Vectrus Federal Services Gmbh v. United States

In the United States Court of Federal Claims VECTRUS FEDERAL SERVICES GMBH, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, No. 26-175 Issued under seal August 3, 2026 Defendant, Reissued publicly August 18, 2026 and PAE APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Defendant-Intervenor. Adam K. Lasky, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Seattle, Washington, for plaintiff. Yariv S. Pierce, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC; John C. Degnan, Contract Litigation & Intellectual Property Division, U.S. Army Legal Services Agency; and Gregory A. Moritz, 409th Contracting Support Brigade, U.S. Army Contracting Command, for defendant. Robert J. Sneckenberg and William B. O’Reilly, Crowell & Moring LLP, Washington, DC, for defendant-intervenor. OPINION AND ORDER Denying Vectrus’s motion for judgment on the administrative record and granting the government’s and intervenor’s cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record Plaintiff Vectrus protests the Army’s decision awarding PAE a contract for maintaining a base in Germany.1 Vectrus alleges that the Army acted unreasonably in reviewing PAE’s past projects and misled Vectrus in pre-award discussions. Vectrus moves for judgment on the admin- istrative record and for a permanent injunction prohibiting the Army from moving forward with 1 This opinion was originally issued under seal on August 3, 2026. The parties filed a joint proposal for redactions. ECF No. 64. In that proposal, the parties also requested additions to the counsel listed at the top of the opinion. Id. The court reissues this public opinion accepting the proposed redactions and adding the requested counsel’s names. The substance of the opinion is unchanged. 1 the contract with PAE. The government and PAE cross-move for judgment on the administrative record. At bottom, the Army did not act arbitrarily, capriciously, or contrary to law during its eval- uation process. Thus, the government and PAE are entitled to judgment on the administrative rec- ord. I. Background In 2020, the Army issued a solicitation for a contract covering maintenance and facility operations on the United States Army Garrison Rheinland Pfalz base located in Germany. AR3034-35; AR3038.2 The solicitation aimed to consolidate two facility maintenance contracts for the base to improve efficiency and lower costs for the government; Vectrus was the incumbent contractor under one of the pre-consolidation contracts. AR1654-55; AR1658. The selected pro- posal would receive a non-commercial indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity contract with an or- der ceiling of $375 million and an ordering period of five years after the contract award. AR33949; AR33985. The solicitation was amended nineteen times. AR33922 (amendment 19). A. The solicitation outlines evaluation factors and how an awardee will be chosen The final version of the solicitation explains that proposals will be evaluated under three factors: a technical factor, a price factor, and a past performance factor. AR34076. The three fac- tors are weighed differently, with the technical factor being the most important, followed by the price factor, and finally the past performance factor. Id. The technical and past performance factors 2 The parties submitted an administrative record to the court and also submitted a joint appendix to the court, but they did not file either through ECF. See ECF No. 54. The court will cite the administrative record with the designation AR. The parties will eventually file the complete ad- ministrative record either through ECF or separately with the clerk’s office. See Rules of the Court of Federal Claims, Appendix C, Paragraph 28. 2 combined outweigh price. Id. The contract will be awarded to the “offeror whose proposal repre- sents the overall best value to the Government.” Id. Thus, “the Government may award to other than the lowest price or highest rated technical proposal.” Id. The technical factor has subfactors, one of which is experience. AR34076. Both the expe- rience subfactor and the past performance factor require offerors to submit past or current projects. AR34070-85. An offeror may submit projects performed by a corporate affiliate. AR34083 (ex- pressly defining “offeror” as including an “affiliate / subsidiary / parent company” under the past performance factor); AR30385 (clarifying through pre-offer questions and answers that corporate affiliate experience may be utilized for the experience subfactor). During pre-offer questions and answers, the Army clarified that if an offeror chooses to submit a project that represents the past performance