In the United States Court of F ederal Claims

N@. 14_100 c
Fii@d; February 6, 2014"

*****$***$$$$$$*$******$$********$$***** BeSt\&dueF%OCuNHnent
a

j Standard of Review re: United States
INNOVATIVE MANAGEMENT ’°° Government Accountability
CONCEPTS, lNC., * ()ffl¢@;
* RcFc iz(b)<a) (faiiur@ to state a
 j Clain'l)_
v. *
THE UNITED STATES, *
Defendant. *
*

*****$************$*****$*$$**$***$*$***

MEM()RANDUM OPINION AND FINAL ORDER
DISMISSING BID PROTEST COMPLAINT

On February 4, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Complaint requesting that the United States Court
of Federal Claims rule that the United States Government Accountability Office’s ("GAO")
Decernber 4, 2013 Decision in a prior bid protest involving Plaintiff lacked a rational basis and
violated the Adininistrative Procedure Act, the Competition ln Contracting Act, and FAR 8.405-
2(c)(3). See Compl. [Dkt. l] at 14 (Relief Requested). 'l`he Complaint also requests that the
court enjoin the United States Arrny ("Army") from implementing the GAO Decision and
reinstate Plaintiff as the awardee.

ln the Decernber 4, 2013 Decision, the GAO stated:

ln a best value procurement, there is no requirement that the source selection be
made on the basis of lowest price unless the Solicitation so specifies, rather,
price/technical tradeoffs may be made and the extent to which one may be
sacrificed for the other is governed only by the test of rationality and consistency
with the Solicitation’s terms.

Innovative Mg)nr. Conceprs, Inc., B-408070.2 (Dec. 4, 2013) (emphasis added).

After reviewing the record, the GAO concluded:

* On February 6, 2014, the court filed a sealed copy of this Mernorandum Opinion and
Final ()rder.

[T]he SSA [Source Selection Authority] properly looked behind the adjectival
ratings to identify qualitative differences that existed between the proposals. The
protester has provided no basis to question the reasonableness of the SSA’s
determination that [the awardee]’s

 Accordingly, we have no basis to question tne
reasonableness of the agency’s selection decision.

Ia’. at5.

As a matter of law, the court is not bound by a GAO advisory opinion nor does it review
GAO decisions for clear error. See Heallh Sys. A/Ikfg. & Dev. Corp. v. United States, 26 Cl. Ct.
1322, 1325 (1992). Nor, in this case, does the court have a basis for determining that the GAO’s
decision was not "rational," given the highly deferential standard in "best value” procurements.
See Banknote Corp. v. United Sfaz‘es, 365 F.3d 1345, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("lt is well-
established that contracting officers have a great deal of discretion in making contract award
decisions, particularly when, as here, the contract is to be awarded to the bidder or bidders that
will provide the agency with the best value."). Of course, the court may have jurisdiction over a
bid protest complaint that alleged the Source Selection Authority’s decision was unlawful or
otherwise violated the Administrative Procedure Act. But, the February 4, 2014 Complaint fails
to set forth a viable claim for relief under RCFC 12(b)(6) and insufficiently pleads facts
necessary for the court to conclude it has subject matter jurisdiction. l\/loreover, the February 4,
2014 Complaint requested no viable relief in light of the fact that the new awardee has been on
the job for two months and an injunction would irreparably injure essential technology support
required at Fort Dix.

Accordingly, on February 6, 2014, the court convened a telephone conference to advise
the parties that the February 4, 2014 Complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim for
which relief may be granted See RCFC 12(b)(6); see also Ashcrofz‘ v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679
(2009) (holding that "only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to
dismiss"); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twonibly, 550 U.S. 544, 558 (2007) ("[W]hen the allegations in a
cornplaint, however true, could not raise a claim of entitlement to relief, this basic deficiency
should be exposed at the point of minimum expenditure of time and money by the parties and the
court." (quoting 5 CHARLI~;S ALAN WR!GHT & ARTHUR R. MiLLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND
PROCEDURE § 1216, at 233-34 (3d ed. 2004)) (internal quotations omitted)).

Therefoi'e, the Clerk of the Court is ordered to dismiss the February 4, 2014 Complaint,
without prejudice. lf Plaintiff files a new cornplaint, the Clerk shall assign the case to the
undersigned judge as a related case and waive the filing fee.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Susan G. Braden
SUSAN G. BRADEN
Judge

