|
Stan Hinton |
|||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Recent Federal Circuit Protest Decisions (2000-Present) |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Click on any case name below to link directly to the decision 2024 Oak Grove Technologies, LLC v. United States, Nos. 2022-1556, -1557 (Sep. 16, 2024) (vacates prior CoFC decision favoring original protester; under Blue & Gold Fleet, original protester waived its argument that agency should have conducted discussions because agency's intent not to do so was clear from the solicitation; offeror's failure to provide teaming agreement with its proposal did not violate a "material" solicitation requirement because, inter alia, such agreements were to be provided in an administrative volume that was not to be evaluated; CoFC was required to, but failed, to provide deference to agency's investigation of alleged conflict of interest, which was adequate; record was inadequate for CoFC to conclude that another offeror was financially incapable of performing--if there were a question about responsibility, it should have been referred to SBA; however, upholds CoFC's sanctions against Government for discovery violations) Percipient.ai, Inc. v. United States, No. 2023-1970 (June 7, 2024) (reverses prior CoFC decision; protest did not allege task order was, or would be, wrongfully issued and, therefore, was not "in connection with" a task order covered by FASA's bar on task order protests; protest alleging violation of 10 U.S.C. § 3453 and related regulations, which establish a preference for commercial services, falls within the CoFC's jurisdiction under the third prong of the Tucker Act: "any alleged violation of statute or regulation in connection with a procurement or a proposed procurement." 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1). Michael Stapleton Assocs. Ltd. v. United States, et al., Nos. 1273 , 1519 (May 20, 2024) (upholds prior CoFC decision finding that agency had rational bases for (a) revising solicitation to separate it into two procurements and (b) shortening the prior look back period for evaluating past performance; but reverses CoFC conclusion that agency had not taken adequate steps to mitigate incumbent's conflict of interest to permit it to participate in revised procurement) REV, LLC v. United States, Aptive Resources, LLC, No. 2022-1759 (Jan. 29, 2024) (reverses prior CoFC decision that protester lacked standing; assuming protester would prevail on all its allegations of errors in the evaluations of six of the nine offerors that were ranked ahead of it, protester would have had a substantial chance of being selected as one of awardees in solicitation that contemplated at least seven awardees) B.H. Aircraft Co. v. United States, et al., No. 2022-1766 (Jan. 2, 2024) (affirms prior CoFC decision; protester failed to allege that two or more smaller contracts had been bundled to form the protested solicitation) 2023 SAGAM Securite Senegal v. United States, No. 2021-2279 (Oct. 12, 2023) (nonprecedential; upholds CoFC's decision (i) that cancellation of solicitation (based on disclosure of bidder's proprietary information to competitor) lacked a rational basis and (ii) enjoining resolicitation (rather than ordering remand) because resolicitation did nothing to mitigate the harm from the the improper disclosure) M.R. Pittman Group, LLC v. United States, No. 21-2325 (May 22, 2023) (Blue & Gold Fleet waiver rule is not a jurisdictional issue; CoFC did not commit reversible error by dismissing protest before (a) administrative report had been filed and (b) protester had filed formal response to Government's motion to dismiss; under Blue & Gold Fleet, plaintiff waived its right to protest by failing to timely object to patent solicitation ambiguity created by the incorporation by reference of a specific FAR clause that contradicted other statements in the solicitation) CACI, Inc.-Federal v. United States, No. 2022-1488 (May 10, 2023) (although Claims Court erred in concluding that it lacked jurisdiction due to an OCI not previously raised by Contracting Officer when that issue was merely one of statutory standing, which should not have been determined de novo by Claims Court, agency's evaluation of technical deficiency in protester's proposal rendering it ineligible for award had rational basis) 22nd Century Technologies, Inc. v. United States, No. 2022-1275 (Jan. 10, 2023) (affirms prior CoFC decision finding lack of jurisdiction over appeal of SBA OHA decision because it related to the award of a task order and was, therefore, barred by FASA) 2022
SEKRI, Inc. v. United States, No.
