Stan Hinton

Home
Contact Me
2018 Blog
2017 Blog
2016 Blog
2015 Blog
2014 Blog
2013 Blog
2012 Blog
2011 Blog
2010 Blog
2009 Blog
2008 Blog
2007 Blog
2017 Procurement Review
2016 Procurement Review
2015 Procurement Review
2014 Procurement Review
2013 Procurement Review
2012 Procurement Review
2011 Procurement Review
2010 Procurement Review
2009 Procurement Review
2008 Procurement Review
2007 Procurement Review
Statutes
Regulations
Directives
Courts
GAO
Boards
SBA
Agency Sites
More Agencies
Periodicals
Research
 

Recent Court of Federal Claims Protests 2013-Present



See also Court of Federal Claims Protests 2005-2012

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

2018

American Correctional Healthcare, Inc. v. United States, No. 18-84 C (Apr. 17, 2018) (successful post-award protest; agency failed to evaluate diversity of services offered by competitors equally because it credited awardee with offering a type of service that the protester's proposal indicated was not available in this situation without investigating whether the protester's position was correct)

Pinnacle Solutions, Inc. v. United States, No. 17-2047 C (Apr. 13, 2018) (unsuccessful protest; rational bases for numerous weaknesses assigned to protester's proposal under Mission Suitability subfactors; agency's decision not to assign strengths to protester's management approach was reasonable; evaluations of protester's proposal under (a) technical approach and (b) safety and health subfactors and under past performance factor were reasonable; agency's evaluation of successful offeror's proposal was reasonable; protester failed to establish unequal treatment in evaluation  of proposals)

General Dynamics Mission Systems v. United, No. 18- 49 C (Apr. 9, 2018) (unsuccessful post-award protest; under CAFC precedent requiring deference to agency's technical evaluation, court reluctantly lets stand agency's tradeoff evaluation that awardee's lower price overcame technical flaw in awardee's proposal which, if it materialized during performance, would result in a safety issue, described by the evaluators as follows:  "the impact of a failure would be devastating, throwing hundreds of TSE offline and delaying the screening operations for the checkpoints")

Veterans Contracting Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 18-92 C (Apr. 5, 2018) (unsuccessful preaward protest; protester's challenge to cancellation of solicitation dismissed because allegation was previously litigated and rejected by the same court; protester did not allege sufficient facts to call into question Contracting Officer's analysis of Rule of Two in opening resolicitation to small businesses)

DZSP 21, LLC v. United States, No. 18-86 C (Mar. 29, 2019) (successful post-award protest by incumbent/original awardee; as a result of multiple, prior (successful) GAO protests by challenger of original award, Government improperly adopted GAO's (erroneous) interpretation of challenger's proposal to assign it a strength not merited by the language of the proposal; in last of three rounds of corrective actions, which finally overturned prior award, Government lacked rational basis for upward adjustment of incumbent's proposed cost) 

FMS Investment Corp., et al. v. United States, Nos. 18-204 C, et al. (Mar. 29, 2018) (upon motion by intervenor/awardee, disqualifies law firm representing one of plaintiffs in post-award protest due to a conflict of interest)

Acetris Health, LLC v. United States, No. 18-433 C (Mar. 28, 2018) (court lacks bid protest jurisdiction over allegations involving disputes concerning acceptability of products supplied during performance of incumbent's contract; solicitation provision requiring offerors to certify that proposed end product is "Trade Agreements Act compliant" does not conflict with either the Trade Agreements Act or its implementing regulations)

Iron Bow Technologies, LLC v. United States, No. 17-1250 C (Mar. 27, 2018) (unsuccessful preaward protest; agency's decision to eliminate protester from competition was based on risk assessment conducted in accordance with the terms of the RFQ from which agency reasonably concluded that protester's quotation presented an unacceptable supply chain risk to the Government)

IAN, Evan & Alexander Corp. v. United States, No. 18-1 C (Mar. 19, 2018) (successful protest; court issues permanent injunction against performance under contract modification outside the scope of the original competition)

SKC, LLC v. United States, No. 17-1982 C (Mar. 14, 2018) (unsuccessful protest by incumbent small business against agency's decision to designate procurement as sole-source under SBA's 8(a) program: (i) agency had not previously expressed publicly a clear intent to award the contract as a small business set-aside (13 C.F.R. 124.504(a); and (ii) agency's interpretation that procurement was "new" requirement that did not require an adverse impact analysis was not clearly erroneous (13 C.F.R. 124.504(c)(ii)(C))

Coast Professional, Inc., et al. v. United States, Nos. 15-207, et al. (Mar. 14, 2018) (grants agency's motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaints in consolidated post-award protests because agency's voluntary corrective action was rationally related to alleged defect in procurement, adequately addressed that defect, and, therefore, rendered plaintiffs' complaints moot)

Global Dynamics, LLC v. United States, No. 17-1875 C (Mar. 14, 2018) (court gives agency only 30 days to provide justification for its decision to award fifth sole-source bridge contract after so-far unexplained delays in meeting its own projected timeline for accomplishing corrective action; plaintiff's tardy protest of underlying GAO decision on prior protest is barred by doctrine of laches because plaintiff affirmatively decided not to challenge GAO protest decision until another problem arose, i.e., the agency's decision to cancel the procurement (a decision the agency, still later, rescinded)

General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc., v. United States, No. 18-49 C (Mar. 7, 2018) (court "reluctantly" enters TRO against permitting performance by awardee for brief period until court has had a chance to review parties' submissions on the merits)

FMS Investment Corp., et al. v. United States, Nos. 18-204 C, et al. (Mar. 6, 2018) (court issues preliminary injunction against recall of incumbents' work pending resolution of protest) 

Ernst & Young, LLP v. United States, No.  17-1329 C (Mar. 5, 2018) (successful post-award protest; Contracting Officer violated FAR 9.504(a) by failing to identify, evaluate, and mitigate a significant unequal access to information OCI involving the eventual awardee prior to award;  VA improperly assigned weaknesses to areas of protester's proposal that complied with the solicitation's stated requirements; VA improperly credited awardee with corporate experience and past performance of proposed subcontractor that it did not list as a major subcontractor, which was a solicitation requirement for receiving such credit; the Contracting Officer's decision not to conduct discussions violated FAR 1.102-2(c)(3) because, inter alia, the proposals of four offerors demonstrated a lack of understanding of key parts of the solicitation, which should have alerted the Contracting Officer to the possibility of problems with the solicitation and the need for clarifications through discussions)

Harmonia Holdings Group, LLC v. United States, No. 17-1543 C (Feb. 28, 2018) (unsuccessful post-award protest; agency's conclusion that protester's price was unrealistically low had a rational basis in the record; protester's unbalanced pricing was not the fault of any error in the information provided with the solicitation, and the evaluators had rational basis for assessing the protester's expertise and apparent understanding of the contract (or lack thereof) in light of the unbalanced pricing; rational bases for the agency's assignment of weaknesses to several aspects of protester's technical proposal; "assumptions" listed in awardee's proposal were not exceptions to the solicitation requirements, but were intended to illustrate the awardee's understanding of the solicitation's requirements)

A Squared Joint Venture v. United States, No. 17-835 C (Feb. 28, 2018) (unsuccessful protest against disqualification from competition due to unequal access to information OCI; Contracting Officer did not delay in identifying and investigating potential OCI; Contracting Officer's finding of potential OCI based on "hard facts," e.g., protester's employees' access to sensitive competitive information of competitor; FAR 9.504(e) does not apply in this case because it only applies to disqualification of apparently successful awardee, and this disqualification occurred before the awardee was identified)

Sigmatech, Inc. v. United States, No. 17-183 C (Feb. 27, 2018) (denies motion for injunction pending appeal of earlier decision that there was a rational basis for setting aside procurement for small businesses; protester unlikely to succeed on the merits)

Loomacres, Inc. v. United States, No. 17-824 C (Feb. 21, 2018) (unsuccessful protest against insourcing decision; OMB Circular A-76 does not govern procurements of services that are necessary for the implementation or enforcement of an Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan, and the Air Force was required to give priority to a federal conservation or wildlife agency to perform such services) 

ARxIUM, Inc. v. United States, No. 17-1407 C (Feb. 16, 2018) (successful post-award protest; improper for agency to remove protester from competitive range during corrective action following GAO protest, because agency retroactively adopted GAO's interpretation of latently ambiguous solicitation term without conducting discussions or allowing revised proposals)

Walden Security v. United States, No. 17-1228 C (Feb. 9, 2018) (unsuccessful post-award protest; after multiple rounds of corrective action following prior GAO protests, agency carefully considered all past performance information concerning protester and awardee and reasonably concluded the proposals were essentially equal in this evaluation factor; agency reasonably concluded that, while both proposals had earned a technical rating of "Good," the awardee's included discriminators that rendered it superior to the protester's proposal and that justified paying a slight premium for its additional benefits)

HESCO Bastion Ltd. v. United States, No. 17-1977 C (Jan. 29, 2018) (agency's decision to undertake corrective action to eliminate unduly restrictive requirements that could be met only by protester's product was "eminently reasonable")

Zeidman Technologies, Inc. v. United States, No. 17-1662 C (Jan. 19, 2018) (denies most of request for access to protected material by plaintiff's CEO/founder/President because: (i) his application omitted several important representations as to his status and role in competitive decision making; and (ii) plaintiff failed to establish his access to most protected materials was necessary to plaintiff's case)

Centerra Group, LLC v. United States, No. 17-1348 C (Jan. 18, 2018) (unsuccessful post-award protest; solicitation did not require offerors to base staffing plan levels on those of incumbent and there was a rational basis in the record for the Government's evaluation of the awardee's "leaner" staffing plan; solicitation only required price analysis to determine whether offered prices were reasonable and balanced, not the additional analysis of performance risk associated with price advocated by protester; conclusion in tradeoff analysis that protester's technical superiority was not sufficient to justify its higher price was consistent with evaluation criteria)

Geo-Med, LLC v. United States, No. 17-1006 C (Jan. 9, 2018) (unsuccessful preaward protest; administrative record, including Market Research Report, demonstrated there was a rational basis for the Contracting Officer's decision to bundle contract requirements, even though that decision might prejudice small businesses)

Sigmatech, Inc. v. United States, No. 17-183 C (Jan. 5, 2018) (unsuccessful protest against decision to set aside procurement for small businesses; multiple responses to market research RFI provided Contracting Officer with sufficient facts to form reasonable expectation that offers would be obtained from at least two responsible small business concerns and that award would be made at fair market price; Rule of Two analysis does not require Contracting Officer to determine responsibility of particular firms before solicitation is issued)

Team Waste Gulf Coast, LLC v. United States, No. 17-1845 C  (Jan. 3, 2018) (unsuccessful post-award protest challenging OHA's prior decision upholding size determination finding affiliation through negative control; plaintiff waived right to raise argument in court not first presented at OHA; Operating Agreement's provisions gave one firm power to exercise negative control over another and, therefore, the firms were affiliated for size determination purposes)

2017

Veterans Contracting Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 17-1015 C  (Dec. 21, 2017) (preaward protest; continuation of earlier case invalidating VA's decision to remove firm from list of qualified SDVOSBs eligible for VA SDVOSB set-asides based solely on SBA's decision that firm was not unconditionally owned by SDV, using SBA rules relating to unconditional ownership that differ from VA rules) 

Veterans Contracting Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 17-1188 C (Dec. 20, 2017) (reluctantly affirms OHA decision following OHA precedent in holding that firm did not qualify as SDVOSB in non-VA procurement set aside for such firms because of lack of unconditional ownership by SDV)

CliniComp International, Inc. v. United States, No. 17-1115 C (Dec. 20, 2017) (denies motion for injunction pending appeal of earlier decision that company lacks standing to protest because it does not have capabilities to perform contract)

