, have taken different approaches regarding the evidence required to satisfy the “substantial chance” test in a bid protest case. Compare Info. Tech. & Applications, 316 F.3d at 1319 (a protestor must establish “that its chance of winning the award was ‘greater than ... insubstantial.’ ”), with Alfa Laval Separation, Inc. v. United States, 175 F.3d 1365, 1367 (Fed.Cir. 1999) (“holding that a protester is not required to show that, but for the alleged error, the protester would have been awarded the contract; instead a protester must show there was a ‘substantial chance’ it would have received the contract but for the alleged error”), with Data Gen. Corp., 78 F.3d at 1562-63 (holding “the appropriate standard is that, to establish prejudice, a protestor must show that, had it not been for the alleged error in the procurement process, there was a reasonable likelihood that the protestor would have been awarded the contract.”). The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, however, has cautioned against focusing too heavily on these semantic differences: “Rather than engage in verbal gymnastics, however, suffice it to say that Data General did not, as it could not, replace the ‘substantial chance’ standard with a more demanding one.” Statistica, 102 F.3d at 1582 (emphasis added); see also Myers, 275 F.3d at 1370 (“[T]he substantial chance rule continues to apply[.]”). 27
*94 Certainly, the question of prejudice turns, in part, on the relationship between the protestor(s) and the specific procurement process that is being challenged. Moreover, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that the issue of prejudice may be dependent upon the type of relief sought by the parties:
In Impresa [Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324, 1333 (Fed.Cir.2001),] we considered the standard to be applied where the plaintiff claims that the government was obligated to rebid the contract (as contrasted with a situation in which the plaintiff claims that it should have received the award in the original bid process). [ ] To have standing, the plaintiff need only establish that it ‘could compete for the contract’ if the bid process were made competitive.... [Plaintiff] need not show that it would have received the award in competition with other hypothetical bidders, [but rather] must show that it would have been a qualified bidder.
Myers, 275 F.3d at 1370 (emphasis added; citations omitted); see also Alfa Laval, 175 F.3d at 1367 (“[T]o establish competitive prejudice, protestor 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.’”) (citing Caci, Inc.-Fed. v. United States, 719 F.2d 1567, 1574-75 (Fed. Cir.1983) (emphasis added)).
1. Plaintiff Has Standing.
a. As An “Interested Party.”
ISC submitted a proposal in response to the Solicitation. See AR 2486-534. ISC’s Proposal was determined to be within the competitive range. See AR 2539. All four offerors in the competitive range proceeded to the “best value” determination. See AR 1223-25. GSA’s decision to award the contract to Symplicity directly affects the economic interests of ISC by depriving this company of a potential procurement. Accordingly, ISC is an “interested party.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (b)(1); see also Am. Fed’n Gov’t. Employees, 258 F.3d at 1302 (“We hold that standing under [28 U.S.C.] § 1491(b)(1) is limited to actual or prospective bidders or offerors whose direct economic interest would be affected by the award of the contract or by failure to award the contract.”).
b. Had A “Substantial Chance” of Being Awarded The Contract.
As previously discussed, the “substantial chance” test also depends, in part, on the procurement context. The FBO procurement was a “Best Value Determination” that combined both price and technical considerations. See AR 1209-25; see also AR 195. The determination, however, did not yield a numerical score, and, therefore, it is impossible to conclude which of the three unsuccessful offerors followed Symplicity in the “best value” hierarchy, see AR 1224 (concluding that the perceived benefits of the ISC and DEVIS Proposals do not offset Symplicity’s lower price: “The perceived benefits of the other offerors do not outweigh the ... lower price of the Symplicity ... proposal, and the Government will not receive [deleted] ... and [deleted] ... in benefits from ISC Corporation and Devis Corporation respectively.”), because the SSA did not distinguish between the ISC and DEVIS Proposals, since each Proposal was only compared against the Symplicity Proposal and not between each other. 28
Since ISC has established that it is an “interested party” and had a “substantial chance” of being awarded the contract, the court has determined that ISC has standing. *95 See Myers Investigative, 275 F.3d at 1370 (“To have standing, the plaintiff need only establish that it ‘could compete for the contract’ if the bid process were competitive.” (emphasis added) (internal citations omitted)).
2. The Intervenor Has Standing As A Matter Of Right, Pursuant To RCFC 24(a).
On December 29, 2005, the court granted DEVIS’ December 29, 2005 Motion to Intervene as a Matter of Right, pursuant to Rule 24(a) of the United States Court of Federal Claims. In relevant part, Rule 24(a) provides:
Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action: ... when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant’s ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant’s interest is adequately represented by existing parties.
RCFC 24(a) (emphasis added); see also Am. Mar. Transp., Inc. v. United States, 870 F.2d 1559 , 1561 (Fed.Cir.1989) (“Intervention is proper only to protect those interests which are of such a direct and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of the judgment.” (internal quotations & citations omitted)). The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that “the requirements for intervention are to be construed in favor of intervention.” Am. Mar. Transp., 870 F.2d at 1561 (citing Westlands Water Dist. v. United States, 700 F.2d 561 , 563 (9th Cir.1983)).
a. The Intervenor’s Motion Was Timely.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit requires the trial court to evaluate three factors in determining whether an intervention is timely: “(1) the length of time during which the would-be intervenor[s] actually knew or reasonably should have known of [their] rightfs;] (2) whether the prejudice to the rights of existing parties by allowing intervention outweighs the prejudice to the would-be intervenor[s] by denying intervention[;] (3) existence of unusual circumstances militating either for or against a determination that the application is timely.” Belton Indus., Inc. v. United States, 6 F.3d 756 , 762 (Fed.Cir.1993) (citations omitted & certain alterations in original). In this case, DEVIS filed a Motion to Intervene seven days after ISC filed the Complaint. Neither party opposed DEVIS’ motion and the court is unaware of any prejudice to existing parties or any unusual circumstances militating against intervention. Therefore, the court determined that DEVIS’ Motion to Intervene was timely.
b. The Intervenor Has An Interest Relating To The Property Or Transaction At Issue.
