Patriot First Professional Services, Inc. v. United States

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 25-1037C Filed: September 13, 2026 Redacted Version Issued for Publication: October 3, 20261 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * PATRIOT FIRST PROFESSIONAL * SERVICES, INC., * * Protestor, * * v. * UNITED STATES, * * Defendant. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** J. Taylor Benson, Benson Law Office, PLLC, Colorado Springs, CO, for protestor. Reta E. Bezak, Senior Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant. With her were Steve J. Gillingham, Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Patricia M. McCarthy, Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, and Brett A. Shumate, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division. Of counsel Natica Neely, Trial Attorney, Acting Deputy Chief Counsel for Litigation, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC. OPINION HORN, J. This Opinion follows after numerous protests, corrective actions, amendments, and ultimately a cancellation of a procurement, all of which relate to the same Solicitation No. 36-C-24222-R-0035 (the Solicitation), as issued and amended, and now cancelled by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Protestor, Patriot First Professional Services, Inc. (Patriot First), filed the current bid protest, Case No. 25-1037C after the VA executed a memorandum on March 24, 2025, with the subject: “Cancellation Of 36C24222R0035 [sic] and Re-solicitation for Homeless Veterans Services in New Jersey.” (alteration added) (March 24, 2025 Cancellation memorandum).2 1 This Opinion was issued under seal on September 13, 2026. The parties were asked to propose redactions prior to public release of the Opinion. This Opinion is issued with the some of the redactions that the parties proposed in response to the court’s request. Words which are redacted are reflected with the notation: “[redacted].” 2 The court notes that the date at the beginning of the Cancellation memorandum is listed as “March 21, 2025,” but it was not until three days later, on March 24, 2025, that the  Previously, protestor had filed a pre-award bid protest, Case No. 23-147C, which was assigned to the undersigned, and which was remanded to the VA after the court found the lack of explanation and documentation for a corrective action taken by the VA was arbitrary and capricious. Subsequently, after the remand and further documentation from the VA, protestor filed another bid protest, Case No. 24-1365C, also assigned to the undersigned, and the undersigned found that the VA, again, had not offered a sufficient explanation or documentation for continuing with the Solicitation as issued after the remand. The court issued an injunction prohibiting the agency from proceeding with an award based on the Solicitation. Thereafter, the agency issued the March 24, 2025 Cancellation memorandum and cancelled the Solicitation, which is the basis for protestor’s current bid protest, Case No. 25-1037C. The court notes that after the cancellation, the VA subsequently issued a new solicitation for the same services for homeless veterans, No. 36-C-24226-Q-0118 (the New Solicitation), which the protestor has challenged in a different, pre-award bid protest, Case No. 26-768C, which also was assigned to the undersigned, and which is currently pending, but not the subject of this Opinion. In the current bid protest, Case No. 25-1037C, after the parties briefed cross- motions for judgment on the Administrative Record, and after the parties also briefed protestor’s motion to supplement the Administrative Record, the court held oral argument. FINDINGS OF FACT As indicated, the now cancelled Solicitation at issue has a long history and is the subject of multiple protests, which the court summarizes below. As explained by the agency in the VA’s June 3, 2022 Acquisition Plan for Solicitation No. 36-C-24222-R-0035, the “VA has been providing direct and specialized services to homeless Veterans for nearly 25 years,” and explained that as “part of the plan to end homelessness among Veterans, the VA has utilized Contracted Emergency Residential Services (CERS) programs since 2009.” The June 3, 2022 Acquisition Plan described the CERS program as follows: CERS programs target and prioritize homeless Veterans transitioning from literal street homelessness, Veterans being discharged from institutions (including those in need of medical respite), and Veterans who have recently become homeless. CERS programs, either directly or through linkage with community and other VA services, provide low demand, time- limited services such as supporting mental health stabilization, substance use disorder (SUD) treatment services, enhancement of independent living Cancellation memorandum itself was signed by the Administrative Contracting Officer Danelle Wassink and approved by Jadwiga Kustra, the Supervisory Contracting Officer and Source Selection Authority for the Solicitation Therefore, the court refers to the date the Cancellation memorandum was effective, March 24, 2025 when referring to the Cancellation memorandum in this Opinion. 