Protester Claimed Solicitation Sought to Replicate an Existing Platform. COFC Didn’t See It That Way

The protester alleged the agency was attempting to acquire a developmental product that would replicate an already existing platform. If true, this would violate 41 U.S.C. § 3307 which require agencies to give preference to commercial products and services. COFC rejected the protester’s argument, finding the agency’s sought to procure broader services than the existing platform had to offer.

IntelliBridge, LLC, et al. v. United States, COFC No. 24-1204

• Protest – The agency issued an RFQ for Hybrid Cloud Production Engineering & Operations (PEO contract). The protester argued that issuance of the RFQ violated 41 U.S.C. § 3307, which requires agencies to conduct market research and give a preference to commercial products and services in procuring goods and services. Particularly, the protester claimed the agency attempted to circumvent the statute by seeking to acquire a developmental product that would replicate the functionality of an existing platform.
• Replicated Platform? – The court found that the protester failed to meet its burden showing the agency sought to procure a product that replicated the functionality of an existing platform rather than procuring for the existing platform. Instead, the court concluded the agency sought a broad set of cloud computing and IT-management services. It came to this conclusion by comparing the functionality of the existing platform to the elements of the RFQ.
• Market Research – Furthermore, the court found that the agency’s market research satisfied 41 U.S.C. § 3307. On April 22, 2024, the agency issued an RFI and posted it to the GSA e-buy website under two categories that aligned with the services it sought to acquire. 47 vendors responded to the RFI and the agency determined and documented whether any available services and products met its requirements. Because all of the agency’s procedures complied with 41 U.S.C. § 3307, COFC granted the government’s motion for judgment and denied the protester’s.

The protester was represented by Hamish Hume, Samuel C. Kaplan, and Gina A. Rossman of Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP. The government was represented by Ashley Akers of DOJ.

— Case summary by Joshua Lim, Assistant Editor

[pdf-embedder url=”https://staging.pub-k.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/INTELLIBRIDGE-LLC-v.-UNITED-STATES.pdf” title=”INTELLIBRIDGE, LLC, v. UNITED STATES,”]