2021-1936 (May 13, 2022) (reverses
prior CoFC opinion dismissing protest for lack of standing and
Blue & Gold Fleet waiver; a qualified mandatory source of a commodity in the
AbilityOne Program qualifies as a "prospective bidder or
offeror" for purposes of standing to file a bid protest; plaintiff's
notice to agency prior to close of bidding process that it was a
mandatory source for items being procured by solicitation satisfied
Blue & Gold Fleet requirements)
Mitchco Int'l, Inc. v. United Sates, No. 2021-1556 (Mar. 3, 2022)
(affirms
prior CoFC decision denying post-award protest; constructive
cancellation of solicitation after award does not render protest by
another bidder seeking bid and proposal costs moot; by failing to timely
protest solicitation provision stating state licensing agency (SLA)
would be given preference if it was found to be in the competitive
range, protester is foreclosed from doing so now; fact that SBA
determined state licensing agency was other than small is irrelevant
because Randolph-Sheppard Act's provisions establishing preference for
SLA take precedence; DoD Joint Statement of Policy section stating one
blind person should be assigned to each dining facility did not take
precedence over RSA, which has no such requirement; information
plaintiff claims was used improperly by awardee is not Procurement
Integrity Act violation because it does not constitute "contract bid or
proposal information" as defined by the statute since it was information
the awardee was entitled to obtain from protester as its subcontractor
on incumbent contract)
VAS Realty, LLC v. United States, No. 2021-1962 (Feb. 18, 2022)
(reverses
prior unreported CoFC decision (dismissing protest for lack of
standing due to protester's alleged ineligibility for award) because
there is a legitimate possibility that it would have a chance for award
if its protest ground (that an OIG report had found numerous errors in
the award decision) were sustained since the agency might decide to
reprocure) 2021
System Studies & Simulation, Inc. v. United States, No. 2021-1469 (Dec.
30,2021) (affirms
prior CoFC bid protest decision that plaintiff failed to establish
prejudice from agency's error--no presumption that error results in
prejudice)
Harmonia Holdings Group, LLC v. United States, No. 2020-1538 (Dec. 7,
2021) (reverses
prior CoFC decision; Blue & Gold Fleet does not require court to
dismiss suit brought five months after agency's denial of timely filed
preaward protest to agency and after award)
DynCorp International, LLC v. United States, No. 2020-2041 (Aug. 25,
2021) (unsuccessful post-award protest; affirms
prior CoFC decision; FAR 15.404-1(b) is permissive and does not
require the Contracting Officer to make a determination that competitive or historical price information
is unavailable or insufficient before utilizing any but the first two price
reasonableness evaluation techniques listed there; despite differences
in proposed prices, agency had rational basis for determining all prices
reasonable when each was considered in light of the differing technical
approaches proposed by the competitors)
Asset Protection & Security Services, L.P. v. United States, No.
2021-1008 (July 19, 2021) (affirms prior CoFC decision; protester's
bid included information that expressly contradicted the solicitation’s material terms,
making it nonresponsive and, therefore, ineligible for award, which
means the protester
lacked standing to protest the award to another firm)
Harmonia Holdings Group, LLC v. United States, No. 2020-1703 (June 8,
2021) (affirms
prior CoFC decision denying post-award protest; CoFC was wrong to
dismiss count for lack of jurisdiction because alleging
the Contracting Officer failed to refer a question concerning the
awardee's size to the SBA was a bid protest (over which the CoFC had
jurisdiction) as opposed to a size protest (where the plaintiff would
have had to exhaust its administrative remedies before appealing);
however, that count should have been dismissed for failure to state a
claim because complaint does not contain sufficient facts to state a plausible claim that the contracting officer violated FAR 19.301-1(b) or otherwise abused his discretion by failing to refer
awardee to the SBA for a size status determination concerning a
violation of the ostensible subcontractor rule where nothing in the
awardee's proposal evidenced such a violation; agrees with CoFC that
agency had rational bases for its evaluations of proposals, including
determining that a feature could both offer advantages and have some
risk)
Zafer Taahut, Insaat Ve Ticaret A.S.
