2012

Linc Government Services, LLC, and J&J Maintenance, Inc. v. United States, No. 12-522 (Dec. 28, 2012) (grants preliminary injunction sought by Linc and remands case to agency for additional investigation or explanation of various aspects of its evaluation)

The Alamo Travel Group, LP v. United States, No. 12-764 C (Dec. 27, 2012) (protest against Government's failure to consider past performance information in evaluation involves untimely challenge to patent error in solicitation)

Dellew Corp. v. United States, No. 12-627 C (Dec. 20, 2012) (denies protest alleging Government made improper in-sourcing decision)

American Apparel, Inc. v. United States, No. 12-293 C (Dec. 14, 2012) (addition of two types of coats to contract for coats was within scope of contract and not subject to CICA's competition requirements)

Systems Application and Technologies, Inc. v. United States, No. 12-526 C (Dec. 10, 2012) (permanent injunction against Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled from placing contract on AbilityOne Procurement List pursuant to Javits-Wagner-O’Day Act, 41 U.S.C. §§ 8501-506 because record did not establish that (i) contract had potential to create jobs for the severely disabled or (ii) contractor had the capability to meet government quality standards and delivery schedules)

Management & Training Corp. v. United States, No. 12-561 C (Dec. 7, 2012) (unsuccessful protest by incumbent large business operator of Dayton Job Corps' center against agency's decision to set-aside next procurement for small businesses)

Kingdomware Technologies, Inc. v. United States, No. 12-173 C (Nov. 27, 2012) (contrary to conclusions reached in several recent GAO protest decisions, Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006 does not require VA first to determine whether procurement can be set aside for VOSBs or SDVOSBs before proceeding with FSS procurement)

FirstLine Transportation Security, Inc. v. United States, No. 12-601 C (Nov. 27, 2012) (preaward protest; solicitation's 40% "goal" for participation of small business in contract resulting from solicitation, while not wise, is not illegal; agency has provided sufficient information in solicitation and elsewhere to permit offerors to compete on informed and equal basis; court "recommends" that agency remove one ambiguity in solicitation)

Reema Consulting Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 12-402 C (Nov. 26, 2012) (unsuccessful protest by one of original competitors of agency's decision to reprocure as a small business set-aside when existing task orders expire after SBA determined that current contractor on 8(a) set-aside procurement was not eligible small business under the applicable NAICS code)

Science Applications International Corp. v. United States, No. 11-690 C  (Nov. 19, 2012) (unsuccessful post-award protest of a plethora of weaknesses in the protester's proposal found by the agency's evaluators)

Res-Care, Inc. v. United States, No. 12-251 C (Nov. 9, 2012) (competition requirements in section 2887 of Workforce Investment Act do not preclude Labor Department from setting aside procurements for small businesses)

J.C.N. Construction, Inc. v. United States, No 12-353 C (Nov. 6, 2012) (successful post-award protest; agency treated offerors unequally where only awardee had information concerning work it had performed on predecessor contract that permitted it to omit that work from its bid on current contract, where fact that other work had already been completed was not apparent to other offerors)

Your Recruiting Company, Inc. v. United States, No. 12-509 C (Oct. 22, 2012) (unsuccessful post-award protest against Contracting Officer's decision to proceed with award despite PIA challenge that certain information regarding staffing plan in awardee's proposal was "stolen" from another protester, where statements  (i) had not been clearly marked as proprietary initially, (ii) involved information that was generally available, and  (iii) were not the source of awardee's high evaluation ratings; and where the awardee stood behind the statements in its proposal)

Laboratory Corp. of America v. United States, No. 12-622 C (Oct. 22, 2012) (orders briefing on issue of spoliation after GSA advised court that it (routinely) did not retain archival copies of E-buy website information needed to address plaintiff's claims regarding required time for receipt of bids)

IHS Global, Inc. v. United States, No. 12-332 C (Oct. 16, 2012) (pre-award protest dismissed  for lack of standing because plaintiff did not establish it was a qualified offeror on the procurement)

Ettifaq-Meliat-Hai-Afghan-Consulting, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-659 C (Oct. 16, 2012) (unsuccessful post-award challenge to nonresponsibility finding and finding of ineligibility under Government's "vendor vetting" procedures in Afghanistan)

Afghan American Army Services Corp. v. United States, No. 11-520 C (Oct. 15, 2012) (successful post-award protest; remands for new responsibility determination because prior determination was based on allegations of forgery on other contracts which Contracting Officer should have investigated further and a referral for debarment which was ultimately dismissed after the nonresponsibility determination). Subsequently, the court published a redacted version of a classified addendum denying the plaintiff's claims that it had been disparately treated from another similarly-situated vendor.

Atlantic Diving Supply, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-894 C (Oct. 11, 2012) (unsuccessful post-award protest against multiple aspects of evaluation and agency's alleged divergence from evaluation procedure described only in internal agency document)

Phoenix Management, Inc. v. United States, No. 12-325 (Oct. 9, 2012) (unsuccessful post-award protest; agency's evaluation of alleged PIA and OCI violations of awardee had rational basis; solicitation did not require that offeror provide commitments from proposed employees to work for it)

Golden Manufacturing Co. v. United States, No. 12-317 C (Oct. 1, 2012) (unsuccessful preaward protest alleging that amendment to solicitation issued after initial evaluation of proposals constituted cardinal change necessitating new competition)

Croman Corp. v. United States, No. 12-75 C (Aug. 29, 2012) (unsuccessful protest that corrective action was inadequate to address alleged errors in original evaluation)

Navarro Research and Engineering, Inc. v. United States, No. 12-61 C (Aug. 17, 2012) (unsuccessful challenge to GAO's prior protest decision; GAO's decision sustaining protest and its recommendation for corrective action were not irrational, and, therefore, agency's actual corrective action plan had rational basis)

Standard Communications, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-530 (Aug. 15, 2012) (denies EAJA application of successful protester  because Government's litigation position was substantially justified, i.e.,, based on reasonable, though erroneous, interpretation of FAR FAR 15.308)

Distributed Solutions, Inc. v. United States, No. 12-274 C (Aug. 10, 2012) (unsuccessful post-award protest against multiple aspects of evaluation; agency's reevaluation of quotations as corrective action following original protest was reasonable; contention that procurement should have been set aside for small business is untimely because not raised prior to submission of proposals)

360Training.com, Inc. v. United States, No. 12-190 C (Aug. 3, 2012) (successful post-award protest; use of undisclosed evaluation factors to disqualify protester; variance of actual evaluation from evaluation scheme describe in solicitation; absence of rationale in record for agency decision)

Omniplex World Services Corp. v. United States, No. 12-249 C (Aug. 1, 2012) (unsuccessful post-award protest; although government letter did not fulfill requirements of FAR 15.307(b) to notify plaintiff that Government was establishing common cutoff date for receipt of final proposal revisions, no prejudice because plaintiff would not have submitted competitive pricing anyway; no lack of meaningful discussions in violation of FAR 15.306(d))

Watterson Construction C o. v. United States, No. 10-587 C (July 31, 2012) (EAJA application denied because Government's position substantially justified)

Glenn Defense Marine (Asia) PTE LTD. v. United States, No. 11-718 C (July 17, 2012) (post-award protest; evaluations of awardee's and protester's past performance had rational basis; tradeoff analysis resulting in award to significantly higher-priced firm with higher past performance rating was justified where past performance was more important than price)

McTECH Corp. v. United States, No. 12-122 C (July 16, 2012) (preaward protest; protester's amended complaint challenging scope of Government's corrective action in response to original protest concerning Government's removal of protester from competition due to potential OCI was not moot because potentially viable relief remained available (i.e., the protester still had argument that corrective action did not go far enough)

CBY Design Builders v. United States, No. 11-740 C  (July 11, 2012) (grants motion to amend protective order to allow counsel for protester and intervenors to retain copies of protected materials against the possibility that new protests of possible additional corrective action or a new award might be filed, in order to avoid having to re-copy and re-distribute the voluminous record again)

BINL, Inc., et al. v. United States, No.12-71 C (June 26, 2012) (successful preaward protest; plaintiff transportation service providers had standing to challenge freight refund terms of annual rate solicitation issued by DoD's Surface Deployment and Distribution Command; challenged freight refund terms violate Carmack Amendment by exceeding its liability limit)

Elmendorf Support Services Joint Venture v. United States, No. 12-346 C (June 22, 2012) (although incumbent contractor had standing to protest, and court had jurisdiction to consider, Government's decision to perform remainder of contract in-house rather than exercising option, plaintiff is not entitled to a preliminary injunction because, (i) even absent in-sourcing decision, Government could have decided not to exercise option, (ii) plaintiff waiting inordinate amount of time to file suit after learning of Government's decision; (iii) plaintiff's allegation of inadequate cost comparison unlikely to succeed on merits)

Admark Korea Limited v. United States, No. 11-778 C (June 11, 2012) (accrual suspension doctrine does not apply and protest is time-barred by six-year statute of limitations where plaintiff waited to protest even though it had grounds to be, and was, suspicious of eventually protested activities years earlier)

Wildflower International, Ltd. v. United States, No. 11-734 C (June 5, 2012) (2012 National Defense Authorization Act's (NDAA) restoration of previous limitations on civilian agency task order protests that had expired under previous sunset provisions does not divest court of jurisdiction of pending protest filed after prior sunset date but before 2012 NDAA; absent FASA limitations on such protests, Tucker Act grants court jurisdiction over protests of task orders; court has jurisdiction over protest of corrective action (termination of convenience of protester's prior delivery order and reissuance of solicitation) as a type of preaward protest; reissuance of amended solicitation to correct ambiguity in original solicitation was reasonable, even if protester's winning price had been disclosed to other offerors as required by FAR)

International Genomics Consortium v. United States, No. 12-047 C  (May 25, 2012) (unsuccessful preaward protest; plaintiff lacks standing to protest agency's decision to assign prime contractor responsibility to procure certain services needed to run agency project; Distributed Solutions distinguished)

CBY Design Builders v. United States, No. 11-740 C (May 11, 2012) (no jurisdiction over protest against corrective action undertaken as a result of prior GAO protest because corrective action is completed and favors the plaintiff, even though results are being protested at agency level; protest against agency's decision to reopen competition as corrective action recommended by GAO is ripe for review without waiting for results of corrective action; court does not defer to GAO on questions of law, e.g., interpretations of solicitation; GAO's interpretation of price evaluation was irrational because it would result in price evaluation that violated CICA requirements; corrective action based on GAO's finding of flawed technical evaluation had a rational basis)

360Training.com, Inc. v. United States, No. 12-197 C (May 12, 2012) (court has 28 U.S.C. 1491(b)(1) jurisdiction over post-award protest involving a "request for application" issued by OSHA under which successful applicants would be awarded nonfinancial cooperative agreements to provide online OSHA Outreach Training Program outreach courses)

Terex Corp. v. United States, No. 11-701 C (May 7, 2012) (while court cannot determine which party interpreted test data correctly, the agency rationally considered it and, therefore, award decision is unobjectionable)

California Industrial Facilities Resources, Inc. v. United States, No. 12-148 C (May 7, 2012) (RFQ for task orders did not exceed scope of underlying contract) 

Distributed Solutions, Inc. and STR, L.L.C. v. United States, No. 06-466 C (May 2, 2012) (agency did not provide rational basis for decision to allow contractor to purchase software rather than proceed with two proposed direct procurements of the software)

California Industrial Facilities Resources, Inc. v. United States, No. 12-148 C (Apr. 30, 2012) (denies Government's motion to strike solicitation document that is not the solicitation being protested from protester's complaint because court will not consider that document anyway and there are other documents in the record that provide the same information)

BayFirst Solutions, LLC v. United States, No. 12-131 C (Apr. 30, 2012) (protester failed to establish cancellation of solicitation was unfair or otherwise objectionable)

Midwest Tube Fabricators, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-553 (Apr. 27, 2012) (grants motion to supplement administrative record by deposing Contracting Officer (and by filing declarations) in simplified acquisition procurement under FAR Part 13 because of gaps in the record attributable to informal procedures used in procurement)

