Tellus Strategies, LLC v. United States

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS CONSOLIDATED ___________________________________ ) TELLUS STRATEGIES, LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 25-2186 ) THE UNITED STATES, ) Filed: May 29, 2026 ) Defendant, ) Re-issued: June 11, 2026 ∗ and ) ) EXACTA SOLUTIONS, LLC, ) ) Defendant- ) Intervenor, ) and ) ) COMPASS, INC., ) ) Defendant- ) Intervenor, ) and ) ) INNOVATE NOW, LLC, ) ) Defendant- ) Intervenor, ) and ) ) PROCLEARED, LLC, ) ) Defendant- ) Intervenor, ) and ) ) ∗ The Court issued this opinion under seal on May 29, 2026, and directed the parties to file any proposed redactions by June 5, 2026. The opinion issued today incorporates the redactions jointly proposed by the parties. Upon review, the Court finds that the material identified warrants protection from public disclosure, as provided in the applicable Protective Order (ECF No. 16). Redacted material is represented by bracketed ellipses “[ . . . ].” The Court did not adopt some proposed redactions by Tellus of information that is already on the public docket. LOGIC GATE, LLC, ) ) Defendant- ) Intervenor. ) ___________________________________ ) ) ASSERTIVE PROFESSIONALS, LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 26-93 ) THE UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendant, ) and ) ) COMPASS, INC., ) ) Defendant- ) Intervenor, ) and ) ) EXACTA SOLUTIONS, LLC, ) ) Defendant- ) Intervenor, ) and ) ) LOGIC GATE, LLC, ) ) Defendant- ) Intervenor, ) and ) ) INNOVATE NOW, LLC, ) ) Defendant- ) Intervenor, ) and ) ) PROCLEARED, LLC, ) ) Defendant- ) Intervenor. ) ___________________________________ ) 2  OPINION AND ORDER In this post-award bid protest, consolidated plaintiffs Tellus Strategies, LLC (“Tellus”) and Assertive Professionals, LLC (“AP”) each seek a permanent injunction preventing the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (“NGA” or “the Agency”) from proceeding with a multiple-award indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity (“IDIQ”) contract for advisory and assistance support services awarded to Defendant-Intervenors Exacta Solutions, LLC (“Exacta”), Compass, Inc. (“Compass”), Innovate Now, LLC (“Innovate Now”), ProCleared, LLC (“ProCleared”), and Logic Gate, LLC (“Logic Gate”). Tellus and AP raise various challenges to NGA’s evaluation of proposals under the Relevant Experience, Past Performance, and Risk Assessment factors. For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES the Motions for Judgment on the Administrative Record filed by Tellus and AP, as well as Tellus’s Motion to Supplement the Administrative Record with the Declaration of Sam Burton. Further, the Court GRANTS the Cross-Motions for Judgment on the Administrative Record filed by the Government and Defendant-Intervenors. Lastly, the Court DENIES AS MOOT the Government’s Motion to Dismiss and GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART AS MOOT Exacta’s Motion to Dismiss. I. BACKGROUND A. The CLOVER Solicitation NGA issued Request for Proposals No. HM0476-21-R-0023 (“RFP” or “Solicitation”) on December 9, 2021, seeking proposals for a multiple-award IDIQ contract to support the Agency’s CLOVER program. See generally Admin. R. (“AR”) Tab 12. 1 The CLOVER awardees will 1 Unless otherwise noted, the Court’s citation to filings in this consolidated matter refer to the Tellus docket (No. 25-2186). On January 30, 2026, the Government shared the AR electronically through the Justice Enterprise File Sharing system. See ECF No. 53. On February 5, 2026, the Court granted the Government’s Motion to Correct the AR to include Tabs 123 and 124. See ECF No. 56. On February 17, 2026, the Court granted the Government’s Motion to Correct the AR to include Tab 125. See ECF No. 59. For ease of reference, citations to the AR 3 compete for task orders to provide advisory and assistance support services across three Work Service Categories (“WSCs”): (1) Total Lifecycle Acquisition Management, (2) Financial Management, and (3) Strategic Business Management (“SBM”). AR Tab 14a.1 at 1555–62; see also AR Tab 17 at 2355–58 (describing services to be provided, including scope of potential task orders). CLOVER replaces and “redefines the [incumbent] EMERALD program” and will “encompass[] a similar, but not identical, scope.” AR Tab 14a.1 at 1549. The RFP stated that NGA would make award using a Highest Technically Rated Offerors with a Fair and Reasonable Price (“HTRO”) methodology. AR Tab 17 at 2466. Offerors were instructed to submit a self-scoring sheet in which they assigned points to their proposals based on the Agency’s defined criteria. Id. at 2461–62, 2475. Upon receiving proposals, NGA would initially conduct an acceptability review and compliance check to ensure proposals satisfied the RFP’s requirements. Id. at 2467. Proposals deemed non-compliant were subject to removal from consideration. Id. Following the acceptability review and compliance check, evaluators would rank the proposals by self-score. Id. NGA would then review the five highest self-scored proposals to verify that each self-score was supported by the documentation within the proposal. Id. at 2467. Where a self-scored evaluation element was unsubstantiated or otherwise not met, the Agency’s evaluation team would reduce the offeror’s self-score by the appropriate number of points. Id. The offeror would then be re-ranked based on its revised score. Id. If the offeror’s revised score caused it to fall out of the five highest-rated offerors, then the next highest self-rated offeror would be evaluated. Id. NGA would repeat this process until there were five verified refer to the bates-labeled page numbers. Although the Court’s rules require the filing of a joint appendix including “those portions of the administrative record that the parties have cited in their respective briefs,” Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims, App. C, ¶ 26, the parties filed only a joint appendix index following the completion of briefing. See ECF No. 106. 4 highest-rated offerors. Id. According to the RFP, the Agency would only assess the price reasonableness of those five proposals. Id. Proposals were due March 29, 2022, and were to be submitted in seven volumes. Id. at 2340, 2446. Three such volumes are relevant to these bid protests: Volume 2 – Relevant Experience, Volume 3 – Past Performance, and Volume 6 – Risk Assessment. Id. 1. Relevant Experience For Volume 2 – Relevant Experience, offerors could self-score up to 27,000 points for demonstrating experience performing work similar to the statement of work (“SOW”) for CLOVER. See id. at 2468–69; AR Tab 17a at 2622. The Solicitation instructed offerors to submit up to nine projects demonstrating relevant experience performing efforts similar to the three WSCs. AR Tab 17 at 2456. Offerors could only use these nine projects for the remaining evaluation factors. AR Tab 14b at 1698. The CLOVER SOW included an illustrative list of capabilities for each WSC. See AR Tab 14a.1 at 1555–62. The Total Lifecycle Acquisition Management WSC consisted of 17 capabilities. Id. at 1555–59. The Financial Management WSC consisted of 10 capabilities. Id. at 1559–61. The SBM WSC consisted of eight capabilities. Id. at 1561–62. These capabilities are not inclusive of all services NGA may order under the IDIQ. Id. at 1555, 1559, 1561. Instead, the capabilities were listed “to provide a generalized understanding of the type of work to be performed.” Id. at 1555. Offerors were instructed “to provide enough substantiating documentation for the Government to evaluate and assess the technical capabilities contained in each relevant experience example.” AR Tab 17 at 2456. The RFP did not limit the amount of supporting documentation an offeror could provide. Id. at 2447. NGA used the following scale to assess an offeror’s Relevant Experience: 5  Scale Rating Description 3,000 Very Relevant Offeror submission addresses most aspects of the WSC, and convincingly demonstrates that it will meet the Government’s performance requirements. 2,000 Relevant Offeror submission addresses some aspects of the WSC, and convincingly demonstrates a likelihood of meeting the Government’s performance requirements. 1,000 Minimally Offeror submission addresses a few aspects of the WSC, and Relevant demonstrates the ability to meet the Government’s performance requirements. The submission may contain several scope inconsistencies. 