v. United States, No. 2020-1726 (Mar. 11, 2021) (nonprecedential;
affirms prior CoFC decision; agency's decision to extend deadline for
submission of offers (which was communicated to all offerors prior to
the deadline) had rational basis in that several offerors had reported
difficulty uploading their offers to the agency's website; agency's
evaluation of protester's past performance did not involve unequal
treatment)
Safeguard Base Operations, LLC v. United States, No. 2019-2261 (Mar. 4,
2021) (affirms
prior CoFC decision; under 28 U.S.C § 1491(b)(1), CoFC has
jurisdiction over a claim that the Government breached an
implied-in-fact contract to fairly and honestly consider an offeror’s
proposal in the procurement context, making the issue reviewable under the APA;
CoFC did not err in determining that (a) solicitation required
submission of disputed pricing data, (b) solicitation notified offerors
that failure to provide data could be grounds for disqualification, (c)
protester's failure to supply data was material omission that could not
be waived or resolved through minor clarifications)
HVF West, LLC v. United States, Nos. 2020-1414, 2020-1583 (Feb.
19, 2021) (nonprecedential; reverses
prior CoFC decision; protester who mounted nothing more than
speculative challenge to intervening, higher-ranked offerors between
itself and awardee, lacked standing)
NIKA Technologies, Inc. v. United States, No. 2020-1924 (Feb. 4, 2021)
(reverses
prior CoFC decision; automatic stay is not triggered by protest
filed more than five days after debriefing; unless protester actually
asks questions about initial debriefing, five day period begins on date
that debriefing is received, not on the subsequent deadline for asking
questions)
Veteran Shredding, LLC v. United States, No. 2020-1336
(Jan. 13, 2021) (nonprecedential; affirms
prior CoFC decision dismissing preaward protest because (i) agency
had rational basis to cancel solicitation where all bids vastly exceeded
the agency's cost estimate and were unreasonably high and (ii) agency
was not required to set aside solicitation because agency conducted an
acceptable Rule of Two analysis and concluded the conditions for a
set-aside were not present)
Veterans4You
LLC v. United States, No. 2020-1175 (Jan. 11, 2021) (reverses
prior CoFC decision; printing mandate of constitutionally suspect 44
U.S.C. 501 did not require VA to route procurement of imprinted
information on gun locks and attached labels through GPO)
Land Shark Shredding, LLC v. United States, No. 2020-1231 (Jan. 11,
2021) (nonprecedential; although, contrary to
prior CoFC decision, protester had standing, lower court correctly
determined that protester failed to state a plausible claim because,
Government had reasonable basis for cancelling solicitation after
concluding offered prices, which exceeded available funding and which
were higher than the incumbent contract pricing and in excess of the
Government's estimate, were not fair and reasonable)
Land Shark Shredding, LLC v. United States, No. 2020-1230 (Jan. 11,
2021) (nonprecedential; although protester had standing to
protest, affirms
prior CoFC decision that (i) agency had rational basis for rejecting
protester's bid as unreasonably high and (ii) protester's protest of
tiered evaluation system was untimely) 2020
Red Cedar Harmonia, LLC v. United States, No. 2019-2449 (Dec. 18, 2020)
(nonprecedential; affirms
prior CoFC decision that there was a rational basis for the agency's
technical evaluation and that it did not treat protester's proposal
unequally or use an unstated evaluation factor to rate it)
LAX Electronics, Inc. dba Automatic Connector v. United States, No.
2020-1498 (Nov. 3, 2020) (nonprecedential; vacates portion of prior
CoFC decision--by removal of the protester's products from the QPL, the
Government has taken a "definitive position" disqualifying the protester's products from certain sufficiently identified future procurements,
a protest against which is a protest "in connection with a procurement
or proposed procurement" over which CoFC has jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. 1491(b)(1))
G4S Secure Solutions (USA), Inc. v. United States, No. 2020-1390 (Oct.