Intelligent Waves, LLC, and Missionist Group, Inc. v. United States, Nos. 17-1765 C & 17-1842 C (Dec. 19, 2017) (unsuccessful post-award protests; rational basis for agency's determination that protester had OCCI issue, which protester failed to address adequately despite multiple notices of problem and opportunities to correct it, plus lack of prejudice because awardee's proposal would still have higher evaluation even if weaknesses evaluators assigned for OCCI were removed; denies challenges to other aspects of the evaluation because agency followed evaluation criteria and there were rational bases for its conclusions)

Precision Asset Management Corp. v. United States, No. 16-261 C (Dec. 13, 2017) (successful post-award protest; Government's failure to notify protester of issues that ultimately were treated as significant weaknesses in final award decision constituted lack of meaningful discussions; Government's evaluation of awardee's proposal based on mistaken assumption that certain company was either joint venture partner or mentor of awardee)

Analytical Graphics, Inc. v. United States, No. 16-1453 C (Dec. 12, 2017) (unsuccessful post-award protest; absent clear direction in controlling statutes that either (a) Rule of Two or (b) commercial availability analysis must come first, court will not second-guess agency's decision to conduct both analyses essentially simultaneously after completion of market research; agency properly concluded Rule of Two requirement for small business set-aside was met without having to consider capability or price in same detail as would be required in actual evaluation of proposals after set-aside; market research was sufficient to support agency's determination that requirement as a whole could not be satisfied with commercial items even though certain individual elements could)

XPO Logistics Worldwide Government Services, LLC v. Unites States, No. 17-1080 C (Dec. 8, 2017) (denies contractor's motion to stay earlier decision pending appeal to CAFC because, inter alia, no showing of likelihood of success or irreparable harm)

XPO Logistics Worldwide Government Services, LLC v. Unites States, No. 17-1080 C (Nov. 17, 2017) (unsuccessful post-award protest; protester waived its right to complain that the agency should have conducted discussions (and its argument that absent re-opened discussions, the prior discussions had been unequal and misleading) during corrective action because it was on notice no discussions were contemplated but did not protest until after award; agency's evaluation of magnitude of protester's past contracts was unobjectionable because agency used values protester, itself, provided; agency had rational basis for its rating of relevance of one past contract; under explicit terms of solicitation, agency was permitted to consider corporate experience in best value tradeoff decision; other protest grounds precluded by res judicata)  

Dyncorp International, LLC v. United States, No. 16-1704 C (Nov. 16, 2017) (unsuccessful post-award protest; even though former employee of protester transmitted sensitive information to awardee's senior management that could have been used to give the awardee an advantage in bidding, there was a rational basis for the Contracting Officer's conclusion, after investigation, that the awardee had not made use of this information in the competition)

State of Texas v. United States, No. 17-847 C  (Nov. 7, 2017) (dismisses protest without prejudice as premature because protester was not entitled to award just because it was in the competitive range, but remained in contention)


Straughan Environmental, Inc. v. Unites States, Nos. 15-1217 C, 16-1181 C (Nov. 6, 2017) (protester that did not file size protest within SBA's time limit nevertheless has standing to sue because Contracting Officer requested size determination, which eventually came back adverse to protester's interests; if the OHA erred in dismissing protester's appeal for lack of standing (because it was ineligible for award) protester has standing to sue because there was only one firm determined to be eligible, and, if that firm was actually ineligible, then protester was adversely affected)

Loomacres, Inc. v. United States, No. 17-824 C  (Oct. 31,2017) (prospective bidder had standing to challenge Government's decision to insource services, even though it did not have a current contract to provide the insourced services)


CliniComp International, Inc. v. United States, No. 17-1115 C (Oct. 30, 2017) (unsuccessful preaward protest; plaintiff lacks standing to complain of sole source award because it lacks experience providing the large dollar value of services required by the proposed contract at the large number of facilities to be covered by the contract and also lacks experience performing the comprehensive set of tasks to be required and, therefore, could not have competed for the award)

FreeAlliance.com, LLC V. United States, No. 17-787 C (Oct. 27, 2017) (unsuccessful preaward protest against exclusion from further consideration for failure to comply with solicitation requirement to provide verification on letterhead that the offerors' accounting systems had been audited and determined adequate for determining costs applicable to the contract in accordance with FAR § 16.301–3(a)(1)) 

Sonoran Technology and Professional Services, LLC v. United States, No. 17-711 C (Oct. 15, 2017) (court holds all protest grounds against corrective action (as a result of which agency canceled contract award to protester and awarded to competitor) are untimely)

T Square Logistics Services Corp. v. United States, No. 17-744 C (Oct. 16, 2017) (successful preaward protest; after (i) protester contacted both Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer by email to inform them of weather-related delay of FedEx delivery of hard copy of proposal (as required by solicitation) and enclosed email copy of proposal and (ii) Contract Specialist replied by assuring contractor that late delivery of hard copy would not be a problem because there was evidence the contractor had shipped it prior to the due date (in reliance upon which assurances the contractor advised its local rep it was not necessary to print out and hand-deliver a hard copy of the proposal), Government improperly rejected proposal under 52.212-1  without considering whether late submission should be waived as minor informality)

Synergy Solutions, Inc. v. United States, No. 17-635 C (October 12, 2017) (unsuccessful post-award protest; court rejects disappointed incumbent bidder's objections to numerous aspects of evaluation, including: (i)  corporate experience; (ii) past performance; (iii) cost realism; (iv) direct labor rates; (v) indirect rates; (vi) staffing plan; and (vii) demonstrated ability to comply with technical requirements. Protester waived its objections to agency's conduct of discussions because those objections were not raised before implementation of corrective action in response to prior protest of procurement in which those discussions were held)

Torres Advanced Enterprise Solutions, LLC v. United States, No. 17-868 C (Oct. 2, 2017) (information in protester/incumbent's CPARS is not protected from release in court's published decision on protest)

Tender Years Learning Corp. v. United States, No. (Oct. 2, 2017) (unsuccessful protest of Government's alleged breach of implied-in-fact contract to consider protester's bid fairly: protester failed to timely submit evidence that it had required board of directors;  Government's decision that significant number of its current staff lacked required qualifications had a rational basis) 

Iron Bow Technologies, LLC v. United States, No. 17-603 C (Sep. 14, 2017) (in context of clear solicitation requirements to provide details justifying proposed approach, agency's discussions with protester were adequate and not misleading and protester was not reasonable in assuming it could simply add hours to proposal to respond to alleged weakness without explaining how those hours related to its technical approach)

PDS Consultants, Inc. v. United States, No. 16-1063 C (Sep. 1, 2017) (grants defendant/intervenor's motion to stay court's prior judgment (that VA must perform Rule of Two analysis before purchasing items off AbilityOne Procurement List) pending appeal to CAFC)

Geiler/Schrudde & Zimmerman, A Joint Venture v. United States, No. 16-186 C (Aug. 30, 2017) (unsuccessful post-award protest; death of SDVOSB's owner after award of contested contract did not deprive protester of standing to pursue its original Complaint against award because standing is determined as of time of award; however, court lacks protest jurisdiction over Supplemental Complaint challenging revocation of SDVOSB status as a result of owner's death; as to original Complaint, court denies protester's challenges to agency's determinations that awardee's past projects met the solicitation's experience and past performance requirements because such determinations are generally within the agency's discretion; agency's price evaluation techniques complied with FAR and solicitation requirements and agency was not required to credit protester for alternate bid suggesting a reduction might be possible if certain contingencies occurred)

Veterans Contracting Group, Inc. v. United States,  No. 17-1015 C (Aug. 29, 2017) (successful preaward protest; SBA Area Office's finding that provision in SDVOSB's shareholder agreement ("upon shareholder death, incompetency, or insolvency, all of his or her shares must be purchased by the corporation at the Certificate of Value price") ran afoul of requirement that SDVOSB must be "unconditionally" 51%-owned by SDV was incorrect and, therefore, should not have been used by VA to remove firm as qualified SDVOSB in its VIP database) 

Q Integrated Companies, LLC v. United States, No. 16-101 C (Aug. 24, 2017) (determines quantum of proposal preparation costs and EAJA attorneys' fees and costs due protester whose protest resulted in "substantial relief," including appropriate COLA adjustment of hourly rates, and related costs such as filing fees, electronic legal research, FedEx shipping, courier charges, travel expenses, and conference calls)

Harkcon, Inc. v. United States, No. 17-508 C (Aug. 21, 2017) (unsuccessful post-award protest; facts that (i) awardee's proposed price was close to incumbent's and (ii) Government employee who had only limited relationship with solicitation was subsequently hired by awardee, were not sufficient to create even appearance of impropriety; agency's assignment of deficiency to protester's staffing was reasonable because several proposed employees did not meet solicitation's mandatory education requirements; staffing subfactor deficiency was sufficiently significant that it justified the agency's decision to "roll-up" that deficiency into overall factor evaluation)

Treadwell Corp. v. United States, No. 17-287 C (Aug. 16, 2017) (unsuccessful post-award protest; protester did not establish it would be irreparably harmed absent a stay of performance in part because it waited until eight months after award to file suit; no merit to protester's allegation that awardee's proposal should have been rejected as nonresponsive because it did not show the awardee could meet the strictest delivery schedule the Government might have imposed on contractor, especially where record shows awardee committed to solicitation's delivery schedule; fact that awardee did not propose as aggressive a delivery schedule as protester did not mean Government treated offerors unequally in evaluation; post-award modification of delivery schedule was not cardinal change)

Remote Diagnostic Technologies, LLC v. United States, No. 17-333 C  (Aug. 11, 2017) (protester lacks standing because it cannot meet solicitation requirements, which it has not shown are unduly restrictive)

Automated Collection Services, Inc. and Alltran Education, Inc. v. United States, No. 17-765 C (Aug. 9, 2017) (denies protests of scope of agency's corrective action  in response to prior protests)

Sonoran Technology and Professional Services, LLC v. United States, No. 17-711 C  (Aug. 9, 2017) (denies protester's motion to amend complaint to add two counts against the SBA for allegedly issuing a CoC to a nonresponsible bidder and reopening a CoC referral contrary to established SBA practices because (i) court lacks jurisdiction to review issuance of a CoC and (ii) protester waited too long to file motion to amend)

Harkcon, Inc. v. United States, No. 17-508 C (Aug. 8, 2017) (denies protester's motion to supplement administrative record because, inter alia, (i) one requested document is publically available and others do not exist or are identical to documents already included in record and (ii) deposition of government employee would not aid in court's analysis because there is already a written record of the rationale for his decision)

Mail Transportation, Inc., et al. v. United States, No. 17-934 C (Aug. 3, 2017) (unsuccessful protests; Postal Service performed adequate analysis required by 39 U.S.C. § 5005(c) in selecting routes to be converted from Highway Contract Route (HCR) contracts to Postal Vehicle Service (PVS) routes.

