A recent decision out of the Federal Claims Court explains the post-award bid protest standard of review.

In Massman Construction Co. v. U.S., 2026 WL 1971985 (Fed.Cl. 2026), a protestor brought a post-award bid protest after the Army Corps of Engineers awarded the contract to another contractor. The protestor argued that the Army Corps (government) acted irrational in its evaluation through disparate treatment. The Court of Federal Claims agreed and remanded for the Army Corps to “either justify this disparity or explain why [awardee’s] lower-priced, but technically inferior proposal provides the best value to the government.” Massman Construction, supra at *1.

Importantly, though, is the standard of review for post-award bid protests with applicable citations:

The U.S. Court of Federal Claims reviews an agency’s contract award under the standards set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1), (4). The Court determines whether the Government “acted without rational basis or contrary to law when evaluating the bids and awarding the contract.” Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

A bid award may be set aside if either “(1) the procurement official’s decision lacked a rational basis; or (2) the procurement procedure involved a violation of regulation or procedure.” Off. Design Grp. v. United States, 951 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). To find a rational basis, the Court must determine “whether the contracting agency provided a coherent and reasonable explanation of its exercise of discretion.” Axiom Res. Mgmt., Inc. v. United States, 564 F.3d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). To establish a procedural violation, “the disappointed bidder must show a clear and prejudicial violation of applicable statutes or regulations.” Id. (citation omitted). “De minimis errors in the procurement process do not justify relief.” Off. Design Grp., 951 F.3d at 1374 (citation omitted).

“Courts look for a reasoned analysis or explanation for an agency’s decision as a way to determine whether a particular decision is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.” Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States, 161 F.3d 1365, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998). But an “explicit explanation is not necessary … where the agency’s decisional path is reasonably discernible.” DynCorp Int’l, LLC v. United States, 10 F.4th 1300, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (quoting Wheatland Tube Co., 161 F.3d at 1369–70).

“Generally speaking, an agency must evaluate an offeror’s proposal based on the criteria set out in the solicitation.” Tetra Tech, Inc. v. United States, 137 Fed. Cl. 367, 383 (2017). At the same time, “an agency still enjoys ‘great discretion in determining the scope of an evaluation factor.’ ” Id. (quoting Forestry Surveys & Data v. United States, 44 Fed. Cl. 493, 499 (1999)). “[W]hen weighing the merits of a proposal under a specific evaluation factor, an agency may consider all matters that offerors would reasonably have believed to be within the scope of the factor.” Id. (quoting Forestry Surveys & Data, 44 Fed. Cl. at 497).

In addition to establishing agency error under the APA, a disappointed bidder must demonstrate that it was significantly prejudiced by that error. Bannum, Inc., 404 F.3d at 1351. A bidder is significantly prejudiced if “there was a substantial chance it would have received the contract award but for” the agency’s errors. Id. at 1353 (citation modified). “[T]here is no presumption of prejudice when a protestor demonstrates irrationality in an agency decision.” Sys. Stud. & Simulation v. United States, 22 F.4th 994, 998 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Instead, “[t]he protestor must show prejudice under the usual standard. The Supreme Court has noted that, at least in some contexts, prejudice will be easily shown because the circumstances will make prejudice readily apparent.” Id. (citation omitted).

Massman Construction, supra at *7-8.

Here, the Court of Federal Claims found that one of the evaluation factors for Organization (document control system) was evaluated disparately. The protestor received a lower score than the awardee but should not have since it was technically the same system proposed by the awardee. “The similarities in the proposals reveal disparate treatment. The [Army Corps] treated [awardee’s] Organization proposal differently when it is ‘substantively indistinguishable’ from or ‘nearly identical’ to the one in [protestor’s] proposal.” Massman Construction, supra at *10.  In other words, the reasoning for the Army Corp’s rating disparity was not reasonably discernible warranting an explicit explanation to support the rationality of such decision.