DEVIS also has “an interest relating to property or transaction which is the subject of [this] action,” because DEVIS bid on the FBO contract and was determined to be in the competitive range. See AR 1176. Therefore, final judgment in favor of the Government will “impair” DEVIS’ “ability to protect that interest.” RCFC 24(a).
c. The Intervenor’s Interest Was Not Adequately Represented By The Parties.
The Government will not adequately represent DEVIS’ interest. The Government’s objective is upholding the award of the FBO contract to Symplicity. Likewise, ISC will not adequately represent DEVIS’ interest, since ISC’s objective is to be awarded the FBO contract. Accordingly, DEVIS has satisfied the third element of RCFC 24(a).
C. The Relevant Standards For Decision On The Administrative Record In A Bid Protest Case.
Pursuant to the Tucker Act, as amended by the ADRA, the United States Court of Federal Claims reviews challenges to agency decisions, pursuant to the standards set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706 . See 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (b)(4) (“In any action under this subsection, the *96 courts shall review the agency’s decision pursuant to the standards set forth in section 706 of title 5.”); see also 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)(A). (“The reviewing court shall ... hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be ... arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law[.]”).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that “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.” Galen Med. Assocs., 369 F.3d at 1329 (citations omitted); see also Bannum, 404 F.3d at 1351 (holding that trial courts initially must determine if the Government “acted without rational basis or contrary to law when evaluating the bids and awarding the contract.”); Banknote Corp., 365 F.3d at 1350-51 (“Among the various APA standards of review in section 706, the proper standard to be applied in bid protest cases is provided by 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)(A): 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.’ ” (citation omitted)).
A “disappointed bidder” bears a “heavy burden” of showing that an award decision had no rational basis. See Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324, 1333 (Fed.Cir.2001). This burden is even greater when the procurement is a “best value” procurement, as is the case here. See Galen Med. Assocs., 369 F.3d at 1330 (“As the contract was to be awarded based on ‘best value’, the contracting officer had even greater discretion ... the relative merit of competing proposals is primarily a matter of administrative discretion.” (citations omitted)); see also Unisys Corp. v. Widnall, 98 F.3d 1325, 1327 (Fed. Cir.1996) (“In determining whether the agency has complied with the regulation authorizing best value procurement the [reviewing authority] may overturn an agency’s decision if it is not grounded in reason.”).
Therefore, when the court finds a “reasonable basis” for an 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.” Honeywell, Inc. v. United States, 870 F.2d 644, 648 (Fed.Cir.1989) (citation omitted); see also U.S. v. John C. Grimberg Co., Inc., 702 F.2d 1362, 1372 (Fed.Cir. 1983) (holding that the court may interfere with a federal Government procurement process “only in extremely limited circumstances”). This standard recognizes a zone of acceptable results in each particular case and requires that the final decision reached by an agency is the result of a process that “considers] the relevant factors” and is “within the bounds of reasoned decision making.” Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87, 105 , 103 S.Ct. 2246 , 76 L.Ed.2d 437 (1983); see also Impresa, 238 F.3d at 1333-34 (“[T]he test for reviewing courts is to determine whether the contracting agency provided a coherent and reasonable explanation of its exercise of discretion, and the disappointed bidder bears a heavy burden of showing that the award decision had no rational basis.” (citation & internal quotations omitted)).
If a trial court finds that an agency’s decision making fails an APA review, the court must then inquire whether the bidder was prejudiced by the Government’s conduct. See Bannum, 404 F.3d at 1351 ; see also Impresa, 238 F.3d at 1333 (“When a challenge is brought on the second ground, the disappointed bidder must show ‘a clear and prejudicial violation of applicable statutes or regulations.’ ” (citations omitted)). A claim on the merits of a bid protest will only succeed if both requirements are satisfied. Bannum, 404 F.3d at 1351 ; see also Galen Med. Assocs., 369 F.3d at 1330 (“ ‘[T]o prevail in a protest the protester must show not only a significant error in the procurement process, but also that the error prejudiced it.’” (quoting Data Gen. Corp., 78 F.3d at 1562) (alterations in original)). Prejudice, in this context, requires the protestor to show a “substantial chance” that it would have received the contract award, but for the APA error. See Bannum, 404 F.3d at 1358 (“To establish prejudice, Bannum was required to show that there was a ‘substantial chance’ it *97 would have received the contract award but for the ... errors in the bid process.”); see also Metcalf Constr. Co., Inc. v. United States, 53 Fed.Cl. 617, 622 (2002) (“[Mjinor errors or irregularities, i.e., harmless errors, committed in the course of the procurement process are not sufficient grounds to warrant judicial intrusion to upset a procurement decision.” (emphasis added)).