Veterans Technology, LLC and MDW Assocs., LLC v. United States, No. 16-1489 (Aug. 2, 2017) (prior SBA OHA decision affirming Area Office finding that firms were affiliated through economic dependence and contractual relationships was arbitrary and capricious because OHA did not adequately investigate or provide analysis of circumstances of contractual relationships)

Cotton & Co., LLP v. United States, No. 17-878 C (July 28, 2017) (after agency terminated plaintiff's contract for convenience and issued new solicitation (because agency's requirements had changed during delays associated with prior GAO protest) and plaintiff failed to bid on new solicitation, court lacked jurisdiction over (i) "protest" against convenience termination because no CDA claim had been filed and (ii) protest of new solicitation because plaintiff failed to bid on it and, therefore, lacked standing)

A Squared Joint Venture v. United States, No. 17-835 C (July 28, 2017) (unsuccessful preaward protest; agency's decision to eliminate firm from competition due to potential OCI arising from use of individuals with access to sensitive information to prepare proposal for follow-on contract)

American Sanitary Products, Inc. v. United States, No. 17-362 (July 24, 2017) (unsuccessful protest of corrective action; agency's decision to cancel award and resolicit had rational basis in agency's discovery (after GAO protest was filed) that it had underestimated its requirements in original solicitation)

XPO Logistics Worldwide Government Services, LLC v. United States, Nos. 17-452 C, 17-455 C (July 24, 2017) (unsuccessful consolidated protests against agency's corrective action; denies original awardee's protest of the agency's decision to follow GAO recommendation on prior protest and take corrective action in the form of reevaluating past performance references and making new source selection decision because the contemporaneous record had not shown how the agency arrived at its conclusion that the magnitudes of the awardee's past contracts were sufficient to evaluate them as somewhat relevant; denies competitor's protests that corrective action (i) did not take into account awardee's unbalanced pricing (the court finding the Contracting Officer had properly analyzed the offers and found no unbalanced pricing) and (ii) improperly relied on total evaluated price in the final evaluation (the court finding that this evaluation was the method stated in the solicitation's evaluation scheme))

Sonoran Technology and Professional Services, LLC v. United States, No. 17-711 C (July 17, 2017) (orders additional supplementation of administrative record after prior supplementation showed information previously deemed irrelevant was, in fact, relevant)

Dell Federal Systems, L.P., et al. v. United States, No. 17-465, -473 C  (July 13, 2017) (successful protest against scope of corrective action; allowing offerors to submit clarifications suffices to cure defects in solicitation process; reopening competition for discussions is not necessary)

Novak Birch, Inc. v. United States, No. 17-559 C (July 12, 2017) (unsuccessful protest of proposed corrective action in response to prior protest, involving (i) terminating the prior contract award to current protester, (ii) cancelling the solicitation, and (iii) returning to market research; Contracting Officer had rational basis for perceiving defects in prior solicitation process, and, given those defects, proposed corrective action was not overly broad)

QTC Medical Services, Inc. v. United States, Nos. 17-80 C, 17-83 C  (July 12, 2017) (unsuccessful post-award protest; under Blue & Gold Fleet test, protester waived objections to (i) calculation of price benchmark, (ii) allegedly misleading discussions about price, and (iii) methodology used for calculating price reasonableness because all of these grounds for protest were apparent, but not protested, prior to submission of final proposal revisions; no unmitigated OCI on the part of awardees; agency's tradeoff analysis had rational basis)

Cleveland Assets, LLC v. United States, No. 17-277 C (July 11, 2017) (denies protester's motion to stay the court's prior decision denying protest pending appeal to Federal Circuit because protester has not shown substantial case on merits related to grounds of appeal)

The Informatics Applications Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 17-553 C (July 10, 2017) (unsuccessful preaward protest; Government reasonably excluded quotation sent to eBUY portal rather than to point of contact designated in RFQ's instructions)

UnitedHealth Military & Veterans Services, LLC v. United States, No. 16-1526 C (July 10, 2017) (unsuccessful post-award protest; following language in solicitation did not require Government to conduct a price realism evaluation: "M.2.2. Unrealistic Proposals. The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, contract terms and conditions such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.")

Sonoran Technology and Professional Services, LLC v. United States, No. 17-711 C (July 7, 2017) (authorizes protester to depose Contracting Officer for limited amount of time and concerning only two issues to correct deficiencies in the administrative record concerning agency's decision to take corrective action)

Board of Regents of the Nevada System of Higher Education on behalf of The Desert Research Institute v. United States, No. 16-376 C (July 5, 2017) (court had no basis to conclude that agency should have assigned deficiencies rather than weaknesses to awardee's proposal; in solicitation conducted without discussions, broken link to cost data in protester's proposal, which made it impossible for agency's evaluators to access data that would allow them to determine realism and reasonableness of protester's proposed costs, was not minor clerical error, did not require agency to seek clarification, and did not prejudice protester because, even after finding protester's proposal unacceptable, agency still explained why awardee's proposal was a better value due to technically superiority; under Blue & Gold Fleet standard, protester's post-award challenge to agency's failure to provide certain information to prospective offerors was waived as untimely)

i3 Cable & Harness LLC v. United states, No. 17-490 C (June 30, 2017) (unsuccessful post-award protest; protester waived protest of agency's use of undisclosed quantities to evaluate price because protester failed to challenge this aspect of solicitation terms prior to submitting offer; quantities used by agency to re-evaluate prices after corrective action had a rational basis;  protester failed to timely challenge patent ambiguity in solicitation regarding required place of performance; no evidence to support protester's OCI allegations)

SupplyCore Inc. v. United States, No. 17-427 C (June 28, 2017) (unsuccessful post-award protest; agency did not use unstated evaluation criteria in past performance evaluation; agency's discussions with protester were adequate; agency's past performance ratings of awardee were supported in the record)

Continental Service Group, Inc., et al. v. United States, Nos. 17-449, 17-499 C  (June 14, 2017) (denies Government's motion to dismiss protesters' actions as moot because Government's corrective action in response to prior protests is not complete and plaintiffs may suffer additional harm in the interim) 

Cleveland Assets, LLC v. United States, No. 17-277 C (June 1, 2017) (unsuccessful preaward protest; rental rate cap in Government's solicitation for lease proposals is not unreasonably low or unduly restrictive of competition)

Iron Bow Technologies, LLC v. United States, No. 17-603 C (June 1, 2017) (unsuccessful post-award protest; protester failed to adequately explain changes to labor hour in its revised technical proposal and discussions concerning its proposal were neither incomplete nor misleading; protester failed to provide sufficient information on relationship of price proposal to revised technical proposal to allow agency to assess price reasonableness)

PDS Consultants, Inc. v. United States, No. 16-1063 C (May 30, 2017) (successful preaward protest; VA is required to perform Rule of Two analysis for all future procurements, regardless whether they involve items on AbilityOne list)

Harmonia Holdings Group, LLC v. United States, No. 17-86 C (May 23, 2017) (unsuccessful preaward protest of scope of agency's corrective action in response to prior protest; agency not required to limit corrective action to reevaluation and could also revise solicitation to address problems in original solicitation not specifically raised in prior protest) 

Vintage Autoworks, Inc. v. United States, No. 17-123 C (May 18, 2017) (unsuccessful post-award protest; rejects protester's objections to agency's responsibility determination concerning awardee because requirements protester alleged awardee failed to meet were contract requirements, and, thus, related to contract administration, not solicitation requirements)

IT Enterprise Solutions JV, LLC v. United States, No. 17-204 C (May 9, 2017) (unsuccessful post-award protest; under normal dictionary definition of "count," Government complied with terms of solicitation by giving joint venture credit for relevant experience of minority member, but was not required to give that experience same weight as that of majority member who would be performing more of the required effort; under standard dictionary definition of "address" Government correctly evaluated relevancy of past performance of proposed subcontractor, especially where protester offered no alternative definition for the term, and protester was not prejudiced by any errors in this aspect of evaluation; Government followed the solicitation's requirements in evaluating "recency" of proposed subcontractor's past performance;  in tradeoff analysis, agency could distinguish between offerors that had the same general adjectival rating)

Tetra Tech, Inc. v. United States, No. 16-1569 C  (May 5, 2017) (unsuccessful post-award protest; work assignment was within scope of Performance Work Statement of underlying contract and, therefore, was not issued in violation of CICA)

Enhanced Veterans Solutions, Inc. v. United States, No. 15-1022 C (May 3, 2017) (unsuccessful post-award protest; rational basis for agency's assignment of Marginal rating to protester's proposed staffing reductions under Operational Approach subfactor and protester's counter-arguments rely on unreasonable interpretation of solicitation documents; agency's methodology of assigning Marginal rating to Technical factor if offeror received Marginal rating in any one of equally weighted subfactors was not objectionable; agency's decision not to include protester's low-priced proposal in best value tradeoff analysis was not objectionable in the circumstances of this procurement, especially when SSA's decision clearly explained why the proposal would not have been successful even if it had been included)

Continental Services Group, Inc., et al. v. United States, Nos. 17-449, 17-499 (May 2, 2017) (preliminary injunction to preserve status quo until Government announces corrective action in response to prior GAO decision on protest)

Open Spirit, LLC v. United States, No. 15-370 C (Apr. 28, 2017) (unsuccessful preaward protest; environmental contamination concerns of which Government became aware near end of lease competition, not bad faith or bias, caused Government to cancel competition)

The Concourse Group, LLC v. United States, No. 17-129 C (Apr. 27, 2017) (unsuccessful post-award protest; technical evaluation did not employ unstated evaluation criteria regarding relevant experience; discussions with protester were meaningful and fair)

Gallup, Inc., B-16-1656 C  (Apr. 25, 2017) (Government took corrective action and offered to pay protester's attorneys fees as a self-imposed sanction after it discovered and reported that Contracting Officer had prepared Memorandum for Record justifying small business set-aside after protest against set-aside was filed but back-dated it to make it appear as if it were part of contemporaneous record)

Greenland Contractors I/S v. United States, No. 15-272 C (Apr. 12, 2017) (unsuccessful post-award protest; agency did not conduct misleading discussions by failing to advise offeror of each individual CLIN price that was significantly higher than competitors' because solicitation required agency only to evaluate total price and prices for two specific CLINs; solicitation language advising offerors to "show justification for unique practices that significantly lower pricing" did not require offerors to show justification for all lower prices generally)

By Light Professional IT Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 16-1316 C (Apr. 11, 2017) (unsuccessful post-award protest; protest of solicitation requirement not raised before submission of final offers is untimely, especially where agency had specifically warned offeror of requirement during discussion prior to submission of final offers; agency reasonably assigned deficiency to offeror's proposal for failing to provide required task order number for one of contracts it was submitting to satisfy Experience sub-factor; no prejudice to protester from agency's decision to raise competitor's score under Past Performance fact because agency did the same with the protester; trade-off analysis, which recognized that one offer had more strengths in Technical Capability factor despite fact that both offers received the same overall rating, had rational basis)

Starry Assocs., Inc. v. United States, No. 16-44C (Apr. 10, 2017) (agency's repeated misconduct and misrepresentations, which forced protester to file multiple protests, constituted a "special circumstance" under the EAJA, entitling the protester to recover its attorneys fees at the actual rates charged, rather than at the normal statutory cap of $125/hour)

Jacobs Technology, Inc. v. United States, Nos. 16-1602 C, 17-88 C (Apr. 7, 2017) (rejects challenges by both the awardee and a competitor to the agency's third round of corrective actions, after the agency had repeatedly chosen the same awardee after the earlier rounds of corrective action)

Rivada Mercury LLC v. United States, No. 16-1559 C (Mar. 31, 2017) (unsuccessful protest against elimination from competitive range; extensive exchanges between Government and offerors prior to establishing competitive range were specifically contemplated by selection plan for complex procurement and did not constitute discussions because offerors were neither requested nor permitted to revise proposals prior to establishment of competitive range; protester's quarrels with numerous aspects of agency's technical evaluation lack merit)

Continental Services Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 17-499 (Mar. 29, 2017) (court issues TRO even though record is not sufficient to determine protester's likelihood of success on the merits because the other three factors the court weighs in deciding such motions favor the protester)

Q Integrated Companies, LLC v. United States, No. 16-101 C (Mar. 27, 2017) (denies Government's motion for relief from prior judgment in favor of bid protester because SBA's post-judgment finding that protester was not eligible small business for contracts in geographic areas different from those at issue in protest did not necessarily mean it would not be able to compete under reopened competition for area under dispute in current protest)

Progressive Industries, Inc. v. United States, No. 14-1225 C (Mar. 21, 2017) (denies plaintiff's motion to alter final judgment as untimely and  denies alternative motion for relief from final judgment because plaintiff has not shown entitlement under Rule 60(b))

Mercom, Inc. v. United States, No. 16-1475 C (Mar. 17, 2017) (unsuccessful post-award protest; agency's assignment of “Unacceptable” rating to sub-factor of protester's proposal had a rational basis because protester failed to submit satisfactory evidence of qualifying experience related to that sub-factor  and  contract references provided by protester framed the company’s work hypothetically, i.e., in terms of work that it could perform rather than work it actually did perform)