or experience of a corporate affiliate, the offeror must demonstrate: (1) “that the af- filiate / subsidiary / parent company will have meaningful involvement in contract performance” and (2) “how the affiliate / subsidiary / parent company’s experience or past performance relates to the work it will perform, or the resources it will provide, during contract performance.” AR30385. The government also clarified that for submissions describing a joint venture project, “the Government will only consider the value of the offeror’s own effort … as a part of a Joint Venture, to determine the relevant size of the contract / project / subcontract submitted by the offeror.” AR6460. The solicitation also lists key personnel roles and those roles’ required qualifications. Sev- eral of those roles require German language fluency. AR31723-26; AR45776-78 (final contract). Two of those roles did not require German language fluency until after the solicitation’s fourteenth amendment, in 2024. AR31592 (amendment 14 memorandum from 2024); see AR3314 (the pre- ventive maintenance coordinator / alternate role required only English before 2024); AR3316 (the 3 general fund enterprise business system (AR45464) specialist role required only English before 2024). To show German language fluency and other required qualifications under the final solici- tation, the awardee must “provide objective evidence of key personnel qualifications and years of experience to the [contracting officer], no later than thirty (30) calendar days before the contract start date, for review and acceptance.” AR3060 (paragraph 21.11.1.4); AR45395 (same). A source selection plan, written before the solicitation was issued, explains the solicitation process and outlines the procedures for all members of the government involved in the procure- ment. AR295-332. A source selection authority ultimately determines which offeror provides the best value. AR320 (explaining that the source selection authority is “the individual designated to make the best-value decision”). That person makes the determination informed by comparative evaluations from a source selection advisory council. AR322. The advisory council receives infor- mation from a source selection evaluation board (AR323-24), which conducts an initial review of proposals compared to solicitation requirements (AR328-29). After proposal evaluations, but before the source selection authority’s decision, the con- tracting officer serves as the point of contact for inquiries from offerors and determines whether the government wants to undertake discussions with offerors in the competitive range. AR321-22; AR328-29. If the contracting officer conducts discussions with offerors, the contracting officer documents any new information from offerors in a supplemental evaluation report, and the con- tracting officer can revise the competitive range with the approval of the source selection authority. AR329. Offerors still within the competitive range may then submit final proposal revisions, cul- minating in a final evaluation report for the source selection advisory council and source selection authority to consider. Id.; see AR44982-85 (source selection evaluation board memorandum for source selection advisory council). 4  B. The Army made an award, Vectrus filed a post-award protest with the Government Accountability Office, and the Army took corrective ac- tion In February 2022, the Army awarded the contract to PAE. AR25546. The source selection authority explained in her decision how PAE’s proposal compared to the other proposals in the competitive range and why it presented the best value among the proposals the government had received. AR25548-50. Four offerors were in the competitive range at that point: , , PAE, and Vectrus. AR25546-47. Vectrus filed a post-award protest with the Government Accountability Office, alleging bias in the source selection. AR27134. The Government Accountability Office dismissed the pro- test after the Army agreed to take corrective action. AR28114-15. The Army cancelled the award to PAE (AR29048-50) and informed each of the four competitive offerors that it would (1) issue an amended solicitation; (2) conduct open discussions with them; (3) appoint a new evaluation team; and (4) make a new best-value determination and award decision. AR29033-34; AR29039- 40; AR29036-37; AR29051; AR29041-42. In response, informed the government that it and PAE had both been acquired by Amentum. AR29311. Because of the acquisition, withdrew its proposal and chose to move forward with a “consolidated proposal” by PAE. Id. , PAE, and Vectrus all updated their proposals. AR35362-63; AR34519-20; AR35856-57; AR35970-71. The Army documented