Not every violation of the APA demands an equitable remedy: “We thus hold that, in a bid protest action, section 1491(b)(4) does not automatically require a court to set aside an arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise unlawful contract award.” PGBA, LLC. v. United States, 389 F.3d 1219, 1226 (Fed.Cir.2004) (emphasis added). In PGBA, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed a ruling by the United States Court of Federal Claims where a protestor’s claim for injunctive relief was denied in “public interest grounds”, even though the plaintiff established prejudicial error in the procurement process. Id. at 1228 (“TMA made several prejudicial errors in its evaluations of the technical merits of PGBA’s and WPS’s proposals ... however, the [United States Court of Federal Claims] concluded that the balance of hardships and the public interest favored allowing TMA and WPS to proceed with the contract.”). The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reasoned, “there is no evidence that Congress intended to abolish the tradition of equitable discretion in issuing injunctive relief when it enacted section 1491(b)(4) in ADRA.” Id. at 1227 ; see also id. (“This construction is consistent with the language of 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (b)(2), which, through use of the permissive ‘may,’ provides the United States Court of Federal Claims with discretion in fashioning relief.”). Accordingly, procurement error does not necessarily require the trial court to order equitable relief, but instead to decide whether to issue the injunction. Id. at 1228 (listing the traditional four factors that the trial court should use in determining whether to issue a permanent injunction).
The standard of review for a Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record, pursuant to RCFC 52. 1, 29 is similar but not *98 identical to a Motion for Summary Judgment, pursuant to RCFC 56. See Bannum, 404 F.3d at 1355 . The inquiry on a Motion for Summary Judgment is whether the moving party has proven its case as a matter of fact and law or whether a genuine issue of material fact precludes judgment. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 , 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); see also RCFC 56. In contrast, the standard for a decision on a Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record is more limited, i.e., given all the disputed and undisputed facts, whether the plaintiff has met the burden of proof to show that the decision was not in accordance with the law. See Bannum, 404 F.3d at 1357 (instructing the court to make “factual findings under RCFC 56.1 from the [limited] record evidence as if it were conducting a trial on the record.”); see also RCFC 52.1.
D. The Court’s Resolution Of The Parties’ Motions For Judgment On The Administrative Record.
Plaintiff and intervenor collectively made a comprehensive challenge of numerous alleged deficiencies regarding this procurement. To facilitate review of this Memorandum Opinion, the decisions of GSA that the court has determined met the APA standard of review are addressed first. Then, the court analyzes decisions of the agency that do not satisfy this standard.
1. Unspecified Actions Of The Office Of Federal Procurement Policy That Were Alleged In Paragraph 23 Of The Amended Complaint Are Dismissed.
The Amended Complaint alleges that “officials at the Office of Federal Procurement Policy [ (“OFPP”) ] interfered in the process and evaluations to the detriment of ISC.” Am. Compl. ¶23. According to ISC, the alleged interference “exceeded] the expressly limited authority of OFPP.” Id. (citing 41 U.S.C. § 405 (c)). ISC, however, has not provided the court with any further information to substantiate this allegation. Nor was it discussed by any of the parties during the Oral Argument or in any of the pleadings submitted after the Amended Complaint was filed. In any event, the court’s independent review of the Administrative Record does not reveal any improper interference by OFPP with this procurement. Accordingly, the court has determined that the Administrative Record does not support the allegation contained in paragraph 23 of the Amended Complaint.
2. The General Services Administration Had Authority To Award The Contract.
DEVIS alleges that GSA did not have authority to award the Contract to Symplicity. See Int. Mot. at 27 (“As with the decision to raise Symplicity’s ratings, the decision to award the contract to Symplicity was made without authority____ [T]he record reflects the fact that the award decision was apparently not made by the SSA but by the CO, who did not have authority to make the award decision.”). The SSEP delegated authority to award the Contract to the SSA See AR 35 (stating that it was the responsibility of the SSA to select the contract awardee). If the decision to award the Contract to Symplicity was made by some entity other than the SSA, DEVIS would be correct in arguing that the award decision was made without authority.
The court’s review of the Administrative Record, however, does not evidence that the CO, instead of the SSA, made the final award decision. In arguing to the contrary, DEVIS relies heavily on the CO’s June 3, 2005 Award Briefing: “Contracting Officer (CO) provided a Determination & Finding to the SSA that proposals from Symplicity and ISC are technically Aceeptable[.] ... SSA concurred that the Symplicity and ISC proposals are technically Acceptable.” AR 1057; see also Int. Mot. at 24 (“The CO’s briefing of the ACE, dated June 3, 2005, makes clear that the decision to increase the rating of Symplicity proposal from ‘Unacceptable’ to ‘Acceptable’ was actually made by the CO himself.”). This statement alone, however, *99 does not evidence that the award decision was made without authority, since all of the decision documents include the SSA’s signature. See AR 1197, 1208, 1225. The court reads the CO’s statement to indicate only that the SSA agreed with the CO’s recommendation, as the SSEP contemplated:
Contracting officer [will]:
Prepare the Source Selection Decision Document (final and any interims), Source Selection Decision Debriefing, and other documents for further review and approval by the SSA.
AR 35 (emphasis added).
Although the SSA’s role in the procurement process may have been minimal, the SSA’s signature on the decision documents demonstrates that the SSA authorized the contract award to Symplicity. Therefore, the court has determined that the contract award to Symplicity was made with authority.
3. The General Services Administration Did Not Violate Federal Acquisition Regulation 15.208(b)(1) (Late Offers).
ISC also argues that GSA violated FAR 15.208(b)(1), that prohibits a procuring agency from considering late offers for a contract award, except in limited circumstances. 30 See Pl. Supp. Br. at 47. According to ISC, Symplicity’s initial submission “was so materially deficient that it could not properly have been considered an offer[;]” and, therefore, “Symplicity’s submission of a ‘revised proposal’ to GSA on September 20, 2004 was ... Symplicity’s first actual offer responding to the [Solicitation.” Id. Because the Solicitation required initial offers be submitted by 3:00 p.m. on June 24, 2004, FAR 15.208(b)(1) prevented GSA from considering Symplicity’s September 20, 2004 submission. 31 See AR 299.