2  skills, vocational training, and employment services. Emphasis is placed on referral and placement into permanent housing or longer-term residential programs utilizing VA and/or community resources. Lengths of stay in CERS typically range from 90 to 180 days with the option to extend based on clinical need. Since the need for homeless housing and case management services remains ongoing, the resultant contracts will be awarded competitively for one base year with (4) one year options. The June 3, 2022 Acquisition Plan explained that the VA sought to replace expiring contracts in the CERS program for its Hudson Valley Health Care System, New Jersey Health Care System, and New York Harbor Health Care System.3 On July 8, 2022, consistent with the June 3, 2022 Acquisition Plan, the VA issued Solicitation No. 36-C-24222-R-0035, the Solicitation at issue before this court in the pre- award bid protest, Case No. 24-1365C, for its CERS program. The Solicitation provided for fixed price indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contracts, with resulting contracts awarded for one base year with four one-year options. The Solicitation provided the following: GUARANTEED MINIMUM: The Government will order at least $250,000.00 in services during the base year of the contract. (Note: The guaranteed minimum order amount applies to the base year only. Award of the additional option years is not guaranteed nor is there a guaranteed minimum order amount in any given option year that is exercised.) MAXIMUM TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT: The potential aggregate contract total over the term of the entire contract (base year and four option years) is $4,000,000.00. ORDERING PROCEDURES: VA has the sole authority to refer Veterans for care at the contractor’s facility. A task order in the amount of the estimated quantity will be issued for each performance period. At the end of the performance period, if all estimated quantities have not been provided by the vendor, a bilateral modification will be issued to decrease the remaining funds and quantities. AWARD BASED ON INITIAL OFFERS: Offerors are advised of the possibility that award may be made without discussion. Accordingly, offerors are cautioned to submit their initial offers based on their most favorable terms, pricing and technical factors. (capitalization and emphasis in original). 3 Protestor was the incumbent CERS contractor for the New Jersey Health Care System and has continued to perform services under a bridge contract. 3  The Solicitation’s “Performance Work Statement” provided the technical requirements that each offeror was expected to meet. One such technical requirement was the “Place of Performance,” which required: 3. PLACE OF PERFORMANCE: Services shall be provided at the contractor’s facility. Contracts will only be awarded to contractors with active residential treatment facilities. Facilities must be in centralized locations, near public transportation, and near areas that provide employment. One contract will be awarded per location/VAMC [Veterans Affairs Medical Center] catchment area as follows: 3.1. Hudson Valley VA Health Care System: within 35 miles of Peekskill, NY 3.2. VA NY Harbor Health Care System: Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Queens (not Staten Island) 3.3. VA New Jersey Health Care System: Northern or Central New Jersey (capitalization and emphasis in original; alteration added). An additional technical requirement titled: “Contractor Responsibilities” required: 7. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITIES ... 7.2. FACILITY: It is the responsibility of the contractor to properly maintain its facilities. The VA shall have no responsibility for paying or reimbursing the contractor for such expenses. 7.2.1. The contractor’s facility must [provide]: ... 7.2.1.13. Minimum space requirements for each location: 7.2.1.13.1. VA Hudson Valley Health Care System 7.2.1.13.1.1. 10 beds (must be able to accommodate both male and female) 7.2.1.13.2. VA New Jersey Health Care System 7.2.1.13.2.1. 30 beds (male and female separated by floor) 7.2.1.13.3. VA New York Harbor Health Care System 7.2.1.13.3.1. 56 beds comprised as follows: 7.2.1.13.3.1.1. 8 women Veterans 7.2.1.13.3.1.2. 48 male Veterans ... 4  7.3. SPECIAL POPULATION CONSIDERATIONS: The contractor shall not discriminate based on race, color, ethnicity, religion, sex, age, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity/expression, political affiliation, or status as a parent. ... 7.3.12. Reasonable accommodations may include: ... 