its review of the proposals (AR37150-51) and the source selection authority decided to conduct a new round of discussions with the offerors (AR37315). The Army conducted two more rounds of discussions, during which it sent each offeror a spreadsheet evalu- ating the technical factors. See, e.g., AR37370 (pdf of the evaluation notices for PAE round 5); AR37825 (pdf of the evaluation notices for round 5); AR38256 (pdf of the evaluation notices for Vectrus round 5). The spreadsheet rated each technical factor on a relative strength scale, giving 5 information on how the offeror could improve. See id. The Army closed discussions on June 10, 2025 (e.g., AR43560-61), and all three remaining offerors submitted final proposals (AR43937 (Vectrus); AR44494 (PAE); AR44496 ( )). C. The Army decided that PAE’s offer provided the best value for the gov- ernment The source selection evaluation board submitted its final evaluation to the source selection advisory council (AR44982; AR44991), and the advisory council performed its trade-off analysis between the offerors (AR47639-60). The advisory council determined that Vectrus’s proposal was superior to PAE’s under the technical factor (AR47648-49) but that PAE’s was superior to Vec- trus’s under the past performance factor due to its “significantly more extensive performance rec- ord” (AR47651). PAE’s proposal was 10.27% cheaper than Vectrus’s proposal. AR47652. The advisory council noted that Vectrus’s proposal was superior when considering both non-price fac- tors, but “the technical advantages offered by Vectrus do not warrant the additional cost.” Id. The advisory council determined that PAE’s proposal offered the best value. Id. The advisory council gave that recommendation to the source selection authority, who concurred. AR47664-66. The source selection authority decided to award the contract to PAE. AR47661. The source selection authority noted that “even assuming I did not have more confidence in PAE under the Past Perfor- mance Factor as compared to Vectrus, I would still determine the proposal from PAE to be the better value.” AR47665. The Army awarded the contract to PAE in December 2025. AR45194. This table shows the Army’s final evaluations of PAE and Vectrus under the technical and past performance factors: 6 15, 22. Vectrus initially included an additional argument disputing whether PAE was a member in the joint venture that performed the Guam project (ECF No. 32 at 1 (Count II)) but later withdrew the argument (ECF No. 48 at 1). This court’s jurisdiction is primarily defined by the Tucker Act, which provides the court with “jurisdiction to render judgment … in connection with a procurement or proposed procure- ment.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b). The court can grant “any relief that the court considers proper, in- cluding declaratory and injunctive relief.” Id. To decide a motion for judgment on the administra- tive record, the court must determine whether, “given all the disputed and undisputed facts, a party has met its burden of proof based on the evidence in the record.” Palantir USG, Inc. v. United States, 904 F.3d 980, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quotation marks omitted). When parties cross-move for judgment on the administrative record, each party must prove its own case to succeed. See Mendez v. United States, 103 Fed. Cl. 370, 378-84 (2012) (ruling on cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record after evaluating the plaintiff’s and the government’s arguments in turn against the administrative record). The court “review[s] the agency’s decision pursuant to ... the standards found in the Ad- ministrative Procedure Act” (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706. Banknote Corp. of America v. United States, 365 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “Among the various APA standards of review in section 706, the proper standard to be applied in bid protest cases is provided by 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A): a reviewing court shall set aside the agency action if it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” Id. at 1350-51 (cleaned up). The court determines “whether the contracting agency provided a coherent and reasonable explanation of its exercise of discretion.” Mitchco International, Inc. v. United States, 26 F.4th 8 1373, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (quotation marks omitted). “Contracting officers are given broad dis- cretion in their evaluation of bids,” and a court may not substitute its judgment for the agency’s reasonable decision. DynCorp International, LLC v. United States, 10 F.4th 1300, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2021). A protester “bears a heavy burden.” AgustaWestland North America, Inc. v. United States, 880 F.3d 1326, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quotation marks omitted). A protester must demonstrate “a clear and prejudicial violation of applicable statutes or regulations.” Banknote, 365 F.3d at 1351 (quotation marks omitted). In other words, even if the court finds that the agency acted arbitrarily or capriciously, a protester is entitled to relief only if it “was prejudiced by that conduct.” Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quotation marks omitted). A protester can establish prejudice only by showing “that there was a substantial chance it would have received the contract award” if not for the agency’s error. Alfa Laval Separation, Inc. v. United States, 175 F.3d 1365, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quotation marks omitted). A. The government reasonably credited PAE for its past projects per- formed by corporate affiliates Vectrus argues that the government unreasonably credited PAE for past projects performed by its affiliates Amentum and DynCorp. ECF No. 32 at 7-9, 18-25; ECF No. 48 at 1-11; see AR47576-78 (post-award debrief to PAE showing credit for projects performed by affiliates); AR47644-45 (source selection advisory council crediting experience performed by PAE in its comparative analysis). Beyond the usual deference for procurement decisions, the Federal Circuit has recognized that “the evaluation of past performance is a matter within the discretion of the contracting agency and that the agency’s reasonable interpretation of the facts is entitled to con- siderable deference.” Taahut v. United States, 849 F. App’x 260, 266 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (quotation marks omitted). The “court must especially defer to the agency’s … past performance ratings” because those ratings “involve discretionary determinations of procurement officials.” American 9 Auto Logistics, LP v. United States, 117 Fed. Cl. 137, 186 (2014) (marks omitted), aff’d, 599 F. App’x 958 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In general, an agency may “attribute the experience or past performance of a parent or affiliated company to an offeror where the [offeror’s] proposal demonstrates that the resources of the parent or affiliated company will affect the performance of the offeror.” Femme Comp Inc. v. United States, 83 Fed. Cl. 704, 746 (2008) (quotation marks omitted). That, “in fact, is encour- aged.” Sterling Medical Associates, Inc. v. United States, 177 Fed. Cl. 550, 570 (2025). But the offeror must make more than “[v]ague or general references” to the affiliate’s participation. ASRC Federal Infrastructure Support, LLC v. United States, No. 26-451, 2026 WL 1021231, at *7 (Fed. Cl. Apr. 3, 2026). For this particular solicitation, the solicitation itself noted that “‘Offeror’ refers to the pro- posed prime contractor, joint venture entity, affiliate / subsidiary / parent company, and all major subcontractors.” AR34083. In response to a question from an offeror, the Army noted that, to receive credit for an affiliate’s performance, (1) an offeror would have to show that the affiliate would have “meaningful involvement” in contract performance, and (2) “[t]he offeror must also demonstrate how the affiliate / subsidiary / parent company’s experience or past performance re- lates to the work it will perform, or the resources it will provide.” AR30385. Questions and answers can be “controlling” on the agency in certain circumstances. Per Aarsleff A/S v. United States, 829 F.3d 1303, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting that questions and answers can be controlling when in- corporated into the final solicitation). Here, the parties appear to agree that the question and answer were binding. PAE’s proposal included six past projects a corporate affiliate performed. AR43825; AR43833; AR43841; AR43849; AR43863; AR43876; see AR43741 (technical volume listing past 10 projects for the experience subfactor). To the extent that the solicitation required it, the Army reasonably concluded that PAE’s proposal met both requirements. 