ISC complains that Symplicity’s September 20, 2004 submission was not an “offer,” as defined in the FAR. See Pl. Supp. Br. at 47 (citing 48 C.F.R. § 2.101 ). FAR 2.101 defines an “offer” as “a response to a solicitation that, if accepted, would bind the offer- or to perform the resultant contract.” 48 C.F.R. § 2.101 (emphasis added); see also id. (“Responses to invitations for bids (sealed bidding) are offers called ‘bids’ or ‘sealed bids’; responses to requests for proposals (negotiation) are offers called ‘proposals’; however, responses to requests for quotations (simplified acquisition) are ‘quotations’, not offers.”). Although this definition contemplates that a response may “bind[] the offeror to perform[,]” the precise language does not imply that a response may not be considered an “offer,” based on contents or subsequent modification, so long as that modification is determined to be favorable to the Government. See 48 C.F.R. § 15.208 (b)(2). The text of FAR 2.101 does not appear sup *100 port the distinction suggested by ISC. Moreover, Plaintiff has not cited, and the court independently has not been able to identify, any precedent to support Plaintiffs interpretation. Since the Government awarded the contract at issue to Simplicity, ipso facto, the Government determined the September 20, 2004 submission to be favorable.
Accordingly, the court has GSA did not violate FAR 15.208(b)(1).
4. The General Services Administration Did Not Violate Federal Acquisition Regulation 15.305(a) (Factors Specified In Solicitation).
ISC alleges that GSA violated FAR 15.305(a) by not conducting a “price realism analysis” of the offerors’ Proposals. See PL Supp. Br. at 49 (“Section 15.305(a) of the FAR requires agencies to evaluate proposals based on the evaluation criteria specified in the solicitation. The FBO solicitation stated that offers would be evaluated for price realism. GSA did not perform a price realism analysis, and in failing to do so violated FAR 15.305(a).”); see also 48 C.F.R. § 15.305 (a) (“An agency shall evaluate competitive proposals and then assess their relative qualities solely on the factors and subfactors specified in the solicitation.” (emphasis added)). According to ISC, the Government performed a “price reasonableness” analysis, but did not perform a “price realism” analysis. See Pl. Supp. Br. at 50 (“Price reasonableness and price realism are two different factors. A price reasonableness analysis ensures that the government does not pay too much for supplies or services. A price realism analysis ensures that a contract can actually be performed for the offered price and that an offeror understands the requirements of the solicitation.” (emphasis in the original)).
FAR 15.404-1 identifies several analytical techniques, including: “price analysis,” “cost analysis,” and “cost realism analysis.” 48 C.F.R. §§ 15.404-1 (b), (c), (d), (e). “Price analysis” involves an examination and evaluation of “a proposed price without evaluating its separate cost elements and proposed profit.” 48 C.F.R. § 15.404-1 (b)(1).
A “cost analysis” requires “the review and evaluation of the separate cost elements and profit in an offeror’s or contractor’s proposal (including cost or pricing data or information other than cost or pricing data), and the application of judgment to determine how well the proposed costs represent what the coast of the contract should be, assuming reasonable economy and efficiency.” 48 C.F.R. § 15.404 — 1(c)(1)-
In contrast, a “cost realism analysis” entails an “independent[ ] review[ ] and evaluati[on][of] specific elements of each offeror’s proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror’s technical proposal.” 48 C.F.R. § 15 .404—1(d)(1); see generally Cost Realism Analysis: Some Critical Mistakes, 20 No. 8 Nash & Cibinic Rep. ¶ 36 (2006) (explaining that the FAR contains a “convoluted definition” of “cost realism analysis” and identifying several reoccurring themes in the decisions regarding “cost realism analysis”). In addition, FAR 15.404-1(d)(3) explains that a “cost realism analysis” may be used on “competitive fix-price incentive contracts or, in exceptional cases, on other competitive fixprice-type contracts when new requirements may not be fully understood by competitive offerors, there are quality concerns, or past experience indicates that contractors proposed costs have resulted in quality or service shortfalls.” 48 C.F.R. § 15.404-1 (d)(3).
Leading government contracting scholars have observed that:
Although the FAR refers to this process as cost realism analysis, greater clarity is achieved by calling it “price realism analysis.” This signifies that such analysis cannot be used to adjust the offered prices but may only be used to make a responsibility determination, a performance risk assessment, or an analysis of whether the offeror understands the work.
Ralph C. Nash, Jr., John Cibinic, Jr. & Karen R. O’Brien, Competitive Negotiation: The Source Selection Process 589 (2d ed. 1999) (“Competitive Negotiation”); see *101 also Price Realism Analysis: A Tricky Issue, 12 No. 7 Nash & Cibinic Rep. ¶ 40 (1998) (“According to the FAR, there is no such thing as price realism analysis. Yet many of us know that it is analysis to determine if the offeror’s proposed prices are unrealistically low. FAR 15.401-1 recognizes this concept in its discussion of the use of cost realism analysis!.]”). This distinction is particularly relevant in the context of a procurement for a fixed-price, incentive contract, as is the case here. See AR 87,134.
Although the FAR require that a procuring agency evaluate the reasonableness of an offeror’s proposed price and, where cost data is required, the reasonableness of an offeror’s proposed costs, the FAR does not mandate that either a “cost realism analysis” or “price realism analysis” be performed, unless the procurement is for a cost-reimbursement contract or the Solicitation so requires. See 48 C.F.R. §§ 15.404-1 (a)(2), (3), (d)(2); see also Int’l Outsourcing Sens., LLC v. United States, 69 Fed.Cl. 40 n. 7 (2005) (“However, ‘an agency at its discretion may ... provide for a price realism analysis in the solicitation of fixed-price contracts.” (internal citations omitted; emphasis added)); 48 C.F.R. §§ 15.404-1 (a)(1), (d)(3) (“The contracting officer is responsible for evaluating the reasonableness of the offered prices.... [Proposals shall be evaluated using the criteria in the solicitation[.]" (emphasis added)).