Level 3 Communications, LLC v. United States, No. 16-829  (Mar. 16, 2017) (Government's counsel repeatedly violated duty of candor to court by leading court to believe performance on contract had not begun when, in fact, it had)

The Concourse Group, LLC v. United States, No. 17-129 C (Mar. 13, 2017) (unsuccessful post-award protest; plaintiff waived OCI objections because it did not raise them prior to the close of the bidding process even though they were based on facts that were easily recognizable or obvious at that time)

Sigmatech, Inc. v. United States, No. 17-183 (Mar. 7, 2017) (declines Government's request to seek advisory opinion from GAO because record before court includes several hundred pages of documents not originally available to GAO and opinion from GAO would delay proceedings)

Munilla Construction Management, LLC v. United States, No. 16-1684 C (Feb. 15, 2017) (comparing prices of four offerors satisfied requirement to evaluate price reasonableness and no requirement to determine whether offered price was too low; Government appropriately examined individual CLIN pricing to determine whether unbalanced pricing had occurred)

Limco Airepair, Inc. v. United States, No. 16-1576 C (Feb. 15, 2017) (unsuccessful post-award protest; Government conducted adequate price realism analysis by comparing prices of only two offers received in response to solicitation; protester failed to establish prejudice from Government's ex parte communication with awardee)

Active Network, LLC v. United States, No. (Feb. 14, 2017) (no evidence in record that Government conducted price realism analysis in accordance with requirements of solicitation)

Systems Dynamics International, Inc. v. United States, No. 16-710 C (Feb. 7, 2017) (unsuccessful protest against elimination from competitive range; protester waived its right to object to patent omissions in solicitation of (i) data required to comply with solicitation requirement and (ii) historical staffing mix and levels, by failing to protest prior to submission of proposal; Government's price evaluation had reasonable basis)

Ecosystem Investment Partners v. United States, No. 16-1549 C (Feb. 3, 2017) (plaintiff lacks standing because it neither submitted bid nor timely protested the issuance of a solicitation; letter plaintiff sent providing comments on proposed solicitation did not fulfill requirements for agency level protest; the Government's decision that ultimately led to the solicitation was not a procurement decision and, thus, was not within the court's protest jurisdiction)

Global Dynamics, LLC v. United States, No. 16-1311 C (Jan. 25, 2017) (unsuccessful post-award protest; where agency's discussion questions created patent ambiguity as to whether agency was conducting price realism analysis, protester had a duty to inquire and, not having done so, could not later complain about the effect of its actions in raising its prices based upon its assumptions about the meaning of the discussion questions)

IT Shows, Inc. v. United States, No. 16-1259 C (Jan. 17, 2017) (unsuccessful post-award protest; awardee's plan to dedicate a project management office and its staff exclusively to the contract and bill them as direct rather than overhead costs did not violate solicitation requirements or FAR; agency was not required to inform protester during discussions that it could do the same because its billing of these items as overhead costs was not a deficiency in its proposal; protester waived its right to protest agency's intention to use ceiling rates in cost realism analysis because that intention was clearly stated in solicitation and, therefore, should have been protested before award)

York Telecom Corp. v. United States, No 15-489 C (Jan. 13, 2017) (unsuccessful post-award protest; protest of agency's determination that firm was not eligible small business under solicitation's size standard was untimely because it was not raised until after notice of award when questions and answers issued during solicitation process had created patent ambiguity as to the applicable size standard for the competition)

Munilla Construction Management, LLC v. United States, No. 16-1684 C (Jan. 10, 2017) (court denies protester's request for TRO because (i) it may not have standing since it was not next-in-line for award; and (ii) it cannot show irreparable harm because, inter alia, court has established aggressive schedule for full consideration of its protest)

Strategic Business Solutions, Inc. v. United States, No. 16-81 C (2017) (unsuccessful preaward protest; agency did not err in rejecting proposal for failure to comply with mandatory solicitation requirement to provide redacted copy of proposal because the failure was not a minor informality or irregularity that could be waived)

Parcel 49C Limited Partnership v. United States, No. 16-427 C (Jan. 3, 2017) (unsuccessful preaward protest; agency twice investigated allegations of organizational conflict of interest involving competitor and found any conflict, even if it existed, had been mitigated; challenged firm had committed to meet solicitation's single-owner requirement if awarded contract, which was all solicitation required; solicitation's requirements were necessary to meet agency's minimum needs and, therefore, were not unduly restrictive of competition)

2016

Telos Corp. v. United States, No. 15-1541 C (Dec. 13, 2016) (denies request for injunction pending appeal of prior court decision denying protest)

Progressive Industries, Inc. v. United States, No. 14-1225 C (Dec. 6, 2016) (successful post-award protest of agency's decision, as a result of corrective action in response to earlier agency protest, to make awards to same two firms as it had originally selected; in establishing competitive range, agency treated offerors inconsistently; agency granted only one offeror extension of time to submit revised proposal; record does not show when or how agency evaluated price; record suggests final source selection decision was accomplished using different standards and methodology than set forth in original source selection plan)

Level 3 Communications, LLC v. United States, No. 16-829 C  (Dec. 5, 2016) (successful post-award protest; in technically acceptable, low-priced offer competition, Contracting Officer should have sought clarification from protester regarding aspect of its significantly lowest price proposal rather than finding it unacceptable; Contracting Officer engaged in disparate treatment of offerors by finding one unacceptable for a defect shared by the successful offeror; because protester's price was 40% lower than awardee's, Contracting Officer should have entered into negotiations with offerors, especially where awardee could not meet the start-up timing requirement in solicitation)

Tiber Creek Consulting, Inc. v. United States, No. 16-236 C (Dec. 2, 2016) (unsuccessful post-award protest; Contracting Officer's best value analysis, determining that awardee's 20% lower price outweighed protester's superior technical expertise, had rational basis and was supported by the administrative record)

CSC Government Solutions, LLC v. United States, No. 16-1000 C (Dec. 2, 2016) (unsuccessful post-award protest; contrary to protester's contentions, agency's cost realism analysis considered option years and direct labor rates; agency's evaluation of awardee's staffing plan satisfied requirements of FAR 52.222-46, which addresses offerors' proposals that may reduce compensation for incumbent employees; any inconsistencies between Government's evaluation of protester's technical approach and statements it made concerning protester's cost-price realism during discussions were overridden by fact that Government ultimately evaluated its cost-price as realistic; rational basis for agency's evaluation of phase-in staffing plan; solicitation gave agency discretion to evaluate only past performance references submitted by awardee and did not require it to conduct additional research of particular contract mentioned only fleetingly in awardee's proposal and not submitted as a reference;  agency's discussions with offerors were not misleading, unequal, or coercive)

Sallyport Global Holdings, Inc. v. United States, No. 16-817 C (Nov. 30, 2016) (unsuccessful post-award protest; agency's finding that protester's proposed Project Manager structure did not meet solicitation's requirement was supported by the record; agency's assessment of weakness to protester's proposal based on  unjustified assumption it had contacted agency personnel during blackout period was not prejudicial because its proposal was unacceptable for another reason; reference to "certification" held by awardee's proposed Project Manager met solicitation requirements)

Veterans Electric, LLC v. United States, No. 16-1113 C (Nov. 23, 2016) (unsuccessful protest; agency entitled to consider its past positive experiences with awardee as contractor in selecting its low-priced, somewhat ambiguous proposal for award)

Caddell Construction Co. v. United States, No. 15-914 C (Nov. 17, 2016) (unsuccessful post-award protest; awardee was not prohibited from radically revising its proposal regarding the role of a subcontractor following discussions; awardee's proposed home office staffing approach was not prohibited by solicitation and was rationally evaluated as acceptable by agency; awardee repeatedly represented that it would comply with Limitations on Subcontracting clause and whether it does so will be matter of contract administration; Contracting Officer's decision not to conduct new responsibility determination concerning awardee based on court decision concerning fraud by predecessor firm of one of its subcontractors was reasonable because that decision did not affect any of awardee's representations; Contracting Officer's decision not to conduct new responsibility determination re same subcontractor was rational because solicitation did not require responsibility determinations of subcontractors and prior court decision had affirmed separate responsibility determination of subcontractor because of various remedial measures it had taken since the original fraud finding)

Professional Service Industries, Inc. v. United States, No. 16-1038 C (Nov. 15, 2016) (corrective action undertaken by agency in response to prior, successful GAO protest merely watered down solicitation requirements to conform to original awardee's proposed PM's qualifications and experience)

Level 3 Communications, LLC v. United States, No. 16-829 (Nov. 14, 2016) (court issues TRO against further contract performance pending issuance of opinion on merits after agency allowed awardee to begin performance sooner than it had previously predicted it would to court)

Palantir USG, Inc. v. United States, No. 16-784 C (Nov. 9, 2016) (successful preaward protest; although the protester failed to establish bias by the Government against its product, the documents the agency relied on in limiting competition did not establish that the agency had conducted adequate market research and analysis to determine whether the agency's needs could be met by commercial items in accordance with the preference for such items in 10 U.S.C. 2377)

Great Southern Engineering, Inc. v. United States, No. 16-975 (Nov. 4, 2016) (unsuccessful pre-award protest; rational basis for agency's past performance evaluation of "past projects," which evaluated offeror submitting information from totally separate contracts more favorably than protester's submission of multiple task orders under same contract)

Favor TechConsulting, LLC v. United States, No. 16-1365 C (Nov. 3, 2016) (requires agency to institute CICA stay pending resolution of GAO protest because evidence indicates plaintiff filed GAO protest within 10 days of award)

Favor TechConsulting, LLC v. United States, No. 16-1365 C  (Oct. 19, 2016) (grants TRO (for seven days) against proceeding with performance of awarded orders (within which time agency may submit additional documentation concerning its contention that protest was not filed within 10 days of award date) because documentation in record so far supports plaintiff's contention that it filed GAO protest within time period required to generate CICA's automatic stay)

Dorado Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 16-945 C (Oct. 18, 2016) (unsuccessful protest; court has bid protest jurisdiction over contract awardee's challenge to SBA's decision to decertify it as eligible HUBZone business for purposes of contract it was already performing; SBA correctly concluded that certain of plaintiff's employees did not reside in HUBZones at time of award  and, therefore, that plaintiff did not meet HUBZone program requirement that 35 % of its workers do so)

Loch Harbor Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 16-1114 C (Oct. 6, 2016) (unsuccessful request for TRO and preliminary injunction; evidence on record not sufficient to demonstrate: (i) protester has standing because it is not small business under standard applicable to protested procurement (which likely would be applicable to any reprocurement); (ii) record shows agency complied with requirements of Veterans Benefit, Health Care, and Information Technology Act in awarding sole-source contract to veteran-owned business)

Proxtronics Dosimetry, LLC v. United States, No. 15-1589 C (Sep. 30, 2016) (court lacks jurisdiction over claims sounding in tort based on Lanham Act; plaintiff lacks standing to protest sole-source award because it failed to provide any notice of objections or its own availability at the time the notices of the sole-source procurement were issued; plaintiff waived right to challenge agency's decision not to set-aside procurement for small businesses because it did not protest at time solicitation was issued; plaintiff's protest of contract that already had been fully performed when protest filed is moot)

Aegis Technologies Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 16-863 C (Sep. 28, 2016) (plaintiff failed to provide "hard facts" necessary to establish awardee's proposed subcontractor suffered from (i) biased ground rules OCI under FAR 9.505-1, (ii) unequal access to competitively useful non-public information OCI, or (iii) impaired objectivity OCI; rational bases for cost realism, technical risk, and past performance evaluations)

Nevada Site Science Support and Technologies Corp. v. United States, No. 16-1118 C (Sep. 27, 2016) (denies motions to intervene in bid protest challenging agency's decision to rescind contract by parties who might get award if rescission upheld)

