## Facts

- The Air Force solicited proposals for an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for technical support services, structured as a best-value procurement with technical and managerial factors weighted more heavily than price.
- The solicitation stated the Air Force would not necessarily award to the lowest-priced offeror and could select the proposal offering the best value to the government.
- LOGTEC and B3H submitted proposals; B3H offered a lower price, while LOGTEC received higher technical and managerial ratings.
- The Source Selection Evaluation Board conducted a price/technical tradeoff using multiple discriminators, including performance risk and relevant experience.
- The Air Force concluded LOGTEC’s strengths and reduced risk justified paying a higher price and awarded the contract to LOGTEC.
- B3H protested to the GSBCA, challenging the best-value tradeoff and alleging procurement improprieties involving Air Force personnel and LOGTEC.
- The GSBCA sustained the protest as to best value (finding inadequate justification for the higher-priced award) but dismissed or denied the impropriety allegations.
- The Air Force and LOGTEC appealed the best-value ruling; B3H cross-appealed the denial/dismissal of the impropriety claims.

## Issues

1. What is the proper scope and standard for GSBCA review of an agency best-value procurement decision under CICA, and did the GSBCA improperly substitute its judgment for the agency’s tradeoff decision?
2. Whether the GSBCA erred in dismissing or denying B3H’s protest allegations of procurement improprieties involving Air Force personnel and the awardee.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit reversed the GSBCA’s decision sustaining B3H’s protest on the best-value determination.
- The court held the GSBCA exceeded its proper reviewing role by reweighing the tradeoff and demanding more justification than the governing standard required.
- The court concluded the Air Force’s best-value selection was rationally supported by the record and consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation scheme.
- The Federal Circuit affirmed the GSBCA’s dismissal/denial of B3H’s allegations of procurement improprieties.

## Legal Principles

- In reviewing an agency’s best-value source selection, the tribunal’s task is to determine whether the procurement decision is “grounded in reason”; if so, it must defer even if it would have chosen differently.
- Bid protest review of best-value tradeoffs is not a de novo reevaluation of proposals; substituting the reviewing body’s judgment for the agency’s exceeds the permissible scope of review.
- Where a solicitation authorizes award to other than the lowest-priced proposal, a higher-priced award is permissible if the agency provides a rational explanation linking evaluated advantages (e.g., technical merit and reduced performance risk) to best value.
- Questions concerning the proper method and scope of the Board’s review are legal questions reviewed de novo on appeal.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit reinstated the Air Force’s best-value award to LOGTEC, holding that the GSBCA’s role was limited to assessing whether the agency’s tradeoff was rationally supported rather than reweighing technical merit against price, and it affirmed the rejection of B3H’s separate impropriety allegations.


Widnall v. B3H Corp., 75 F.3d 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1996)