Many a bid protest has been dismissed for lack of standing. But often that ostensible lack of standing has more to do with how the protest arguments are crafted than the facts underlying the procurement. The Court of Federal Claims’s recent decision in Precision Asset Management Corp. v. United States (No. 15-1495) is a good example.
Precision protested the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s award of an asset management services contract to KM Minemier & Associates, LLC. In evaluating proposals, HUD first identified technically-acceptable proposals on a pass/fail basis. Among the technically-acceptable proposals, HUD then evaluated past performance and price to determine which proposal offered the best value to the government.
Precision’s proposal received a “Neutral/Unknown Confidence” rating for past performance. KM Minemier’s proposal, by contrast, received a “Good/Significant Confidence” rating. Precision protested the award, arguing that “had HUD evaluated Precision’s proposal in accordance with the Solicitation instead of treating it as a joke and had HUD evaluated Minemier’s proposal in accordance with the facts, Precision would have stood a substantial chance of receiving this award.” Specifically, Precision alleged that, but for HUD’s evaluation errors, its own past performance rating would have been higher while KM Minemier’s would have been lower.