In this case, Section M of the Solicitation advised that “[p]rice evaluation will focus heavily on the realism of the proposed prices for the scope and nature of the solution/serviees proposed.” AR 257 (emphasis added). Section M also stated that:
A price analysis of each CLIN, including optional CLIN 0002 and optional 0003, will be performed on the proposed Firm-Fixed Price, including an analysis of the price detail for equipment, labor, hosting, etc., which supports the proposed Firm-Fixed Price. The price analysis will be performed in accordance with FAR 15.404-l(b)(2)(ii) through (vii) to allow the Government to determine that the proposed Firm-Fixed Price is fair and reasonable. To ensure fair, reasonable, balanced, and realistic prices, the Government will perform a price analysis. All proposed prices may be subject to price and/or cost analysis.
AR 264 (emphasis added). Therefore, the Solicitation required a “price analysis” and a “price realism analysis, nothing more.” See AR 264 (“The price analysis will be performed in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(h) through (vii)”); AR 257 (“Price evaluation will focus heavily on the realism of the proposed prices for the scope and nature of the solution/services proposed.” (emphasis added)).
ISC concedes that the Government performed an adequate “price analysis.” See TR at 65 (“[W]e will concede that the price evaluation team did a wonderful job on price reasonableness[.]”); see also 48 C.F.R. § 15.404-1 (b)(2) (“The Government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price. Examples ... include, but are not limited to, the following: ... (ii.) Comparison of previously proposed prices and previous Government and commercial contract prices with current proposed prices for the same or similar items.”); compare with, AR 2403 (“The base price ... for the Web Hosting service component in the Symplicity proposal is slightly higher than the ‘Fair and Reasonable’ price obtained from the Sprint FTS2001/Crossover Contract price for Web Hosting [.] ... Therefore, it is concluded that the Symplicity price proposal for Web Hosting is fair and reasonable.” (emphasis added and omitted)). The issue then is whether GSA properly evaluated the Proposals for a “price realism analysis” as required by the terms of the Solicitation.
When conducting a “price realism analysis,” substantial discretion has been given to the contracting agency. See Labat-Anderson Inc. v. United States, 50 Fed.Cl. 99, 106 (2001) (“[T]he nature and extent of an agency’s price realism analysis are matters within the agency’s discretion.”); c.f Andersen Consulting v. United States, 959 F.2d 929, 935 (Fed.Cir.1992) (“[E]ven if Anderson was correct about every other one of its allegations of faulty price analysis[,] ...
*102 [t]hese findings [nevertheless] are sufficient to support the price realism analysis performed by [the agency].”) This discretion is even more pronounced when the Solicitation is silent regarding the methodology to be used in conducting a “price realism analysis,” as is the case here. See Matter of Burns & Roe Servs. Corp., B-296,355, 2005 CPD ¶ 150, 2005 WL 2037620 (GAO July 27, 2005) (“The nature and extent of an agency’s price realism analysis ultimately are matters within the sound exercise of the agency’s discretion, unless the agency commits itself to a particular methodology in a solicitation.”); see also Matter of Puglia Eng’g of California, Inc., B-297,413, 2006 CPD ¶ 33, 2006 WL 346323 (GAO Jan. 20, 2006) (“The nature and extent of the agency’s price analyses are matters within the sound exercise of the agency’s discretion, and our review of such an evaluation is limited to determining whether it was reasonable and consistent with the provisions of the solicitation.”). The discretion afforded to an agency regarding price analysis is consistent with the general principles underlying an APA review of agency decisions. See Honeywell, 870 F.2d at 648 (“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.” (emphasis added; citations omitted)).
The Comptroller General also has offered useful guidance concerning the methods that an agency can utilize when engaging in a price realism analysis:
The record shows that the agency evaluated the realism of an offeror’s price proposal by comparing prices against one another and the independent government estimate, reviewing each offeror’s cost proposal for compliance with the terms of the solicitation, for mathematical accuracy, and comparing pricing data with the technical proposal.... In our view, the agency reasonably satisfied its obligation under the FAR and RFP to perform a price realism evaluation and [the protestor’s] mere disagreement with how the agency conducted its price realism analysis for these requirements and the agency’s ultimate conclusion that [the awardee’s] prices were realistic does not establish that the agency’s evaluation of the realism of proposed prices was unreasonable.
Matter of Burns & Roe Servs. Corp., B-296,355 2005 CPD ¶ 150, 2005 WL 2037620 (GAO July 27, 2005) (emphasis added); see also Ralph C. Nash, Jr. & John Cibinic, Jr., Price Realism-. It’s Different From Price Reasonableness, 17 No. 3 Nash & Cibinic Rep. ¶ 14 (2003) (“The balance of the FAR guidance in [ 48 C.F.R. § 15.404-1 (d) ](3) contains most of the elements of sound guidance on price realism presented in a somewhat muddled fashion. However, we can paraphrase it more clearly by stating that a price realism analysis indicating that an offeror’s price is very low can be used in three ways: (1) To assess an offeror’s understanding of the work[;] (2) To assess the degree of performance risk posed by the low price[;] (3) To determine whether the offeror is a responsible contractor.”).
In this case, GSA the Price Team explained that, “Symplicity proposed a totally automated approach that offers the Government a substantial reduction of operating costs.” AR 2402 (emphasis added). The GSA Price Team also explained that Symplicity utilized a “managed” model that accounted for the price savings associated with Symplicity’s offer:
One significant benefit is that this model allows Symplicity to acquire system hardware without a significant initial onset of cost and [deleted] provides the government with hosting services at a reduced cost primarily due to economies of scale.