0 Not Offeror submission does not address any aspects of the WSC, or Relevant/Not no evidence is presented indicating the likelihood of successfully Submitted meeting the Government’s performance requirements. Id. at 2469. 2. Past Performance As part of Volume 3 – Past Performance, offerors could self-score up to 27,000 points based on the quality of their performance on each project submitted under Volume 2. AR Tab 17 at 2458–60; AR Tab 17a at 2623–24. Offerors were instructed to submit a Past Performance package for each project, including an Attachment J.18 form and a Past Performance Questionnaire (“PPQ”) completed by the offeror’s point of contact (“POC”). AR Tab 17 at 2458–59. The Solicitation noted that offerors were “responsible for having the POC qualified to speak on representative performance.” Id. at 2459. When reviewing an offeror’s Past Performance, the Agency maintained discretion under the RFP to consider information from other sources, including but not limited to: “the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Beta System for Award Management (SAM.gov)[,] [] the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS),” and “Government customer interviews and questionnaires.” Id. at 2471. 6  Under Past Performance, the Agency evaluated offerors based on each Past Performance package submitted according to the following scale: Scale Rating Description 3,000 Exceptional 1) Performance met contractual requirements and exceeded many, to the Government’s benefit. 2) The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with no problems or with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective. 2000 Very Good 1) Performance met contractual requirements and exceeded some, to the Government’s benefit. 2) The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective. 1000 Satisfactory 1) Performance met contractual requirements. 2) The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory. 500 Marginal 1) Performance did not meet some contractual requirements. 2) The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented. 500 Neutral Any overall WSC Project performance incapable of being evaluated favorably or unfavorably due to the Offeror not having a record of relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is not available. 0 Adverse Any overall WSC Project performance rating of Unsatisfactory. (Adverse past performance is defined as Unsatisfactory.) Id. at 2471–72. Both elements of the definition needed to be met for the offeror to receive the corresponding score. Id. at 2472. The PPQs required a separate assessment. Specifically, the Solicitation required the POCs to “corroborate the time frame of performance, customer supported, entity that performed the work, and scope/size/obligated dollars of work performed by Offeror, and customer ratings or 7 performance information.” Id. at 2471. The PPQs provided the following ratings for the POCs to assign: AR Tab 16a.3 at 2321. 3. Risk Assessment For Volume 6 – Risk Assessment, under the Organizational Structure subfactor, offerors could self-score additional points by demonstrating previous performance with their subcontractors or joint venture members in the proposed business arrangement. AR Tab 17 at 2475–76. The Solicitation instructed each offeror to “identify if it has previously performed in a business arrangement with their proposed subcontractors or JV partners.” Id. at 2463. The Solicitation defined “Previously Performed” as “performance that took place before the issuance 8 of the CLOVER solicitation, for a period of no less than one complete Period of Performance on another contract action, or for a period totaling one calendar year.” Id. To earn a score of 2,000 points under Risk Assessment – Organizational Structure, the RFP instructed joint venture offerors to submit a J.17 Self-Scoring Sheet reflecting that the offeror “has previously performed with greater than or equal to 60% of all Partners and proposed subcontractors under previous agreements/contracts.” AR Tab 17a at 2625. Non-joint venture offerors could earn a score of 2,000 points by indicating that the offeror “has previously performed with greater than or equal to 60% of all subcontractors under previous agreements/contracts.” Id. To verify the submission, offerors were required to include: (1) “[t]he contract or Task Order for which the work was performed,” and (2) “[e]vidence of the business arrangement,” e.g., “[a] [j]oint venture agreement that identifies all members, or [a] copy of the subcontract(s).” AR Tab 17 at 2464. If the offeror previously performed with less than 60 percent of all partners and proposed subcontractors, the offeror was only entitled to 1,000 points. AR Tab 17a at 2625. The Solicitation stated in bold and centered text that “[i]t is the responsibility of the Offeror to ensure that any supporting documentation clearly represents the working partnership on the previously performed work.” AR Tab 17 at 2464 (emphasis in original). The RFP also indicated, in describing the evaluation methodology for Risk Assessment – Organizational Structure, that “[s]coring for this element is only available for demonstrating that the Offeror has previously performed in the proposed business arrangement.” Id. at 2475. Thus, “Offerors who have worked with their partners or subcontractors before are considered more favorable in accordance with [the J.17 Self-Scoring Sheet].” Id. at 2475–76. B. Tellus’s Proposal Tellus is a mentor-protégé joint venture between McIntire Solutions, LLC (“McIntire”) and S2 Analytical Solutions, LLC (“S2”). AR Tab 30a.6 at 31482. It submitted its proposal on March 9 29, 2022, and included the maximum nine projects for the Relevant Experience and Past Performance factors. See AR Tab 30a.1 at 31746; AR Tab 30a.3 at 31773, 31777. For the Total Lifecycle Acquisition Management WSC, Tellus submitted three projects: (1) Project 1-1 ([ . . . ]), (2) Project 1-2 ([ . . . ]), and (3) Project 1-3 ([ . . . ]). AR Tab 30a.3 at 31773. For the Financial Management WSC, Tellus submitted three projects: (1) Project 2-1 ([ . . . ]), (2) Project 2-2 ([ . . . ]), and (3) Project 2-3 ([ . . . ]). Id. For the SBM WSC, Tellus submitted three projects: (1) Project 3-1 ([ . . . ]), (2) Project 3-2 ([ . . . ]), and (3) Project 3-3 ([ . . . ]). Id. Under the Risk Assessment – Organizational Structure factor, Tellus self-scored 2,000 points based on it having previously performed with greater than or equal to 60 percent of all partners and proposed subcontractors. AR Tab 30e.1. In support of this score, Tellus submitted eight subcontract modifications, with two subcontract modifications demonstrating the relationship between [ . . . ] and [ . . . ], and the remaining subcontract modifications demonstrating the relationship between [ . . . ] and six of Tellus’s proposed subcontractors. AR Tab 30f.2 at 36071. Overall, Tellus scored its proposal as receiving 72,750 points out of a possible 78,500 points. AR Tab 30e.1. C. AP’s Proposal AP also submitted a timely proposal. AR Tab 112 at 45650. Three of AP’s projects are relevant to its protest: (1) Project 1-2, which involved AP’s subcontractor [ . . . ]’s performance of Program Management Support Services for the [ . . . ], AR Tab 21b.27 at 3195; (2) Project 2-2, which involved AP’s subcontractor [ . . . ]’s performance of Business Operations services for the [ . . . ], AR Tab 21b.34 at 3382; and (3) Project 3-2, which involved the same contract as Project 2-2, AR Tab 21b.36 at 3387. Under the Risk Assessment – Organizational Structure factor, AP self-scored 2,000 points based on it having previously performed with at least 60 percent of its proposed subcontractors. AR Tab 21e.4. In support of this score, AP submitted two documents: (1) a unilateral modification exercising an option year under an IDIQ subcontract between AP and 10 [ . . . ], AR Tab 21f.8; and (2) a bilateral modification exercising an option year under an IDIQ subcontract between AP and [ . . . ], AR Tab 21f.9. 2 Overall, AP self-scored 73,750 points out of 78,500 possible points. AR Tab 21e.4. D. The Initial Award Decision, Protests, and 2025 Re-Evaluation On May 23, 2023, NGA announced its original awards to Compass, Credence Dynamo Solutions, LLC, Exacta, Innovate Now, and Logic Gate. See AR Tabs 45a–45e. Tellus and AP both requested and received post-award debriefings on June 16, 2023, during which the Agency provided each plaintiff with a redacted version of the Source Selection Decision Document (“SSDD”), a redacted and excerpted version of the Source Selection Evaluation Board (“SSEB”) Report, and copies of their respective Consensus Evaluation Reports (“CERs”). See