Three S Consulting v. United States, No. 10-583 C (Apr. 27, 2012) (plaintiff lacks standing to challenge original contract award because it was not a qualified offeror; alleged actions of government employee (who was not authorized to enter into government contracts) in facilitating agreements between private parties to complete work on cancelled contract do not confer bid protest jurisdiction on court)

Contracting, Consulting, Engineering, LLC v. United States, No. 12-97 C (Apr. 16, 2012) (successful post-award protest; evaluators improperly filled in required information missing from awardee's proposal by assuming proposed individuals' experience was consistent with evaluators' knowledge of length of typical agency tours of duty)

Triad Logistics Services Corp. v. United States, No. 11-43 C (Apr. 13, 2012) (incumbent contractor lacked standing to challenge DoD's insourcing decision because its contract had been completed before it filed complaint)  

Contract Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 12-49 C (Apr. 13, 2012) (dismisses post-award protest as untimely because protester did not object prior to submitting its proposal to solicitation requirement that it certify it appears on list of HUBZone certified firms at time of proposal submission)

HP Enterprise Services, LLC v. United States, No. 11-888 C (Apr. 5, 2012) (successful post-award protest; agency awarded to other than lowest priced offeror on the basis of unstated evaluation criterion used to disqualify protester's proposal; protester's interpretation of latent solicitation ambiguity was reasonable)

The Electronic On-Ramp, Inc. v. United States, No. 12-22 C (Apr. 2, 2012) (successful pre-award protest against Government's rejection of proposal as late despite the fact that electronic copy had been delivered on time and the only problem with delivery of the hard copy was the Government's delay after the plaintiff's courier made it to the security checkpoint on time)

Clinton Reilly v,. United States, No. 11-788 C  (Apr. 2, 2012) (bid protest filed more than nine months after plaintiff learned of facts forming basis of protest is barred by doctrine of laches)

Guzar Mirbachakot Transportation v. United States, No. 11-519 C (Mar. 29, 2012) (solicitation contained latent ambiguity as to whether submission of proposal electronically in zip files was acceptable; unreasonable for evaluators to refuse to consider proposal sent by zip files sent electronically, especially when procuring agency had waived responsiveness requirements for other offerors)

Mission Essential Personnel, LLC v. United States, No. 12-33 C (Mar. 28, 2012) (no jurisdiction over protest against corrective action undertaken as a result of prior GAO protest because protest filed "in connection with" issuance of a task order under 10 U.S.C. 2304c(e)(1))

InGenesis, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-754 C (Mar. 12, 2012) (upholds Contracting Officer's choice of NAICS code 621111 (Physician's Services) as opposed to 622110 for solicitation)

Boston Harbor Development Partners, LLC v. United States, No. 11-867 C (Mar. 21, 2012) (plaintiff lacks standing to protest that current lease should be terminated to allow agency to complete corrective action in response to prior protest without possible bias towards current awardee in reevaluation)

Contracting Consulting Engineering LLC v. United States, No. 12-97 C (Mar. 19, 2012) (standards for permitting supplementation of administrative record)

Communication Construction Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 10-878 C (Mar. 13, 2012) (requests additional briefing on issue of what type of record and procedural vehicle (motion for summary judgment versus motion for judgment on administrative record) are to be used in 28 U.S.C. 1491(a) bid protests)

Solute Consulting v. United States, No. 12-37 C (Mar. 13, 2012) (lack of jurisdiction over post-award protest of agency's evaluation of task order proposals; rejects protester's definition of "scope" of underlying contract)

Mission Critical Solutions v. United States, No. 09-684 C (Mar. 12, 2012) (denies plaintiff's claim that agency had violated court injunction against contract award because new award was not for the same contract and the Government had a good faith basis interpreting the injunction as applying to the version of the applicable statute in effect at the time of the initial procurement, given significant intervening changes in statute)

Contracting Consulting Engineering LLC v. United States, No. 12-97 C (Mar. 12, 2012) (denies motion for preliminary injunction even though protester raised "troubling" allegations concerning the evaluation of the awardee's and protester's key employees' experience)

Joyce Terry d/b/a Shirt Shack v. United States, No. 09-454 C (Mar. 9, 2012) (dismisses discrimination claim for lack of jurisdiction in CoFC; dismisses promissory estoppel claim because it is based on a contract implied in law, for which Government has not waived sovereign immunity; dismisses breach claims for failure to allege facts that establish breach)

Furniture by Thurston v. United States, No. 11-663 C (Feb. 23, 2012) (although protester won post-award protest because agency had selected offeror whose offer failed to comply with material requirement of solicitation, remedy limited to recovery of bid and proposal costs because contract at issue already had been substantially performed)

GTA Containers, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-606 C (Feb. 22, 2012) (opinion replaces and amplifies prior decision but reaches same result for essentially same reasons)

GTA Containers, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-606 C (Feb. 6, 2012) (successful post-award protest; awardee's submission to SBA for purposes of post-award size determination indicated it did not intend to subcontract with firm it had identified in its bid as a subcontractor, on the basis of which representation the agency had evaluated awardee's past performance)

CRAssociates, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-570 C (Feb. 1, 2012) (denies protester's request for stay pending appeal of court's decision in prior case)

Virgin Islands Paving, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-687 C (Jan. 31, 2012) (successful protest; after having initially analyzed bids and concluding there were no mistakes in eventual awardee's bid, agency lacked rational basis, after award, to reverse its position)

CRAssociates, Inc. v. United States, No. 11- 570 C (Jan. 18, 2012) (denies protest asserting multiple grounds allegedly showing that agency's second evaluation after successful bid protest was mere pretext to justify re-award to original awardee)

URS Federal Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-790 C (Jan. 18, 2012) (denies Government's request to reconsider prior decision declaring agency override of automatic stay improvidently issued; court is not required to use four-factor test for injunctive relief when analyzing merits of automatic override for purposes of issuing declaratory judgment)

Ceradyne, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-725 C (Jan. 17, 2012) (unsuccessful protest; Government's decision to modify one awardee's contract to add items that were supposed to have been produced by another contractor that had defaulted was a type of modification contemplated by the original solicitation, and within the scope of the awardee's contract and was not an improper sole source award in violation of CICA; plaintiff's complaint about Government's alleged failure to conduct proper responsibility determination is dismissed as moot because the same claim was previously settled in a prior GAO bid protest)

BayFirst Solutions, LLC v. United States, No. 11-516 C (Jan. 9, 2012) (successful protest; evaluators (i) irrationally awarded strength to  awardee for inadequate resumes while declining to assign strength to protester for resumes that were deemed adequate; (ii) assessed weaknesses in protester's Transition Plan that were not warranted under solicitation's evaluation criteria; and (iii) treated offerors unequally in Past Performance evaluation.)

Science Applications International Corp. v. United States, No. 11-690 C (Jan. 9, 2012) (plaintiff's complaint sufficient to withstand preliminary motions to dismiss complaint for lack of standing based upon the evaluation of its management proposal as unacceptable)

Brooks Range Contract Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-700 C (Jan. 6, 2012) (plaintiff lacks standing with respect to argument it did not raise in its initial brief and because it did not establish it would have had a substantial chance for award if protest sustained; court rejects objections to awardee's contractor teaming agreement)

2011

URS Federal Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-790 C (Dec. 30, 2011) ("best interests" override of automatic stay pending resolution of GAO protests was improvidently issued because  the agency did not consider (i) any alternatives to the override, such as extending the incumbent's contract temporarily or (ii) the effect of an override on the integrity of the procurement system)

Akal Security, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-562 C (Dec. 29, 2011) (unsuccessful post-award protest; awardee's failure to disclose a government investigation regarding wage payments that subsequently ripened into a civil action was not fatal to Government's responsibility finding because awardee did disclose related class action lawsuit and the size of the undisclosed matter was not great enough to affect financial responsibility; no violation of FAR 15.308 where SSA simply signed CO award recommendation in blank by word "Approved" because no evidence in record SSA did not exercise independent judgment in coming to its conclusion; evaluator's scoring error, even after being corrected, did not change ultimate rankings)

MORI Associates, Inc. v. United States, No. 10-298 C (Dec. 21, 2011) (successful protest; in response to protests at GAO agency improperly canceled solicitation that should have been set aside for small businesses and issued a task order solicitation under FSS)

Orion Technology, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-573 C (Dec. 20, 2011) (dismisses protest for lack of standing because bidder failed to comply with solicitation requirement to submit cost or pricing data for each of its team members)

Joint Venture of Comint Systems Corp., et al. v. United States, Nos. 11-400 C, 11-416 C (Dec. 19, 2011) (protesters lack standing because they did not have a substantial chance of receiving award even if alleged errors in procurement were corrected)

IBM Corp, U.S. Federal v. United States, No. 11-533 C (Dec. 1, 2011) (post-award protest; agency had rational basis for technical, past performance, and price evaluations and did not evaluate offerors on different bases or fail to engage in meaningful discussions)

Orion Technology, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-573 C (Dec. 1, 2011) (rules on various motions to supplement the administrative record; denies plaintiff's motion to supplement record with declaration of expert opining as to the impropriety of the protested procurement action by the Government)

Med Trends, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-712 C  (Nov. 30, 2011) (pre-award protest; waiver of claims against defects apparent on face of solicitation because protest not raised before bids were due; no jurisdiction over protest of SBA suspension (which was not result of protested procurement)

Vanguard Recovery Assistance, Joint Venture v. United States, No. 11-39 C (Nov. 29, 2011) (although agency violated procurement regulations by failing to prepare and obtain past performance information on incumbents, protester did not meet burden of establishing it was prejudiced thereby)

Survival Systems, USA, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-534 C (Nov. 28, 2011) (unsuccessful protest; protester waived argument against technical evaluation by failing to raise it until its reply brief; agency's evaluation of price reasonableness and its evaluation for possible unbalanced pricing were both unobjectionable)

Standard Communications, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-530 C (Nov. 22, 2011) (winning protest; agency did not sufficiently explain or document its rationale in trade-off analysis for selecting lower priced, lower technically rated proposal over higher priced, higher technically rated proposal in solicitation where non price factors were more important than price)

Serco, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-735 C (Nov. 18, 2011) (grants brief TRO to protester/incumbent contractor conditioned on posting of $300,000 bond; with a reasonable chance of success on the merits, balance of equities favors not displacing incumbent for short period required to resolve protest)

Survival Systems, USA, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-534 C (Oct. 28, 2011) (denies Government's motion to supplement administrative record with declaration of individual who conducted price analysis of proposal because information it purports to provide already is in the record)

D&S Consultants, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-446 C (Oct. 28, 2011) (unsuccessful post-award protest; discussions were not misleading, inadequate, or unequal; Government did not add unstated evaluation criterion in analyzing protester's proposal; rational basis for IGCE; rational basis for evaluation of protester's management proposal)

Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, No. 99-400 c/w 01-708 C (Oct. 21, 2010) (award of EAJA fees after partially successful bid protest; various quantum issues--foreign attorneys; travel expenses; COLA adjustment; standards for enhanced award)

NetStar-1 Government Consulting, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-294 C (Oct. 17, 2011) (successful post-award protest; permanent injunction against further performance of contract where the winning contractor had access to proprietary information concerning its competitors' pricing from work on prior contract and where OCI was not adequately mitigated)

U.S. Foodservice, Inc. and Labatt Food Service, L.P. v. United States, No. 11-376 C (Oct 12, 2011) (successful protest against agency's use of Most Favored Customer clause in solicitation)

Seaborn Health Care, Inc.  and Top Echelon Contracting, Inc.  v. United States, Nos. 11-489 C, -500C (Oct. 11, 2011) (dismisses one protest for lack of standing since resolution of protest grounds would not place protester in line for award; denies protests of second protester against solicitation terms and past performance evaluation)

FirstLine Transportation Security, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-375 C (Sep. 27, 2011) (successful protest; agency failed to document price/technical tradeoff; agency failed to evaluate in accordance with required relative weights of technical factors; court orders correction of flaws in solicitation's cost evaluation scheme as part of injunction, even though protester did not file timely objection to that scheme)

Bluestar Energy Services, Inc., d/b/a Bluestar Energy Solutions v. United States , Nos. 11-460 C, 11-461 C (Sep. 22, 2011) (protester that did not qualify as a SDVOSB because it was not directly owned by SDV lacked standing to protest VA set-aside for SDVOSBs, and its complaint that the DLA should not have dissolved a SDVOSB set-aside was moot because it would not be precluded from bidding on the resulting non-set-aside)