7.3.12.7. Segregated sleeping where one wing is set aside. (capitalization and emphasis in original; alteration and omissions added). The Solicitation’s “Evaluation Methodology” provided: The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers: Technical Capability (Factor 1) Past Performance (Factor 2) SDVOSB [Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business] /VOSB [Veteran-Owned Small Business] Status (Factor 3) Price (Factor 4) All non-price factors (Factors 1 – 3), when combined, are significantly more important than price (Factor 4). Factors are listed in descending order of importance. Each subfactor is of equal importance. (capitalization in original; alterations added). Additionally, the Solicitation’s “Evaluation Methodology” described the requirements for each evaluation factor. Factor 1, Technical Capability, stated: Subfactor A: Facility 1. Inspection: In accordance with VHA [Veterans Health Administration] Directive 1162.04, initial inspections of all health care for homeless Veterans contract residential services (HCHV CRS) program sites must be conducted before the site is approved by the HCHV National Program 5  Office. All items on the HCHV inspection packet (attachment D.3) will be evaluated. 2. Provide a detailed description of the facility(ies); include its location in the community and proximity to public transportation and VA Medical Centers. 3. Provide a floor plan (and photos if available), reflecting the layout of the facility (including room dimensions); at minimum, identify the following areas: a. Entrances and Exits b. Kitchen c. Dining Area d. Common Areas e. Laundry f. Bedrooms (indicate if they are for men or women) g. Bathrooms (indicate if they are for men or women) h. Isolation/Quarantine Room i. Location of computers for Veteran use j. Location of security and/or cameras, etc. k. Office space for VA liaison l. Office space for Veterans to meet in private with his/her case manager 4. Explain how you will provide safety and privacy for all Veterans (male, female, transgender, etc.). Subfactor B: Experience: Describe your specific experience with working with individuals who are Veterans, homeless, have a history of mental health conditions, substance abuse and/or medical issues. General statements claiming experience working with the homeless that does not include specific references to prior contract work/experience, or that does not include the information required below, are not acceptable. For each contract/experience, the narrative must clearly contain all of the following information: • the legal name of entity with whom the offeror held the contract; • the contract number; • a description of the program the offeror performed under that contract; • the dates during which the offeror performed the contract/work; • the size of the service/program (at minimum, estimated annual number of individuals/bed days of care per year and estimated annual total value); • the name, phone number, and email address of a person at the entity with whom the offeror held the contract who can verify the information the offeror provides in the narrative description for this factor 6  Subfactor C: Key Personnel/Staffing 1. Explain how you will staff the facility/program 24/7. 2. Provide a detailed explanation of your contingency plan for staff vacancies and/or extended staff absences (that exceed one week). 3. Provide a list of the Key Personnel (utilizing attachment D.19[4]) who will be working under the contract. List their position/title, hours, professional background (i.e. résumé), etc. If these are new positions for your organization, provide a detailed explanation of how your will recruit and hire qualified candidates to begin work within 60 calendar days of contract award. Subfactor D: Therapeutic and Rehabilitative Services 1. Provide a list/proposed schedule of the group activities and/or therapeutic programs that will be offered to Veterans. Provide a brief description of each program/activity. 2. Explain how you will engage Veterans and encourage their participation in these programs/services. (emphasis and capitalization in original; footnote and alteration added). Factor 2, Past Performance, stated: The VA shall conduct a performance risk assessment based upon the past performance of the offeror as it relates to the probability of successful accomplishment of the work required by the solicitation. The VA may use information available in its own files, from electronic databases such as the Past Performance Retrieval System (PPIRS), or from any other source it deems appropriate. The Government will consider the offeror’s record for delivery, quality, and proposed major subcontractors or teaming partners as it relates to the probability of successfully performing the solicitation requirements. While the Government may elect to consider data obtained from other sources, the burden of providing current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the offeror. Offeror shall provide a list of references pertaining to contracts of similar size and scope by providing the information outlined in Attachment D.20 of the solicitation. No more than five total relevant contracts (within the past five years) shall be submitted. The VA may contact references and parties other than those identified by the offeror, and information received may be 4 Attachment D.19 is a chart which requested offerors to supply information about key personnel, comprised of “Name,” “Position,” “Hours/Shifts (for this contract),” and “Description of Qualifications and Professional Background.” (capitalization in original). 