AR Tabs 49a, 49b. Three unsuccessful offerors subsequently filed protests at the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”): AP, Zolon PCS II, LLC (“Zolon”), and ProCleared. See AR Tabs 52, 57, 66. Tellus did not file a protest or otherwise object to the procurement at that time. In July 2023, NGA took voluntary corrective action including re-evaluation of proposals. AR Tabs 53, 59, 67. Zolon challenged NGA’s proposed corrective action in this Court on August 24, 2023. See Zolon PCS II, LLC v. United States (Zolon I), 172 Fed. Cl. 742 (2024). On January 8, 2025, Zolon filed a subsequent protest of the Agency’s decision to incorporate into the RFP a revised version of Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) 52.204-7. See Zolon PCS II, LLC v. United States (Zolon II), 176 Fed. Cl. 279 (2025). The merits of Zolon’s previous protests are not relevant to Tellus’s and AP’s current challenges. 2 AP and [ . . . ] both proposed [ . . . ] as a subcontractor. See AR Tab 21a.3 at 2649; AR Tab 28a.2 at 2436–37. [ . . . ] was also proposed as a member of Exacta, a mentor-protégé joint venture. See AR Tab 25a.1 at 16714. 11  Following resolution of Zolon’s second protest before this Court, NGA completed its re- evaluation of the remaining offerors. See AR Tab 112 at 45649–52. On September 8, 2025, based on the re-evaluation, the Agency notified offerors of its new decision to issue awards to Compass, ProCleared, InnovateNow, Logic Gate, and Exacta. See AR Tabs 115a–116b. As part of the debriefing process, Tellus and AP were provided with redacted copies of the new SSDD, SSEB report, and CERs. See AR Tabs 119a.1, 119b.1. During the re-evaluation, NGA validated 57,250 of Tellus’s 72,750 claimed points. See AR Tab 112 at 45737. Specifically, the evaluators reduced Tellus’s self-scores for the Relevant Experience, Past Performance, and Risk Assessment – Organizational Structure factors. Id. Tellus initially filed an agency-level protest on September 22, 2025, AR Tab 121, which NGA denied on December 1, 2025, AR Tab 122. The re-evaluation also resulted in the Agency verifying 68,750 of AP’s 73,750 self-score points. AR Tab 112 at 45688. Specifically, NGA reduced AP’s self- scores for the Relevant Experience, Past Performance, and Risk Assessment – Organizational Structure factors. Id. at 45689–94. AP initially filed a protest at GAO, which was dismissed under 4 C.F.R. § 21.11(b) after Tellus filed its protest in this Court. E. Procedural History On December 30, 2025, Tellus filed its Complaint. See ECF No. 1. Following dismissal of its GAO protest, AP filed its Complaint on January 16, 2026. See Assertive Pros., No. 26-93, ECF No. 1. All five awardees intervened. See ECF Nos. 11–13, 20, 22, 24, 26–27. The Court subsequently consolidated the cases, designating Tellus, No. 25-2186, as the lead case. See Consolidation Order, ECF No. 39. Tellus filed a Motion to Complete and Supplement the Administrative Record, Order Depositions, and Temporarily Suspend Briefing on February 23, 2026. ECF No. 61. In its motion, Tellus sought to: (1) complete the AR with all documents prepared by the members of the relevant 12 evaluation teams in connection with the preparation of their CERs, as well as the Performance Assessment Reports (“PARs”) that the POC reviewed in completing PPQs for three of Tellus’s projects, id. at 2–3; (2) supplement the AR with the Declaration of Sam Burton, [ . . . ] of [ . . . ] (the “Burton Declaration”), as well as the transcripts of the as-yet taken depositions of the chairs of the relevant evaluation teams, id. at 3–6; (3) have the Court order such depositions, id. at 6–7; and (4) suspend briefing “until such time as the AR is completed and supplemented and the depositions occur,” id. at 7. On March 9, 2026, the Government and Defendant-Intervenors Logic Gate, ProCleared, Innovate Now, and Exacta filed oppositions to Tellus’s motion. See ECF Nos. 74 (Logic Gate), 78 (Government), 80 (ProCleared), 82 (Innovate Now), 85 (Exacta). Following oral argument on March 12, 2026, the Court denied Tellus’s motion, except that it deferred ruling on whether to supplement the record with the Burton Declaration. ECF No. 87. On the same day that Tellus filed its request for completion and supplementation, both Tellus