AR 2404 (emphasis added). By providing a cogent explanation as to why Symplicity’s price was lower than the other offerors, the court is satisfied that GSA Price Team performed a “price realism analysis” in accordance with the Solicitation.
ISC argues that this type of analysis is insufficient, because the FAR explicitly provides for the methodology to be used in conducting a price realism analysis. See PL Mem. at 17 (“In order to determine whether an offered price on a fixed-price contract is *103 realistic, the FAR encourages the use of cost realism analysis.... As defined by the FAR, cost realism analysis is: ‘[T]he process of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each offeror’s proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost estimates are realistic for the work to be performed[.]’ ”). ISC inappropriately exports the specifications in FAR 15.404-1(d)(1) for “costs realism analysis” to “price realism analysis.” The factors listed by ISC are applicable only when the agency is engaging in a “cost realism analysis,” pursuant to a cost-reimbursement contract. See 48 C.F.R. § 15.404-1 (d). Here, the Solicitation, explicitly provided that the choice of using a “cost realism analysis” was discretionary. See AR 264 (“All proposed prices may be subject to price and/or cost analysis.” (emphasis added)). Likewise, the FAR provide that a cost realism analysis is not required in a fixed-price incentive contract. See 48 C.F.R. § 15.404-1 (d)(3) (“Cost realism analyses may also be used on competitive fixed-price-type contracts.” (emphasis added)). Therefore, the court has determined that the GSA Price Team acted within its discretion by determining that Symplicity’s price was realistic given Symplicity’s unique Technical Proposal and economy-of-scale efficiencies.
Regarding FAR 15.305(a), ISC also argues that the Symplicity’s low price should have been construed as unrealistic:
The Price Evaluation Team failed to reconcile severe differences in the offerors’ price proposals that signified that Symplieity lacked an understanding of the scope and nature of the contract. While Aquilent and Devis offered [deleted] and [deleted] respectively for the CLIN 0002 FedTeDS option, Symplieity offered [deleted].... Yet the Price Evaluation team does not explain how Symplieity could realistically perform these services for such a drastically lower price.
PI. Supp. Br. at 50. The fact that an offeror submitted a low price does not diminish the agency’s discretion in conducting a “price realism analysis:”
Although [the protestors] question the quality of the [agency’s] price analysis, the protestors’ allegations establish, at best, the agency’s recognition that while [the awardee] may have submitted a below-cost offer, this low price did not reflect a defective technical approach or lack of understanding on [the awardee’s] part. Indeed, the agency concluded that [the awardee’s] low price resulted from its particular pricing strategy, which included lower support costs, lower general and administrative costs, and lower profit.
Matter of Am-Pro Protective Agency, Inc., B-271,385, 96-2 CPD ¶ 192, 1996 WL 784528 (GAO Sept. 23, 1996) (emphasis added).
In this procurement, GSA concluded that Symplicity’s lower price was a result of its “totally automated approach.” AR 2402. Therefore, GSA considered the reasons for Symplieity’s low price proposal. Although ISC disagrees with the outcome of the price analysis, that fact is not sufficient to warrant a finding of abuse of discretion. See Int'l Outsourcing Servs., 69 Fed.Cl. at 48 (“[A]s this court has stated, ‘the nature and extent of an agency’s price realism analysis are matters within the agency’s discretion.’ ” (emphasis added; citations omitted)). Therefore, the court has determined that GSA did not violate FAR 15.305(a) when conducting the required “price analyses,” since it acted pursuant to the announced terms of the Solicitation.
5. The General Services Administration’s Technical Evaluations Had A Rational Basis.
The Complaint alleges that GSA’s technical evaluation of ISC’s Proposal was unreasonable and was not rational. See Pl. Mem. at 30 (“In each and every instance, GSA did not have a rational basis for its conclusion, and in some instances, GSA assigned a technical deficiency or weakness to a pricing matter completely outside of the technical evaluation according to the terms of the solicitation.”); see also Pl. Supp. Br. at 36 (“The Government’s Technical Evaluation Of ISC’s Proposal Was Unreasonable And Lacked A Rational Basis.”). Here, ISC specifically challenges weaknesses identified by GSA at the ISC’s post-award briefing. See AR 2362-75 (identifying seven independent *104 weaknesses). When analyzing whether an agency’s decision is rational, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that: “[T]he test is ‘whether the contracting agency provided a coherent and reasonable explanation of its exercise of discretion, and the disappointed bidder bears a “heavy burden” of showing that the award decision had no rational basis. ’ ” Banknote, 365 F.3d at 1351 (emphasis added; citations omitted); see also Impresa, 238 F.3d at 1332 (“When a challenge is brought on the [rational basis] ground, the courts have recognized that contracting officers are ‘entitled to exercise discretion upon a broad range of issues confronting them’ in the procurement process.” (citations omitted)).
Moreover, when a trial court is analyzing an agency’s technical evaluations, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit E.W. Bliss Co. v. United States, 77 F.3d 445, 449 (Fed.Cir.1996) has accorded the agency even greater deference:
[The protestor’s] twelve other substantive challenges to the procurement ... deal with the minutiae of the procurement process in such matters as technical ratings and the timing of various steps in the procurement, which involve discretionary determinations of procurement officials that a court will not second guess.