7  used in the evaluation of the offeror’s past performance. Offerors should not provide general information on their performance on the identified contracts. General performance information will be obtained from the references. If there are no contracts or services agreements fitting the criteria outlined above, the offeror shall provide a statement indicating as such. Past performance information will be reviewed to determine how well the offeror performed work relevant to the type of effort and magnitude described in the performance work statement, and how recent the described experience is. Recent = Performance is occurring presently or has occurred within the last three years. Relevant = Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same, or much of the same, magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. NOTE: A proposal containing no relevant past performance shall have past performance evaluated as “neutral,” in accordance with FAR [Federal Acquisition Regulations] Part 15.305(a)(2). A “neutral” rated proposal may not represent the most advantageous proposal to the Government and thus, may be an unsuccessful proposal when compared to the proposal of other offerors. (capitalization and emphasis in original; alteration added). Factor 3, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business/Veteran-Owned Small Business, stated: (1) For SDVOSBs/VOSBs: In order to receive credit under this Factor, an Offeror shall submit a statement of compliance that it qualifies as a SDVOSB or VOSB in accordance with VAAR 852.215-70 (Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned and Veteran-Owned Small Business Evaluation Factors). Offerors are cautioned that they must be registered and verified in Vendor Information Pages (VIP) database (http://www.VetBiz.gov). (2) For Non SDVOSB/VOSB Offerors Proposing to Subcontract to SDVOSBs/VOSBs: To receive some consideration under this Factor, an Offeror must state in its proposal the names of SDVOSB(s) and/or VOSB(s) with whom it intends to subcontract and provide a brief description and the approximate dollar values of the proposed subcontracts. Additionally, proposed SDVOSB/VOSB subcontractors must be registered and verified in Vendor Information Pages (VIP) database (http://www.VetBiz.gov) in order to receive some consideration under the Veterans Involvement Factor. 8  (3) With regard to the requirements for registration and verification in the VetBiz database, reference VAAR [Veterans Affairs Acquisition Regulation] 804.1103-70 (Vendor Information Pages (VIP) Database). Offeror shall select one item below and provide the required information listed above: (All replies that are not completed will be scored as if N/A were selected): ____ SDVOSB (registered and verified in VIP) ____ VOSB (registered and verified in VIP) ____ Non-Veteran proposing to subcontract with SDVOSB or VOSB (registered and verified in VIP) ____ N/A (capitalization in original; alteration added). The last factor, Factor 4, Cost/Price, stated: Price will not be scored but evaluated or traded against the non-cost factors in order to determine the overall best value to the Government. The Contracting Officer will check all price proposals to ensure that the price schedule was properly completed/formatted in accordance with RFP instructions (see Addendum to FAR 52.212-1). For evaluation purposes, this will be calculated by multiplying the estimated quantity by the proposed unit price for LINs [line-item numbers]. The estimated total for each performance period will then be computed, and then the estimated total for the base and all option periods will be computed and used when determining best value. Award will be made to the offeror that represents the best value to the Government. Price will be evaluated for reasonableness by comparing the proposed price with the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) and the prices received in response to the solicitation, as well as any other method it deems appropriate. The Government may award to a higher priced offeror whose technical proposal and past performance demonstrates a better capability and higher confidence in its ability to successfully perform the contract requirements. (alterations added). Veteran’s Haven North and protestor Patriot First timely submitted proposals for the New Jersey Health Care System contract on August 2, 2022 and August 5, 2022, respectively. On October 27, 2022, Administrative Contracting Officer Heather Schrader,5 sent letters titled: “Request for Final Proposal Revisions (FPR) for 36C24222R0035 [sic]” to both Veteran’s Haven North and Patriot First, stating that “[t]he Government has 5 The court notes that Heather Schraeder is sometimes listed as the “Administrative Contracting Officer” and, at other times, is listed as the “Contract Specialist” in the agency’s documents. 