1. The Army reasonably determined that PAE’s affiliates would have meaningful involvement PAE’s proposal introduced the company as “One Amentum,” with all affiliated companies falling under “common management, control, policies, procedures, and financial systems.” AR43822. One Amentum included the combined resources of PAE and DynCorp. AR34535. The proposal notes that One Amentum “created one of the largest providers of mission critical support services to government customers … with 44,000 employees supporting operations in 85 countries around the world.” Id. PAE had “access to all of Amentum’s existing assets, equipment, facilities, key personnel, knowledge, past performance experience, expertise, and capabilities.” Id. The pro- posal also explained that PAE’s offer provided access to “a [European-command]-based capability of approximately 1,200 staff experienced in maintenance, supply, transportation, and Army logis- tics analysis that can temporarily augment critical requirements that may emerge in execution.” AR43822 (past performance narrative introduction). In evaluating PAE’s proposal, the source selection evaluation board noted which project was performed by which corporate affiliate. See AR45019-34 (noting when an affiliate performed a project). The source selection evaluation board noted that PAE had demonstrated “meaningful involvement in [its] team approach and utilization of Amentum umbrella assets.” AR45019. The Army reasonably considered the contribution potential of PAE’s affiliates and documented its ra- tionale. Vectrus argues that PAE’s proposal improperly relied on vague and general statements about affiliation to demonstrate meaningful involvement of its corporate affiliates. See ECF No. 32 at 19-22. Vectrus relies on this court’s recent articulations of meaningful affiliate involvement 11 in Noblis MSD, LLC v. United States, 180 Fed. Cl. 667, 705-06 (2026), and ASRC, 2026 WL 1021231, at *7-9, to allege that the Army abused its discretion. But in both Noblis and ASRC, the offeror was hiding that the performing party was an affiliate rather than the offeror itself. In Noblis, the plaintiff asserted that the awardee’s proposal “deliberately obscure[d] the performing party when discussing [the awardee’s parent company’s] contract references.” Noblis, 180 Fed. Cl. at 694. This court determined that the proposal “failed to provide a factual basis sufficient for the [agency] to attribute” the affiliate’s work to that of the offeror. Id. at 705. The court also noted that the government did not distinguish between the offeror and its affiliate in evaluations. Id. at 703-04. Together, those issues cast serious doubt on if, and how, the affiliate would contribute to the contract. Id. at 705-06. Likewise, in ASRC, 2026 WL 1021231, at *6-9, the court noted that the awardee stated that it performed six past projects, when an affiliate actually performed each one, and determined that the proposal did not provide the agency “with enough information to allow for informed judgment.” Here, PAE noted which affiliate performed each past project PAE submitted. See AR43825; AR43833; AR43841; AR43849; AR43863; AR43876. The Army also noted which af- filiate corresponded to each past project. See, e.g., AR45020-25; AR47650. Under those facts, there is no concern that PAE is obscuring which affiliate performed which task, and there is no concern that the Army was confused. Vectrus gives two reasons why the Army should not have credited PAE’s European-Com- mand-based staffers. ECF No. 48 at 3-8. First, Vectrus alleges that the Army could not tell which affiliate a staffer might come from. Id. at 4. Second, Vectrus argues that the staffers are not con- nected to any of the affiliate projects submitted by PAE. Id. at 5-7. 12  On the first point, PAE explained that the staffers would come from Amentum, DynCorp, and PAE. AR43822. That was sufficient for the Army to determine, to its satisfaction, the source of the staffers. On the second point, the solicitation does not require PAE to identify the staffers and whether they participated in each past project PAE submitted. The solicitation only requires, and PAE submitted, verification of each affiliate’s meaningful involvement in the current proposal. See AR30385; Sterling Medical, 177 Fed. Cl. at 570 (noting that “it would create a heavy burden” for the agency or offeror to verify all individual contractor involvement). Vectrus argues that the European-Command-based staffers cannot be relevant because PAE’s past projects were per- formed in regions other than Europe. ECF No. 48 at 6-8. But there is no reason for the Army to conclude that the Europe-based staffers would not bring experience useful to performance of the contract, particularly because the contract will be performed in Germany. The Army is entitled to deference for its consideration of that proposal element and reasonably determined that the affili- ates would have meaningful involvement. 