Close
Updated:

No Preselection Here: Court of Federal Claims Rejects Blue Water Thinking’s Protest

by

    • In Blue Water Thinking, LLC v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 24-1641C (March 11, 2025)​, Blue Water Thinking (BWT) protested a decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to award a Program Support Integration (PSI) contract to GoldPath Communications JV, LLC (GoldPath). BWT argued that: (1) the VA’s best-value trade-off analysis was flawed; (2) GoldPath had an organizational conflict of interest (OCI); (3) the contracting officer preselected GoldPath before conducting the trade-off analysis; and (4) the VA breached its duty to consider proposals fairly​.

    The Decision
    The U.S. Court of Federal Claims denied the protest, ruling that:

    1. No Evidence of Preselection: The VA followed proper procurement procedures, and the term “apparent awardee” in the contracting officer’s documents did not prove a preordained outcome.
    2. OCI Waiver Was Properly Handled: The contracting officer conducted an OCI investigation and determined there was no unmitigable conflict. The Court held that the contracting officer’s decision to seek a waiver before conducting the trade-off analysis was reasonable and complied with FAR regulations.
    3. Best-Value Decision Was Rational Despite Changed Ratings: In an earlier round of the procurement, the evaluation team rated GoldPath’s technical proposal as “Outstanding,” but the contracting officer downgraded it to “Good.” However, in the final evaluation, the same “Outstanding” rating was given by the evaluation team, but this time the contracting officer preserved that rating. BWT claimed that the lack of documentation explaining this shift rendered the decision arbitrary and capricious. The Court, however, found that the contracting officer’s final justification was reasonable and sufficiently documented, and affirmed the best-value determination.

    Key Takeaways for Contractors:

    1. Preselection Claims Require Strong Proof: If challenging an award based on alleged contractor favoritism, a protester must show clear evidence—mere terminology (e.g., “apparent awardee”) won’t suffice.
    2. OCI Waivers Allowed Where Agency Follows The Rules: Contracting officers have discretion in handling potential OCIs, and a waiver won’t be disturbed where the agency follows the rules in the FAR.
    3. Justification for Rating Changes Matters: If a source selection official alters a proposal’s rating across evaluation rounds, they must provide a reasonable explanation. Failure to do so can put the agency’s best-value decision at risk, but when justified, courts will not second-guess the decision.