Stan Hinton

Home
Contact Me
 
Current Blog
2023 Blog
Courts
GAO
Boards
SBA
Statutes
Regulations
Directives
Agency Sites
More Agencies
Periodicals
Research
 

Recent Federal Circuit Protest Decisions (2000-Present)



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

2024

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SAGAM Securite Senegal v. United States, No. 2021-2279 (Oct. 12, 2023) (nonprecedential; upholds CoFC's decision (i) that cancellation of solicitation (based on disclosure of bidder's proprietary information to competitor) lacked a rational basis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