2. To the extent that the solicitation required it, the Army reason- ably determined that PAE’s affiliates’ past projects were related to the work each affiliate would perform or the resources it would provide The second condition for receiving affiliate project credit, given during questions and an- swers, gives offerors two ways to show how a past project relates to the contract work. See AR30385 (Q&A 245). To the extent that the condition was incorporated into the solicitation, this court has determined that an affiliate was sufficiently committed to contract performance upon a showing that resources, technology tools, company policies, business processes, and personnel would flow from the affiliate to the proposed contractor. Ahtna Logistics, LLC v. United States, 163 Fed. Cl. 488, 513-14 (2022). 13  Because the contract at issue involves maintaining a government facility (AR3038), PAE’s proposal gave examples of affiliate experience relating to maintenance contracts. See, e.g., AR43834-40 (DynCorp contract for the operation of “54 geographically dispersed locations” on “a full-spectrum base life support and sustainment services effort” in ); AR43841-46 (DynCorp contract for base operation support on consisting of mainte- nance, operation, and repair of facility structures); AR43863-68 (DynCorp contract for war reserve materiel in “asset storage, maintenance, outload, reconstitution, and contingency logistics sup- port”); AR43849-53 (Amentum contract for base operation support for multiple Air Force sites). PAE’s narrative descriptions of past projects showed specific services each affiliate pro- vided that were like those it will provide for the current contract. For example, the contract entailed “stabilizing the power generation capabilities …, unclogging the main municipal sewage system, repairing electrical and lighting fixtures, and servicing 200 air conditioning units.” AR43835; see also AR43842 ( contract included maintenance and repair of 997 build- ings); AR43850 (Air Force sites contract included functional services like “engineering, logistics, power distribution, Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning”); AR43866 (reserve materiel con- tract involved management and maintenance of 293 facilities). This solicitation likewise requires “Facility Maintenance (Buildings and Structures); Grounds Maintenance (Improved and unim- proved); Utilities (Switch Gear, Transformer Stations, Utility Meters, Storm Drains, Sewage Lift- ing Systems); … Heating and Cooling Services; Water Services; Waste Water Services; [and] Facility Engineering Management Services.” AR3038; AR45371 (same). The Army’s analysis re- flects that it considered those experiences relevant for the contract; affiliate projects were “relevant in scope and magnitude” or “involved essentially the same scope” in comparison to this contract. See AR45021-25 (source selection evaluation board’s evaluation noting PAE’s tasks performed in 14 a past project and noting that the project was similar in scope to the contract’s proposed work); see also AR44993, Tab 704b (provided to the court as a spreadsheet, sheet 1b, column R, “FPR Find- ings Narrative,” providing analysis under the experience factor). The Army reasonably evaluated the proposal with sufficient information to determine that the relevant affiliate would impact per- formance of each task. See Femme Comp Inc., 83 Fed. Cl. at 747. Vectrus argues that an offeror must show that it will use specific resources from a particular affiliate to receive credit. ECF No. 32 at 19; ECF No. 48 at 2-5. Vectrus again relies on Noblis. ECF No. 32 at 20-22; ECF No. 48 at 2-3. But unlike in Noblis, here, each offeror can show rele- vance of affiliate projects either based on (a) the work it would perform or (b) the resources it would provide in contract performance. AR30385. As just discussed, PAE demonstrated how the past projects relate to the work the affiliates were proposing to perform. PAE did not need to match each specific resource to each specific contract requirement. Vectrus also is concerned that the Army relied upon the same information to meet the gen- eral experience / past performance criteria (found in section M) and condition two of the question and answer. ECF No. 48 at 8-11. Section M establishes size and scope thresholds for past projects. AR34067, AR34076; AR34080. Vectrus argues that the Army’s findings address only section M and not condition two. See ECF No. 48 at 10-11. But the Army may consider the same information more than once when it is relevant on multiple fronts. American Auto Logistics, LP, 117 Fed. Cl. at 186. Vectrus has not shown that the Army acted outside its considerable discretion. 