Red Cedar Harmonia, LLC v. United States, Nextgen Federal Systems, LLC

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________

RED CEDAR HARMONIA, LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES, NEXTGEN FEDERAL SYSTEMS,
LLC,
Defendants-Appellees
______________________

2019-2449
______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:19-cv-00405-CFL, Senior Judge Charles F. Lettow.
______________________

Decided: December 18, 2020
______________________

W
ALTER BRAD ENGLISH, Maynard, Cooper & Gale, PC,
Huntsville, AL, for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by
EMILY J. CHANCEY, MICHAEL W. RICH.

SONIA W. MURPHY, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for defendant-appellee United States. Also
represented by J
EFFREY B. CLARK, STEVEN JOHN
GILLINGHAM, ROBERT EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR.

Case: 19-2449 Document: 77 Page: 1 Filed: 12/18/2020

RED CEDAR HARMONIA, LLC v. UNITED STATES
2
CHE PETER DUNGAN, Miles & Stockbridge P.C., Wash-
ington, DC, for defendant-appellee NextGen Federal Sys-
tems, LLC. Also represented by ALFRED M. WURGLITZ,
Rockville, MD.
______________________

Before P
ROST, Chief Judge, MOORE and STOLL, Circuit
Judges.
MOORE, Circuit Judge.
Red Cedar Harmonia, LLC, appeals a final decision of
the United States Court of Federal Claims granting the
government and NextGen Federal Systems, LLC, judg-
ment on the administrative record regarding the govern-
ment’s contract award to NextGen. Red Cedar Harmonia,
LLC v. United States, 144 Fed. Cl. 11, 29 (2019). Because
the government’s contract award was not arbitrary, capri-
cious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance
with law, we affirm.
B
ACKGROUND
The Defense Information Systems Agency (the agency)
issued a solicitation for independent verification and vali-
dation of software across four major agency command and
control programs. J.A. 100034. The solicitation included
three evaluation factors: (1) Technical/Management Ap-
proach; (2) Past Performance; and (3) Price. J.A. 100164.
The Technical/Management Approach factor included six
subfactors: (1) security clearance requirements; (2) tech-
nical approach to test execution; (3) technical approach to
test event build support; (4) technical approach to cyberse-
curity and information compliance; (5) technical approach
to test process improvements and test automation support;
and (6) management/staffing approach. Id. As relevant
here, subfactor three was evaluated based on the offerors’
proposed approaches to perform independent verification
and validation on multiple system builds. J.A. 100166.
Subfactor six focused on offerors’ respective abilities to
Case: 19-2449 Document: 77 Page: 2 Filed: 12/18/2020

RED CEDAR HARMONIA, LLC v. UNITED STATES
3
staff and manage the tasks identified in the solicitation.
J.A. 100167.
The agency received initial proposals from five offerors.
After three offerors were excluded, the agency established
a competitive range including the two remaining offerors:
NextGen and Red Cedar. J.A. 102539–40. During its ini-
tial analysis, the agency found two weaknesses with
NextGen’s management/staffing approach (subfactor six),
including weaknesses in the hours NextGen proposed for
thirty-eight labor positions, and four weaknesses with Red
Cedar’s approach, including weaknesses in the hours Red
Cedar proposed for fifty-eight positions. J.A. 102511–18
(NextGen), 102530–37 (Red Cedar). The contracting officer
issued evaluation notices to NextGen and Red Cedar to ad-
dress these weaknesses. J.A. 102563–102568 (NextGen),
102574–84 (Red Cedar).
After another round of proposals and evaluation no-
tices, NextGen and Red Cedar submitted their final pro-
posals. The agency found weaknesses in Red Cedar’s
proposed hours for thirty-seven positions under subfactor
six. J.A. 105164–105185. The agency revised Red Cedar’s
final proposal, noting that Red Cedar’s approach appeared
low for the demands of the contract and increasing the pro-
posed hours across a number of positions. J.A. 105405–15.
After adjustments, the agency found that NextGen’s total
proposed cost was equal to the agency’s total probable cost,
whereas Red Cedar’s total proposed cost varied from the
agency’s total probable cost by 55.35% resulting in a “sig-
nificant[] increase[] [in] the Government’s cost risk during
performance.” J.A. 105138. The Source Selection Author-
ity issued a memorandum memorializing the agency’s de-
termination that NextGen was the “highest[-]rated offeror,
taking into consideration all non-price factors” and was
“also the lowest-priced (evaluated) offer[or].” J.A. 105237.
Red Cedar filed a bid protest in the Court of Federal
Claims, challenging the agency’s contract award to
Case: 19-2449 Document: 77 Page: 3 Filed: 12/18/2020