5, 2020) (nonprecedential; affirms
prior CoFC decision denying
post-award protest because agency's determination that awardee's experience and risk awareness/mitigation supported a
"High Confidence" rating was not arbitrary, capricious, or in violation
of law)
Oracle America, Inc. v. United States, No. 2019-2326
(Sep. 2, 2020) (affirms
prior CoFC decision denying preaward protest; solicitation
requirements had reasonable bases and did not render procurement
non-competitive; reasonable bases for Contracting Officer's conclusion
that conflicts of interest did not affect procurement)
Inserso Corp. v. United States, No. 2019-1933 (June 15, 2020) (over
a dissent, affirms
prior CoFC decision but on different ground that
plaintiff had waived its right to challenge improper disclosure of
information useful to the subset of offerors who received it by failing
(prior to submitting its offer) to protest solicitation that was written
so as to include a high likelihood of the improper disclosure)
Agile Defense, Inc. v. United States, No. 2019-1954 (June 2, 2020)
(affirms
prior CoFC decision that solicitation did not prohibit agency from
evaluating supporting documentation for labor rates within one standard
deviation of average labor rate as part of cost realism evaluation)
Eskridge & Assocs. v. United States, No. 2019-1862 (Apr. 15, 2020)
(affirms
prior CoFC decision dismissing protest for lack of standing because
even if its protest had succeeded, there were three other bidders ahead
of it in line for award and protester failed to allege sufficient
prejudice to require contract to be rebid)
WellPoint Military Care Corp. v. United States, No. 2019-2225 (Mar, 31
2020) (affirms
prior CoFC decision denying protest because: (i) agency did not use
unstated evaluation criterion in evaluating existing provider networks
under Network Management and Claims Adjudication Subfactor; (ii) agency
did not treat offerors unequally in evaluations under the Solicitation’s Corporate Experience/Capability Subfactor;
(iii) agency was required to conduct trade-off analysis, and its
analysis had a rational basis; (iv) agency properly evaluated cost
savings associated with protester's and awardee's proposals; (iv)
agency's trade-off analysis did not rely on incorrect information from
protester's proposal; and (v) protester has not established prejudice
from alleged problems with evaluation)
Office Design Group v. United States, No. 2019-1337 (Mar.
6, 2020) (affirms prior CoFC decision denying
protest; court adopts CoFC's test for evaluating claims of disparate
evaluations of competing proposals: "a protestor must show that the agency unreasonably downgraded its proposal for deficiencies that were
'substantively indistinguishable' or nearly identical from those contained in other proposals")
XOTech, LLC v. United States, No. 2019-1743 (Feb. 26, 2020) (affirms
prior CoFC decision that firm was not eligible SDVOBC because
service disabled veteran did not control all decisions by the company)
Acetris Health, LLC v.
United States, No. 2018-2399 (Feb. 10, 2020) (upholds
prior CoFC decision sustaining preaward protest but modifies
conclusions to make it even clearer that Government's interpretation of
Trade Agreements Act and of FAR's definition of U.S. made end products
was incorrect and could not be applied to the protester's products
(pharmaceutical tablets)) 2019
Safeguard Base Operations, LLC v. United States, No. 2019-1116 (Dec. 13,
2019) (dismisses appeal of CoFC's denial of injunction to stop
override of CICA's automatic stay of contract performance because the
stay has expired and, therefore, the appeal is moot)
Electra-Med Corp, et al. v. United States, et al., No.
2019-1266 (Oct. 29, 2019) (nonprecedential; affirms CoFC's
prior decision denying injunctive relief because of public harm that
would result from disrupting VA's medical supply chains but remands case
to CoFC to hold protest challenges in abeyance in case Government elects
to exercise an option that might extend the challenged practices and the
contracts at issue sufficiently so that the factors in the analysis of
the propriety of an injunction might be weighed differently)
American
Relocation Connections, L.L.C. v. United States, No. 2019-1245 (Oct. 11, 2019) (nonprecedential;
affirms CoFC's
prior decision denying protest because protester cannot show it was
prejudiced by agency's failure to consult with SBA during market
research prior to issuing procurement as unrestricted because even if
agency had done so, it would not have issued the procurement as a small business set-aside
since there were not enough qualifying small businesses to compete under the applicable NAICS code)
National Government Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 2018-1927 (May
2, 2019) (reverses CoFC's
prior decision in preaward protest; solicitation's Award Limitation
Policy would exclude certain offerors and limit full and open
competition without having been formulated in compliance with 41 U.S.C.
3303(a)(1) and FAR 6-202, which would require a Determination and
Findings justifying the exclusion for the solicitation at issue)
Veterans Contracting Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 2018-1409 (Apr.