East West, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-455 C (Sep. 21, 2011) (denies protester's request to add declaration of one of protester's officers to administrative record but grants alternative request to include it in the court record on the issue of alleged prejudice from the agency's actions)

CW Government Travel, Inc. d/b/a CWTSATOTravel v. United States, No. 11-298 C (Sep. 16, 2011) (pre-award protest; in solicitation for commercial services, GSA’s use of a 15-year fixed pricing schedule violates customary commercial practice and is, in the absence of a valid waiver, arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law)

Med Trends, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-420 (Sep. 13, 2011) (after the expiration of sunset provision in FASA, 41 U.S.C. 4106(f), court has jurisdiction over bid protests of task orders under 28 U.S.C. 1491(b)(1))

Systems Application & Technologies, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-280 C (Aug. 25, 2011) (agency's decision to take corrective action after receiving email from GAO attorney indicating GAO likely would sustain a protest was irrational because, contrary to the statements in the GAO's email, there was nothing wrong with the original source selection decision)

The Tauri Group, LLC v. United States, No. 11-361 C (Aug. 23, 2011) (allows partial supplementation of administrative record (e.g., with evaluator's worksheets) requested by plaintiff and amendment of record requested by agency)

Nilson Van & Storage, Inc. v. United States, No. 10-716 C (Aug. 12, 2011) (unsuccessful protest; awardee was properly registered in government databases at time of award; awardee was not required to possess interstate carrier permits because contract did not require interstate transportation; awardee's change of proposed place of performance before award was unobjectionable because agency verified the new location was acceptable)

Jacobs Technology Inc. v. United States, Nos. 11-180 C, 11-190 C (Aug. 9, 2011) (successful protest; agency required to conduct additional investigation of unequal access to information OCI related to reprocurement)

Joint Venture of Comint Systems Corp. and EyeIT.com, et al. v. United States, Nos. 11-400 C, -416 C (Aug. 8, 2011) (grants motion to file second amended complaint based upon information found in second corrected administrative record)

The Geo Group, Inc.  v. United States, No. 11-490 C (Aug. 9, 2011) (denies TRO application because allegation that protester's former employee gave awardee pirated information does not amount to Procurement Integrity Act violation or organization conflict of interest)

Outdoor Venture Corp. v. United States, No. 11-353 C (July 25, 2011) (unsuccessful post-award protest; awardee of total small-business set-aside contract lacks standing to complain that its contract may be terminated as a result of a post-award SBA determination that it is not a small business)

United Concordia Companies, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-276 C (July 1, 2011) (denies protest against Past Performance evaluation and evaluation of sub-subcontractor efforts)

California Industrial Facilities Resources, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-299 C (July 13,2011) (winning protest; lack of basis for sole-source solicitation; Government intentionally withheld publication of J&A until contract almost performed in order to discourage protests)

Castle-Rose, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-163 C (June 28, 2011) (unsuccessful protest against agency's decision to reject offer as arriving late at government office designated for receipt of offers)  

Jacobs Technology Inc. v. United States, Nos. 11-180 C, -190 C (June 23, 2011) (GAO's decision re defects in procurement (agency's use of unstated evaluation criteria and failure to provide sufficient information for all offerors to compete on fair and equal basis) had rational basis and, therefore, agency was justified in adopting GAO's suggested corrective action)

Gear Wizzard, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-007 C (June 16, 2011) (upholds decision to cancel procurement improvidently issued as a small business set-aside because there was not a reasonable expectation that bids would be received from two small businesses)

Defense Technology, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-111 C (June 14, 2011) (protester entitled to bid and proposal costs where Government improperly canceled solicitation)

Netstar-1 Government Consulting, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-294 C (June 13, 2011) (successful post-award protest; organizational conflict of interest; awardee's work on prior contracts gave it access to plaintiff's proprietary information)

Northeast Military Sales, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-181 C (June 13, 2011) (unsuccessful protest of technical, past performance, and price evaluations)

Jacobs Technology Inc. v. United States, Nos. 11-180 C, -190 C (June 7, 2011) (firm had standing to challenge terms of revised solicitation issued as corrective action in response to same firm's earlier GAO protest)

DOW Electric Inc. v. United States, No. 10-883 C (June 2, 2011) (low bid was properly rejected as nonresponsive because it included items that did not conform to the specification requirements)

Vanguard Recovery Assistance, Joint Venture v. United States, No. 11-39 C (May 27, 2011) (timeliness of court action after reevaluation conducted as a result of GAO recommendation on earlier post-award protest; contents of administrative record before court after prior post-award protest to, and decision by, GAO; standards for permitting plaintiff to depose government official during discovery)

Jacobs Technology Inc. v. United States, No. 11-180 C (May 26, 2011) (court has jurisdiction over an awardee's protest against an agency's decision to follow GAO recommendation to revise a solicitation and allow offerors to submit another round of proposals as a result of a post-award GAO protest)

Hallmark-Phoenix 3 LLC v. United States, No. 11-98 C (May 24, 2011) (under concept of prudential standing, plaintiff was not within zone of interests protected by statutes setting requirements on Government's decision to in-source work and, therefore, lacked standing to challenge Government's decision that it would in-source work rather than exercise next option in plaintiff's contract; decision specifically disagrees with recent decision in Santa Barbara Applied Research, Inc. v. United States, No. (May 4, 2011)

L-3 Communications Corp. v. United States, No. 10-538 C (May 20, 2011) (unsuccessful preaward protest against Egypt's sole source selection of contractor to provide flight simulators under FMS agreement)

Tech Systems, Inc. v. United States, No. 10-877 C (May 11, 2011) (unsuccessful protest against technical, past performance, and price evaluations; complaints about entries on individual evaluators' worksheets are immaterial where such evaluation was to be by consensus and SSA then exercised its own independent judgment in adopting the consensus evaluation)

Northeast Military Sales, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-181 C (May 11, 2011) (denies motion to intervene filed almost two months after original protest and less than 48 hours before final oral arguments were scheduled)

Northeast Military Sales, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-181 C (May 6, 2011) (grants motion to supplement administrative record with items the solicitation indicated the Government should have examined in evaluating proposals)

Santa Barbara Applied Research, Inc. v. United States, No. (May 4, 2011) (contractor has standing to challenge Government's decision to in-source work previously performed by contractor, but Government's decision had a rational basis)

Patriot Taxiway Industries, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-124 C (May 4, 2011) (unsuccessful post-award protest; past performance evaluation was sufficiently documented and reasonable; discussions were meaningful; awardee's price reasonableness evaluation had rational basis)

Mori Assocs., Inc. v. United States, No. 10-298 C (May 2, 2011) (grants motion to supplement administrative record)

RCD Cleaning Service, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-89 C (Apr. 13, 2011) (denies pre-award protest by firm eliminated from HUBZone program by SBA (and subsequently removed from a competition) after it failed to provide sufficient evidence requested by SBA regarding location of its principal office)

RCD Cleaning Service, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-13 C (Apr. 13, 2011) (denies post-award protest by firm eliminated from HUBZone program by SBA (whose contract was subsequently canceled after it failed to provide sufficient evidence requested by SBA regarding location of its principal office) 

Glen  Defense Marine (Asia), PTE LTD v. United States, No. 10-844 C (Apr. 8, 2011) (unsuccessful pre-award protest that information in solicitation was not sufficient for bidders' to price (or agency to evaluate) price proposals intelligently)

The Huntsville Times Co. v. United States, No. 10-812 C (Mar. 31, 2011) (successful post-award protest; multiple and extensive flaws in the procurement and the evaluation)

Watterson Construction Co. v. United States, No. 10-587 C (Mar. 29, 2011) (successful protest; bidder was improperly eliminated from competition when email flood backed up the Government's servers and was responsible for late delivery of emailed bid)

Ceres Environmental Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 09-886 C (Mar. 28, 2011) (unsuccessful post-award protest against price realism analysis even though acceptability of the analysis was a close call) 

ICP Northwest, LLC v. United States, No. 10-869 C (Mar, 28, 2011) (denies protest against Forest Service solicitation to establish BPAs)

Crewzers Fire Crew Transport, Inc. v. United States, No. 10-819 C (Mar. 18, 2011) (unsuccessful pre-award protest raising various challenges to Forest Service's nationwide procurement for establishment of regionally based BPAs)

RN Expertise, Inc. v. United States, No. 09-673 C (Mar. 11, 2011) (plaintiff failed to prove that modification substantially changed the types of services the contractor was required to perform, and potential offerors would not have reasonably expected such a mod; therefore, mod was not beyond the scope of the original contract and did not violate CICA)

Tech Systems, Inc. v. United States, No. 10-877 C (Mar. 9, 2011) (standards permitting supplementation of record with affidavits from plaintiff's personnel)

K-LAK Corp. v. United States, No. 09-771 C (Mar. 9, 2011) (nothing improper in purchasing under FSS order items that had been purchased under small business set-aside in the past)

Mission Critical Solutions v. United States, No. 10-810 C (March 8, 2010) (to obtain HUBZone contract, firm must meet 35% employee residency threshold both at time of initial offer and at time of contract award)

Glenn Defense Marine (Asia) PTE, LTD v. United States, No. 10-852 C (Mar. 1, 2011) (denies post-award protest against split awards because the solicitation included FAR 52.212-1(h), which permitted multiple awards)

DGR Associates, Inc. v. United States,  No. 10-396 C (Feb. 15, 2011) (plaintiff entitled to EAJA award after successful bid protest, including COLA on statutory cap on attorneys' fees)

Digitalis Education Solutions, Inc. v. United States, No. 10-855 (Feb. 11, 2011) (protester is not interested party and lacks standing because it cannot establish prejudice (despite numerous flaws in the procurement) because it submitted neither a timely expression of interest to the agency nor a timely protest to the court)

Commissioning Solutions Global, LLC v. United States, No. 10-249 C (Feb. 7, 2011) (given court's required deference to agency's decision-making process, agency's failure, despite some efforts, to locate all past performance information in its files concerning the protester's past work did not vitiate its conclusion that the awardee had more relevant, highly rated experience)

Acrow Corp. of America v. United States, No. 10-682 C (Feb. 2, 2011) (denies injunction pending appeal of prior adverse decision on protest)

L-3 Communications Integrated Systems, L.P. v. United States, No. 06-396 C (Feb. 2, 2011) (on reconsideration, notes four documents that are not required to be included among documents supplementing the administrative record)

Fulcra Worldwide, LLC v. United States, No. 10-725 C (Jan. 31, 2011) (unsuccessful post-award protest; agency's vague statement that work under contract resulting from solicitation would be "largely similar" to work currently being performed by protester under bridge contract does not invalidate agency's award to protested firm at much lower price than that proposed by protester; awardee did not engage in prohibited bait and switch re key personnel)

Resource Conservation Group, LLC v. United States, No. 08-768 C (Jan. 11,2011) (unsuccessful post award protest; Government properly rejected as nonresponsive a bid that proposed a use for leased property (sand and gravel mining) that violated a federal statute and associated regulations; bidder was charged with notice of those provisions even though they were not cited in the solicitation)

Acrow Corp. of America v. United States, No. 10-682 C (Jan. 7, 2011) (unsuccessful post-award protest; Contracting Officer did not rely on misstatements in bidder's submissions in making responsibility determination and conducted a sufficiently thorough investigation even though she did not review every possible document on the subject)

Google, Inc. v. United States, No. 10-743 C (Jan. 4, 2011) (Determination and Findings purporting to justify noncompetitive award was deficient both ith regard to its contents and to the officials who approved it)

2010

Bannum, Inc. v. United States, No. 10-479C (Dec. 28, 2010) (denies protest based on alleged errors in evaluation of successful offeror's proposal and protester's (i) technical/management proposal; (ii) most recent past performance information; and (iii) experience as the incumbent)

Acrow Corp. of America v. United States, No.  10-682C (Dec. 17, 2010) (standards for permitting supplementation of administrative record)

Joyce Terry d/b/a Shirt Shack v. United States, No. 09-454C (Dec. 15, 2010) (denies protester's motion to supplement administrative record)