9 completed its initial proposal evaluations and determined that discussions will be held to identify the proposal offering the best value to the Government. You are hereby notified that you are within the competitive range and are given the opportunity to submit a final proposal revision (FPR).” (alterations added). The October 27, 2022 letter sent to Veteran’s Haven North documented the deficiencies that the VA identified in Veteran’s Haven North’s initial proposal: Factor 1: Technical Capability - Subfactor A: Facility • [redacted] Factor 1: Technical Capability – Subfactor C: Key Personnel/Staffing • [redacted] (emphasis and capitalization in original). The October 27, 2022 letter did not identify any other deficiencies in Veteran’s Haven North’s initial proposal, such as location, nearby transportation, or nearby job opportunities. The October 27, 2022 letter sent to Patriot First documented a single deficiency that the VA identified in protestor’s initial proposal: Factor 1: Technical Capability - Subfactor A: Facility • [redacted] (emphasis and capitalization in original). According to the Source Selection Evaluation Board’s October 27, 2022 Memorandum, the VA determined that, despite their deficiencies, both proposals fell within the competitive range and decided to conduct discussions with both offerors: Upon conclusion of the initial technical evaluations, the Government has determined the need to enter into discussions with the offerors (Patriot First Professional Services, Inc. and Veteran’s Haven North, New Jersey Department of Military and Veterans Affairs). In accordance with FAR 15, if discussions are to be conducted, a competitive range must be established. Based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria, the administrative contracting officer has determined that both offerors comprise the most highly rated proposals. Both offerors submitted their final proposal revisions on November 3, 2022. According to the November 18, 2022 “Source Selection Evaluation Board Consensus Memo,” the Source Selection Evaluation Board evaluated the two final proposals, as follows: 10  III. Summary Rating of Final Proposal Revisions (FPR): Based on FPR [Final Proposal Revision] evaluations, the SSEB [Source Selection Evaluation Board] FPR consensus ratings for Factor 1 are shown below: FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL CAPABILITY Subfactor Patriot First Veteran’s Haven North Subfactor A: Facility Satisfactory Satisfactory Subfactor B: Experience Satisfactory Satisfactory Subfactor C: Key Satisfactory Satisfactory Personnel/Staffing Subfactor D: Therapeutic & Satisfactory Satisfactory Rehabilitative Services Overall Rating for Factor 1 Satisfactory Satisfactory Rank 2 1 Patriot First resolved the deficiency for Subfactor A: Facility by [redacted]. Their rating for Subfactor A: Facility increased from “unsatisfactory” to “satisfactory.” As a result of FPR, the overall rating for Patriot First for Factor 1 – Technical Capability increased from “unsatisfactory” to “satisfactory.” Veteran’s Haven North resolved the deficiency for Subfactor A: Facility by [redacted]. As a result, their rating for Subfactor A: Facility increased from “unsatisfactory” to “satisfactory.” The deficiency for Subfactor C: Key Personnel/Staffing was also resolved. [redacted]. As a result, their rating for Subfactor C: Key Personnel/Staffing increased from “unsatisfactory” to “satisfactory.” Both of Veteran’s Haven North’s deficiencies were resolved in FPR. Therefore, the overall rating for Veteran’s Haven North for Factor 1 – Technical Capability increased from “unsatisfactory” to “satisfactory.” (alteration added; capitalization and emphasis in original). Based on the offerors’ final proposals, with their revisions included, the Source Selection Evaluation Board, in the November 18, 2022 “Source Selection Evaluation Board Consensus Memo,” issued the following recommendation: V. Source Selection Recommendation: Both offeror’s [sic] were rated exactly the same with an overall rating of “satisfactory” for Factor 1 – Technical Capability and “satisfactory” for all of the four subfactors. Neither offer had any strengths, weaknesses or deficiencies after FPR. Since both offers were rated exactly the same, the SSEB compared the two offers in an effort to establish a ranking for Factor 1 – Technical Capability. Veteran’s Haven North is a State run [sic], not-for-profit organization, 11  specifically established by the State of New Jersey for homeless Veterans whereas Patriot First is a for-profit small business, owned by a Service Disabled Veteran. The program Superintendent at Veteran’s Haven North is a Veteran and many