2, 2019) (over a dissent, affirms
prior CoFC decision that Contracting Officer did not abuse his
discretion in canceling a solicitation after determining all eligible
bids were unreasonably high, because at the time he made that decision
he had no reason to know that the Government was wrong to have removed
protester from list of eligible SDVOSB bidders in VetBiz database) 2018
DynCorp International, LLC v. United States, No. 2018-1209 (Dec. 10,
2018) (nonprecedential; affirms CoFC denial of bid protest; after
conducting thorough investigation, agency had reasonable basis not to
disqualify competitor that had received certain salary information
concerning protester; discussion questions were not misleading when
examined in context of clear solicitation instruction; agency did not
engage in unequal evaluation by downgrading only protester's proposal
because, contrary to protester's allegation, competitor did not propose
same approach for which protester was downgraded)
Veterans Contracting Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 2018-1410 (Nov.
20, 2018) (appeal of
prior CoFC decision is dismissed as moot because regulations at
issue in earlier case have changed so that different standards now apply
to plaintiff's eligibility as SDVOSB)
PDS Consultants, Inc. v. United States, Nos. 2017-2379, 2017-2512 (Oct.
17, 2018) (affirms
prior CoFC decision that VA is required to use Rule of Two
Analysis to determine whether to restrict competitions to VOSBs even
when goods and services are on the AbilityOne list subject to the Javits-Wagner-O'Day
Act)
Dell Federal Systems, L.P., et al. v. United States, Nos.
2017-2516, et al. (Oct. 3, 2018) (reverses
prior CoFC decision and upholds agency's decision, after the
original award announcement had been made (including the disclosure of
the winning prices), to take corrective action by disclosing all
offered prices (to level the playing field), reopening discussions, and
soliciting revised proposals; agency need only have a rational basis for
scope of corrective action)
CliniComp International, Inc. v. United States, No. 2018-1101, 2018-1318
(Sep. 19, 2018) (affirms
CoFC's dismissal, for lack of standing, of protester's challenge to
proposed sole-source award because protester did not have capabilities
to perform contract requirements if competition had been opened)
Palantir USG, Inc. v. United States, No. 2017-1465 (Sep.
13, 2018) (upholds
prior CoFC decision granting permanent injunction because, in
issuing solicitation, agency failed to adequately consider whether its
needs could be met by a commercial item in accordance with requirements
of 10 U.S.C. 2377(c))
Geiler/Schrudde & Zimmerman, A Joint Venture (GSZ),
et al. v. United States, No. 2017-2517 (July 27, 2018)
(nonprecedential; affirms CoFC decision dismissing protest for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction because VA's revocation of firm's
SDVOSB status after its SDV died did not occur in connection with a
procurement or proposed procurement)
Starry Assocs. v. United States, No. 2017-2148 (June 22, 2018)
(reverses CoFC's
prior decision; agency’s improper or dilatory conduct during the
administrative process that gave rise to litigation (here a bid protest)
cannot constitute "special factor" in § 2412(d)(2)(A) of EAJA that
would authorize a tribunal to increase the statutory attorney fee rate
in EAJA award)
Progressive Industries, Inc. United States, No. 2017-1941 (Apr.
30, 2018) (affirms
CoFC's prior decision (i) finding that appellant's motion under
Rule 59(e) to alter or amend a prior judgment was untimely filed
and (ii) denying appellant's request for relief from judgment
under Rule 60(b)(6) because the appellant could have raised its
concerns before the original judgment was issued)
Cleveland Assets, LLC v. United States, No. 2017-2113 (Mar. 5, 2018)
(affirms
COFC's prior decision (i) dismissing one count of preaward protest
because it was based on an appropriations act and not a procurement
statute and (ii) determining that rental cap in solicitation had
rational basis in record), subsequently
denies protester's request for
en
banc reconsideration of the court's
decision
Strategic Business Solutions, Inc. v. United States, No. 2017-1418 (Feb.
14, 2018) (nonprecedential; affirms
prior decision by Court of Federal Claims that agency had rational
basis for rejecting proposal because protester failed in multiple
instances to comply with solicitation requirement to submit redacted
copies of certain portions of its proposal)
Level 3 Communications, LLC. v. United States, Nos. 2017-1924, 2017-2068
(Jan. 30, 2018) (nonprecedential; reverses
prior decision of CoFC sanctioning attorneys for violation of duty
of candor to court)
AgustaWestland North America, Inc. v. United States, No.