Alluviam, LLC v. United States, No. 16-614 C (Sep. 26, 2016) (unsuccessful post-award protest; plaintiff too late to challenge procurement strategy adopted 12 years previously, especially because contracts at issue almost fully performed)

McConnell Jones Lanier & Murphy, LLP v. United States, No. 15-1351 C (Sep. 23, 2016) (unsuccessful post-award protest; rational bases for agency's technical and cost realism evaluations and lack of prejudice to protester from any errors in cost realism evaluation)

Dellew Corp. v. United States, No. 16-671 C (Sep. 22, 2016) (unsuccessful post-award protest; Contracting Officer rationally exercised discretion in awarding contract in situation where competitors' evaluation were very close)

TAT Technologies, LTD v. United States, No. 16-540 C (Sep. 22, 2016) (unsuccessful post-award protest; solicitation did not require offerors to perform and pass qualification tests prior to award)

Omran Holding Group v. United States, No. 15-1570 C (Sep. 14, 2016) (unsuccessful protest; in a lowest-price, technically acceptable procurement with only one awardee, firm lacks standing to protest agency's finding that its proposal was nonresponsive on technical grounds because 18 technically acceptable offerors proposed a lower price than protester did)

Tender Years Learning Corp. v. United States, No. 15-719 C (Sep. 12, 2016) (allows contractor (i) to amend its Complaint to eliminate bid protest allegations and allege only implied-in-fact contract damages and (ii) to bifurcate issues of entitlement and quantum)

InSpace 21 LLC v. United States, No. 15-364 C (Sep. 7, 2016) (laches did not bar suit filed four months after original GAO decision because protester had timely requested reconsideration and filed suit within 10 days of decision on reconsideration; rational bases for evaluation, including decision not to adopt differing views of minority of evaluators)

Precision Asset Management Corp. and Q Integrated Companies, LLC v. United States, Nos. 16-261, -442 (Aug. 30, 2016) (to have standing protesters must only establish that, absent errors in evaluation, evaluation rating would have improved and chances of securing contract would have increased)

Tetra Tech AMT v. United States, No. 16-632 C (Aug. 29, 2016) (protester's interpretation of solicitation's proposal page imitation requirements was not within zone of reasonableness; protester waited too long to raise issues with awardee's alleged manipulation of page limitation requirements, and protester's arguments are unavailing in any event; rational bases for agency's evaluation and for its trade-off analysis)

Palantir Technologies, Inc. and Palantir USG, Inc. v. United States, No. 16-784 C (Aug. 26, 2016) (dismisses (as waived) one preaward protest because initial protest at GAO was untimely; refuses to dismiss second preaward protest filed 43 days after adverse GAO decision because original GAO protest was timely filed and no award had yet been made) 

National Air Cargo Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 16-362 C (Aug. 26, 2016) (unsuccessful post-award protest; offer that solicitation required to remain open for 180 days was not extinguished by agency's initial rejection followed by acceptance after corrective action; agency had rational basis for making six awards when solicitation had stated "approximately four" would be made; even though agency's evaluation of past performance as "limited confidence" did not change from original to revised evaluation after corrective action, agency had rational basis for trade-off analysis after corrective action that justified award to protested firm)

AugustaWestland North America, Inc. v. United States, No.  14-877 C (Aug. 24, 2016) (Army's order to designate one firm's helicopter as the Army's institutional training helicopter and its manufacturer as the only responsible source was a procurement decision that violated, inter alia, CICA, and Army did not have rational basis for its decision to limit competition to one manufacturer), reversed and vacated by CAFC

Lawson Environmental Services, LLC v. United States, No. 15-1550 C (Aug. 16, 2016) (refuses to stay of court's previous decision (denying bid protest) pending protester's appeal to CAFC)

T.W LaQuay Marine, LLC v. United States, No. 16-544 C (Aug. 16, 2016) (agency's evaluation of offers in response to solicitation and its subsequent decision to conduct discussions based on unacceptable technical proposals were reasonable, and discussion questions and subsequent award to the lowest-priced technically acceptable offeror, as provided for in the solicitation, had rational basis)

SOS International LLC v. United States, No. 16-317 C (Aug. 8, 2016) (unsuccessful preaward protest to proposed corrective action of clarifying ambiguous proposal page limitation requirements after previous protest; protester lacks standing because it was not winner of original competition and cannot establish it would be in line for award but for the proposed corrective action; proposed corrective action is reasonable)

Parcel 49C Limited Partnership v. United States, No. 16-427 C (Aug. 5, 2016) (preaward protest; allows supplementation of administrative record with information concerning Government's development of independent government estimate)

Algese 2 s.c.a.r.l. v. United States, No. (July 29, 2016) (after remand to agency for new responsibility determination and receipt of additional explanations from agency, court lifts previous injunction against award), court denies motion for stay of decision pending appeal

Starry Assocs., Inc. v. United States, No. (July 17, 2016) (agency lacked rational basis for cancelling solicitation rather than undertaking corrective action recommended by GAO in response to prior protests)

Dynamic Systems Technology, Inc. v. United States, No. 16-353 C (July 18, 2016) (unsuccessful post-award protest; rational bases for agency's evaluations of awardee's technical proposal and the relevance of its past performance submissions, as well as for the agency's price/technical trade-off analysis)

Ultimate Concrete, LLC v. United States, No. 16-152 C (June 30, 2016) (although awardee's original bid was unbalanced, it was not materially so (because base item was priced low and option item (which not be awarded) was high and there was no risk of an advance payment or of default; although it was improper to permit awardee to modify its bid, protester was not prejudiced because awardee still would have won contract with original bid)

Phoenix Management, Inc. v. United States, Nos. 16-79 C, 16-77 C  (June 30, 2016) (unsuccessful preaward protest of terms of solicitation; for well-defined fixed-price work, Government is not required to disclose incumbent's ODC data to competitors; in lowest-price, technically acceptable evaluation, agency could treat offerors with no past performance as "acceptable")

Worldwide Language Resources, LLC v. United States, No. 16-424 C (June 22, 2016) (unsuccessful preaward protest against solicitation terms;  solicitation was not structured so that only the incumbent would have sufficient information and relevant past performance to win competition)  

Wallace Asset Management, LLC v. United States, No. 15-1527 C (May 31, 2016) (unsuccessful post-award protests; protester lacks standing because it is not next in line for award; past performance ratings had rational basis; no evidence in record of OCI involving awardee)

Spectrum Comm, Inc. v. United States, No. 16-348 C (May 26, 2016) (unsuccessful post-award protest; Source Selection Authority's decision (both before and after corrective action) to award contract to different firm from that recommended by the agency's evaluation team had rational basis in the record, did not violate evaluation scheme, and did not convert procurement from best-value to lowest-priced-technically-acceptable procurement)

Dellew Corp. v. United States, No. 15-808 C (May 20, 2016) (protester was "prevailing party" under EAJA because Government decided to take corrective action in response to prior bid protest after closing arguments during which court commented favorably on merits of protest), reversed by CAFC  

Transatlantic Lines LLC v. United States, No. 16-288 C (May 19, 2016) (unsuccessful post-award protest; because contractor signed bridge contract, any  disputes it has regarding the rates to be paid by the Government under the contract are matters involving contract administration that must be handled under the CDA, over which the court lacks protest jurisdiction) 

Res Rei Development, Inc. v. United States, No. 15-1256 C (May 17, 2016) (unsuccessful preaward protest against exclusion from competitive range; after offeror's initial offer was rejected by email server as too large, offeror was responsible for consequences of sending edited version that contained errors rather than breaking the original version into smaller pieces)

PricewaterhouseCoopers Public Sector, LLP v. United States, No. 16-98 C (May 10, 2016) (unsuccessful protest of proposed corrective action (revising solicitation and seeking new proposals) in response to prior GAO decision; GAO was correct concerning sufficient number of flaws it found in the prior evaluation to justify agency's decision to undertake corrective action; agency was within its discretion to revise solicitation to reflect changed needs between original proposal submission and date of revised solicitation, which, in turn, required revised proposals; argument that competitor has an OCI is premature before proposals have been submitted and agency has opportunity to examine that issue, itself)

MSC Industrial Direct Co. v. United States, No. 15-1409 C  (May 6, 2016) (agency reasonably decided to take corrective action by revising solicitation after discovering delivery requirement as stated in original solicitation was in error; agency reasonably decided on further corrective action of allowing competitors to submit revised pricing since many prices had changed during passage of time since original price submissions; award of BPAs to firm after corrective action was proper because argument that it had manipulated pricing was speculative and requirement that it not sell items equal to AbilityOne items was a matter to be determined during contract performance, not as part of evaluation of its bid) 

Q Integrated Companies, LLC v. United States, No. 16-101 C (Apr. 28, 2016) (successful post-award protest; although Government's evaluation of protester's and awardee's Past Performance had rational basis, Government failed to conduct meaningful discussions with protester because Government failed to disclose that protester's Past Performance proposal, including the completed questionnaires it had submitted, contained material weaknesses or deficiencies)

Universal Protection Service, LP v. United States, No. 16-126 C (Apr. 26, 2016) (firm which purchased original bidder/protester (one subsidiary of a much larger firm) during pendency of second round of corrective actions undertaken by agency following original protest did not have standing to protest following the conclusion of that corrective action because it was not the complete successor-in-interest to the original protester since certain individuals and assets of the original protester's parent company, referenced in the original proposal and evaluated by the agency, were not included in the sale)

Braseth Trucking, LLC, and Corwin Co. v. United States, Nos. 15-837 C, -844 C (Apr. 25, 2016) (following remand, during which Contracting Officer explained basis for original decision, protester lacks standing because it has no substantial chance for award even if errors in procurement it originally alleged are corrected)

REO Solution, LLC v. United States, No. 16-296 C  (Apr. 21, 2016) (unsuccessful post-award protest; firm whose offered price was substantially higher than the awardee's and several others did not have standing because there was no substantial chance it would have received award even its protest grounds had been upheld)

GEO-Med, LLC v. United States, Nos. 16-182 C, -183 C (Apr. 20, 2016) (unsuccessful preaward protests; OCI allegations involving one bidder mooted when the agency awarded the contract to a different firm; agency was within its discretion not to seek a waiver of nonmanufacturer rule and set-aside the procurement for SDVOSBs;  solicitation did not constitute impermissible bundling and was not unduly restrictive of competition)

Sigmatech, Inc. v. United States, No. 16-174 (Apr. 16, 2016) (protester is permitted to take Contracting Officer's deposition concerning compilation of Administrative Record and potential inconsistencies in the documents produced because the Government had corrected the record after the protester had filed briefing materials based on the original record; Government required to reimburse plaintiff's attorneys' fees incurred preparing briefs based on original, uncorrected record)

Wallace Asset Management, LLC v. United States, No. 15-1527 C (Apr. 20, 2016) (protester lacks standing to protest four of five disputed awards because it was not next in line for award; agency's evaluation of past/present performance had rational basis; agency properly investigated OCI issues)

Lawson Environmental Services, LLC v. United States, No. 15-1550 C (Apr. 7, 2016) (since Key Personnel evaluation factor was traditional responsibility issue, procuring agency properly referred issue to SBA for CoC once small business had failed it)

Prescient, Inc. v. United States , No. 16-109 C (Apr. 6, 2016) (protester failed to establish prejudicial disparate treatment by the evaluators concerning its proposal versus those of other offerors; deficiencies identified by agency in protester's proposal were "material")

Starry Assocs. v. United States, No. 16-44 C (Apr. 5, 2016) (allows plaintiff limited discovery to supplement administrative record by taking four depositions because it had made credible allegations that agency's decision to cancel solicitation was tainted by bias)

Orion Construction Corp. v. United States, No. 15-1505 C (Apr. 1, 2016) (agency did not impliedly amend solicitation to incorporate new size standard issued between submission of Phase One and Phase Two proposals; agency's decision not to incorporate new size standard was not improper; SBA's size determination regarding protester's size had rational basis)