Joyce Terry d/b/a Shirt Shack v. United States, No. 09-454C (Dec. 15, 2010) (court has 28 U.S.C. 1491(a)(1) jurisdiction over protest that AAFES arbitrarily and capriciously by awarding concessionaire contract despite awardee's alleged failure to comply with solicitation requirement, even though it does not have 1491(b) jurisdiction over AAFES procurements)

Harris Patriot Healthcare Solutions, LLC v. United States, No. 10-708C (Dec. 14, 2010) (override of CICA stay; mootness after agency decides to take corrective action)

PlanetSpace, Inc. v. United States, No. 09-476C (Dec. 14, 2010) (unsuccessful post-award protest; SSA's declaration demonstrated adequate trade-off analysis that did not amount to non-responsibility determination concerning protester's proposal) 

Pyramid Real Estate Services, LLC v. United States, No. 10-599C (Dec. 9, 2010) (court assesses monetary sanctions against attorney for disclosing material under protective order)

Bona Fide Conglomerate, Inc. v. United States, No. 10-726C (Dec. 2, 2010) (successful post-award request for TRO; procurement by GSA and Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled pursuant to the AbilityOne Program, formerly known as the Javits-Wagner-O’Day Act; failure to follow evaluation scheme; required bond for entering TRO)

Matt Martin Real Estate Management LLC v. United States, No. 10-675C (Dec. 2, 2010) (unsuccessful post-award protest; agency had rational basis for giving all five proposals an overall rating of "Good" after analyzing the ratings under each individual evaluation factor even though offerors' individual ratings were not identical)

Bilfinger Berger AG Sede Secondaria Italiana v. United States, No. 10-480C (Nov. 19, 2010) (successful protest based on agency's inappropriate reliance on Italian legal opinion as basis for negative responsibility determination)

Mobile Medical International Corp. v. United States, No. 10-148C (Nov. 16, 2010) (unsuccessful post-award protest; plaintiff lacks standing because it did not establish it would have had a substantial chance for award if its protest were sustained; plaintiff's information was not improperly disclosed because plaintiff, itself, had already disclosed it to the public)

Linc Government Services, LLC v. United States, No. 10-375C (Nov 5, 2010) (denies protest against multiple facets of evaluation; discussion of showing of prejudice required in any protest)

The Sheridan Corp. v. United States, No. 10-547C (Nov. 5, 2010) (successful protest; permanently enjoins Government from resoliciting proposals where such action not required as corrective action)

Linc Government Services, LLC v. United States, No. 10-375C (Nov 3, 2010) (denies plaintiff's request to supplement administrative record with, inter alia, unauthenticated table of past performance information)

EREH Phase I, LLC v. United States, No. 10-560C (Nov. 3, 2010) (successful post-award protest; GSA's finding that property offered by awardee did not lie within a flood plain was arbitrary and capricious; equities do not favor injunction; protester limited to recovering bid preparation costs)

Pyramid Real Estate Services, LLC v. United States, No. 10-599C (Nov. 1, 2010) (failure to timely protest solicitation terms and alleged ambiguities; court will not substitute its judgment for those of the evaluators; failure to meet high burden of proof to establish bias by evaluators)

Angelika Textile Services, Inc.  v. United States, No. 10-496C (Oct. 26, 2010) (successful protest; Contracting Officer, in violation of the Veterans Benefits Act and its implementing regulations (the New Guidelines), did not consider whether SDVOSBs or VOSBs were available to meet a requirement prior to placing a firm on the AbilityOne Procurement List so that she could award it a sole source contract)

Weston Solutions, Inc. v. United States, No. 10-511C (Oct. 25, 2010) (agency ordered to review and clarify its ambiguous rankings and then to make a new determination of rankings on the record)

CRAssociates, Inc. v. United States, No. 10-339C (Oct. 20, 2010) (successful post-award protest against aspects of price, technical, and past performance evaluations)

PMTech, Inc. v. United States, No. 10-458C (Oct. 20, 2010) (denies plaintiff's challenge to Government's override of automatic stay)

DCS Corp. v. United States, No. 10-535C (Oct. 5, 2010) (unsuccessful post-award protest challenging Past Performance evaluation of awardee)

Vero Technical Support, Inc. v. United States, No. 10-575C (Sep. 29, 2010) (28 U.S.C. 1500; definition of "pending" in context of deciding jurisdiction over a bid protest in the Court of Federal Claims in light of a prior suit dismissed, but still within the appeal period, in federal district court)

Turner Construction Co. v. United States, No. (Sep. 23, 2010) (denies stay of injunction issued in prior case pending intervenor's appeal of injunction to Federal Circuit)

Infiniti Information Solutions, LLC v. United States, No. 09-750C (Sep. 17, 2010) (EAJA; government contract law is not a legal specialty justifying legal fees above statutory cap; COLA adjustment; cost of FedEx delivery to interested party)

CS-360, LLC v. United States, No. 10-457C (Sep. 16, 2010) (plaintiff lacks standing, and court is divested of jurisdiction, because agency has determined it is not an SDVOSB as required by solicitation at issue)

Chenega Management, LLC. v. United States, No. 10-221C (Sep. 14, 2010) (court rejects allegations that evaluators were biased, evaluated offers unequally, were unqualified, and accepted an illegal gratuity)

The Sheridan Corp. v. United States, No. 10-547C (Sep. 13, 2010) (agency's proposed corrective action of soliciting revised proposals was unnecessary because its needs had not changed and damaged protester because its prices had already been exposed)

Madison Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 09-675C (Sep. 13, 2010) (denies motions for post-judgment relief from prior adverse decision)

Ceres Gulf, Inc. v. United States, No. 10-319C (Sep. 7, 2010) (Army's decision to take corrective action in response to GAO protest (by rescinding original award, revising solicitation to correct errors in the original, and then soliciting another round of offers) was reasonable)

Homesource Real Estate Asset Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 10-416C (Aug. 25, 2010) (post-award protest; lack of prejudice and, therefore, standing; contract interpretation; technical and past performance evaluations)

L-3 Communications Integrated Systems, L.P. v. United States, No. 06-396C (Aug. 23, 2010) (Federal Circuit's recent decision in Resource Conservation Group did not "preclude a plaintiff either from claiming a breach of the implied contract of fair dealing in a bid protest or from relying on [28 U.S.C.] § 1491(a) as a predicate for jurisdiction in a bid protest involving a procurement)

Pitney-Bowes Government Solutions, Inc. v. United States, No. 10-257C (Aug. 19, 2010) (protester did not establish bias from agency official's past friendly relationship with awardee; evaluators could use their personal knowledge of contractor's past performance in making evaluation; recovery of improperly destroyed evaluation materials from back-up tapes was sufficient to overcome allegation of spoliation)

Navarro Research and Engineering, Inc. v. United States, No. 10-481 (Aug. 16, 2010) (41 U.S.C. 253j(d)'s requirement for a post-award debriefing (and other enhanced competition procedures) on large task order contract solicitations does not apply to GSA FSS solicitations)

DGR Associates, Inc. v. United States, No. 10-396C (Aug. 13, 2010) (successful protest; in conducting procurement (and making award) as an 8(a) set-aside, agency failed to follow statutory requirement to give preference to HUBZone firms when there is a reasonable likelihood two or more such firms would submit offers and award could be made at a fair and reasonable price) 

FAS Support Services, LLC v. United States, No. 10-289C (Aug. 4, 2010) (Government did not have to re-admit company to competition after the firm had been suspended because its 49% owner was de-barred but then had been removed from the suspension list after it divested itself of that firm)

Gonzalez-McCaulley Investment Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 09-641C (Aug. 3, 2010) (grants contractor leave to amend defective complaint, which had not alleged required elements for either a CDA claim or a bid protest)

Infiniti Information Solutions, LLC v. United States, No. 09-750C (July 29, 2010) (denies government motion for relief from the prior decision sustaining a bid protest and directing the Government to set-aside an improper contract award)

Diversified Maintenance Systems, Inc. v. United States, No. 09-883C (July 28, 2010) (protest of award on HUBZone set-aside; standards for allowing discovery in bid protest; allows limited discovery on issue whether awardee qualified as a HUBZone business)

Turner Construction Co. v. United States, No. 10-195C (July 16, 2010) (organization conflict of interest; agency decision to follow irrational GAO decision was, itself, irrational)

Coastal International Security, Inc. v. United States, No. 09-667C (July 14, 2010) (denies protest against agency's use of allegedly improper staffing benchmark as opposed to an independent government estimate of its staffing requirements; source selection decision and trade-off analysis had rational basis and SSA was not bound to follow details of source evaluation board's conclusions)

Magnum Opus Technologies, Inc., et al. v. United States, Nos. 10-106C, 10-127C (July 14, 2010) (denies protester's motion to amend tailored injunctive relieve fashioned by court in prior decision)

Allied Technology Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 10-120C (July 2, 2010) (FSS procurement; lack of prejudice; protester would not have been in line for award even if its price had been evaluated in the way it wishes; rational basis for agency's best value tradeoff analysis)

Pitney Bowes Government Solutions v. United States, No. 10-257C  (June 4, 2010) (allows supplementation of administrative record by limited additional discovery because protester established indicia of bias by head of TEP and because of improper destruction of individual TEP evaluators' worksheets)

Assessment and Training Solutions Consultant Corp. v. United States, No. 10-201C (June 2, 2010) (basis for setting aside procurement for 8(a) firms; propriety of market survey; allegations of agency's violations of Procurement Integrity Act by releasing information re incumbent contractor's employees)

Magnum Opus Technologies, Inc, et al. v. United States, Nos. 10-106C, 10-127C (May 28, 2010) (successful protest that court has bid protest jurisdiction to hear protest that decision to exercise options in only four of six ID/IQ contracts violated CICA and FAR 17.207(f) (which confers a cause of action upon potential competitors) because, by eliminating the contract's NTE pricing from the option awards, the options as exercised were not evaluated as part of the original evaluation, and, therefore, the Government should have obtained competition for the option years; standing of firm to proceed with protest absent its joint venture partner; timeliness and waiver issues; tailored injunction; cardinal change)

USfalcon, Inc. v. United States, No. 09-602C (May 21, 2010) (post-award protest; agency's decision to eliminate firm from competitive range had a rational basis after finding firm's response to sample task unacceptable; court's deference to agency's technical evaluation)

Technical Innovation, Inc. v. United States, No. (May 18, 2010) (original awardee cannot complain about agency's decision to take corrective action in response to protest of another firm because that protest is moot)

Benefits Consulting Associates, LLC v. United States, No. (May 14, 2010) (post-award protest; agency did not engage in misleading discussion with protester)

Electronic Data Systems, LLC v. United States, No. 09-857C (May 13, 2010) (protester not prejudiced by agency's error in failing to amend solicitation to allow pricing structure proposed by successful offeror)

ManTech, Inc. v. United States, Nos. 09-804C, 09-805C (Apr. 29, 2010) (rational bases for excluding protesters' proposals from competitive range; acceptable methods for analyzing price realism: standard deviation analysis)

Hyperion, Inc. v. United States, No. 09-758C (Apr. 29, 2010) (rational bases for exclusion of protester's proposal from competitive range)

PlanetSpace, Inc. v. United States, No. 09476C (Apr. 26, 2010) (remands case to agency to require SSA to articulate trade-off analysis)

Shamrock Foods Co. v. United States, No. 10-109C (Apr. 22, 2010) (lack of standing of non-bidder to protest)

Jones Automation, Inc. v. United States, No. 10-174C (Apr. 22, 2010) (court lacks jurisdiction over protest that bridge contract should be extended, especially absent any showing that the plaintiff will be excluded from the follow-on competition)

Infiniti Information Solutions, LLC v. United States, No. 09-750C Apr. 9, 2010 (2010) (improper direct 8(a) award by procuring agency (HUD) because it initially announced solicitation as service-disabled veteran-owned small business set-aside and then went beyond market assessment to actually evaluating technical proposals before making the direct 8(a) award)

Allied Technology Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 10-120C (April 2, 2010) (denies motions by protester and intervenor to supplement the administrative record with affidavits essentially arguing the case and not available to the Contracting Officer at the time the selection decision was made)

Eskridge Research Corp. v. United States, No. 10-50C (Mar. 26, 2010) (timeliness; mootness; balancing of hardships in considering injunction relief)