3. Any error in the Army’s evaluation of PAE’s past performance would be harmless Even if the Army erred in its evaluation of PAE’s past performance, any error in that eval- uation would be harmless. The Army documented its overall best-value decision and considered the tradeoffs between proposals. See AR47664-65. The source selection authority, who had the 15 last word in making a best-value determination, stated that even without a past performance rating superior to Vectrus’s, PAE would have received the award because it provided the better value to the government. Id. (“Further, even assuming I did not have more confidence in PAE under the Past Performance Factor as compared to Vectrus, I would still determine the proposal from PAE to be the better value.”); see also AR47651-52 (source selection advisory council stating the same conclusion). “The Court will not disturb a best-value award so long as the agency documents its final award decision and includes the rationale for any business judgments and tradeoffs made.” Afghan American Army Services Corp. v. United States, 90 Fed. Cl. 341, 360 (2009) (quotation marks omitted). Thus, even if PAE’s past projects could not have received credit, the source se- lection authority showed that PAE would nevertheless have received the award. B. The Army reasonably credited PAE for its work on the Guam project Vectrus next argues that the Army unreasonably gave PAE credit for performance of the Guam project. The Guam project was performed by a joint venture called DZSP 21 LLC (DZSP). ECF No. 32 at 29-30; AR43825-26. The solicitation requires that each past project be worth more than $30 million. AR34067. For a past project to be considered “very relevant,” the size of the contract must exceed $40 million. AR34080. Although the DZSP past project was worth more than $40 million (see AR43827), Vectrus argues that PAE’s share of that project was worth less. DZSP began as a joint venture between PAE Aviation and Technical Services LLC and Parsons Government Services Inc. AR43825; ECF No. 32 at 11; ECF No. 41 at 19. PAE later acquired the Parsons interest in DZSP. AR43825. In 2022, Amentum purchased PAE and all PAE affiliated companies, including DZSP. Id. Vectrus argues that because DZSP is a joint venture, the government did not properly assess whether the Guam project met the solicitation’s size require- ment. 16  Vectrus’s argument against the Guam project narrowed as briefing progressed. Vectrus initially disputed the Army’s evaluation of the Guam project’s total value. See ECF No. 32 at 28- 29. After PAE’s response (ECF No. 41 at 22), Vectrus accepted that the total value of the Guam project was estimated at around $53 million (ECF No. 48 at 12). Vectrus now argues that PAE should have received credit for the Guam project only equal to what it performed as part of the joint venture. Id. Vectrus argues that the Army failed to evaluate the value of PAE’s effort within the total effort of the joint venture, in violation of the solicitation. ECF No. 48 at 12; see AR6460 (Q&A 18); AR45020 (Army evaluation listing the Guam project as performed by “Prime/JV, PAE/DZSP 21”). PAE responds that DZSP is owned by PAE’s corporate affiliates and was appropriately cred- ited by the Army as affiliate experience. ECF No. 50 at 11-12. The government agrees that its evaluation appropriately credited the Guam project as affiliate experience because the DZSP joint venture is wholly owned by Amentum. ECF No. 51 at 7. The Army reasonably credited PAE with the Guam project’s entire value. PAE’s proposal established that the DZSP joint venture was fully owned by Amentum (AR43825), and the Guam project was performed by DZSP (AR43742; AR43825). PAE’s proposal described DZSP as “a wholly owned Amentum company.” AR43825. The government reasonably considered the Guam project for its whole value based on PAE’s proposal materials. Vectrus also takes issue with the fact that PAE did not always explicitly state, throughout the record, that the Guam project was affiliate experience. ECF No. 48 at 13. But PAE’s discussion of its experience made clear that it had performed in conjunction with affiliates, even if the exact term “affiliate” was not part of the narrative description. See AR43742 (describing the structure of 17 the DZSP joint venture); AR43825 (describing DZSP as a “now wholly owned Amentum com- pany”). Vectrus argues that the Army must have evaluated the Guam project as joint venture per- formance because the Army listed the project as completed by “Prime/JV, PAE/DZSP 21” on an evaluation page (AR45020). ECF No. 48 at 13. But regardless of how it was evaluated, PAE had informed the Army that Amentum was the owner of the entire joint venture and is entitled to credit for the work of the joint venture. Finally, as already noted (part II.A.3), any error in the Army’s evaluation of PAE’s past projects would be harmless, as the Army’s determination would have been the same even absent PAE’s past