Updated July 22, 2025
Background
The Defense Intelligence Agency (“DIA”) issued the Enterprise Senior Information Technology Advisors III (“ESITA III”) Request for Quotations (“RFQ”) to twelve companies in late 2022.4 (Administrative Record (“AR __”) at 111–297 (Solicitation), 3529 (Solicitation after corrective action)).5 ACS is one of three awardees of the previous iteration of this contract, ESITA II. (Am. Compl. at 2, ECF No. 33). Through these procurements, DIA aims to establish a Blanket Purchase Agreement (“BPA”) with a qualified small business to provide a wide range of information technology (“IT”) capabilities, including cybersecurity and technical IT consultation. (See generally AR Tab 8). After five amendments to the initial solicitation, ten vendors submitted quotations—two of those vendors were ACS and Logic Gate. (See AR Tabs 9, 10, 11, 15, 16).
DIA directed vendors to submit quotes in four volumes: (1) Compliance Review, (2) Relevant Expertise and Experience, (3) Price, and (4) Administrative Documentation. (AR 54043 (RFQ Submission Instructions for Initial Procurement), 1558–59 (RFQ Submission Instructions after Corrective Action)). For “Compliance Review,” vendors had to provide their Commercial and Government Entity (“CAGE”) code, verification of their facility clearance, and a spreadsheet mapping the statement of work’s labor categories to their GSA Schedule. (AR 547–48). “Relevant Expertise and Experience” required background information and narratives from past projects. (AR 547–48). DIA required that submissions showcase proficiency in four key subfactors: (1) IT project management and systems engineering; (2) data analytics and environment support; (3) organizational continuous process improvement services; and (4) IT strategy. (AR 549–52). Vendors also had to specify which team members performed the work and identify their roles. (AR 548–49, 572). “Price” called for vendors to complete a pricing spreadsheet including fully burdened labor rates for all 124 ESITA III labor categories across the BPA’s base year, four option years, and the six-month extension. (AR 551–52). Vendors were asked to provide separate spreadsheets outlining proposed labor rates and estimated hours for labor categories specified in two distinct statements of work: Order 1 – JPMO Support and Order 2 – IMM Support. (AR 508–29, 594)…
Discussion
ACS brought this litigation alleging that there were several significant errors in DIA’s evaluation of Price and Relevant Expertise and Experience, as well as in the SSA’s comparative assessment and best value decision. (See generally Compl.; Am. Compl.). Each of ACS’s arguments has been considered, but none establishes a basis to overturn DIA’s decision.
Jurisdiction and Standard of Review
The Tucker Act provides that an interested party may file an action in the Court of Federal Claims “objecting [(1)] to a solicitation by a Federal agency for bids or proposals for a proposed contract or [(2)] to a proposed award or [(3)] the award of a contract or [(4)] 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 Aero Spray, Inc. v. United States, 156 Fed. Cl. 548, 559 n.18 (2021).7 According to 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(4), the Court typically reviews agency procurement decisions under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706. Under the APA standard, “[i]n a bid protest case, the inquiry is whether the agency’s action was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law and, if so, whether the error is prejudicial.” Glenn Def. Marine (ASIA), PTE Ltd. v. United States, 720 F.3d 901, 907 (Fed. Cir. 2013)…
Conclusion
The record shows that the final decision authority sufficiently documented a rational link between his evaluation of technical strengths, pricing, and the BPA award to Logic Gate. See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n, 463 U.S. at 43. For the reasons stated, ACS’s Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record, (Pl.’s MJAR, ECF No. 34), is DENIED. The United States’ and Logic Gate’s Cross-Motions for Judgment on the Administrative Record, (Def.’s xMJAR, ECF No. 41; Int-Def.’s xMJAR, ECF No. 40), are GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly. The parties shall meet and confer and file a Joint Status Report proposing redactions to this Memorandum Opinion within fourteen (14) days of its entry to allow the Court to file a public version of the Opinion.
Updated July 7, 2025
It appears that the Defense Intelligence Agency has cleared a major hurdle as it seeks a green light on this important BPA to secure services of enterprise senior information technology advisors.