Madison Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 09-675C (Mar. 23, 2010) (agency's cancellation of solicitation had rational basis; protester did not establish cancellation was a pretext or was made in bad faith)

DataMill, Inc. v. United States, No. 09-872C (Mar. 23, 2010) (Under FASA, court lacks jurisdiction over protest against agency's decision to conduct noncompetitive, sole source procurement via a delivery order)

DataMill, Inc. v. United States, No. 09-872C (Mar. 23, 2010) (discovery issues; motion to supplement the administrative record denied; affidavit not in the administrative record is stricken as largely irrelevant or repetitive of evidence in the record)

Mission Critical Solutions v. United States, No. 09-864C (Mar. 2, 2010) (successful protest; sole source and HUBZone issues)

White Hawk Group, Inc., et al. v. United States, No. 09-374C (Feb. 25, 2010) (lack of standing to pursue protest because evaluation scores were so inferior that any alleged errors in regard to small business joint venture or size status were irrelevant and nonprejudicial)

L-3 Communications Integrated Systems, L.P., v. United States, No. 06-396C (Feb. 16, 2010) (motion to supplement administrative record granted in part)

Esterhill Boat Service Corp. v. United States, No. 09-735C (Jan. 28, 2010) (post-award protest; claim that solicitation requirement unduly restricted competition was untimely because it was not raised before offers were submitted)

K-Mar Industries, Inc. v. United States, No. 08-877C (Jan. 26, 2010) (agency did not act irrationally in giving awardee's staffing plan a technically-acceptable rating, despite offeror's contention it mis-classified workers in violation of Service Contract Act because offeror did not manifest an affirmative intention not to be bound by that Act and the specific evaluation promoted by the protester was not in the solicitation evaluation plan)

DMS All-Star Joint Venture v. United States, No. 09-737C (Jan. 26, 2010) (price discussions with offerors were fair and were not unequal)

Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Foundation, Inc. v. United States, no. 09-568C (Jan. 11, 2010) (various requests for documents to supplement administrative record; request to bifurcate proceedings; protest of solicitation to replace existing trustee)

Madison Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 09-675C (Jan. 7, 2010) (standing to challenge agency's decision to cancel solicitation after plaintiff was originally determined to be successful offeror)

2009

Government Technical Services LLC., v. United States, No. 09-030L (Dec. 29, 2009) (post-award bid protest; Government's failure to exercise option under ID/IQ contract does not establish bid protest jurisdiction in Court of Federal Claims)

GCC Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, No. 09-465C (Dec. 23, 2009) (evaluation; right of evaluation to include information outside four corners of proposals)

Unisys Corp. v. United States, No. 09-800C (Dec. 18, 2009) (applicability of CICA automatic stay provisions to GAO protests of TSA procurements)

Bannum, Inc. v. United States, No. 09-546C (Dec. 15, 2009) (protester's disagreement with various technical and past performance ratings by the evaluators is not sufficient to sustain protest)

Structural Associates, Inc./Comfort Systems USA (Syracuse) Joint Venture v. United States, No. 09-372C (Dec. 3, 2009) (post-award bid protest; evaluation of past relevant experience; court's deference to agency's evaluation)

Alatech Healthcare, L.L.C. v. United States, No. 09-332C (Dec. 1, 2009) (pursuant to the standards in the CAFC's decision in Distributed Solutions, the agency's involvement in a procurement by its prime contractor was sufficient to give the court bid protest jurisdiction; interpretation of word "feasible" in statute giving preference to domestic corporations in contracts for condoms)

Medical Development International, Inc. Government Healthcare Services v. United States, No. 09-502C (Nov. 18, 2009) (standing to file pre-award protest of exclusion from competitive range)

PlanetSpace, Inc. v. United States, No. 09-476C (Nov. 10, 2009) (evidentiary record in bid protest; scope of admissible declarations; supplementing administrative record)

Phillip Ozdemir v. United States, No. 09-432C (Nov. 9, 2009) (court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1491(b)(1) to hear protest that agency of DOE refused to accept plaintiff's concepts paper for consideration after having solicited such papers)

The Analysis Group, LLC v. United States, No. 09-542C (Nov. 5, 2009) (denies contractor's motion to reinstate automatic stay after agency's override determination during pendancy of GAO protest)

Afghan American Army Services Corp. v. United States, No. 09-388C (Nov. 4, 2009) (post-award bid protest of multiple award ID/IQ contract; improper price realism evaluation; award to offeror who failed to meet material solicitation requirement; award of bid preparation and proposal costs even though injunction is denied)

Totolo/King Joint Venture v. United States, No. 09-104C (Oct. 20, 2009) (denies motion for reconsideration of original decision)

Camden Shipping Corp. v. United States, No. 09-600 (Oct. 15, 2009) (pre-award protest; limitation of acceptance period; revival of expired offer)

Kerr Contractors, Inc. v. United States, No. 09-523C (Oct. 13, 2009) (post-award protest; meaningful discussion; unequal discussions; supplementation of the administrative record; "de minimis" errors by agency do not justify judicial relief)

Bannum, Inc. v. United States, No. 09-546C (Oct. 13, 2009) (allows supplementation of administrative record with documents related to termination of another contract because they are relevant to issues raised re propriety of evaluation in post-award bid protest)

Taylor Consultants, Inc. v. United States, No. 09-305C (Sep. 30, 2009) (lack of standing to protest)

PAI Corp. v. United States, No. 09-411C (Sep. 17, 2009) (post-award protest; rejects protester's allegations regarding organizational conflicts of interests by incumbent contractors competing on the solicitation; Government's evaluation of subcontractors under the "Experience" factor; and cost realism evaluation)

Unisys Corp. v. United States, No. 09-271C (Sep, 17, 2009) (untimely protest against defective solicitation provision; discussions with only one offeror on FSS solicitation for BPA; management and technical evaluations) 

Information Sciences Corp. v. United States, No. 07-744C (Sept. 2, 2009) (motion for reconsideration; EAJA award; recovery of fees associated with preparing request for recovery of fees and other filings)

NEQ, LLC v. United States, No. 09-125C (Aug. 10, 2009) (upholds agency evaluation against various challenges)

Texas Bio- and Agro-Defense Consortium v. United States, No. 09-255C (July 30, 2009) (post-award protest dismissed as not ripe because site selection has not been finalized)

Global Computer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, No. 08-133C (July 28, 2009) (clarifies original decision by eliminating requirement that Government reprocure using "fair and open" competition)

Global Computer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, No. 08-133C (July 24, 2009) (contract work was outside the scope of contract and should have been competed rather than added to the contract by modification)

Global Computer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, No. 08-133C (July 22, 2009) (bid protest; standards for allowing supplementation of the administrative record; hearsay and lay opinion issues)

Red River Holdings, LLC v. United States, No. 09-185C (July 17, 2009) (successful post-award protest; bid protest of proposed contract that involved maritime matters was not subject to exclusive admiralty jurisdiction of district court; recovery of both equitable relief and proposal costs; improper evaluation)

Ashbritt, Inc. v. United States, No. 08-473C (July 9, 2009) (court clarifies meaning of term "reprocure" in its original decision)

L-3 Communications EOTech, Inc. v. United States, No. 08-911C (July 8, 2009) (standards for permitting supplementation of the administrative record; standards for reviewing elimination of protester from competitive range leaving only one competitor in competitive range)

Ashbritt, Inc. v. United States, No. 08-473C (June 25, 2009) (grants post-award protester's motion for declaratory judgment and permanent injunction based on a multitude of errors in pricing evaluation and unequal treatment of offerors during discussion)

Academy Facilities Management, Inc. v. United States, No. 09-302C (June 17, 2009) (post-award protest; no improper use of unstated evaluation criteria; advisory opinion from GAO)

Gear Wizzard, Inc. v. United States, No. 09-366C (June 16, 2009) (post-award protest; denies preliminary injunction, but agency agrees to continue trying to qualify plaintiff's product)

Totolo/King/A Joint Venture v. United States, No. 09-104C (June 15, 2009) (reasonableness of agency's sources sought procedures and decision to issue solicitation as unrestricted instead of set-aside for SDVOSB set-aside)

Akal Security, Inc. v. United States, No. 09-326C (June 10, 2009) (past performance evaluations; denies motion for preliminary injunction; appropriateness of parties' suggested redactions)

ViroMed Laboratories, Inc. v. United States, Nos. 09-60C, 09-323C (June 8, 2009)(denies plaintiff's motion for civil contempt over Government's issuance of bridge contract to competitor; denies motion for preliminary injunction)

Rhinocorps v. United States, No. 08-410C (June 4, 2009) (denies protest; Government's finding that there was not a likelihood that two small businesses could compete for its requirement was rational)

Datapath, Inc. v. United States, No. 09-188 (May 29, 2009) (dismisses protest in public interest)

Rhinocorps v. United States, No. 08-410C (May 15, 2009) (corrected version of April 7, 2009 decision below granting TRO and preliminary injunction)

Rhinocorps v. United States, No. 08-410C (May 15, 2009) (corrected version of January 28, 2009 opinion on Government's motion to dismiss protest of timing and adequacy decision not to re-compete small business set-aside)

Holloway & Co., PLLC. v. United States, No. 09-53C (May 14, 2009) (post-award protest; Contracting Officer's evaluation conclusions differing from those of the evaluation panels; cost-reasonableness versus cost realism analyses; procedures for evaluations of Federal Supply Service competitions; performance risk assessment)

Klinge Corp. v. United States, No. 08-551C (Apr. 27, 2009) (denies plaintiff's motion to reconsider prior decision against issuing injunction; denies government motion to reconsider decision awarding bid preparation costs)

Savantage Financial Services, Inc. v. United States, Nos. 08-21C, 09-113C (Apr. 22, 2009) (motion by contractor for sanctions and an injunction against the Government for allegedly ignoring and violating the court's earlier injunction against proceeding with a sole-source contract to Oracle)

Blackwater Lodge & Training Center, Inc. v. United States, No. 08-905C (Apr. 17, 2009) (post-award protest; scope of court review of agency's technical and past performance evaluations as well as its trade-off analysis)

Rhinocorps LTD Co. v. United States, No. 08-410C (Apr. 7, 2009) (grants TRO and preliminary injunction against government evaluation of the offer received in response to a solicitation issued in the face of a pending protest against use of full and open competition instead of extending a small business set-aside)

Planetspace, Inc. v. United States, No. 09-0099C (Apr. 2, 2009) (upholds agency override of automatic stay in GAO bid protest)

Resource Conservation Group, LLP v. United States Dept. of the Navy, No. 08-768C (Mar. 31, 2009) (dismisses complaint because government action complained of occurred under the APA and did not give rise to a bid protest)

Information Sciences Corp. v. United States, No. 07-744C (Mar. 31, 2009) (Equal Access to Justice Act; attorneys' fees; apportionment; various categories of recoverable fees and expenses of attorneys, paralegals, and expert witnesses)

Datapath, Inc. v. United States, No. (Mar. 30, 2009) (grants TRO against contract award because J&A was inadequate; government appeared to have contributed to delay causing emergency need for items; government delayed making administrative record available for review by protester; and cognizance of President Obama's memorandum of Mar4 to executive agencies re government contracting)

NEQ, LLC v. United States, No. 09-125C (Mar. 25, 2009) (post-award protest; court refuses to supplement administrative record with information not considered by agency in its original award decision)

Al Andalus General Contracts Co. v. United States, No. 08-599C (Mar., 11, 2009) (deference shown by courts to Government's evaluations; Government reasonably downgraded evaluation because of offeror's failure to provide required information; Government's waiver of page limit requirement for successful offeror was not objectionable because the Government waived it for all offerors)

FFTF Restoration Co. v. United States, No. 07-659C (Mar. 2, 2009) (Government's decision to cancel a small-business set-aside procurement in favor of continuing with large business incumbent was not a pretext to avoid contracting with small businesses but was supported by the record, carefully considered, and justified that there would not be enough work remaining to justify the new contract)

SP Systems, Inc. v. United States, No. 08-853C (Feb. 24, 2009) (agency's decision to follow GAO's recommendation for corrective action after successful protest there was not irrational and its subsequent decision to award the contract to the original GAO protester is upheld; past performance evaluation; cost realism evaluation; evaluation of management plan)