Remington Arms Co, LLC v. United States, No. 15-1425 C (Mar. 30, 2016) (successful protest; agency's responsibility determination re awardee lacked reasonable basis because outcome of awardee's pending bankruptcy case and its production capability were both in serious doubt)

Constellation West, Inc. and Serv1Tech, Inc.,  v. United States, Nos.15-876 C,  -923 C (Mar. 25, 2016) (unsuccessful post-award protests; Government did not apply unstated evaluation criteria to analysis of proposals; error in evaluating one area under wrong evaluation section did not prejudice protester; agency's refusal to evaluate price proposal that omitted material, required information had a rational basis)

Excelsior Ambulance Service, Inc. v. United States, No. 15-189 C (Mar. 23, 2016) (original awardee that waited to attempt to intervene in protest until judgment was entered in favor of protester was too late)

DynCorp International, LLC v. United States, No. 15-1397 C (Mar. 15, 2016) (unsuccessful preaward protest; contractor that had consistently failed to mark its cost data as proprietary and that did not object to Government's plan to post life cycle cost management reports as part of new solicitation and then waited five months after the solicitation was published to protest waived objection to such publication)

Algese 2 s.c.a.r.l. v. United States, No. 15-1279 C (Mar. 14, 2016) (successful post-award protest; firm that willfully failed to disclose in its offer the extensive history of public corruption and fraud by its parent and affiliates and falsely certified concerning those subjects had made material misrepresentations and was ineligible for award)

Phoenix Management, Inc. v. United States, No. 15-1403 C  (Mar. 11, 2016) (dismisses untimely protest against terms of solicitation; time to protest was not extended by Government's corrective action related to evaluation in original solicitation because the Government did not amend the solicitation as part of that corrective action)

Precision Asset Management Corp. v. United States, No. 15-1495 C (Mar. 8, 2016) (dismisses protest for lack of standing because protester would not have had substantial chance for award even if the errors it alleged in the procurement had been corrected)

Innovative Test Asset Solutions LLC v. United States, No. 15-1290 C (Mar. 7, 2016) (unsuccessful post-award protest of Government's alleged failure to consider protester's proposal fairly and honestly during reevaluation required as a result of protester's prior successful protest at GAO; although "the record provides enough evidence to raise skepticism about the government’s treatment of [the protester's] . . . [and] raises the possibility that the Air Force did not truly reevaluate the proposals, but instead made revisions only insofar as to provide further justification for its award to [the original awardee], and despite non-prejudicial errors in reevaluation, record as a whole shows agency conducted a satisfactory reevaluation)

CHE Consulting, Inc. v. United States, No. 15-1244 C (Mar. 2, 2016) (consolidating requirements for hardware and software maintenance services into a solicitation for a single contract did not constitute "bundling" because the resulting contract was not "likely [to] be unsuitable for award to a small business," especially where three small businesses submitted offers in response to the solicitation and award was made to a small business)

AvKARE, Inc. v. United States, No. 15-1015 C  (Feb. 25, 2016) (contractor's challenges to agency's responses to its requests for modification under existing contract dismissed for lack of CDA jurisdiction because contractor did not submit claims to Contracting Officer; protest against agency's refusal to further consider renewing contract is denied where agency reasonably concluded protester was not a manufacturer and then protester refused to provide additional information required by solicitation for all dealers and requested by agency), subsequently, court denied protester's motion to stay application of decision pending protester's appeal to CAFC

Lockheed Martin Corp. v. United States, No. 15-1536 C (Feb. 19, 2016) (on basis of limited record reviewed by court in deciding motion for preliminary injunction, motion is denied because Government's discussions with protester were "likely" meaningful and not misleading and evaluators apparently did not treat offerors unequally)

Johnson Controls Government Systems, LLC v. United States, No. 15-1440 C (Feb. 19, 2016) (agency properly rejected proposal as late after protester uploaded it in timely manner but then failed to follow instructions on fedconnect.net website for completing delivery of proposal to Government)

MacAulay-Brown, Inc., et al. v. United States, No. 15-1041 C (Feb. 18, 2016) (successful protest against agency's proposed corrective action (cancellation of task order) because it is based on alleged OCI issues that the agency had previously determined were not a problem and that the agency has not further investigated since that original determination)

Caddell Construction Co. v. United States, No, 15-914 C (Feb. 17, 2016) (remands case to agency to articulate its reasons for finding eventual awardee prequalified in first phase of procurement)

Federal Acquisition Services Team, LLC V. United States, No. 15-78 C  (Feb. 16, 2016) (successful preaward protest against improper rejection (as late) of proposal that met size limitations of solicitation and was timely sent to the correct email address)

Caddell Construction Co. v. United States, No. 15-645 C (Feb. 10, 2016) (successful post-award protest; limited injunction permits only original awardee, which had reduced its price after the Government erroneously informed it that its proposed price was higher than the IGE, another chance to revise offer after being given correct information concerning its original price) 

DynCorp International, LLC v. United States, No. 15-1397 C (Feb. 8, 2016) (allows supplementation of administrative record in preaward protest with expert report detailing alleged prejudice resulting from Government's disclosure of plaintiff's proprietary data to competitors)

Jacqueline R. Sims d/b/a JRS Staffing Services v. United States, No. 15-367 C (Feb. 3, 2016) (unsuccessful protest; agency's nonresponsibility determination and SBA's subsequent refusal to issue CoC were rationally based, inter alia, on the protester's failure to accept other contracts for which it had been the successful offeror and the failure of an affiliated company (operated by the same individual from the same home office as the protester) to perform another contract)

Nexagen Networks, Inc. v. United States, No. 15-664 C (Jan. 27, 2016) (combined contract breach and bid protest allegations; court lacks jurisdiction over CDA claim portion of case because plaintiff did not submit certified claim to Contracting Officer until after it commenced its action in court; under FASA, court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiff's complaint against agency's corrective action in cancelling its task order award; challenge to termination for default is moot where agency already has converted it to termination for convenience)

Dellew Corp. v. United States, No. 15-808 C (Jan. 20, 2016) (dismisses protest as moot after Government voluntarily agreed to undertake corrective action that specifically addressed grounds for original protest)

U.S. Security Assocs. v. United States, No. 15-1197 C  (Jan. 12, 2016) (protester lacks standing because its bid was contingent and, therefore, nonresponsive to the solicitation's requirement for a firm, fixed-price bid; also plaintiff failed to establish court has jurisdiction over protests challenging decisions by the Administrative Office of the United States)

Amidon, Inc. v. United States, No. 15-1405 C (Jan. 7, 2016) (unsuccessful post-award protest; awardee's technical proposal addressed solicitation requirements; rational basis for best-value decision to award to higher-rated, higher-priced proposal)

ITility v. United States, No. 15-237 C (Jan. 7, 2016) (no jurisdiction over action styled as preaward protest that challenges agency's performance evaluation (a matter of contract administration requiring a prior CDA claim) and its possible use in upcoming evaluations  (a matter that is not yet ripe for resolution) 

 

2015

FFL Pro LLC v. United States, No. 15-1171 C (Dec. 18, 2015) (remands case to agency to provide explanation, missing from record, for past performance evaluation of awardee's proposal)

Octo Consulting Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 15-1033 C (Dec. 17, 2015) (protester lacks standing because its quoted price was substantially higher than those of competitors selected for multiple-award blanket purchase agreements; moreover, solicitation did not mandate a specific number of awards, so, even if protester's allegation (that three of the awardees were noncompliant) were true, agency would not have been required to replace those awards with one to protester)

Summit Multi-Family Housing Corp. v. United States, No. 13-80 C (Dec. 17, 2015) (awardee whose contract was canceled as a result of corrective action by the Government lacks standing to challenge the original procurement process that led to its award since it was injured by the corrective action, not by the original procurement)

Excelsior Ambulance Service, Inc. v. United States, No. 15-189 C (Dec. 15, 2015) (successful post-award protest; successful offeror failed to provide business license required of offerors by solicitation; successful offeror's original (protested) offer did not comply with requirement that at least 50% of work be performed by SDVOSBs and offeror was permitted to substantially revise its offer to make it compliant in response to what was supposed to be only a clarification request during corrective action based on original protest)

Braseth Trucking LLC and Corwin Co.  v. United States, Nos. 15-857 C, 15-844 C (Dec. 14, 2015) (dismisses higher priced of two protesters for lack of standing; remands remaining protest back to agency to attempt to provide explanation completely lacking in current record of rationale for choosing awardee over protester)

FP-FAA Seattle, LLC v. United States, No. 15-949 (Nov. 30, 2015) (rejects protester's contention that awardee improperly conditioned its proposal on an offer of an approximate amount of space)

KWR Construction, Inc. v. United States, No. 15-156 C (Nov. 25, 2015) (agency's rejection of small business's price proposal as unrealistically low in fourth reevaluation after prior protests contravenes terms of the solicitation, lacks a reasonable basis in the record, and amounts to a de facto nonresponsibility determination which should have been referred to SBA)

Springfield Parcel C, LLC v. United States, No. 15-1069 C (Nov. 25, 2015) (successful post-award protest; GSA improperly accepted proposal that contravened material term of solicitation regarding maximum leased space; awarded lease violates 40 U.S.C. 3307 and is void ab initio because, in seeking required Congressional approval, agency did not accurately describe size of leased space)

Raymond Express International, LLC v. United States, No. 15-1088 C (Nov. 18, 2015) (unsuccessful post-award protest; various erroneous references in one awardee's proposal to its corporate name did not create uncertainty as to identity of party to be bound by contract because only one CAGE code and DUNS number were used; nothing objectionable in agency's consideration of business references of awardee's affiliated companies in Past Performance evaluation; weighted price realism analysis suggested by protester would have been contrary to terms of solicitation)

U.S. Security Associates, Inc. v. United States, No. 15-1197 (Nov. 13, 2015) (unsuccessful post-award protest; heavily redacted decision finds no fault with agency's technical or price evaluation)

FCN, Inc. v. United States, No. 15-833 C (Nov. 6, 2015) (unsuccessful preaward protest; agency's decision to leave protester out of competitive range had rational basis, despite its lower price)

National Telecommuting Institute, Inc. v. United States, No. 15-293 C (Oct. 28, 2015) (laches bars protest where protester did not file suit until six months after the official notice of award and nearly ten months after it had exhausted its agency appeals; protest also fails on merits because agency's source selection decision had rational basis)

Advanced Government Solutions, Inc. v. United States, No. 14-855 C (Oct. 19, 2015) (denies request for EAJA attorneys' fees by protester because Government undertook took voluntary corrective action before court issued decision on merits of preaward bid protest)

Crowley Technical Management, Inc. v. United States, No. 14-1028 C (Oct. 8, 2015) (unsuccessful post-award protest; protester's arguments against agency's analysis of tolerance adjustment issue in cost realism evaluation are speculative; protester's arguments against adjustments made as a result of cost realism evaluation do not establish prejudice)

Caddell Construction Co. v. United States, No. 15-645 C (Oct. 2, 2015) (unsuccessful post-award protest; State Department's interpretation of the total business volume and similar work requirements of Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986 in evaluating proposals was reasonable)

CMS Contract Management Services, et al. v. United States, Nos. 12-852 C, et al.  (Sep. 29, 2015) (awards bid preparation and proposal costs to set of prevailing plaintiffs in bid protest where the plaintiffs were not awarded contracts despite their successful protests)

Square One Armoring Service, Inc. v. United States, No. (Sep. 28, 2015) (unsuccessful protest; protester's challenge to original evaluation is moot because agency already announced its decision to undertake corrective action in response to protester's original protest at GAO; protester lacks standing to challenge agency's proposed corrective action (issuing revised solicitation) because protester will be eligible to compete; and any protest of the supposed terms of the revised solicitation is premature until those revisions are issued)