of the staff who work there are also Veterans. [redacted] Based on the evaluation of Factor 1 described above, the SSEB unanimously recommends that Veteran’s Haven North, New Jersey Department of Military and Veterans Affairs be selected for award under the subject solicitation for the New Jersey VA Health Care System. (capitalization and emphasis in original; alteration added). On November 23, 2022, the VA issued its Source Selection Decision Document, signed by Contracting Officer Allan Preston and Contract Specialist Heather Schraeder awarding the New Jersey Health Care System contract to Veteran’s Haven North. On December 9, 2022, protestor filed a post-award bid protest at the GAO challenging the VA’s evaluation of proposals and award to Veteran’s Haven North under Solicitation No. 36-C-24222-R-0035. On January 9, 2023, the VA sent a document to the GAO titled: “Notice of Corrective Action and Request for Summary Dismissal.” (capitalization in original). The “Notice of Corrective Action and Request for Summary Dismissal” stated, in relevant part: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA or Agency) respectfully requests that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) summarily dismiss the above-referenced post-award protest of Patriot First Professional Services, Inc., (Protester) filed with respect to Solicitation No. 36C24222R0035 [sic] (Solicitation) and the subsequent contract award to Veteran’s Haven North (Awardee) for emergency residential housing and case management services for homeless Veterans supported by the New Jersey VA Medical Center (VAMC). Dismissal of this protest in its entirety is warranted because the Agency is taking corrective action. Protester alleges that the Agency’s evaluation, award decision, and debriefing letter were flawed. Protester’s requested relief is award of the contract to Protester or rejection of all offers and issuance of a new solicitation. After further review, the Agency has determined that corrective action is required. VA will amend the Solicitation to address alleged ambiguities noted in the [GAO] protest, to include separation of beds by gender and clarification of the facility location requirements under Technical Factor 1, Subfactor A; allow offerors to submit revised technical and price proposals; evaluate revised proposals in accordance with the terms of the Solicitation; and, if indicated, make a new award decision. 12 (capitalization in original; alterations added). On January 17, 2023, the GAO dismissed the protest, concluding that “we find that the agency’s proposed corrective action renders the protest academic.” On January 27, 2023, Administrative Contracting Officer Heather Schraeder sent notices to protestor and Veteran’s Haven North via email, stating: As you know, GAO has dismissed Protest B-421321.1 for VA corrective action. Therefore, VA is amending Request for Proposal (RFP) 36C24222R0035 [sic] with Amendment 0006 (attached). As a result, you may revise your technical and price proposals. RFP 36C24222R0035 [sic] Amendment 0006 replaces the performance work statement (PWS). References to the VA Hudson Valley Health Care System and VA New York Harbor Health Care System have been removed. In addition, 3. Place of Performance and 7.2.1.13. Minimum Space Requirements were also revised. RFP 36C24222R0035 [sic] Amendment 0006 also revises E.8 Evaluation – Commercial Products and Services, Factor 1 – Technical Capability. Factor 1 – Technical Capability, Subfactor A: Facility, item #2 was revised to reflect the geographic area of New Jersey. Factor 1 – Technical Capability, Subfactor D: Therapeutic and Rehabilitative Services item #1 was revised to align with 7.1.5.8. of the PWS. RFP 36C24222R0035 [sic] Amendment 0006, boxes 15A, B and C, should be completed by the same official who was authorized to sign the SF 1449 and previous amendments. Offerors must sign Amendment 0006 and complete the Price Schedule of Services (B.2) contained in the amendment (even if you opt to keep your pricing the same as previously proposed). Revised technical and price proposals for RFP 36C24222R0035 [sic] Amendment 0006, should be sent electronically via email to Heather.Schrader@va.gov by 9 AM on Friday, February 3, 2023. Any responses received after the stated due date and time will not be considered in the Government’s evaluation process and you will instead be evaluated and considered based on your previous submission only. If you chose not to submit a revision, please submit a response that your original proposal stands as previously submitted. Please note that RFP 36C24222R0035 [sic] Amendment 0006 still needs to be completed and returned as explained in the paragraph above. Only information submitted in writing will be evaluated and considered in making a source selection decision. The Government intends to make an award decision without obtaining further revisions. 