L-3 Communications EOTech, Inc. v. United States, No. 08-871C (Feb. 18, 2009) (post-award protest; Government did not violate law in awarding sole-source bridge contract to protester's competitor because protester's product was not "type classified")

Carahsoft Technology Corp. v. United States, No. 08-646C (Feb. 12, 2009) (post-award protest; terms of bridge contract were explicitly excluded from (and not incorporated by law in) follow-on contract; choice of lower-priced among technically-equal proposals was reasonable)

Software Engineering Services Corp. v. United States, No. 08-795C (Feb. 5, 2009) (poor relationships between the protester's personnel and one of the technical evaluators in the distant past not sufficient to establish evaluation bias in current procurement; court will not substitute its judgment for technical evaluators' judgment; protesters' current performance cannot overcome weaknesses in its technical proposal)

Alabama Aircraft Industries, Inc. - Birmingham v. United States, No. 08-470C Feb. 3, 2009) (awards plaintiff more than $1,000,000 in bid and proposal costs as a result of its earlier, successful protest)

WRS Infrastructure & Environment, Inc. v. United States, No. 08-613C (Jan. 30, 2009) (size status protest; letter of intent was agreement in principle to purchase firm for purposes of determining affiliation and size)

Rhinocorps Ltd. Co. v. United States, No. 08-410C (Jan. 28, 2009) (timing and adequacy of Government's determination and finding supporting decision not to re-compete a small business, set-aside contract in favor of adding work to large business concern's ongoing contract)

2008

Information Sciences Corp. v. United States, No. 08-304C (Dec. 30, 2008) (dismisses claim for various costs of pursuing prior solicitations after Government (under court order) scrapped those solicitations and instead used a sole source vehicle to award to its contractor-of-choice, but notes plaintiff may refile proper claim for bid and proposal costs)

Wackenhut Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 08-660C (Dec. 15, 2008) (improper technical and price evaluations; influence of source selection authority on source evaluation board; lack of documentation of any trade-off analysis by source selection authority)

L-3 Communications Integrated Systems, L.P. v. United States, No. 06-396C (Dec. 5, 2008) (denies government motion to dismiss for (i) lack of jurisdiction, (ii) violation of Anti-Assignment Act, and (iii) lack of standing; ability of bidder's successor-in-interest by operation of law to pursue bid protest) 

Lumetra v. United States, No. 08-663C (Nov. 19, 2008) (past performance evaluation; non-prejudicial failure by Government to permit protester to comment on negative performance evaluation; cost evaluation; cost-realism evaluation; unequal discussions; unequal access to information)

DCMS-ISA, Inc., et al v. United States, No. 08-456C (Nov. 14, 2008) (upholds cancellation of SDVOSB set-aside because no offeror possessed requisite past performance experience; referral to SBA for responsibility determination is not required)

Labatt Food Service, Inc. v. United States, No.  08-597C (Oct. 30, 2008) (voids award where Government accepted emailed proposal revisions in violation of solicitation's instructions)

E-Management Consultants, Inc. v. United States, No. 08-680C (Oct. 14, 2008) (voids override of automatic stay issued during pendancy of GAO protest because agency failed to consider impact of the stay on the procurement system and included an inadequate cost-benefit analysis which did not establish that serious consequences would befall the agency in the absence of the override)

Watts-Healy Tibbitts a JV v. United States, No. 08-261C (Oct. 14, 2008) (Navy's new responsibility determination in compliance with court's preliminary injunction is not arbitrary or capricious; foreign bid rigging)

Access Systems, Inc. v. United States, No. (Oct. 10, 2008) (award of 120-day bridge contract to incumbent during pendancy of GAO protest does not constitute override of automatic stay of protested procurement)

Alabama Aircraft Industries, Inc.--Birmingham v. United States, No. 08-470C (Oct. 8, 2008) (successful post-award protest; flawed price realism evaluation; past performance; organizational conflicts of interest)

Klinge Corp. v. United States, No. 08-551C (Sep. 30, 2008) (alleged bad faith in canceling procurement; balancing test for issuing injunction; award of proposal costs in absence of successful request for injunction)

Femme Comp Inc. et al v. United States, Nos. 08-409C et al (Sep. 30, 2008) (evaluation: improper conversion of best-value trade-off analysis to technically acceptable, low-price award decisions)

Precision Lift, Inc. v. United States , No. 08-500C (Sep. 24, 2008) (definition of commercial items; sufficiency of information submitted with offer)

L 3 Communications EOTech, Inc. v. United States, No. 08-515C (Sep. 23, 2008) (relaxation of solicitation requirements for only one offeror; creation of a competitive range of, and further discussions with, only one offeror; unequal treatment of offerors; waiver of a mandatory solicitation requirement for only one offeror; failure to follow evaluation system identified in solicitation; failure by the Government to seek clarification of protester's proposal)

Dionyx, L.P. v. United States, No. 08-458C (Sep. 15, 2008) (standing issues in connection with a negotiated procurement; the concepts of responsiveness and noncompliance in a negotiated procurement)

Career Training Concepts, Inc. v. United States, No. 08-450C (Sep. 9, 2008) (post-award protest; late proposals; protester's unsuccessful argument that agency's email extending date for receipt of proposals was ineffective because it was not a formal solicitation amendment; discussions versus clarifications; FSS solicitations versus negotiated procurements)

L-3 Global Communications Solutions, Inc. v. United States, No. 08-101C (Aug. 15, 2008) (responsiveness; proposal complies in all material respects with solicitation's requirements; post-award discussions; bait and switch)

Tyler Constr. Group v. United States, No. 08-94C (Aug. 14, 2008) (use of ID/IQ contracts for construction services permissible under FAR 1.102(d); bundling permissible for construction work under 15 U.S.C. 631 (j); 10 U.S.C. 2382(a))

The CNA Corp. v. United States, No. 07-858C (Aug. 6, 2008) (claim for bid and proposal costs)

Watts-Healy Tibbitts, a J.V.  v. United States, No. 08-216C (Aug. 5, 2008) (modification of earlier injunctive order; denial of request for stay to allow appeal) 

American Contractors Indemnity Co. v. United States, No. 07-374C (Aug. 4, 2008) (bid bond; adequacy of pleading; motion for reconsideration denied)

Tip Top Construction, Inc.  v. United States, No. 08-352C (Aug. 1, 2008) (post award protest; defective bid bond; substitution of assets; responsibility determination)

Alabama Aircraft Industries Inc. - Birmingham v. United States, No. 08-470C (July 31, 2008) (discovery issues; supplementation of the record; records included in prior GAO protest; attorney-client privilege; work product doctrine;  records related to past civil and criminal proceedings against awardee as they relate to agency's evaluation of past performance)

Watts-Healy Tibbitts a J.V.  v. United States, No. 08-216C (July 23, 2008) (on reconsideration, granting limited preliminary injunction against further contract performance; business integrity; responsibility determinations)

Tin Mills Properties, LLC v. United States, No. 08-375C (July 15, 2008) (rejection of offer deviating materially from solicitation requirements)

Sealift, Inc. v. United States, No. 07-627 (July 11, 2008) (post-award protest; various modifications and wavers did not alter the scope of the contact or deviate materially from the solicitation's requirements)

Axiom Resource Management, Inc.v. United States, No. 07-532C  (July 7,  2008)(organizational conflicts of interest; denies Government's motion to stay prior order not to exercise contract option) 

Omega World Travel, Inc. v. United States, No. 08-118C (July 3, 2008) (post-award protest; Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act limits protest to the scope of task orders under ID/IQ contract; Procurement Integrity Act; no violation of Act by release of personnel information after award of disputed task order)

Dairyland Power Cooperative v. United States, No. 04-106C (July 2, 2008) (Standard Contract for disposal of spent nuclear fuel)

Klinge Corp. v. United States, No. 08-134C (June 10, 2008) (successful post-award protest; award in violation of Trade Agreements Act; substantial transformation)

EOD Technology, Inc. v. United States, No. 08-283C (May 15, 2008)(post-award protest; court upholds Army's override of automatic stay re protest against sole source award)

Allied Materials & Equipment Co. v. United States, No. 08-151C (May 13, 2008) (post-award protest; no prejudice absent a showing that protester would have had a substantial chance for award if the defect in the solicitation were cured).

Watts-Healy Tibbitts a JV v. United States, No. 08-261C (May 2, 2008) (post- award protest; American Preference Policy; joint venture between American an foreign firm; DFARS 253.236=7010)

The CNA Corp. v. United States, No. 08-249C (Apr. 30, 2008)(pre-award protest; post emplyment conflicts of interest; unreasonable agency decision to exclude bidder on basis of agency ethics opinion under 18 U.S.C. 207(a)(1))

Savantage Financial Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 08-21C (Apr. 15, 2008)(successful protest against sole source justification; scope of federal "procurement"; jurisdiction; standing)

Infrastructure Defense Technologies, LLC v. United States, No. 07-582C (Apr. 7, 2008) (Competition in Contracting Act; sole source justification; patents; bridge contract; standing; failure of protester to submit timely offer)

The Chapman Law Firm Co. v. United States, No. 08-39C (Apr. 2, 2008) (Competition in Contracting Act; cardinal changes)

OSG Product Tankers LLC v. United States, No. 07-561C (Mar. 19, 2008) (standing; responsibility)

Information Sciences Corp. v. United States, No. 07-744 (Mar. 18, 2008) (successful post-award protest; inadequate agency response to earlier protest)

Serco, Inc. et al. v. United States, Nos. 07-691C, 07-741C, 07-747C, 07-760C, 07-761C, 07-766C, 07-771C, and 07-803C (Mar. 5, 2008) (post-award bid protest; faulty past performance and trade/off analyses)

Information Sciences Corp. v. United States, No. 07-744C (Mar. 4, 2008) (post-award protest; motion to amend complaint to cover post-award agency action inconsistent with the solicitation in violation of  Competition in Contracting Act)

Axiom Resource Management, Inc. v. United States, No. 07-532C (Feb. 26, 2008) (organizational conflicts of interest; mitigation plan; court monitoring of compliance; injunction against exercising options).

Biltmore Forest Broadcasting FM, Inc. v. United States, No. 07-316C (Jan. 25, 2008) (subject matter jurisdiction; claim preclusion; res judicata)

International Management Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 07-831C (Jan. 9., 2008) (post-award protest; standing; justiciability; size determinations)

Ezenia!, Inc. v. United States, No. 07-759C (Jan. 4, 2008) (procurement decision is not a procurement; jurisdiction; standing)

2007

Precision Images, LLC v. United States, No. 07-712 (Dec. 20, 2007) (no substantial chance for award)

Knowledge Connections, Inc. v. United States, No. 06-786C (Dec. 19, 2007) (immaterial errors in procurement)

The Centech Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 07-513C (Dec. 13, 2007) (bid and proposal costs)

Benchmade Knife Co. v. United States, No. 07-593C (Dec. 10, 2007) (untimely challenge to solicitation terms)

Masai Technologies Corp. v. United States, No. 07-714C (Nov. 29, 2007) (post-award protest; interpretation of solicitation's terms; refusal to accept late modification of offer; price evaluation)

Eracent, Inc. v. United States, No. 07-724 (Nov. 26, 2007) (post-award bid protest; objection to delivery order under FSS contract by non-FSS supplier; standing)

L-3 Communications Integrated Systems, , L.P. v. United States, No. 06-396C (Nov. 26, 2007) (post-award bid protest; statute of limitations; allegations sufficient to support cause of action)

Emerald Coast Finest Produce Co. v. United States, No. 06-742C (Nov. 26, 2007) (post-award bid protest; capacity to sue; loss of standing after sale of protester's assets) 

Forest City Military Communities, LLC v. United Stated, No. 07-546 (Nov. 16, 2007) (post-award bid protest; best value judgments; past performance evaluation)

John C. Frazier, III, et al v. United States, No. 07-636C (Nov. 7, 2007) (pre-award protest; Bureau of Reclamation concession contracts; claims of unequal treatment of bidder by incumbent based on prospectus issued with new solicitation)

Westech International, Inc. v. United States, No.07-186C (Nov. 6, 2007) (post-award protest; standard for proving prejudicial error in evaluation) 

Weeks Marine, Inc. v. United States, No. 07-700C (Nov. 6, 2007) (successful pre-award protest against use of a multi-year ID/IQ contract)

The Ravens Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 07-243C (Oct. 31, 2007) (motion for Rule 11 sanctions).