2017-1082 (Jan. 23, 2018) (vacates preliminary injunction
previously issued by
CoFC and reverses prior decision because: (i)
Army
Order
109-14
was not a procurement decision subject to review; (ii) CoFC abused
its discretion by supplementing the administrative
record sua sponte (because original record was sufficient for
decision); and (iii) sole source J&A for purchase of helicopters of
specified vendor
was not arbitrary and capricious
but had a rational basis)
Continental Service Group, Inc., et al. v. United States, Nos.
2017-2155, et al. (Jan. 12, 2018) (decision labeled
nonprecedential; upholds portion of CoFC's
prior bid protest ruling preliminarily enjoining awardees from
performing but reverses ruling enjoining agency from transferring work
to be performed under protested contract to other contracting vehicles
in order to circumvent or moot protest) 2017
Dellew Corp. v. United States, No. 2016-2304 (May 1, 2017) (reverses
prior CoFC decision awarding EAJA costs to protester; comments by CoFC
judge from the bench not memorialized in order or opinion did not confer
"prevailing party" status on protester)
Kevin Diaz v. United States, No. 2016-2501 (Apr. 11, 2017) (affirms
prior CoFC decision; protester lacks standing to complain that
Government improperly rejected unsolicited proposal because proposal
failed to fulfill requirements of FAR 15.603(c) and, thus, protester did
not have direct economic interest in procurement, i.e., did not have a
substantial chance of receiving a contract)
2016
Guardian Moving Storage Co. v. United States, No. 2015-5132 (Aug. 22,
2016) (nonprecedential; affirms prior CoFC decision; protest against
corrective action was based on flawed assumption that protester's
proposal was acceptable and that no corrective action was necessary)
Coast Professional, Inc., et al., v. United States, et al.,
No. 2015-5077 (July 12, 2016) (reverses
prior CoFC decision; award term extensions of FSS task orders were
new task orders and, as such, were within CoFC's bid protest
jurisdiction)
Per Aarsleff A/S, et al. v. United States, Nos. 2015-5111 (June
23, 2016) (reverses CoFC's
prior decision; eligibility requirement in solicitation was
ambiguous but was clarified by the Government's answer to a bidder's
question which was formally published as an amendment to the
solicitation, and, under that clarification, the winning bidder was
eligible)
Jay Hymas d/b/a Dosmen Farms v. United States, No. 2014-5150 (Jan. 14,
2016) (reverses CoFC's decision and holds that Department of
Interior's Fish & Wildlife Service's cooperative farming agreements with
farmers to grow crops on public lands are cooperative agreements rather
than procurement contracts and, thus, are not subject to CoFC's Tucker
Act protest jurisdiction) 2015
Raytheon Co. v. United States, No. 2015-5086 (Oct. 23, 2015)
(affirms
prior CoFC decision denying protest and upholding agency's decision
to undertake corrective action because agency had provided disparate
information concerning solicitation's requirements to bidders,
misleading one of them)
Tinton Falls Lodging Realty, LLC v. United States, No. 2014-5014 (Sep.
2, 2015) (denies protest because agency there was rational basis for
SBA's and OHA's determination of what constituted primary and vital
contract requirements and, thus, that awardee was not unduly reliant on
subcontractor for those requirements)
Colonial Press International, Inc. v. United States, No. 2014-5036 (June
10, 2015) (Government Printing Office (“GPO”), as a legislative
agency, need not, as part of its bid-evaluation process, refer the
responsibility determination to the SBA before declining to award a
contract to a small business)
Palladian Partners, Inc. v. United States, No. 2014-5125
(Apr. 20, 2015) (reverses CoFC's prior
decision because it lacked jurisdiction over protest by firm that had
not first participated in NAICS code appeal at OHA that the protester
knew might adversely affect its interests)
Bannum,
Inc. v. United States, No. 2014-5085 (Mar. 12, 2015) (affirms CoFC's
prior decisions denying protest, but on different grounds, i.e.,
that protester's challenge to solicitation's terms was untimely because
not "adequately" raised before award; and protester failed to
preserve challenge to evaluation on appeal) CGI
Federal Inc. v. United States, No. 2014-5143 (Mar. 10, 2015)
(reverses CoFC's prior
decision in preaward protest and holds (i) FAR Part 12 applies
to RFQ's for commercial item orders made against existing FSS contracts,