Id. at 449 (emphasis added); see also Advanced Data Concepts, 216 F.3d at 1058 (“The arbitrary and capricious standard applicable here is highly deferential.” (emphasis added)). Therefore, the United States Court of Federal Claims has been reluctant to micro manage the minutiae of a procurement to ferret out technical deficiencies: “It is well settled that contracting officers are given broad discretion with respect to evaluation of technical proposals.... This court will not, therefore, second guess the technical ratings that the source selection committee gave to each offeror.” Omega World Travel, Inc. v. United States, 54 Fed.Cl. 570, 578 (2002); see also Acra, Inc. v. United States, 44 Fed.Cl. 288, 293 (“[Contracting officers have broad discretion to determine which technical proposal best meets its needs.”). Accordingly, ISC and DEVIS bear a heavy burden to persuade the court that GSA’s technical evaluations in this case were not rational.
a. The General Services Administration’s Decision To Increase The Technical Ratings Of ISC And Symplicity Had A Rational Basis.
DEVIS challenges the increase in Symplicity and ISC’s technical ratings arguing that the technical ratings were changed in order to fit a desired outcome and therefore, GSA’s award of decision does not have a rational basis. See Int. Rep. at 21 (“Thus, the record demonstrates that the award decision was made first and justified later.” (emphasis omitted)); see also Int. Mot. at 22 (“Such a reversal of standard decision-making practices must be considered per se arbitrary and capricious.”).
When analyzing whether an agency’s decision lacked a rational basis, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has advised trial courts that “the test is ‘whether the contracting agency provided a coherent and reasonable explanation of its exercise of discretion, and the disappointed bidder bears a “heavy burden” of shomng that the award decision had no rational basis.’ ” Banknote, 365 F.3d at 1351 (emphasis added; citations omitted); see also Impresa, 238 F.3d at 1332 (“When a challenge is brought on the [rational basis] ground, the courts have recognized that contracting officers are ‘entitled to exercise discretion upon a broad range of issues confi’onting them’ in the procurement process.” (citations omitted)); Advanced Data Concepts v. United States, 216 F.3d 1054, 1058 (Fed.Cir.2000) (“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.”). The United States Supreme Court also has identified the factors that a reviewing court should scrutinize when determining whether an agency’s decision lacks a rational basis: “Normally, an agency rule would be arbitrary and capricious if the agency ... entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so *105 implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 , 103 S.Ct. 2856 , 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983); see also OTI Am., Inc. v. United States, 68 Fed.Cl. 646, 653 (2005) (quoting same and applying this test to a bid-protest action).
The evidence put forth by DEVIS to establish GSA’s post hoc decision-making consists primarily of a chronology of the procurement. See Int. Mot. at 21 (“This chronology — based on the CO’s own time line of events and the documents provided by the government in this protest — strongly suggests that the award decision was based on a post hoc rationale to fit a predetermined outcome.”). The court’s independent review of the Administrative Record, however, does not reveal that the agency’s decision-making process was made post hoc, even by a preponderance of the evidence standard. The chronology establishes that the CO made a final award recommendation to the SSA on May 17, 2005. See AR 1048. The CO’s final award recommendation was provided to the SSA nine days earlier than the “Determination that Proposals Received from Two Offerors be Considered Technically Acceptable” was signed by the SSA and CO. See AR 1045 (indicating that the Determination was signed on May 26, 2005). Although DEVIS may be correct that GSA decided to award the Contract to Symplicity prior to deciding to raise the technical ratings of ISC and Symplicity, it is equally plausible that this document was prepared over a period of weeks. The Administrative Record does not establish that a draft version of the “Determination that Proposals Received from Two Offerors be Considered Technically Acceptable” existed at the time that the CO made the award recommendation to the SSA. Accordingly, DEVIS has not met its burden to establish that the “Determination that Proposals Received from Two Offerors be Considered Technically Acceptable” was a post hoc decision. See State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43 , 103 S.Ct. 2856 (“Normally, an agency rule would be arbitrary and capricious if the agency ... offered an explanation for its decision that ... is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.”) (emphasis added). Therefore, the court has determined that GSA’s decision to raise the technical rating of ISC and Simplicity was not a post hoc decision and had a rational basis.
b. The General Services Administration’s Decision To Direct The Technical Evaluators To Consider Cost As A Technical Factor Had A Rational Basis.
DEVIS also contests that GSA directed the Technical Evaluation Team to treat “Cost Containment” as priority. See Int. Mot. at 37 (“The apparent direction from the ACE to the Technical Evaluation Team to treat ‘Cost Containment’ as a '# 1’ priority is a gross violation of the duties established by the RFP and the Source Selection Evaluation Plan and may have substantially affected the technical rating results.” (emphasis added)). Here, DEVIS is arguing that the technical evaluators improperly considered price in the procurement’s technical evaluations. The Administrative Record, however, does not substantiate this charge. Despite proposing the second highest price out of the four offerors in the competitive range, DEVIS received a technical rating of “Excellent,” that was the highest rating given to any offeror in the procurement. See AR 1198-1208. Therefore, even though Symplicity’s Proposal was [deleted] less than the DEVIS Proposal, a majority of the technical evaluators decided, that the Symplicity Technical Proposal was “Unacceptable.” Id. Therefore, DEVIS’ argument that an ACE directive “substantially affected the technical rating results” is unfounded, since there is no indication in the Administrative Record that the technical evaluation team considered price and cost containment as a technical factor.
c. The General Services Administration’s Decision That Plaintiff’s Elimination Of The Post-IOC Migration Period Was A Technical Weakness Had A Rational Basis.
ISC first challenges GSA’s decision that ISC’s elimination of the post-IOC cus *106 tomer migration period would adversely affect the transition from the old FBO system to their proposed new system. See PI. Mem. at 30-31 (“GSA cited as a Technical Approach ‘weakness’ the alleged elimination by ISC of a ‘customer migration period.... GSA cannot reasonably declare as a weakness in ISC’s technical approach the failure to propose a detailed migration plan at the IOC stage.”).