Aeolus Systems, LLC, v. United States, No. 07-581C (Oct. 31, 2007) (pre-award protest; SBA; qualification as HUB Zone business)

Geo-Seis Helicopters, Inc. v. United States, No. 07-155C (Oct. 31, 2007) (post-award protest; EAJA; bid and proposal costs)

Information Sciences Corp. and Gallagher, Hudson, Hudson, and Hunsberger, Inc. v. United States, No. 05-1342C (Oct. 25, 2007) (post-award protest; EAJA fee application by intervenor) 

Manson Constr. Co. v. United States, No. 07-694C  (Oct. 19, 2007) (post-award protest; evaluation; insufficiently detailed proposal)

HWA, Inc. v. United States, No. 07-615C (Oct. 16, 2007) (post-award protest; equal treatment of offerors; non-prejudicial error in evaluation)

McKing Consulting Corp. v. United States, No. 07-17C (Oct. 12, 2007) (pre-award protest; Procurement Integrity Act; discussions) 

CWT/Alexander Travel, Ltd. v. United States, No. 07-612C (Oct. 2, 2007) (post-award bid protest; CICA; cardinal change) 

The Centech Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 07-513C (Oct. 1, 2007) (leave to file amended complaint) 

Axiom Resource Management, Inc. v. United States, No. 07-532C (Sept. 28, 2007) (post-award protest; conflicts of interest; insider information; unfair competitive advantage) 

The Centech Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 07-513C (Sept. 27, 2007) (pre-award protest challenging agency's decision to cancel contract award and continue solicitation based on GAO recommendation)

Ironclad/EEI, JV v. United States, No. 07-280C (Sept. 26, 2007) (post-award protest; standing; timeliness; size status)

Data Management Services JV v. United States, No. 07-597C (Sept. 24, 2007) (post-award protest of FSS task order)

Erinys Iraq Ltd. v. United States, No. 07-562C (Sept. 14, 2007) (pre-award protest; competitive range determination; costs and cost realism)

R&D Dynamics Corp. v. United States, No. 07-90 (Sept. 12, 2007) (post-award protest?; court allows supplementation of administrative record; challenge to SBIR Phase II program is not to a procurement; therefore, no protest jurisdiction)

Che Consulting, Inc. v. United States, No. 07-55C (Sept. 12, 2007) (pre-award protest; court allows agency to supplement administrative record to support its position; challenge to merger of services)

Superior Helicopter LLC and Ranier Heli-Lift, Inc. v. United States, Nos. 07-518C, 07-519C (Aug. 30, 2007) (post-award protest; automatic stay)

Brian X. Scott v. United States, No. 07-216C (Aug. 23, 2007) (standing to bring pre-award protest)

Grunley Walsh International LLC v. United States, No. 07-492 (Aug. 13, 2007) (pre-award protest; bidder qualification list--overturns GAO)

Shirlington Limousine & Transportation, Inc. v. United States, No. 07-220C (Aug. 9, 2007) (timeliness of pre-bid protest)

Geo-Seis Helicopters, Inc. v. United States, No. 07-155C (July 30, 2007) (post-award protest; rejection of late proposal)

Moore's Cafeteria Services d/b/a/ MCS Management v. United States, No. 07-377C (July 13, 2007) (post award protest; independent government estimate; price reasonableness) 

ARINC Eng'g Services., LLC v. United States, No  07-73C (June 28, 2007) (post-award protest; organizational conflicts of interest) 

Shirlington Limousine & Transportation, Inc. v. United States, No 07-220C (June 27, 2007) (late bid--delivered to wrong location)

Southern Foods, Inc. v. United States, No. 07-210C (June 21, 2007) (post-award protest; Tucker Act jurisdiction; non-appropriated fund activity)

Heritage of America, LLC v. United States, No. 07-150C (reissued May 31, 2007) (successful post-award protest; solicitation inherently unclear; injunction against exercising options beyond the base year)

Knowledge Connections, Inc. v. United States, No. 06-786C (May 30, 2007) (interim attorneys' fees under EAJA)

Dyncorp Int'l LLC v. United States, No. 07-84C  (May 24, 2007) (post-award protest; technical evaluation; discussions)

Distributed Solutions, Inc. and STR, L.L.C v. United States, No. 06-466C (May 22, 2007)(post-award protest; no jurisdiction because protest involves awards of subcontracts, despite significant agency participation in the process)

Emerald Coast Finest Produce Co. v. United States, No. 06-742C (May 22, 2007)(post-award  protest; denies motion to amend complaint to allege post-award improprieties by contractor)

Circle Line--Statue of Liberty Ferry, Inc., No. 07-237C (May 14, 2007)(pre-award protest; no implied right of preference to contract renewal)   

Knowledge Connections Travel, Inc. v. United States, No. 06-786C  (Apr.  3, 2007)(pre-award protest converted to post-award protest: evaluation methodology)

Protection Strategies Inc. v. United States, No. 07-125C (Apr. 2, 2007)(post-award protest: standards for examining motion for preliminary injunction; evidence outside administrative record)

Management Solutions & Systems, Inc. v. United States, No. 07-07C (Mar. 30, 2007)(post-award  protest against agency's decision to override automatic stay of protest against out of scope modification in 8(a) contract)      

Information Sciences Corp. v. United States, No. 05-1342C (Feb. 26, 2007) (successful post-award  protest; Government's motion for reconsideration)

Emerald Coast Finest Produce Co., Inc. v. United States, No. 06-742C (Feb. 22, 2007) (post-award  protest; evaluation at variance with solicitation requirements)

Hamilton Sundstrand Power Systems v. United States, No. 06-874C (Feb. 21, 2007) (post-award  protest; level of detail in proposal; adequacy of discussions)

Rebecca Ryan d/b/a Flyaway Farms and Kennels v. United States, No. 05-1218C (Feb. 9, 2007) (post-award protest against awardee's HUB Zone status; definition of "prevailing party" for purposes of EAJA recovery)

Dismas Charities, Inc. v. United States, No. 06-825C (Feb. 7, 2007) (post-award protest; protester not interested party because it failed to submit final offer that complied with solicitation's requirements)

Chant Eng'g Co., Inc. v. United States, No. 06-282C  (Feb. 7, 2007) (post-award protest; standing to protest)

Beta Analytics International, Inc. v. United States, No. 04-556C (Jan. 31, 2007) (post-award protest; protest costs: staff costs for proposal preparation; consultant costs; publishing support costs)

2006

Maden Tech Consulting, Inc. v. United States, No. 06-585C (Dec. 29, 2006) (post-award protest; agency's decision to override automatic stay)

Che Consulting, Inc. v. United States, No. 06-453C (Dec. 15, 2006) (undue restriction on competition; agency's minimum needs)

Advanced Systems Technology, Inc. v. United States, No. 05-1167C (Dec. 8, 2006) (pre-award protest; recovery of fees under Equal Access to Justice Act; prevailing party)

Diversified Maintenance Systems, Inc. v. United States, No. 06-706C (Dec. 4, 2006) (post-award bid protest; failure of Contracting Officer to refer question of HUBZone status to SBA)

IDEA International, Inc., v. United States, Nos. 06-652C, 06-717C (Dec. 1, 2006) (post-award protest; task order award outside scope of FSS contract)

210 Earll, L.L.C., v. United states, No. 06-360C (Nov. 21, 2006) (standing to protest; failure of agency to document analysis of non-price evaluation factors)

Emerald Coast Finest Produce Co., Inc. v. United States, No. 06-74C (Nov. 21, 2006) (grants awardee's motion to intervene in protest)

Galen Medical Associates, Inc. v. United States, No. 05-755C (Nov. 20, 2006) (post-award protest; protester lacks standing; lack of prejudice)

Data Monitor Systems, Inc. v. United States, No. 06-471C (Nov. 20, 2006) (lack of bid protest jurisdiction to enjoin contract termination and resolicitation)

Textron, Inc. v. United States, Nos. 06-517C, -523C (Nov. 17, 2006) (errors in procurement process were not prejudicial to protester)

OTI America, Inc. v. United States, No. 06-571C (Nov. 8, 2006) (evaluation; Contracting Officer's exercise of independent judgment in making selection decision)

Northrop Grumman Information Technology, Inc. v. United States, No. 06-607C (Nov. 7, 2006) (A-76 cost comparison; motion to intervene to protect trade secrets)

Automation Technologies, Inc. v. United States, No. 06-694C (Oct. 27, 2006) (current holder of ID/IQ contract was not prejudiced by, and, therefore, lacks standing to challenge award of second ID/IQ contract)

Reilly's Wholesale Produce, Inc. v. United States, No. 06-668C (Oct. 26, 2006) (agency's override of temporary stay not justified)

Alion Science & Technology Corp. v. United States, No. 06-682C (Oct. 23, 2006) (agency's response to GAO recommendation to address potential OCIs was reasonable; balance of interests does not favor injunctive relief)

NVT Technologies, Inc. v. United States, No. 06-122C (Oct. 18, 2006) (post-award protest; ambiguity in proposal; lack of prejudice to protester)

Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, Nos. 99-400C c/w 01-708C (Sep. 29, 2006) (post-award protest; EAJA; failure to file request for fees in timely manner)

SecureNet Co., Ltd. v. United States, No. 06-564C (Sep. 27, 2006) (post-award protest; price realism versus price reasonableness; fair and equal discussions; chance to modify proposal)

Magic Brite janitorial v. United States, No. 05-1380C (Sep. 25, 2006) (lack of standing of incumbent to challenge government decision to award contract for option period to another firm; small business and 8(a) eligibility issues)

Interspiro, Inc., et al. v. United States, No. 06-425C (Sep. 25, 2006) (losing protest against evaluation)

Microdyne Outsourcing, Inc., a subsidiary of L-3 Communications Corp. v. United States, No. 06-498C (Sep. 25, 2006) (undisclosed evaluation criteria; evaluation of staffing)

Automation Technologies, Inc. v. United States, No. 06-599C (Sep. 21, 2006) (overturns agency override of automatic stay)

Information Sciences Corp. v. United States, No. 05-1342C (Sep. 19, 2006) (grants injunction in post-award protest because GSA violated FAR 15.306(c) and15.308; failure to consider price in establishing competitive range; failure of source selection official to exercise independent judgment)

KSD, Inc. v. United States, No. 05-1229C (Aug. 23, 2006) (lack of data rights as viable justification for sole source award)

Microdyne Outsourcing, Inc., a subsidiary of L-3 Communications Corp. v. United States, No. 06-498C (Aug. 11, 2006) (standing to protest; requirements to prove procurement official's conflict of interest)

Advanced Systems Development, Inc. v. United States, No. 06-484C (July 28, 2006) (post-award protest; determination to override CICA's automatic stay lacked a rational basis)

Fort Carson Support Services and The Ginn Group, Inc. v. United States, Nos. 05-674C, 05-715C (July 26, 2006) (post-award protest; evaluation; discussions; court will not substitute its judgment for that of the evaluators)

Rotech Healthcare Inc. v. United States, No. 06-303C (July 24, 2006) (successful pre-award protest against small business set-aside award of supply contracts to firms who propose to supply items manufactured by large businesses in violation of the SBA's non-manufacturer rule) 

Kola Nut Travel, Inc. v. United States, No. 05-1027C (July 19, 2006) (standing to challenge settlement agreement in case involving challenge to small business size status)

Chapman Law Firm Co. v. United States, No. 06-473C (July 17, 2006) (no jurisdiction over claim pending in another court; claim precluded by res judicata)

Cygnus Corp. v. United States, No. 05-1313C (July 13, 2006) (upholds agency decision to cancel solicitation)

Che Consulting, Inc. v. United States, No. 06-453C (June 28, 2006) (right of interested party to intervene in protest)

Rebecca Ryan d/b/a Flyaway Farm and Kennels v. United States, No. 05-1218C (June 20, 2006) (dismisses original action as mooted by agency's corrective action; dismisses claim for EAJA award as not ripe because application for EAJA fees has not yet been filed)