and AP filed their Motions for Judgment on the Administrative Record. ECF Nos. 62 (Tellus), 64 (AP). In their motions, each plaintiff brings various challenges to the Agency’s evaluation under the Relevant Experience, Past Performance, and Risk Assessment factors. On March 9, 2026, the Government and Exacta filed Motions to Dismiss and Cross-Motions for Judgment on the Administrative Record. ECF Nos. 79 (Government), 86 (Exacta). That same day, the remaining Defendant-Intervenors also filed Cross-Motions for Judgment on the Administrative Record. ECF Nos. 72 (Compass), 73 (Logic Gate), 81 (ProCleared), 83–84 (Innovate Now). On March 20, 2026, Tellus and AP each filed their combined response to the Government’s and Defendant-Intervenors’ motions and reply in support of their motions. ECF Nos. 93 (AP), 94 (Tellus). The Government and Defendant-Intervenors each subsequently filed their combined responses and replies. ECF Nos. 96 (Compass), 98 (Logic Gate), 101 (ProCleared), 102 (Government), 103–04 (Innovate Now), 105 (Exacta). The Court heard oral argument on the 13 parties’ dispositive motions on April 17, 2026. All motions are now fully briefed and ripe for disposition. II. LEGAL STANDARDS A. Rule 12(b)(6) Motions to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”), an action may be dismissed if it fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted. “A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) tests whether ‘the facts asserted by the claimant . . . entitle [plaintiff] to a legal remedy.’” Flynn v. United States, 180 Fed. Cl. 256, 260 (2026) (alteration in original) (quoting Lindsay v. United States, 295 F.3d 1252, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). To avoid dismissal under RCFC 12(b)(6), “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Although a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations to raise a plausible claim, a plaintiff must provide “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; see also Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986) (holding that courts “are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation”). In deciding a motion under RCFC 12(b)(6), the Court may consider the complaint itself, “the written instruments attached to it as exhibits, ‘documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial notice.’” Todd Constr., L.P. v. United States, 94 Fed. Cl. 100, 114 (2010) (quoting Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rts. Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007)), aff’d, 656 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The Court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Sommers Oil Co. v. United States, 241 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 14  B. Motions to Complete or Supplement the Administrative Record “Different standards govern motions to complete and motions to supplement the administrative record.” ELB Servs., LLC v. United States, 172 Fed. Cl. 233, 241 (2024). A motion to complete the administrative record seeks to add documents to the record that were generated or considered by the relevant decision-maker but not included in the administrative record. Poplar Point RBBR, LLC v. United States (Poplar Point I), 145 Fed. Cl. 489, 494 (2019). Because the Government’s “designation of an administrative record is entitled to a presumption of completeness,” to prevail on a motion to complete, a plaintiff must provide “clear evidence” that the administrative record lacks information that was “generated or considered by the agency during the procurement and decisionmaking process.” Id.; see also Am-Pro Protective Agency, Inc. v. United States, 281 F.3d 1234, 1238–39 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (explaining that courts presume government officials exercise their duties in good faith). A motion to supplement the administrative record, on the other hand, seeks to add materials that were not considered by the agency in reaching its decision but are nevertheless necessary to permit the Court’s full evaluation of the agency’s decision. Poplar Point I, 145 Fed. Cl. at 494. To supplement the record, a plaintiff must make a higher showing than that necessary to prevail on a motion to complete. See Axiom Res. Mgmt., Inc. v. United States, 