The U.S. Court of Federal Claims recently issued a significant opinion in Gemini Tech Servs., LLC v. United States, holding that the Army’s failure to follow required procedures under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) in establishing a competitive range for a logistics support procurement at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, prejudiced the protestor and warranted injunctive relief. The decision highlights critical compliance responsibilities under FAR Part 15 and reinforces the limitations on agency discretion during negotiated procurements.

Background: The Redstone Arsenal Solicitation

The dispute arose from Solicitation No. W519TC-23-R-0094, issued by the Army on October 3, 2023, for logistics support services under its Enhanced Army Global Logistics Enterprise (EAGLE) vehicle. The solicitation, designated as a competitive 8(a) small business set-aside, implemented a three-step, best-value selection process. Step 1 focused on technical acceptability; Step 2 evaluated past performance and price realism; and Step 3 entailed award to the lowest-priced offeror with a substantial confidence rating.

The solicitation required the Army to first screen proposals for strict compliance, then evaluate them for technical acceptability on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. Importantly, only the three lowest priced, technically acceptable proposals were to advance beyond Step 1.

The Evaluation Breakdown

The Army received six proposals. After several iterations of evaluation by the Technical Evaluation Team (TET), only one — Gemini’s — was found technically acceptable. Despite this, the contracting officer made the decision to open discussions with all six offerors to promote efficiency and maximize competition.

However, FAR 15.306(c)(1) states that if discussions are to be held, the agency must establish a “competitive range” comprised only of “the most highly rated proposals” based on “all evaluation criteria.” The Army’s determination lacked any documented analysis comparing ratings across the relevant factors. Moreover, it erroneously claimed that all offerors, including Gemini, were technically unacceptable — an error that directly undercut the procedural foundation for opening discussions.

Protest and Holding

Gemini initially challenged the award before the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which denied the protest. The GAO reasoned that because the solicitation allowed discussions “at any stage,” the Army retained discretion to open discussions before finalizing technical ratings.

Gemini then filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims. In contrast to the GAO, the court held that the Army’s decision to open discussions violated FAR 15.306(c)(1) by failing to base the competitive range on ratings against all evaluation criteria. The court emphasized that an agency’s discretion must still be exercised within the bounds of the FAR’s procedural mandates.

The Army’s justification — that opening discussions was in the government’s best interest — was insufficient, the court found. Without first determining which proposals were the most highly rated, the agency’s competitive range determination was legally defective.

Prejudice and Injunctive Relief

The court also found that Gemini was prejudiced by the error. But for the Army’s improper inclusion of other offerors in the competitive range, Gemini would have had a substantial chance at award. Notably, JP Logistics — the only offeror whose proposal was initially deemed incapable of being made acceptable — ultimately received the contract award after the Army revised its findings during discussions. The court concluded this outcome could have been different had the Army complied with FAR 15.306(c)(1) from the outset.

As a result, the court granted Gemini’s motion for judgment on the administrative record, denied the government’s and intervenor’s cross-motions, and ordered a new award decision.

Key Takeaways for Contractors and Agencies

This decision reinforces several important principles:

1. FAR Compliance Is Not Optional – Even broad agency discretion under FAR Part 15 is constrained by procedural requirements. Agencies must base the competitive range on documented evaluations against all criteria, not just operational convenience or generalized efficiency.
2. Evaluative Errors Must Be Material – The court found that the Army’s error — while seemingly procedural — was material because it altered the structure of competition and resulted in prejudice to a compliant offeror.
3. GAO vs. COFC – The divergence between GAO and the Court of Federal Claims illustrates that COFC may take a stricter view of procurement law compliance, especially where FAR mandates are explicit.
4. Documentation Matters – The Army’s inconsistent and conflicting internal documentation undermined its legal position. Agencies should ensure that evaluation and award decisions are consistently documented and aligned with the record.

This case serves as a reminder to both government and industry players that even well-intentioned efforts to streamline competition must remain grounded in regulatory compliance.

Conclusion

The court’s ruling in Gemini Tech Servs. underscores the importance of maintaining strict adherence to FAR procedures, especially when setting a competitive range and opening discussions. For contractors, it offers a roadmap for identifying and challenging missteps in an agency’s establishment of a competitive range. For agencies, it’s a cautionary tale on the risks of informal deviations from regulatory norms, even in the interest of expediency.

Listen to this article