project experience. C. The Army reasonably concluded that PAE would meet the solicitation’s language requirements Vectrus next argues that PAE’s proposal was unacceptable because it did not comply with the German language requirement for key personnel. ECF No. 32 at 33; ECF No. 48 at 15-16. PAE’s proposal stated “German N/A” under several candidates for key personnel positions (AR43806-07; AR43810), and PAE represented proposed staff members as “Native English” (AR43660; AR43662). Because those employees were required to have German fluency under the solicitation (AR31723-26; AR45776-78), Vectrus alleges that the Army’s decision awarding PAE the contract was arbitrary and capricious. ECF No. 32 at 35. The government responds that PAE’s proposal conformed to the solicitation’s require- ments and that the language requirement was a post-award matter. ECF No. 43 at 20-22; ECF No. 51 at 10. PAE agrees with the government that the language requirement is a matter of contract administration (ECF No. 50 at 13-14) and adds that its proposal “unequivocally confirmed that it would meet all post-award key personnel qualification requirements” (ECF No. 41 at 27). 18  An agency is entitled to rely on an offeror’s certification that it meets the requirements of a solicitation “in determining whether to accept” a proposal, while the “offeror’s potential failure to comply with the … requirements is ordinarily a matter of contract administration.” Allied Tech- nology Group, Inc. v. United States, 649 F.3d 1320, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (marks omitted). An issue relating to contract administration cannot be the subject of a bid protest. Id.; Brandt Devel- opment v. United States, 177 Fed. Cl. 353, 360 (2025) (“Disputes about contract performance after the close of procurement relate to contract administration, not procurement.”). The solicitation includes a post-award timeline for when the Army would evaluate German language skills. The solicitation states that the “language qualification will not be evaluated and [is] a post-award requirement.” AR33928; AR33941. The contractor is required to provide “ob- jective evidence of key personnel qualifications … no later than (30) calendar days before the contract start date, for review.” AR3060; AR45395 (same). Thus, the Army was not planning to evaluate language requirements during proposal evaluation. Vectrus does not argue that an offeror needed to submit proposed personnel to meet the solicitation’s requirements. ECF No. 48 at 18 (Vectrus “does not contend that the Solicitation re- quired proposals to identify proposed personnel for these positions, nor to affirmatively state their German fluency, to be acceptable.”).3 Instead, Vectrus argues that PAE showed that it would not comply with the requirement or at least was ambiguous about whether it intended to comply. ECF No. 32 at 34-35; ECF No. 48 at 17-19. Although a procurement officer can rely on an offeror’s certification that it will meet proposal requirements, an exception to that rule exists if the proposal, 3 Vectrus’s proposal indicates that it understood that language qualifications were a post-award requirement. Vectrus did not propose personnel at all for the key personnel positions with a Ger- man language requirement. See ECF No. 41 at 22-23 (PAE noting that Vectrus did not include proposed personnel in its proposal). 19 on its face, “should lead an agency to the conclusion that an offeror could not and would not comply” with a solicitation requirement. Allied Technology, 649 F.3d at 1330. The officer should reject the proposal if there is “significant countervailing evidence” that creates “doubt whether the offeror will or can comply” with a solicitation’s requirement. Id. at 1331 (citation omitted). Here, there is no “significant countervailing evidence” suggesting that PAE will not com- ply with the post-award language requirement. See Allied Technology, 649 F.3d at 1331. PAE’s proposal provided ample information for the Army to conclude that PAE would meet the post- award language requirement. PAE noted in its proposal that “[a]ll our personnel are bi-lingual and will be tested during in-phase to document fluency.” AR43659. PAE also committed to Id. The Army reasonably concluded that PAE would comply with the language requirement for key personnel. See Per Aarsleff A/S, 829 F.3d at 1315 (finding that the Air Force did not act arbitrarily when it declined to evaluate a per- formance requirement “as a condition of eligibility” and there was evidence that the offeror in- tended to comply with the performance requirement). Nor was PAE’s proposal inconsistent about its intention to fulfill the German language requirement. I