EMTA Insaat, A.S. v. United States, No. 15-982 C (Sep. 25, 2015) (unsuccessful post-award protest; solicitation did not mandate the method the Government must use to perform price realism analysis and evidence suggests Government did perform such analysis even though it did not use the term "realism")

TENICA & Assocs., LLC v. United States, No. 15-785 C  (Sep. 17, 2015) (unsuccessful protest; no jurisdiction to consider disappointed bidder's challenge to agency's decision to allow original awardee to proceed with performance temporarily during reevaluation process undertaken by agency in response to prior GAO protest plus plaintiff, lacking the capacity to perform these services during the reevaluation period lacks standing to protest)

Schott Government Services, LLC v. United States, Nos. 15-616 C, et al. (Sep. 17, 2015) (contention that awardee lacked facilities security clearance is irrelevant because solicitation did not require one; contract modification requiring compensation from awardee for delivery of nonconforming supplies not subject to bid protest as violation of CICA)

Per Aarsleff A/S v. United States, No. 15-873 C (Sep. 16, 2015) (unsuccessful post-award protest; it is premature to protest agency's decision to award bridge contract as part of corrective action in response to prior successful protest where bridge contract could be, but has not yet been extended sufficiently to replace need to award contract arising out of current solicitation)

Savantage Financial Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 14-307 C (Sep. 3, 2015) (unsuccessful protest against DHS' decision to acquire financial management services by use of a federal shared service provider without permitting plaintiff (or others) to compete)

Advanced Concepts Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, No. 15-75 C (Sep. 2, 2015) (agency conducted acceptable price realism analysis, even though it said it had not; even though Government failed to perform a proper analysis for unbalanced pricing, protester failed to establish prejudice from that error)

The ClayGroup, LLC v. United States, No. 15-411 C (Aug. 31, 2015) (firm whose quote for FSSI BPA was too high to have substantial chance for award lacked standing to protest the agency's decision, long after award, to convert the BPAs to exclusive and mandatory arrangements)

CYIOS Corp. v. United States, No. 15-148 C (Aug. 21, 2015) (unsuccessful post-award protest; protester was not prejudiced by errors in evaluation because its proposal was still inferior, even after correcting for those errors), protester's motion for reconsideration denied

ACC Construction Co. v. United States, No. 15-498 C (Aug. 21, 2015) (unsuccessful preaward protest; agency reasonably concluded protester's proposal did not merit its advancing to Phase II of the competition)

Sigmatech, Inc. v. United States, No. 15-307  (Aug. 18, 2015) (dismisses protest as moot based on Government's decision to take corrective action)

Transatlantic Lines, LLC v. United States, No. 15-689 C (Aug. 10, 2015) (agency reasonably evaluated schedules in awardee's technical proposal as compliant with solicitation's requirements)

ViON Corp. v. United States, No. 15-354 C (Aug. 10, 2015) (unsuccessful post-award protest; agency properly evaluated awardee's proposed technical solution and its proposed price and conducted a reasonable price realism analysis; awardee's proposal did not take exception to any material requirements of RFP; protester failed to provide any substantial evidence of OCI involving awardee)

American Safety Council, Inc. v. United States, No. 14-1175 C (Aug. 10, 2015) (solicitation's technical data rights clauses are unduly restrictive because they do not reflect the agency's actual needs; agency should make OCI determination)

Guam Industrial Services, Inc. v. United States, No.  15-588 C (Aug. 3, 2015) (under FASA, court has no jurisdiction over protest of cancellation of solicitation for task order under an IDIQ contract)

Precise Systems, Inc. v. United States, No. 14-1174 C (July 28, 2015) (OHA decision, which concluded that (for purposes of determining whether firm met SDVOSB requirements that SDV own majority of each class of voting stock) this situation involved two different classes of stock, had rational basis, even though protester's contrary interpretation also would have been judged reasonable had the OHA adopted it)

A-T Solutions, Inc. v. United States, No.  15-119 C (July 14, 2015) (unsuccessful post-award protest; staffing costs proposed by awardee were not objectionable simply because they were lower than Government's estimate; Government's evaluations of cost realism and transition plans had rational bases)

Guardian Moving and Storage Co. v. United States, No. 15-30 C (July 10, 2015) (unsuccessful protest of agency's corrective action in response to prior protest and of its subsequent decision to affirm its original award), affirmed on appeal

WIT Assocs., Inc. v. United States, No. 15-254 C (June 30, 2015) (unsuccessful post-award protest; award to higher priced offeror after lowest price offeror refused to revive its original bid after expiration)

WHR Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 13-515 C (June 29, 2015) (grants application under EAJA for attorneys' fees to prevailing party in bid protest)

Bannum, Inc. v. United States, No. 15-440 C (June 15, 2015) (agency's transfer of inmates formerly accommodated under protester's bridge contract to facilities operating under contracts distinct from protested contract did not constitute de facto override of automatic stay accompanying protester's GAO protest)

Pernix Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 15-420 C (June 10, 2015) (dismisses protest as unripe because the agency had not yet announced whether it would implement a GAO recommendation from a prior protest that would be adverse to plaintiffs' positions)

Per Aarsleff A/S v. United States, Nos. 15-215 C et al. (June 5, 2015) (successful post-award protests; agency awarded to subsidiary of foreign company, which violated solicitation's eligibility requirement that contractor be Danish or Greenlandic company)

Raytheon Co. v. United States, No. 15-77 C (June 2, 2015) (where agency had not evaluated proposal in accordance with solicitation's requirements and had conducted unequal and misleading discussions with offerors concerning IR&D cost reductions,  agency's decision to undertake corrective action in response to GAO attorney's statements concerning problems with solicitation process during outcome prediction conference had a rational basis)

Rotech Healthcare, Inc. v. United States, No. 14-1129 C (June 1, 2015) (unsuccessful post-award protest; agency's evaluation of awardee's transition plan and its past performance, as well as its price realism, had rational bases and were in accordance with the solicitation's requirements)

NVE, Inc. v. United States, No. 15-111 C (May 27, 2015) (unsuccessful post-award protest; protester's challenges to agency's corrective action decisions after submitting a proposal for reevaluation are waived--offeror cannot fully participate in a second round of proposal submissions and then later challenge the agency’s corrective action decision)

Unique Builders Construction Co. v. United States, No. 14-723 C (May 11, 2015) (Government had rational basis for determination that, based on analysis of bidder's integrity and ethics, it was ineligible for award)

Visual Connections, LLC v. United States, No. 15-158 C (May 7, 2015) (protester waived its right to challenge patent ambiguity in solicitation terms by failing to protest until after award)

Charles F. Day & Assocs., LLC v. United States, No. 15-289 C (Apr. 24, 2015) (agency's decision to award competitive bridge contract during pending GAO protest renders protester's challenge to agency's previous override decision moot)

Coast Professional, Inc., et al. v. United States, Nos. 15-207 C, et al. (Apr. 22, 2015) (Government's decision not to extend task order based on contractual provisions for evaluating performance is matter of contract administration and does not provide court with bid protest jurisdiction)

Caddell Construction Co. v. United States, Nos. 15-135 C, -136 C (Apr. 14, 2015) (absent contract award, court lacks jurisdiction over protest that Government violated CICA's automatic stay provisions by continuing evaluation process during pendency of timely GAO protest)

Anthem Builders, Inc. v. United States, No.14-1231 C (Apr. 6, 2015) (upholds agency decision that offeror's bond did not satisfy requirements of FAR Part 28)

Precise Systems, Inc. v. United States, No. 14-1174 C (Apr. 6, 2015) (in determining that SDV did not own 51% of each class of voting stock, SBA's OHA did not explain its conclusion that two types of stock were "sufficiently dissimilar" to constitute separate classes)

RLB Contracting, Inc. v. United States, No. 14-651 C (Apr. 1, 2015) (denies protester's motion for injunction pending appeal to CAFC because there is no current protest before the court and the agency complied with the court's prior order to reconsider its determination of the correct size standard applicable to procurement)

The Electronic On-Ramp, Inc. v. United States, No. 14-1038 C (Mar. 30, 2015) (unsuccessful post-award protest; agency had rational basis for downgrading proposal that failed to comply with what agency considered to be material requirements of solicitation)

Monteray Consultants, Inc. v. United States, No. 14-1164 C (Mar. 26, 2015) (unsuccessful post-award protest; upholds rescission of task order to incumbent contractor as corrective action after Contracting Officer identified OCI absent effective risk mitigation plan)

Hyperion, Inc. v. United States, No. 14-870 C (Mar. 18, 2015) (court has jurisdiction over post-award protest of agency's decision to take corrective action by canceling solicitation and substituting sole-source award directed by foreign government; International Agreement exception to CICA applies and precludes protester's recovery of bid and proposal costs)

Raymond Express International, LLC v. United States, No. 14-1179 C (March 3, 2015) (unsuccessful preaward protest; nothing improper with solicitation's treatment of transportation costs; market research underlying form of solicitation was adequate; price evaluation scheme had rational basis)

Northeast Construction, Inc. v. United States, No. 14-1076 C (Feb. 27, 2015) (protest of solicitation amendment filed after date amendment set for submission of revised proposals is untimely; absent contract document signed by the Government, which the solicitation required, no contract existed even though Government had determined that plaintiff's proposal was the only technically acceptable proposal received and had informed it was the winner)

Red River Computer Co. v. United States, No. 14-1092 C (Feb. 27, 2015) (where there were many proposals that were more highly rated than plaintiff's, agency's errors in evaluating plaintiff's Past Performance proposal were not shown to be prejudicial and agency's decision to exclude plaintiff from competitive range, despite its low price, had rational basis)

Equa Solutions, Inc. v. United States, No. 14-1214 C (Feb. 23, 2015) (unsuccessful post-award protest; solicitation amendment issued after initial proposals were submitted did not require agency to conduct discussions with protester concerning deficiencies in its proposal; agency properly concluded protester's price proposal was unrealistically low because it did not include elements discussed in protester's technical proposal)

QBE, LLC v. United States, No. 14-1053 C (Feb. 18, 2015) (unsuccessful preaward protest; agency properly excluded firm from competitive range because technical proposal had numerous, material deficiencies)

Draken International, Inc. v. United States, No. 14-1005 C (Feb. 13, 2015) (no basis for contention that delays in solicitation process converted what were initially unobjectionable solicitation terms into undue restrictions on competition; argument that protester has been treated differently from other offerors is unripe because award has not yet been made; court does not review decision on underlying agency-level protest, but only agency's procurement actions)

Framaco International, Inc. v. United States, No. 14-713 C (Feb. 11, 2015) (agency's had a rational basis for declining to prequalify protester to participate in competition)

Universal Marine Co., K.S.C. v. United States, No. 14-1115 C (Feb. 10, 2015) (fourth-highest rated offeror who failed to protest ratings on any but winning offeror and who filed only one challenge to overall solicitation, which was untimely, lacks standing)

Adams and Assocs. v. United States, No. 14-1168 C (Feb. 10, 2015) (unsuccessful challenge by incumbent to agency's decision to conduct procurement for operation of Job Corps center as small business set-aside)

Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. v. United States, No. 14-663 C (Jan. 21, 2015) (dismisses (as unripe and speculative) suit alleging agency would not act in good faith in conducting market research as corrective action to determine whether it was correct to limit original solicitation to one manufacturer) 

2014

Akima Intra-Data, LLC v. United States, No. 14-378 C (Dec. 23, 2014) (unsuccessful post-award protest; in finding awardee qualified for AbilityOne contract, agency properly calculated statutory ratio of direct labor using all work performed by awardee rather than only type of services contemplated by contract, as urged by protester; agency properly analyzed all four factors for determining that contract was suitable for adding to AbilityOne procurement list), motion for injunction pending appeal denied

Bannum, Inc. v. United States, No. (Dec. 5, 2014) (unsuccessful post-award protest; agency did not abuse its discretion in accepting awardee's proposal despite issues raised by protester related to awardee's compliance with zoning requirements and alleged misrepresentations related to same)