13 (capitalization and emphasis in original; alterations added). Administrative Contracting Officer Heather Schraeder attached Amendment 0006 to the January 27, 2023 notice to offerors. A section of the new Amendment 0006 was titled: “DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION,” and stated: This amendment to the above referenced solicitation applies to the offers already submitted for the VA New Jersey Health Care System only. Section B.2 Schedule of Services is replaced with the attached (beginning on page 2), B.3 Performance Work Statement is replaced with the attached (beginning on page 5) and E.8 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Products and Commercial Services, Factor 1 – Technical Capability (beginning on page 60). All other terms and conditions remain in full force and effect. (capitalization in original). Amendment 0006 changed the Solicitation’s Performance Work Statement at paragraph 3 to state: PLACE OF PERFORMANCE: Services shall be provided at the contractor’s facility located in one of the following New Jersey Counties: Bergen, Elizabeth, Essex, Hudson, Hunterdon, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Ocean, Passaic, Somerset, Sussex, Warren. The facility must already have an active residential treatment program. 3.1. If for any unforeseen circumstances, services are to be moved to alternate locations, the contractor shall contact the Contracting Officer Representative (COR) immediately. Based on the length of time for services being provided at the alternate location, it will be up to the discretion of the Contracting Officer (CO) to determine if a contract modification will be required, which could include a decision to terminate the contract. (capitalization and emphasis in original). Amendment 0006 also changed the Solicitation’s Performance Work Statement at paragraph 7, “CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITIES,” at section 7.2.1.13 to state: “Minimum space requirements: 30 beds separated by gender to ensure safety and privacy (must be able to accommodate both male and female Veterans),” and at section 7.3.12.7 to state: “Segregated sleeping where one portion of the facility is set aside to ensure safety and privacy.” (capitalization and emphasis in original). Initial Bid Protest at the United States Court of Federal Claims (Case No. 23-147C) As described above, on February 3, 2023, Patriot First filed a pre-award bid protest in this court, Case No. 23-147C, which was assigned to the undersigned. In Case No. 23- 147C, protestor challenged the VA’s evaluation of proposals and the agency’s corrective action amending the Performance Work Statement to include Amendment 0006 as arbitrary and capricious, listing three counts. In count one of protestor’s complaint in Case No. 23-147C, protestor alleged that “the agency’s valuation and ranking of bidders’ proposals was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with 14 law.” In count two, protestor alleged that “the agency’s decision to award the contract to VHN [Veteran’s Haven North] was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law.” (alteration added). In count three, protestor alleged that “the agency’s corrective action, issuance of Amendment 0006 to the solicitation and its contents, are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law.” In its motion for judgment on the Administrative Record in the first protest, Case No. 23-147C, protestor created, and included, a side-by-side demonstrative chart of the original Performance Work Statement, issued on July 8, 2022, and the amended Performance Work Statement, issued on January 27, 2023, which included Amendment 0006, as follows: Original Solicitation Amendment 0006 PLACE OF PERFORMANCE: PLACE OF PERFORMANCE: Services shall be provided at the Services shall be provided at the contractor’s facility. Contracts will contractor’s facility located in one of only be awarded to contractors with the following New Jersey Counties: active residential treatment Bergen, Elizabeth, Essex, Hudson, facilities. Facilities must be in Hunterdon, Mercer, Middlesex, centralized locations, near public Monmouth, Morris, Ocean, Passaic, transportation, and near areas that Somerset, Sussex, Warren. The provide employment. One contract facility must already have an active will be awarded per location/VAMC residential treatment program. catchment area as follows: 7.2.1.13. Minimum space 7.2.1.13. Minimum space requirements for each location: requirements: 30 beds separated by […] gender to ensure safety and privacy 7.2.1.13.2. VA New Jersey (must be able to accommodate both Health Care System male and female Veterans). 7.2.1.13.2.1. 30 beds (male and female separated by floor) 7.3.12.7. Segregated sleeping 7.3.12.7. Segregated sleeping where where one wing is set aside. one portion of the facility is set aside to ensure safety and privacy. (capitalization, emphasis, and omission in original). In the earlier pre-award bid protest, Case No. 23-147C, the parties briefed defendant’s partial motion to dismiss pro