Background
The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency’s SEQUOIA procurement sought services for creating labeled geospatial data used to train artificial-intelligence and machine-learning models. Scale AI, the incumbent contractor on NGA’s predecessor MAVEN program, and Enabled Intelligence submitted proposals. The solicitation evaluated technical demonstrations, technical and management approaches, past performance, security, intellectual property, and price.
After discussions and revised proposals, NGA awarded the contract to Enabled Intelligence. Scale’s proposal remained unawardable because NGA assigned it a deficiency and an “Unacceptable” rating under the performance-metrics subfactor of its technical and management approach. Scale protested, challenging that deficiency as well as NGA’s evaluation of Enabled Intelligence’s past performance, intellectual-property proposal, and pricing.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied Scale’s motion for judgment on the administrative record and request for injunctive relief, while granting the government’s and Enabled Intelligence’s cross-motions. It held that Scale had not shown that NGA acted arbitrarily, capriciously, abused its discretion, or violated the law in assigning the deficiency to Scale’s proposal, evaluating Enabled Intelligence’s intellectual-property submission, or declining to conduct a discretionary price-realism analysis.
Because those challenges did not establish that Scale’s proposal was awardable or that Enabled Intelligence’s proposal was unawardable, the court concluded that Scale lacked standing to pursue its remaining evaluation challenges. The court also found that Scale waived certain theories by raising them too late or failing to develop them adequately, including an unbalanced-pricing theory first presented in reply and a potentially redressable past-performance theory not developed in Scale’s written submissions.
Key Takeaways
- An agency may evaluate information an offeror places within a proposal section even when similar subject matter appeared under another evaluation factor.
- A solicitation making price-realism review discretionary does not require the agency to perform one merely because an awardee proposes cost-saving pricing features or a substantially lower price.
- A protester with an unawardable proposal must connect its challenges to relief that could make its own proposal awardable or the awardee’s proposal unawardable; speculative or undeveloped theories do not establish redressability.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that bid-protest plaintiffs must focus their briefing on errors capable of changing the procurement outcome. Challenges to subsidiary strengths, weaknesses, or ratings cannot supply standing when success would leave the protester unawardable and the awardee eligible.
It also illustrates the litigation risk of a scattershot presentation. Even potentially consequential theories may be lost when they are asserted only in reply, mentioned without sufficient record support, or not connected to prejudice and redressability in the written briefs.