Stan Hinton

Recent Federal Circuit Protest Decisions (2000-Present)

Click on any case name below to link directly to the decision

2012

Digitalis Education Solutions, Inc. v. United States, No. 2011-5079 (Jan. 4, 2012) (affirms Court of Federal Claims decision that company that did not file statement of capabilities in response to a published notice of proposed sole source award lacked standing to protest that award)

2011

Turner Construction Co. v. United States, No. 2010-5146 (July 14, 2011) (affirms CoFC's decision mandating reinstatement of original awardee's terminated contract because, since there was no showing that OCI allowed awardee access to competitively useful information, there was no reason for the agency to follow the GAO's recommendation in response to an original protest at the GAO and terminate the awardee's contract)

Allied Technology Group, Inc. v. United States No. 2010-5131 (June 9, 2011) (upholds agency's decision to disqualify protester for taking exceptions to solicitation requirements and to accept awardee's certification of compliance with requirements despite minor exceptions) 

Totolo/King, Joint Venture v. United States, Nos. 2010-5037, -5167 (June 6, 2011) (nonprecedential; death of disabled veteran who was source of firm's status as SDVOSB renders appeal moot)

Creation Upgrades, Inc. v. United States, No. 2010-5098 (Apr. 8, 2011) (nonprecedential; Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1491(b)(1) over protests involving the sale of government property)  

2010

PAI Corp. v. United States, No. 2010-5003 (Aug. 5, 2010) (denies claim that agency failed to follow regulations in documenting and mitigating organizational conflict of interest because Contracting Officer reasonably determined after some corrective actions that no "significant" conflict of interest remained)

Resource Conservation Group, LLC v. United States, No. 2009-5091 (Mar. 1, 2010) (jurisdiction of Court of Federal Claims under ADRA, 28 U.S.C. 1491(b)(1), does not cover nonprocurement protests; 28 U.S.C. 1491(a) gives Court of Claims jurisdiction over claims of breach of implied-in-fact contracts)

Savantage Financial Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 2009-5076 (Feb. 2010) (affirms CoFC because agency had a rational basis for requiring an integrated financial, acquisition, and asset management system that is currently fully operational within the federal government)

2009

Alabama Aircraft Industries, Inc. -- Birmingham v. United States, Nos. 2009-5021, -5022, -5023 (Nov. 17, 2009) (reverses CoFC's decision in favor of protester because of the lower court's flawed analysis of the price realism evaluation)

Labatt Food Service, Inc. v. United States, No. 2009-5017 (Aug. 24, 2009) (standing; late proposal)

Weeks Marine, Inc. v. United States, No. 2008-5034 (Aug. 10, 2009) (standing requirements for pre-award protest; reverses Court of Federal Claims because there was a rational basis for agency to decide to use an ID/IQ contract to fulfill its requirements)

Axiom Resource Management, Inc. v. United States, No. 2008-5072, -5073 (May 4, 2009) (reverses Court of Federal Claims; court interference with contract administration; OCI mitigation plan; standard for allowing supplementation of administrative record)

Tip Top Construction, Inc. v. United States, No. 2008-5183 (Apr. 29, 2009) (Contracting Officer was correct to reject coal as bid bond asset; requirement that surety request substitute bid bond asset)

The Centech Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 2008-5031 (Feb. 3, 2009) (affirms Court of Federal Claims dismissal of protest because the protester had not agreed in its proposal to comply with the requirements of the "Limitations on Subcontracting" clause in the solicitation)

2008

CHE Consulting, Inc. v. United States, No. 2007-5172 (Dec. 30, 2008) (upholds agency's use of bundled hardware and software maintenance requirements in single-provider solicitation)

Distributed Solutions, Inc. and STR, L.L.C. v. United States, No. 2007-5145 (Aug. 28, 2008) (reverses CoFC decision; court has jurisdiction over protest that government improperly abandoned competitive bidding process in favor of allowing current prime contractor to procure services through subs; meaning of "proposed procurement" in the Tucker Act, as revised by the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act)

Impresa Construzione Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, No. 2007-5009 (June 27, 2008) (time period for filing application for attorneys fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act)

2007

Blue & Gold Fleet, L.P. v. United States, No. 2006-5064 (June 26, 2007) (pre-award protest; duty of protester to protest patent ambiguity in solicitation before bids are due)

Chapman Law Firm Co. v. United States, No.  2006-5096, -5117 (June 11, 2007) (Government's "voluntary" corrective action)

