Parcel 49c Limited Partnership v. United States

127 Fed. Cl. 570, 2016 WL 4168319
CourtUnited States Court of Federal Claims
DecidedAugust 5, 2016
Docket16-427C
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 127 Fed. Cl. 570 (Parcel 49c Limited Partnership v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Federal Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Parcel 49c Limited Partnership v. United States, 127 Fed. Cl. 570, 2016 WL 4168319 (uscfc 2016).

Opinion

Pre-Award Bid Protest; Motion to Supplement the Administrative Record.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND DENYING-IN-PART PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

LYDIA KAY GRIGGSBY, Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

In this pre-award bid protest matter, plaintiff, Parcel 49C Limited Partnership (“Parcel 49C”), protests certain determinations made by the General Services Administration in regards to a request for lease proposals to procure office space to house the headquarters of the Federal Communications Commission. Currently before the Court is Parcel 49C’s second motion to supplement the administrative record in this matter with eight categories of documents that Parcel 49C maintains are necessary for effective judicial review. The government opposes Parcel 49C’s motion upon the ground that the requested documents are either already in the administrative record or not necessary for effective judicial review. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS-IN-PART and DENIES-IN-PART Parcel 49C’s second motion to supplement the administrative record.

II. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND 1

A. Factual Background

This pre-award bid protest matter involves a dispute about the General Services Administration’s (“GSA”) evaluation of proposals responsive to the agency’s request for lease proposals (“RLP”) to house the headquarters for the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”). Parcel 49C is the current lessor for the FCC’s headquarters under a previous lease. AR at 1450. Parcel 49C and the defendant-intervenor in this matter, Trammell Crow Company (“Trammell Crow”), submitted proposals in response to the RLP. AR at 2831-42 (Parcel 49C’s revised final proposal revision); AR at 2843-79 (Trammell Crow’s revised final proposal revision). In this action, Parcel 49C challenges, among other things, several requirements in the RLP, including the RLP’s requirements for a minimum ceiling height and dual electrical feeds, and the GSA’s evaluation of responsive proposals. See generally Second Am. Compl. In addition, Parcel 49C alleges that an organizational conflict of interest exists with respect to Trammell Crow. Id.

B. Relevant Procedural History

On March 14, 2016, the government filed the administrative record, which it subsequently amended on May 20, 2016. See generally AR. Thereafter, the parties commenced *573 briefing on their respective cross-motions for judgment upon the administrative record and the government’s motion to dismiss. See generally PI. Mot. for J. on AR; Def. Mot.; Def.Int. Mot. for J. on AR.

On June 16, 2016, Parcel 49C filed a second motion to supplement the administrative record requesting that eight categories of documents be added to the existing administrative record. See generally PI. Mot. On July 1, 2016, the government filed a response and opposition to Parcel 49C’s motion. See generally Def. Opp. On July 5, 2016, the Court stayed further briefing on the parties’ cross-motions, pending further consultation with the parties regarding Parcel 49C’s second motion to supplement the administrative record. See generally Stay Order, July 6, 2016.

On July 7, 2016, the parties participated in a telephonic status conference to discuss Parcel 49C’s motion. See generally July 7, 2016 Telephonic Status Conference Transcript (“Tr.”). During the status conference, the Court issued an oral decision granting-in-part and denying-in-part Parcel 49C’s second motion to supplement the administrative record. Tr. at 40:22-437. The rationale for the Court’s decision is set forth below.

III. LEGAL STANDARD
A. Supplementing The Administrative Record

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that the “focal point” of the Court’s review of an agency’s procurement decision “‘should be the administrative record already in existence, not some new record made initially in the reviewing court.’” Axiom Res. Mgmt., Inc. v. United States, 564 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed.Cir.2009) (quoting Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 142, 93 S.Ct. 1241, 36 L.Ed.2d 106 (1973)). By limiting its review to the “record actually before the agency” the Court guards against “using new evidence to ‘convert the ‘arbitrary and capricious’ standard’ ” applicable to bid protest actions “ ‘into effectively de novo review.’ ” Id. at 1380 (quoting Murakami v. United States, 46 Fed.Cl. 731, 736 (Fed.Cl.2000)). And so, the “parties’ ability to supplement the administrative record is limited” and the administrative record should only be supplemented “if the existing record is insufficient to permit meaningful review consistent with the APA.” Id at 1379-81; see also Caddell Constr. Co., Inc. v. United States, 111 Fed.Cl. 49, 93 (2013); DataMill, Inc. v. United States, 91 Fed.Cl. 722, 732 (2010) (Plaintiff “bears the burden of explaining why the agency-assembled administrative record is insufficient.”). ■

This Court has interpreted the Federal Circuit’s directive in Axiom to mean that supplementation of the administrative record is permitted to correct mistakes and fill gaps. L-3 Commc’ns EOTech, Inc. v. United States, 87 Fed.Cl. 656, 672 (2009). But, supplementation of the administrative record is not permitted when the documents proffered are unnecessary for an effective review of the government’s procurement decision. Id. And so, supplementation of the administrative record is appropriate when necessary to provide the Court with a record containing the information upon which the agency relied when it made its decision, as well as any documentation revealing the agency’s decision-making process, Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 420, 91 S.Ct. 814, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971); see also Beta Analytics Int'l Inc. v. United States, 61 Fed.Cl. 223, 225 (2004) (“[Supplementation might be necessary to help explain an agency’s decision and thereby facilitate meaningful judicial review of the agency decision, particularly when a subjective value judgment has been made but not explained.”) (internal citations omitted); Orion Int’l Techs. v. United States, 60 Fed.Cl. 338, 343-44 (2004) (finding that supplementation is warranted when it is missing “relevant information that by its very nature would not be found in an agency record — such as evidence of bad faith, information relied upon but omitted from the paper record, or the content of conversations”).

IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Kennedy v. United States
Federal Claims, 2018
Harkcon, Inc. v. United States
132 Fed. Cl. 697 (Federal Claims, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
127 Fed. Cl. 570, 2016 WL 4168319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parcel-49c-limited-partnership-v-united-states-uscfc-2016.