The Solicitation provided that offerors needed to “demonstrate accomplishment of a seamless transition from the current FBO system to [the] offeror’s proposed system.” AR 259; see also AR 199 (stating that offerors must “provide for and accomplish a seamless system transition from the current FBO system to the offeror’s proposed FBO system”). Therefore, the Majority Report explained:
“ISC assumes that the current FBO C & A [ (“certification and accreditation”) ] could be amended without major modification within a much shorter period of time than would be required for an FBO replacement system and without loss of authority to operate FBO.” During discussions, ISC reiterated that C & A was routine; only a minor upgrade to the C & A documentation would be necessary. ISC insisted that a new C & A will not be required and that it will have up to one (1) year to complete any new C & A documentation following changes to the system____ At this time, the government stated that any upgrade (in this case, application re-hosting on new hardware/operating system) to the current FBO mil require a new C & Ato be prepared [.] ... ISC will be required to submit a new C & A package. ISC persists in their assertions despite prior discussions to the contrary ----ISC’s position appears to be at odds with the guidance provided by the GSA’s CIO office. It is not clear that ISC has accepted that the position of incumbent does not confer an ability to bypass the C & A processes.
AR 782-83 (emphasis added; bold and underlining in the original; footnotes omitted) (citing ISC’s technical proposal).
Based on the Majority Report, GSA concluded that ISC’s Proposal did not provide a “seamless transition,” since assurances that a new C & A package would be forthcoming were not sufficient. Indeed, without specifications for a new C & A package, GSA rationally could have concluded that the ISC Proposal entailed a risk of delay, since time would have to spent procuring and implementing an updated C & A package. ISC’s Supplemental Brief, quotes the Minority Report as support for ISC’s contention that the Majority Report lacked a rational basis:
ISC is intimately familiar with the C & A documentation and the government approval process used to obtain an ATO. ISC plans to leverage the existing C & A documentation and deliver it quickly to the GSA designated approving authority.
ISC states: ‘In the event that the GSA CIAO requires FBO recertification and reaccreditation, the current FBO C & A package provides ISC with a sound foundation of current baseline documentation that is readily updatable to facilitate and accelerate the recertification and reaccreditation process.’ The majority weakness has no merit.
PI. Supp. Br. at 37-38 (emphasis omitted) (citing the Minority Report).
The threshold issue for the court is to identify the documents that comprise the Government’s technical evaluation. ISC argues that only the findings of the Minority Report should be considered when reviewing the Government’s technical evaluations. See Pl. Supp. Br. at 37 (“It is instructive to review each of those alleged significant weaknesses as described by the Minority Technical Evaluation Team Report-the report apparently relied upon by the SSA.”). The court disagrees, because ISC’s argument takes issue with GSA’s overall technical evaluation. Id. at 36 (“The Government’s Technical Evaluation of ISC’s proposal was unreasonable and lacked a rational basis.”). The Majority Report, the Minority Report, and the Mitretek Report are all part of GSA’s technical evaluation. Therefore, the court’s review requires analysis of the findings of all three reports.
Having conducted this review and analysis, in the court’s judgment, the Minority Report
*107 establishes that there was a reasonable disagreement among the technical evaluators as to whether the ISC Proposal provided a seamless transition. Therefore, in this instance, the court will not second guess the finding that the ISC’s Proposal’s elimination of the post-IOC migration period was a weakness. See Bliss, 77 F.3d at 449 (cautioning that a trial court should not enter the “minutiae” of the procurement process); see also Grumman Data Systems Corp. v. Widnall, 15 F.3d 1044, 1046 (Fed.Cir.1994) (“In reviewing procurement decisions, a [reviewing body] may not second guess an agency’s procurement decision and/or substitute its own judgment for that of the government.” (emphasis added; citations omitted)).
d. The General Services Administration’s Decision That Plaintiffs Failure To Schedule “Train-The-Trainer” Classes Was A Technical Weakness Had A Rational Basis.
ISC also takes issue with the GSA’s decision that ISC’s Proposal did not adequately schedule and incorporate “train-the-trainer” classes. See Pl. Mem. at 34. (“GSA cited as a Technical Approach “weakness’ the failure by ISC to schedule ‘train-the-trainer’ classes[.]”). as the Majority Report explained:
The proposed train-the-trainer approach places the burden on the [Government to train users and administer the FBO application at a time when government resources are limited. The PWS/WBS does not specifically identify the train-the-trainer training. ISC’s approach to train-the-trainer (train the FBO administrators and they will then train their Departments/Agencies) is not an acceptable performance-based technical solution. The effort ISC refers to in 2001 cost the federal government an excessive amount of money to train its own personnel.
AR 781 (emphasis added).
ISC, also relies on the Minority Report’s view that the identified weakness “has minimal merit.” PL Supp. Br. at 42. The Minority Report states “No training required for IOC is consistent with ISC’s approach that builds onto the current system.... [And,] ISC has an in-depth training approach planned, to include ‘train-the-tramer successfully used in 2001.” Id. GSA, however, concluded that, based on the findings of the Majority Report, ISC’s proposed training program was a weakness, since only FBO administrators would be trained.
Although there was a reasonable disagreement between the Minority and Majority Reports regarding whether ISC’s Proposal should have scheduled training classes, the court declines to second guess GSA’s decision, particularly since a comparable effort in 2001 cost the Government an “excessive” amount of money. See Bliss, 77 F.3d at 449 (cautioning that courts should not enter the “minutiae” of the procurement process).
e. The General Se

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6655283. Public record. Not legal advice.