564 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (explaining that parties have a “limited” ability to supplement the administrative record). This is because, in a case applying the Administrative Procedure Act’s (“APA”) standard of review, “the focal point for judicial review should be the administrative record already in existence, not some new record made initially in the reviewing court.” Id. (quoting Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 142 (1973)). Thus, the administrative record “should be supplemented only if the existing record is insufficient to permit meaningful review consistent with the APA.” Id. at 1381. 15  Courts have found supplementation appropriate where the supplemental material is “necessary to help explain an agency’s decision,” Orion Int’l Techs. v. United States, 60 Fed. Cl. 338, 343 & n.10 (2004) (citing Camp, 411 U.S. at 142–43); helps explain what the agency considered in reaching a decision, Precision Standard, Inc. v. United States, 69 Fed. Cl. 738, 747 (2006), aff’d, 228 F. App’x 980 (Fed. Cir. 2007); or otherwise “correct[s] mistakes and fill[s] gaps” in the record, Pinnacle Sols., Inc. v. United States, 137 Fed. Cl. 118, 130 (2018). Supplementation is also generally appropriate when the extra-record material contains “relevant information that by its very nature would not be found in an agency record[,]” including “evidence of bad faith.” Orion, 60 Fed. Cl. at 343–44. C. Motions for Judgment on the Administrative Record RCFC 52.1(c) governs motions for judgment on the administrative record. Such motions essentially call for “an expedited trial on the record.” Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Unlike the standard for summary judgment, the standard for judgment on the administrative record involves determining, “given all the disputed and undisputed facts in the administrative record, whether the plaintiff has met the burden of proof to show that the [challenged agency decision] was not in accordance with the law.” Martinez v. United States, 77 Fed. Cl. 318, 324 (2007) (citing Bannum, 404 F.3d at 1357). Therefore, a genuine dispute of material fact does not prevent a court from granting a motion for judgment on the administrative record. See Bannum, 404 F.3d at 1357; Martinez, 77 Fed. Cl. at 324. D. Bid Protest Standard of Review The Tucker Act, as amended by the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996, confers on this Court “jurisdiction to render judgment on an action by an interested party objecting to . . . the award of a contract or any alleged violation of statute or regulation in connection with a procurement or a proposed procurement.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1). The Act requires this Court to 16 review the agency’s action “pursuant to the standards set forth” in the APA. Id. § 1491(b)(4); see also Banknote Corp. of Am., Inc. v. United States, 365 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (explaining that this Court reviews bid protests under the APA’s arbitrary and capricious standard). Accordingly, the Court asks whether a procuring agency’s action was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). To prevail, a protester “must show a significant, prejudicial error in the procurement process.” WellPoint Mil. Care Corp. v. United States, 953 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (quoting Alfa Laval Separation, Inc. v. United States, 175 F.3d 1365, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 1999)); see also 5 U.S.C. § 706 (“[D]ue account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error.”). Under the APA standard, an agency action “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.” Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Procurement officials “are given broad discretion” in their procurement duties; when a procurement officer makes a reasonable decision within the scope of that discretion, “a court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency.” DynCorp Int’l, LLC v. United States, 10 F.4th 1300, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (quoting R & W Flammann GmbH v. United States, 339 F.3d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). Thus, a protester “bears a heavy burden” to overcome the presumption of regularity courts afford to an agency decision. Impresa, 238 F.3d at 1338. If the “agency provided a coherent and reasonable explanation of its exercise of discretion,” the agency action should be sustained. Id. at 1333 (quoting Latecoere Int’l, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Navy, 19 F.3d 1342, 1356 (11th Cir. 1994)). III. DISCUSSION This opinion proceeds in five parts. First, the Court finds that Tellus has not demonstrated prejudicial error in the Agency’s evaluation of its proposal. Second, the Court further explains its 17 previous decision denying Tellus’s Motion to Complete and Supplement the Administrative Record, Order Depositions, and Temporarily Suspend Briefing, and it denies Tellus’s Motion to Supplement the AR with the Burton Declaration because it is not necessary for effective judicial review. Third, the Court determines that AP has not established prejudicial error in NGA’s evaluation process. Fourth, the Court finds that neither plaintiff has established that the Agency’s HTRO determination and resulting award decision were unreasonable. Finally, the Court concludes that neither plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunctive relief. A. Tellus Has Not Succeeded in Its Protest. Tellus challenges the Agency’s evaluation of Tellus’s proposal under the Relevant Experience, Past Performance, and Risk Assessment – Organizational Structure factors. See ECF No. 62 at 19–44. Tellus also argues that the Agency failed to conduct a meaningful re-evaluation of Tellus’s proposal. Id. at 16–19. Upon review, the Court determines that Tellus has not demonstrated any prejudicial error in NGA’s evaluation, nor has it demonstrated that the Agency failed to conduct a meaningful re-evaluation. 1. The Agency Rationally Evaluated Tellus’s Relevant Experience. Tellus claims that the Agency failed to rationally evaluate Tellus’s Relevant Experience volume because (1) Tellus was entitled to a Very Relevant rating for each project that demonstrated at least some relevant experience for greater than 50 percent of the WSC elements; (2) the Agency understated Tellus’s Relevant Experience and its ability to meet NGA’s requirements; and (3) the Agency engaged in disparate treatment when evaluating Tellus’s Relevant Experience. None of these claims have merit. 18  a. The RFP did not require the Agency to give Tellus a Very Relevant rating for each project that demonstrated at least some Relevant Experience for greater than 50 percent of the elements listed under the WSC. Tellus claims that “NGA failed to reasonably evaluate Tellus’s Relevant Experience” with respect to four projects: (1) Project 1-3 ([ . . . ]); (2) Project 2-1 ([ . . . ]); (3) Project 3-1 ([ . . . ]); and (4) Project 3-3 ([ . . . ]). Id. at 19 (citing AR Tab 107a at 45301–45). According to Tellus, because the Relevant Experience Evaluation Team (“REET”) “found that all Tellus’s projects reflected either ‘very relevant experience’ or ‘some relevant experience’ with respect to at least 50% of the elements comprising each WSC,” these projects were each entitled to a Very Relevant rating. Id. at 20. Under the Solicitation, a Relevant Experience submission (i.e., a project) would receive a “Very Relevant” rating and 3,000 points if it “addresse[d] most aspects of the WSC, and convincingly demonstrate[d] that [the offeror] will meet the Government’s performance requirements.” AR Tab 17 at 2469. A submission would instead receive a “Relevant” rating and 2,000 points if it “addresse[d] some aspects of the WSC, and convincingly demonstrate[d] a likelihood of meeting the Government’s performance requirements.” Id. Tellus and the Government disagree as to the proper interpretation of this scoring methodology, specifically disputing the meaning of “addresses most aspects of the WSC.” In Tellus’s view, the question of whether an offeror should receive a Very Relevant rating “is largely a mathematical one of: (1) how many ‘aspects’ there are to each WSC and (2) based on a reasonable evaluation, whether a Project ‘addresses’ more than half.” ECF No. 94 at 13. Tellus argues that the “aspects of the WSC” are the non-exclusive list of “capabilities” enumerated in the SOW for each WSC, which Tellus also refers to as the “elements” of a WSC. 3 See id. at 21–22;