RED CEDAR HARMONIA, LLC v. UNITED STATES
4
NextGen. NextGen intervened. Red Cedar, NextGen, and
the government filed cross-motions for judgment on the ad-
ministrative record. The Court of Federal Claims granted
the government and NextGen judgment on the administra-
tive record and denied Red Cedar’s motion. The court con-
cluded that the agency’s decision to select NextGen was
reasonable because NextGen’s proposal was “the lowest
priced and highest technically rated proposal” and because
the agency “properly determined [that NextGen] repre-
sented the best value for the government.” J.A. 34. Red
Cedar appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1295(a)(3).
D
ISCUSSION
We review de novo Court of Federal Claims decisions
granting judgment on the administrative record in bid pro-
test cases. Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346,
1351 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Under this standard, we consider
whether the agency’s action was “arbitrary, capricious, an
abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with
law.” See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(4). We
may set aside a procurement decision “if it lacked a rational
basis or if the agency’s decision-making process involved a
clear and prejudicial violation of statute, regulation, or pro-
cedure.” Croman Corp. v. United States, 724 F.3d 1357,
1363 (Fed. Cir. 2013). An agency is “entitled to a high de-
gree of deference when faced with challenges to procure-
ment decisions.” Orion Tech., Inc. v. United States,
704 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Red Cedar contends that the trial court erred in deter-
mining that the agency’s evaluation of Red Cedar’s pro-
posed price was reasonable. It argues the agency’s
evaluation under subfactor six, which affected the agency’s
overall price evaluation (factor three), improperly focused
on Red Cedar’s interim proposals, rather than its final
hours and labor mix. We do not agree.
Case: 19-2449 Document: 77 Page: 4 Filed: 12/18/2020

RED CEDAR HARMONIA, LLC v. UNITED STATES
5
As the trial court noted, the “[a]gency provided a con-
sistent and coherent explanation at each stage of the eval-
uation.” J.A. 27. The technical evaluators gave Red Cedar
a marginal rating for its initial proposed labor mix, indicat-
ing that the “[p]roposal [did] not demonstrate an adequate
approach and understanding of the requirements.”
J.A. 105157; 102532. And despite repeated notices that its
hours were deficient, Red Cedar issued a final labor mix
that failed to adequately remedy weaknesses for over
thirty positions. The agency, therefore, rationally adjusted
Red Cedar’s proposed hours and price to determine a prob-
able cost to the agency in conformance with the solicita-
tion’s price evaluation instructions.
1
J.A. 30. On this
record, we hold that the Court of Federal Claims did not
err in holding that the agency’s evaluation of Red Cedar’s
proposed price was not arbitrary, capricious, or in violation
of law.
Red Cedar also contends the trial court erred in deter-
mining that Red Cedar was neither treated unequally nor
evaluated based on unstated criteria. It argues that the
agency evaluated Red Cedar based on unstated criteria
when it improperly considered allegedly redundant aspects
of NextGen’s technical approach under subfactor three, ra-
ther than limiting its consideration of those aspects to the
agency’s subfactor five analysis. It further argues that the
agency treated Red Cedar unfairly by improperly relying
on evidence of NextGen’s experience under subfactor six
while discounting Red Cedar’s evidence. These contentions
are unavailing.
The agency acted within its broad discretion in award-
ing NextGen a strength for its technical approach under

1
To the extent Red Cedar argues that the agency
should have decreased hours in other labor categories to
offset any increase in hours, the administrative record does
not support any such offset requirement.
Case: 19-2449 Document: 77 Page: 5 Filed: 12/18/2020

RED CEDAR HARMONIA, LLC v. UNITED STATES
6
subfactor three. See Orion Tech., 704 F.3d at 1351. Pursu-
ant to the solicitation, the agency considered NextGen’s
and Red Cedar’s proposed approaches for the contract’s
testbed event support. There is no evidence that the
agency relied upon criteria outside of the designated crite-
ria under subfactor three. There is, therefore, no support
in the administrative record for Red Cedar’s contention
that it was evaluated based on unstated criteria.
With respect to subfactor six, the solicitation indicated
that it would evaluate the appropriateness of the offeror’s
proposed labor mix in meeting or exceeding the agency’s
requirements. The solicitation expressly noted that the
demonstration of “breadth and depth of staff and expertise”
was encouraged and could result in a higher rating.
J.A. 100167. The agency rationally evaluated the totality
of evidence presented under these criteria and concluded
that NextGen’s proposal was more technically sound than
Red Cedar’s proposal. Therefore, Red Cedar’s claim of un-
equal treatment under subfactor six is likewise without
merit. On this record, we hold that the Court of Federal
Claims did not err in holding that the agency’s evaluation
of Red Cedar’s and NextGen’s respective strengths under
subfactors three and six was not arbitrary, capricious, or in
violation of law.
C
ONCLUSION
We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments
and do not find them persuasive. Because the Court of Fed-
eral Clams did not err in granting the government and
NextGen judgment on the administrative record, we af-
firm.
AFFIRMED

Case: 19-2449 Document: 77 Page: 6 Filed: 12/18/2020