Every once and awhile you come across a case and think, the legal field sure can be odd sometimes.
Take DynCorp International, LLC v. United States for example. This case in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found the appellant in the unusual position of arguing the price it offered was so high that it was unreasonable.
DynCorp was trying to take advantage of a rule that requires the government to inform offerors of any significant weaknesses or deficiencies in their proposals when conducting discussions. For that reason, it found itself in the tough position of arguing that its price was so outrageous it was an obvious deficiency or significant weakness in its own proposal. Its the equivalent of going to the teacher and asking for a lower grade. But in this case it made sense because if DynCorp had proposed an unreasonable price, the government would have had to tell it so and it would have had the chance to revise it.
The irony of this position was not lost on the court, which indicated some sympathy for DynCorp noting, “[t]he upshot is that an offeror whose initial proposal is unreasonable price may fare better than one whose isn’t.”
But the lower court had ruled that DynCorp’s price was in the middle—too high for award but not so high as to warrant a significant weakness or deficiency. It was stuck in the Goldilocks zone.
After a lengthy review the Federal Circuit agreed. It held that “DynCorp’s proposed price was high. But it was not unreasonably high for the technical approach it proposed.”
In other words, sorry, Goldilocks.