In Red River Science & Technology, LLC v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 24-2035C (June 18, 2025), Red River challenged multiple aspects of an Army procurement under the Enhanced Army Global Logistics Enterprise (EAGLE) Program, including the reopening of discussions, allowing a previously disqualified offeror (Vanquish) back into the competition, issuing a midstream amendment, and the treatment of discussions and debriefings. The Court upheld the Army’s conduct, even where it acknowledged procedural quirks, based on the agency’s ultimate aim to ensure the government obtained the best value.
The Decision
The COFC denied the protest, ruling that:
- Best Value Goal Justifies Course Corrections: While Red River objected to the Army reopening discussions and issuing a late amendment, the Court found these actions were within the agency’s discretion. The Army reasonably sought to address rate-capping concerns that had derailed prior awards, stating that its overarching obligation was to obtain best value for the government.
- Reopened Discussions Were Fair, Not Favoritism: Red River argued that discussions were unequally applied and aimed to favor Vanquish. But the Court found no bad faith—both Vanquish and Gemini benefited, and the Army provided a rational basis for its actions, including policy shifts to avoid impractical indirect cost caps.
- “Unacceptable” Proposals Can Still Be Fixed: Even if Vanquish’s proposal was technically unacceptable due to a rejected rate cap, the Court noted that agencies can permit revisions through discussions, especially in negotiated procurements. Being previously disqualified doesn’t bar reentry if the agency reopens the process for all.
- Unequal Discussions Argument Falls Flat: Red River received no evaluation notices during the reopened discussions—but only because its proposal had already supported the required rates. The Court reiterated that equal discussions don’t mean identical discussions—agencies may tailor questions based on the specific weaknesses or gaps in each proposal.
- Debriefing Delay Was Harmless: Red River’s complaints about not receiving the original source selection document (SSDD) were also rejected. The Court noted the agency eventually provided an addendum with substantively identical analysis, and any procedural flaw was ultimately harmless
Key Takeaways for Contractors
- Agency Discretion Has Teeth, Especially When Tied to Best Value Goal: The Court gave the Army wide latitude to revise its evaluation approach, even after naming awardees, because the record showed good-faith efforts to improve competition and ensure the government obtained the best value.
- Fixable Proposals Can Compete Again: A proposal deemed “unacceptable” isn’t automatically out. In negotiated procurements, agencies can revise the competitive range and seek fixes during discussions.
- Unequal Discussions Must Be Material and Unjust to Matter: If your proposal was already sufficient in a given area, you aren’t entitled to discussion just for the sake of parity. Fairness doesn’t mean identical treatment.
- Don’t Wait to Debrief or Protest: Red River’s delay in seeking original source selection records undermined its position. Always act quickly and document your requests.
- Prejudice Remains the Hill to Climb: Even if process irregularities exist, a protest will fail unless the protester shows competitive harm. Harmless error won’t win a case.