Precision Standard, Inc. v. United States, No.  2006-5092  (Apr. 6, 2007)(nonprecedential; approved sources; responsibility determinations; Limitation on Subcontracting clause)

Bannum, Inc. v. United States, No. 06-5066 (Jan. 19, 2007) (nonprecedential; absence of prejudicial error by agency)

2006

Rex Service Corp. v. United States, No. 05-5142 (May 8, 2006) (dismisses post-award protest for lack of standing because protester did not submit an offer)

Blue Dot Energy Co. v. Unites States, No. 05-5058 (May 2, 2006) (nonprecedential; post-award protest; reverses Court of Federal Claims and decides Air Force acted rationally in not setting aside contract for HUBZone award)

2005

CW Government Travel, Inc. v. United States, No. 05-5051 (Dec. 6, 2005) (nonprecedential; whether contract modifications violated CICA)

Conscoop-Consoriza Fra Coperative Di Prod. E. Lavoro v. United States, No. 04-5150 (June 2006) (nonprecedential; untimely offer)

Bannum, Inc. v. United States, No. 04-5008 (Apr. 21, 2005) (substantial chance for award; non-prejudicial errors in agency's evaluation)

2004

PGBA, LLC v. United States, No. 04-5101 (Nov. 11, 2004) (post-award protest; Court of Federal Claims was within its discretion to award plaintiff proposal preparation costs but to withhold injunctive relief)

Norfolk Dredging Co. v. United States, Nos. 04-5040, -5041 (Jul. 7, 2004) (overturns Court of Federal Claims' decision sustaining protest because it erred in concluding that no exception to 46 U.S.C. 292 allowed the awardee to perform the contract)

Galen Medical Associates, Inc. v. United States, No. 03-5113 (May 25, 2004) (post-award protest; affirms Court of Federal claims decision denying protest; protester did not establish "near irrefragable proof" required to show agency bias in post-corrective action evaluations)

2003

Information Technology & Applications Corp. v. United States, No. 02-5048 (Jan. 10, 2003) (affirms Court of Federal Claims decision denying protest because Government's requests for additional information were "clarifications" and not "discussions")

2002

Bender Shipbuilding & Repair Co. v. United States, No. 02-5036 (Jul. 26, 2002) (affirms Court of Federal Claims decision denying protest because Contracting Officer reasonably concluded that awardee was financially responsible and had resources to perform the contract)

Brickwood Contractors, Inc. v. United States, No. 01-5121 (May 3, 2002) (under Supreme Court precedent in Buckhannon decision, protester was not a prevailing party entitled to recovery of legal fees under EAJA where no court decision was ever issued sustaining protest; EAJA does not allow recovery under "catalyst theory")

JWK International Corp. v. United States, No. 01-5091 (Jan. 29, 2002) (affirms Court of Federal Claims decision that Government's decision not to enter into cost discussions with offeror was within its discretion since protester's cost proposal was acceptable)

Myers Investigative and Security Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 01-5014 (Jan. 8, 2002) (affirms Court of Federal Claims decision: contractor lacked standing to contest awarding of sole source contracts because it did not show it had a substantial chance of receiving award, i.e., that it would have been a qualified bidder) 

2001

Emery Worldwide Airlines, Inc. v. United States, No. 01-5075 (Aug. 31, 2001) (affirms Court of Federal Claims decision that statutes and regulations applicable to Postal Service do not prohibit awards of sole source contracts for mail transportation services)

Rothe Development Corp. v. Department of Defense and Department of the Air Force, No. 00-1171 (Aug. 20, 2001) (preliminary decision in case involving constitutionality of DoD price adjustment for SDBs; see Fed. Cir.'s final decision in the case)

Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, No. 99-5137 (Jan. 3, 2001) (orders limited discovery--deposition of Contracting Officer--to explain aspects of responsibility determination where protest has raised serious issues concerning same)

2000

OMV Medical, Inc. v. United States, No. 99-5098 (July 18, 2000) (upholds Court of Federal Claims decision denying protest of one award, but vacates decision re another award for further proceedings to determine validity of salary figure comparisons on the basis of which Contracting Officer made award decision)

Advanced Data Concepts Inc. v. United States, No. 99-5064 (June 9, 2000) (affirms Court of Federal Claims decision denying protest because any errors in the solicitation did not prejudice protester's chances of award)

Stratos Mobile Networks USA, LLC v. United States, Nos. 00-5023, -5024 (May 26, 2000) (reverses Court of Federal Claims decision upholding protest; solicitation for ID/IQ contract; pricing evaluation)