Aeroplate Corp. v. United States, No. 05-736C (June 14, 2006) (bid in excess of surety bond; protester did not act with "unclean hands")

Chapman Law Firm Co. v. United States, No. 06-330C (June 7, 2006) (Government's proposed corrective action lacks rational basis; therefore, Government's motion to dismiss protest to permit implementation of corrective action is denied)

Comprehensive Health Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 05-1186C (May 31, 2006) (post-award protest; NASA did not breach covenant of good faith, honest consideration, and fair dealing; presumption of regularity in actions of government agents; rational basis for evaluation)

PHT Supply Corp. v. United States, No. 05-1312C (May 26, 2006) (post-award protest denied; protester lacks standing to object that Government failed to address mistake in awardee's offer; meaningful discussions; evaluation)

Precision Standard, Inc. v. United States, No. 05-1125C (May 2,2006) (denies motion for reconsideration because it raises arguments that could have been, but were not, raised originally)

Rig Masters, Inc. v. United States, No 05-1277C (Apr. 14, 2006) (post-award protest; discretion to hold discussions when solicitation indicates Government intends to make award without them; evaluation was neither arbitrary nor capricious)

United Enterprise & Associates v. United States, No. 05-607C (Mar. 21, 2006) (denies protest; whether Certificate of Competency review is required in sole source 8(a) procurement)

Avtel Services, Inc. v. United States, Nos. 04-1574C, 05-582C (Mar. 17, 2006) (denies pre- and post-award protests; alleged bias; alleged faulty price analysis; disqualification of offeror)

University Fidelity LP v. United States, No. 05-602C (Mar. 13, 2006) (application for fees and costs under EAJA)

Cigna Government Services, LLC v. United States, No. 06-108C (Mar. 10, 2006) (sets aside agency's override of automatic stay as arbitrary and capricious)

Systems Plus, Inc. v. United States, No. 05-1219C (Feb. 28, 2006) (lack of prejudice; alleged errors in pricing evaluation would not have resulted in award to plaintiff even if corrected)

Precision Standard, Inc. v. United States, No. 05-1125C (Feb. 27, 2006) (post-award protest; Limitation on Subcontracting clause; post-award correspondence between successful offeror and Government concerning compliance with Limitation on Subcontracting clause is matter of contract administration, not grounds for bid protest, which depends only on information available to Government at time of award decision)

Advanced Systems Technology, Inc. v. United States, No. 05-1167C (Jan. 23, 2006) (extent to which SBA OHA must allow potential bidders to participate in protests of NAICS code designations)

CC Distributors, Inc. v. United States, No. 05-551C (Jan. 19, 2006) (post-award protest; low price not sufficient to show responsibility determination was arbitrary, capricious, or irrational)

Magic Brite Janitorial v. United States, No. 05-1380C (Jan. 19, 2006) (post-award protest Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act; denies protest of Government's decision not to exercise contract option)

Bannum, Inc. v. United States, No. 03-1751C (Jan. 18, 2006) (post-ward protest; denies protest--lack of prejudice from alleged evaluation errors)

Advanced Systems Technology, Inc. v. United States, No. 05-1167C (Jan. 13, 2006) (procedure; denies request to file amicus brief)

Risc Management Joint Venture v. United States, No. 05-488C (Feb. 24, 2006) (even though court would have done analysis differently from Contracting Officer, it will not substitute its judgment for Contracting Officer's best value analysis--protest denied)

Pure Power!, Inc. v. United States, No. 05-559C (Feb. 10, 2006) (no contract between prospective Postal Service subcontractor and United States; no standing to protest; lack of subject matter jurisdiction)

2005

Lion Raisins, Inc. v. United States, No. 04-1477C (Dec. 15, 2005) (protest is moot after agency canceled solicitation)

KSEND v. United States, No. 05-882C (Dec. 8, 2005) (post-award protest; proper rejection of bid as nonresponsive after bidder failed to submit transparencies with bid as unambiguously required by solicitation)

OTI America, Inc. v. United States, No. 05-904C (Dec. 7, 2005) (successful protest; arbitrary and capricious agency decision to eliminate protester from competitive range)

International Outsourcing Services, LLC v. United States, No. 05-768C (Nov. 29, 2005) (post-award protest; price realism evaluation; failure of offeror to provide adequate answers to agency questions during discussions)

Alion Science & Technology Corp. v. United States, No. 05-1072C (Nov. 29, 2005) (rational basis for agency decision to override automatic stay)

Beta Analytics International, Inc. v. United States, No. 04-556C (Nov. 23, 2005) (successful post-award protest; improper evaluation)

Space Exploration Technologies Corp. v. United States, No. 05-1053C (Oct. 28, 2005) (pre-award protest; lack of standing--plaintiff has no chance to receive award even if it proves alleged violations of regulatory requirements)

Systems Plus, Inc. v. United States, No. 05-1076C (Oct. 27, 2005) (post-award protest; request for order to stay performance pending decision on GAO protest; whether debriefings are required under solicitations conducted pursuant to FAR subpart 8.4)

Kola Travel Nut, Inc., et al. v. United States, No. 05-1027C (Oct. 19, 2005) (post-award protest; failure to include "Certificate of Independent Price Determination" in solicitation; allegations of collusive bidding; use of common consultant by several bidders; standards for injunctive relief)

Asia Pacific Airlines v. United States, No. 05-711C (Oct. 14, 2005) (successful protest against Postal Service procurement; improper elimination of protester based upon suspect interpretation of solicitation's schedule requirements)

Group Seven Assocs., LLC v. United States, No. 05-867C (Oct. 13, 2005) (jurisdiction over FSS task order protests; submission of alternate, conforming proposals)

Transatlantic Lines, LLC v. United States, No. 05-866C (Oct. 13, 2005) (successful post-award protest; improper relaxation of technical and labor requirements for winning offeror)

Argencord Mach. & Equip., Inc. v. United States, No. 05-731C (Oct. 7, 2005) (late offer precluded protester from challenging various alleged improprieties; subsequent amendment of solicitation did not cure late initial offer)

Fire-Trol Holdings, LLC v. United States, Nos. 05-205C, 05-20501C (Oct. 4, 2005) (caveats in bids rendered them nonresponsive; clarifications of earlier decision)

OTI America, Inc. v. United States, No. 05-904C (Sep. 30, 2005) (court has jurisdiction over protest in situation where Government is using terms of several different contracts to conduct competition with the result that it will not place further orders from those contractors who are downselected; standards for permitting discovery to supplement administrative record supporting Government's selection decision)

Greenleaf Construction Co. v. United States, No. 05-703C (Sep. 13, 2005) (pre-award protest; protester lacks standing to claim that award would have gone to another bidder if protester's protest prevails; meaning of term "responsible" in responsibility determination;  in solicitation which included "cascade" procedures from a small-business set-aside to an unrestricted tier, withdrawal of small business bidder late in the process, after the competitive range already had been determined and revised proposals evaluated, leaving only one small business bidder, did not require the agency to "cascade" all set-aside requirements to the unrestricted tier)

Beta Analytics International, Inc. v. United States, No. 04-556C (Sep. 6, 2005) (successful post-award protest; numerous flaws in evaluation)

Park Tower Management, LTD. v. United States, No. 05-413C (Aug. 31, 2005) (post-award protest; presumption of regularity by government officials; standards for proving breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing)

Chapman Law Firm Co. v. United States, No. 05-750C (Aug. 5, 2005) (post-award protest; denies request for injunction to prevent Government from overriding automatic stay)

Aeroplate Corp. v. United States, No. 05-736C (Aug. 5, 2005) (post-award protest; continues preliminary injunction to permit SBA to issue COC responsibility determination)

Aeroplate Corp. v. United States, No. 05-736C (July 15, 2005) (successful post-award protest; improper determination of nonresponsiveness despite facial validity of bid bond)

Four Points by Sheraton v. United States, No. 04-1589C (July 14, 2005) (post-award protest; irrefragable proof needed to establish bias by government officials)

Orion International Technologies v. United States, No. 04-250C (July 12, 2005) (post-award protest; contingency hiring; minor informalities; misrepresentation; bait and switch)

Gould Inc. v. United States, No. 95-88C (July 8, 2005) (authority of DoD to enter multiyear contracts under 10 U.S.C. 2306(h)(1) is intended to benefit the Government and does not form basis for offeror's claim)

CC Distributors Inc. v. United States, No. 05-571C (June 15, 2005) (denies post-award protest based on awardee's price being too low because protester did not present evidence that the awardee could not perform the contract at the offered price)

MTB Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 05-375C (June 7, 2005) (pre-award protest; denies challenge to HUD use of "reverse auction" procedures)

University Research Co. v. United States, No. 04-1177C (June 3, 2005) (successful post-award protest; Government's normalization of certain costs during evaluation lacked a rational basis)

Hospital Klean of Texas, Inc. v. United States, No. 05-495C (May 24, 2005) (successful post-award protest; awardee's proposal was late because FedEx did not do all it could have done to deliver it on time)

Chapman Law Firm v. United States, No. 04-1418C (May 10, 2005) (EAJA recovery)

ORCA Northwest Real Estate Services v. United States, No. 05-228C (May 2, 2005) (post-award protest; denies motion for reconsideration on question of prejudice to protester)

ORCA Northwest Real Estate Services v. United States, No. 05-228C (Apr. 28, 2005) (post-award protest; awardee submitted new, improved responsibility information after agency agreed to reevaluate proposals in response to earlier protest)

LABAT-Anderson, Inc. v. United States, No. 04-1707C (Apr. 26, 2005) (A-76 procurement; challenge to government cost comparison evaluation)

Client Network Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 05=377C (Apr. 6, 2005) (whether agency abused its discretion in not waiting for SBA OHA decision on initial awardee's small business size status)

Fire-Trol Holdings, LLC, v. United States, No. 05-205 (Apr. 6, 2005) (pre-award protest; solicitation specification and qualification requirements)

Consolidated Engineering Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 04-1784C (Mar. 30, 2005) (post-award protest; meaningful discussions: deference to GAO decision; effect of revised wage determination)

Arch Chemicals, Inc. v. United States, No. 04-1421C (Mar. 18, 2005) (successful pre-award protest; price evaluation methodology is arbitrary and irrational because it excludes plant shutdown-related costs for all offerors except plaintiff)

Manson Construction Co. v. United States, No. 041783C (Mar. 14, 2005) (post-award protest; HUBZone competition; dredging contract; Government's re-examination and revision of its initial estimate was not improper where there were changed circumstances that caused change in estimate)

Fire-Trol Holdings, LLC v. United States, No. 05-205C (Mar. 8, 2005) (interpretation of 28 U.S.C. 1500; denies Government's motion to dismiss pre-bid protest)

Mark Dunning Industries, Inc. v. United States, No. 03-465C (Mar. 4, 2005) (post-award protest; HUBZone competition; deference to SBA's determination of HUBZone status; meaning of terms "job site" and "principal office" in HUBZone regulations)

Portfolio Disposition Management Group, LLC v. United States, No. 04-1671C (Feb. 24, 2005) (post-award protest; competitive range determination; bonding requirements; cardinal change)

International Resource Recovery, Inc. v. United States, No. 04-154C (Feb. 17, 2005) (post-award protest; discussions versus clarifications; burden of proof for establishing bias or bad faith; error regarding past performance evaluation was not material)

Kropp Holdings, Inc. d/b/a AVCARD v. United States, No. 041655C (Jan. 27, 2005) (automatic stay; override decision; standard of review for court)

Chapman Law Firm v. United States, No. 04-1681C (Jan. 25, 2005) (post-award protest; Limitation on Subcontracting; bonding issues; scope of discussions)

CW Government Travel, Inc. v. United States, No. 03-1274C (Jan. 12, 2005) (motion for partial reconsideration denied)

Four Points by Sheraton v. United States, No. 04-1589C (Jan. 6, 2005) (post-award protest; discovery; requirements for proof of bad faith or bias sufficient to permit additional discovery regarding those subjects)

EP Productions, Inc. v. United States, No. 04-1428C (Jan. 3, 2005) (post-award protest; meaningful discussions; no need to discuss every possible weakness in proposal; presumption of good faith actions by federal officials; amending solicitation to relax requirement in order to increase competition)