Background
TRAX International Corp. protested the Army’s award of a test-and-evaluation services contract at White Sands Missile Range to Southwest Range Services, LLC. The court previously entered judgment for the government and Southwest, concluding that the award was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise unlawful.
During the protest, TRAX sought to complete the administrative record with outputs produced by FAST TRACK, an artificial-intelligence platform used to generate evaluations of all three offerors’ proposals. The government initially maintained that procurement personnel had viewed only the output for a third offeror and that the outputs were unusable, discarded, and not used in the source-selection decision. Supplemental declarations later disclosed that the TRAX and Southwest outputs had been shared with three people, including two Source Selection Evaluation Board members, one of whom was also the contracting officer.
The Court’s Holding
The court ordered four identified Department of Justice and Army attorneys to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for factual misrepresentations in the government’s briefs and declarations. It did not impose sanctions in this order. Instead, it directed counsel to file a consolidated response addressing responsibility for the incomplete administrative record, preparation and verification of the declarations, prior knowledge of their inaccuracies, and the omission of the FAST TRACK materials.
The court found that the government’s statements that no SSEB member or decisionmaker had viewed the TRAX or Southwest outputs were contradicted by the record. It also found that repeated assertions that AI had not aided the evaluations were undermined by near-verbatim overlap between portions of the third offeror’s FAST TRACK output and the SSEB’s evaluation. Because administrative-record completion turns on materials generated or considered during the agency’s decision-making process—not solely on whether they affected the final decision—the court deemed candor about who viewed the outputs material.
Key Takeaways
- The order initiated sanctions proceedings under RCFC 11 and the court’s inherent authority but did not decide that sanctions should be imposed.
- A document may belong in the administrative record when it was generated or considered during agency decision-making, even if the government contends that it did not influence the final evaluation.
- Government counsel must make a reasonable inquiry before presenting factual assertions and must accurately disclose material facts about an administrative record controlled by the agency.
Why It Matters
The order highlights the risks of incomplete or inadequately verified representations about AI-generated materials in bid protests. When such materials were generated or considered during agency decision-making, counsel must accurately investigate and explain who received or reviewed them and whether they bear on the administrative record.
It also underscores that subjective good faith does not by itself defeat Rule 11 sanctions: a failure to conduct a reasonable inquiry can be sanctionable even without an intent to mislead.