and (ii) agency violated its prohibition against including contract
terms inconsistent with customary commercial practice; protester who did
not submit bid, but who submitted timely preaward GAO protest and then
promptly (within 3 days) filed suit in CoFC when GAO denied protest, has
standing to maintain protest) Innovation
Development Enterprises of America, Inc. v. United States, No. 2014-5070
(Jan. 12, 2015) (affirms CoFC's prior
decision that plaintiff not entitled to bid preparation costs under
EAJA because it had not prepared or submitted a proposal) 2014 SRA
International, Inc. v. United States, No. 2014-5050 (Sep. 15, 2014)
(under FASA, CoFC lacks jurisdiction over protest of agency's OCI waiver
in connection with issuance of task order) Kingdomware
Technologies, Inc. v. United States, No. 2013-5042 (June 3, 2014)
(affirms Court of Federal Claims decision; Veterans Act of 2006 does not
require VA to conduct Rule of Two inquiry before using FSS, so long as
it is meeting its overall percentage goals for contracting with VOSBs),
reversed by Supreme Court. CMS
Contract Management Services, et al. v. Massachusetts Housing
Finance Agency, No. 2013-5093 (Mar. 25, 2014) (reverses prior CoFC
decision because HUD's Performance-Based Annual Contribution Contracts
are procurement contracts rather than cooperative agreements, and agency
acknowledged it did not follow procurement regulations in conduct of
solicitation) Adams
and Assocs. v. United States, Nos. 2013-5077, -5080 (Jan. 27, 2014)
(affirms CoFC
decision that DOL acted within statutory and regulatory authority in setting aside Job
Corps procurements for small businesses) 2013 Res-Care,
Inc. v. United States, No. 2013-5035 (Nov. 21, 2013) (affirms CoFC
decision that DOL acted within statutory authority in setting aside Job
Corps procurement for small businesses) Croman
Corp. v. United States, No. 2012-5138 (July 31, 2013) (affirms Court
of Federal Claims decision denying protest because agency had a rational
basis to cancel four CLINs in original solicitation and the
documentation evidenced an adequate technical/price tradeoff analysis by
the SSA) Glenn
Defense Marine (Asia) PTE LTD.v. United States, No. 2012-5125 (June 25,
2013) (affirms Court of Federal Claims decision denying protest
because (i) the protester did not allege prejudicial error, (ii) the
Past Performance evaluations of the protester and the awardee had a
rational basis; and (iii) the best value determination was not arbitrary
or capricious) 2012 Orion
Technology, Inc. v. United States, No. 2012-5062 (Jan. 14, 2013)
(although Court of Federal Claims erred in dismissing protest for lack
of standing, it was correct in noting that there was a rational
basis for the Government's decision to reject an initial proposal that
lacked required subcontractor cost or pricing data because the
solicitation stated proposals might be rejected for being incomplete and
such data was material to the Government's evaluation) Evelyn
Burney dba Plott Bakery Products, No. 2012-5088 (Dec. 11, 2012)
(nonprecedential; affirms CoFC decision that protest against patent
errors in solicitation was untimely filed after award and that protester
had not met burden of showing evaluation lacked reasonable basis) COMINT
Systems Corporation and EyeIT.com, Inc , a Joint Venture v. United
States, No. 2012-5039 (Dec. 7,2012) (affirms CoFC decision denying
protest because protester waited until after award to challenge
solicitation amendment, making protest untimely, and protester did
not establish its evaluation rating was arbitrary or capricious) Systems
Application & Technologies, Inc. v. United States, No. 2012-5004
(Aug. 24, 2012) (affirms CoFC's decisions that (i) court had
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1491(b)(1) over awardee's protest against
agency's decision to take corrective action in response to earlier GAO
protest and (ii) awardee had standing to file such an action and
(iii) the case was ripe for judicial review) DGR
Associates, Inc. v. United States, No. 2011-5080 (Aug. 2, 2012)
(CoFC decision awarding plaintiff EAJA legal fees is reversed because
Government's position was substantially justified) 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) |
|||||||||||||||||
This website links to resources on the web concerning government contracting. It is not intended to provide legal advice. Moreover, I do not vouch for the completeness, currency, or accuracy of the sites to which it links. If you have comments, suggestions, or corrections, please email me.