FirstLine Transportation Security, Inc. v. United States, No. 14-301 C (Nov. 25, 2014) (unsuccessful post-award protest; on remand, agency satisfied court's questions regarding justifications for various aspects of the evaluation, in which incumbent/protester and awardee were rated technically equal, and awardee won on basis of lower price)

IBM Corp. v. United States, No. 14-864 C (Nov, 25, 2014) (unsuccessful post-award protest; in solicitation governed by FAR Part 8, agency did not improperly relax solicitation requirements for awardee or engage in discussions with awardee that would have required the agency to conduct additional discussions with the protester; agency properly investigated potential OCI; agency properly evaluated awardee's transition plan, which was not defective merely because it mentioned that the awardee "might" attempt to subcontract with the protester (the incumbent))

IBM Corp. v. United States, No. 14-864 C (Nov. 25, 2014) (denies motion for preliminary injunction and motion to supplement administrative record with depositions concerning (i) possible post-award communications between Government and awardee regarding awardee's proposal and (ii) Government's investigation of possible OCI)

Savantage Financial Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 14-307 C (Nov. 11, 2014) (Government's decision to take corrective action moots protest)

Lynxnet, LLC v. United States, No. (Nov. 18, 2014) (unsuccessful post-award protest; record did not clearly establish that awardee would violate Limitations on Subcontracting (LOS) requirement; not material error for Contracting Officer to recalculate awardee's proposed price by deleting one element from its proposal that was not supposed to have been included, rather than bringing the matter to the awardee's attention; fact that administrative record does not include any discussion of LOS issue does not prove it was not considered)

VFA, Inc. v. United States, No. 14-173 C (Oct. 29, 2014) (dismisses protest for lack of jurisdiction because Government's decision to standardize operations by using software it already owned was not a procurement)

InfoReliance Corp. v. United States, No. 14-780 C (Oct. 28, 2014) (sufficient evidence of possible bad faith or bias by procurement official to support motion for additional discovery to supplement administrative record)

Bahrain Maritime & Mercantile International BSC (C) v. United States, No. 14-720 C (Oct. 21, 2014) (unsuccessful post-award protest; no basis to overcome the presumption of regularity accorded agency's actions or to conclude its various corrections, re-analyses, and re-evaluations after prior protests were pretext to award contract to original awardee. )

AmBuild Co., LLC v. United States, No. 14-786 C (Oct. 16, 2014) (successful post-award protest; VA failed to provide advance notice to affected firm of grounds on which it based firm's disqualification as SDVOSB; none of provisions of Operating Agreement impermissibly qualified SDV's ownership and control of firm)

RLB Contracting, Inc. v. United States, No. 14-651 C (Oct. 3,2014) (successful preaward protest against NAICS code 237990 (Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction) size standard selected by Contracting Officer and upheld by OHA because neither made the required quantitative analysis of which component of the work comprised the greatest percentage of the total contract value)

Global Military Marketing, Inc. v. United States, No. (Sep. 29, 2014) (unsuccessful preaward protest; bad weather at plaintiff's location does not excuse failure to deliver timely proposal when there was no interruption of "normal government processes" at the location designated to receive proposals)

Hyperion, Inc. v. United States, No. (Sep. 29, 2014) (EAJA recovery; agency's original failure to evaluate proposals regarding issue involved in protest meant its litigation position was not substantially justified; costs claimed at attorney rates for work that normally is performed by paralegals are recoverable only at the paralegal hourly rate)

Trident Technologies, LLC v. United States, No. 14-531 C (Sep. 22, 2014) (court lacks jurisdiction over protest of task order award less than $10,000,000, and post-award protest against procedures agency chose for solicitation is untimely)

Rotech Healthcare Inc. v. United States, No. 14-502 C (Sep. 19, 2014) (successful preaward protest; nonmanufacturer rule applies to solicitation that is only partially for supplies regardless of fact that solicitation is categorized under NAICS code for service contracts)

Kvichak Marine Industries, Inc. v. United States, No. 14-280 C (Sep. 15, 2014) (part of protester's challenge to technical evaluation was untimely challenge to ambiguous solicitation terms; other parts essentially asked court to make its own evaluation)

Bannum, Inc. v. United States, No. 14-429 C (Sep. 10, 2014) (protester failed to show disparate treatment by agency's evaluators; its own proposal failed to provide evidence of required zoning; and competitor provided all required information regarding Past Performance, even though it provided some information in different proposal volume than required volume)

ARKRAY USA, Inc. v. United States, No. 14-233 C (Sep. 9, 2014) (awardee of BPA was not an eligible FSS contractor; not sufficient that its affiliate was)

Bailey Tool & Manufacturing Co. v. United States, No. 14-216 C (Aug. 28, 2014) (unsuccessful preaward protest; Contracting Officer not required to consider additional information submitted by protester after initial nonresponsibility determination)

Coastal Environmental Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 13-71 (Aug. 25, 2014) (agency was not required to explain why it decided to conduct a new procurement instead of requesting bidders on original procurement to extend expired bids after it terminated original, protested contract for convenience)

Coastal Environmental Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 13-71 C (Aug. 25, 2014) (sanctions (attorneys' fees) imposed because government officials acted in bad faith when they prepared a Determination and Findings document, and subsequently included that document in
the supplemental administrative record, with the knowledge that the document was backdated, contained inaccurate information, and  would be used in court proceedings)

CGI Federal Inc. v. United States, No. 14-355 C (Aug. 22, 2014) (unusual payment terms included in FSS solicitation did not violate regulations or unduly restrict competition)

Sotera Defense Solutions, Inc. v. United States, No. 14-255 C (Aug. 13, 2014) (nothing objectionable in agency's decision to reevaluate proposals in response to earlier GAO protest or in reevaluation, itself)

Octo Consulting Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 14-234 C (Aug. 13, 2014) (protester who concedes its evaluated score would not put it in line for award cannot show prejudice)

Applied Business Management Solutions, Inc. v. United States, No. (Aug. 13, 2014) (successful protest against corrective action; agency failed to justify how alleged budget reductions required it to terminate competitively awarded contract and move to more expensive sole-source 8(a) contract)

Cedge Software Consultants, LLC v. United States, No. 14-394 C (Aug. 11, 2014) (agency properly assigned technical deficiency to protester's technical proposal and removed it from competitive range; no defects in agency's conduct of discussions with protester)

Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 13-236 C (Aug. 6, 2014) (dismisses case framed as preaward bid protest because it actually involves matters of contract administration in contract close-out)

Lawrence Battelle, Inc., et al. v. United States, No. 12-320 C (Aug. 5, 2014) (dismisses claims sounding in tort and for racial discrimination for lack of jurisdiction; firm not in the competitive range was not entitled to discussions; rational basis for technical evaluation; other protest grounds untimely or waived)

CliniComp International, Inc. v. United States, No. 14-188 C (Aug. 1, 2014) (VA treated proposals unequally by rating the protester's proposal technically unacceptable for failing to commit to a solicitation requirement, while rating the awardee's proposal acceptable even though it, too, contained no commitment to comply with that requirement)

American Auto Logistics, LP v. United States, No. 14-102 C (July 31, 2014) (unsuccessful post-award protest; sufficient information in proposal about affiliate's participation in project for agency to credit awardee with past performance of affiliate; solicitation did not limit undefined term "major subcontractor" to one that would be performing a large dollar amount of work; rational basis for performance/price tradeoff analysis; proposed subcontractors were not debarred or suspended at time of award decision)

Jay Hymas d/b/a Dosmen Farms, v. United States, No.  (July 25, 2014) (Fish and Wildlife Service's practice of awarding cooperative farming agreements to private individuals, who raise commercial crops on public lands in wildlife refuges under a "priority" system that essentially limits awards to incumbents without competition, violates CICA, among other statutes and regulations), subsequently reversed by CAFC

BCPeabody Construction Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 13-378 C (July 23, 2014) (allowability of various types of costs claimed by successful protester under EAJA; no entitlement to enhanced hourly rate for attorneys; bonding costs; paralegal expenses; travel, copying, and FedEx expenses)

Science and Management Resources, Inc. v. United States, No. 14-346 C (July 21, 2014) (denies Government's motion to dismiss for lack of standing because standing is determined based on allegations in complaint, not from a decision on merits; technical, past performance, and cost/price evaluations all had rational bases)

Orbis Sibro, Inc. v. United States, No. 14-589 C (July 18, 2014) (under FASA, court has no jurisdiction over protest of evaluation in competition for task order contract under multiple order ID/IQ contract)

RUSH Construction, Inc. v. United States, No. 14-202 C (July 15, 2014) (successful post-award protest against agency's proposed corrective action in response to GAO decision that court finds lacked a rational basis)

SEK Solutions, LLC v. United States, No. 14-243 C (July 11, 2014) (upholds DLA's decision to create an "Emall" of tent systems through the use of an unrestricted procurement for ID/IQ contracts, followed by competitions limited to ID/IQ holders for individual orders, denying plaintiff's challenges that the procurement violated various CICA and FAR requirements and that the Contracting Officer failed to conduct a proper Rule of Two analysis in failing to set the procurement aside for small businesses)

ARKRAY USA, Inc. v. United States, No. 14-233 C (June 26, 2014) (court stays case and remands to Contracting Officer to determine whether BPA awardee met solicitation requirement to have an existing FSS contract for all offered items)

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. United States, No. 14-261 C (June 23, 2014) (VA deviated from the RFQ terms, neutralized  protester's technical advantage, eliminated the need for a best value trade-off analysis, conducted an "apples to oranges" price comparison, and failed to recognize awardee's significant miscalculations)

Cherokee Nation Technologies LLC v. United States, No. 14-371 C (June 23, 2014) (agency lacked rational basis for awarding sole source bridge contract)

Business Integra, Inc. v. United States, No. 14-210 C (June 4, 2014) (where solicitation covered by FAR Part 15 provided that failure to provide all required pricing information would render proposal ineligible for award, protester's omission of three required labor rates in its proposal was a material defect (even though those three categories represented only .0041% of the total value of its proposal) and not one the agency was required to permit the protester to correct through  clarifications or to waive)

Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings v. United States, No. 14-261 C (June 2, 2014) (allows supplementation of record with declaration by price analysis expert, but rejects declaration by individual concerning untimely protest of solicitation's terms)

Communication Construction Services, Inc. v. United States,  No. 10-878 C (May 30, 2014) (protester's expert crossed line between technical analysis to assist court in complex technical issues and substituting his judgment for that of Government's evaluators)

FirstLine Transportation Security, Inc. v. United States, No. 14-301 (May 29, 2014) (denies government motion to strike probative expert declaration by cost and price analyst)

AM General, LLC, v. United States, No. 14-018 C (May 22, 2014) (agency's errors in crediting past performance of awardee's non-major subcontractors and in one subfactor in technical evaluation did not prejudice protester)

Lukos VATC JV LLC v. United States, No. 14-122 C (May 12, 2014) (unsuccessful protest; court has jurisdiction but 8(a) mentor-protégé relationship was not approved until two days after solicitation closed, meaning JV bidders were deemed to be affiliates for purposes of determining size eligibility for 8(a) set-aside)

Insight Technologies Corp. and CenterScope Technologies, Inc. v. United States, Nos. 12-863 C, 12-883 C (May 12, 2014) (denies EAJA claim for attorney fees following successful bid protest because Government's position, on case raising new issues and relying on prior decisions the court ultimately decided were wrong, was substantially justified; denies protester's claim for bid preparation costs because it failed to prove it could not bid on reprocurement and, thus, failed to prove it could not have employed the fruits of its prior expenditures on the new procurement)

Hughes Group, LLC v. United States, No. 14-155 C (Apr. 14, 2014) (unsuccessful post-award protest; incumbent lacks standing to protest unequal discussions because its low evaluation rating meant it had no substantial chance of receiving award)

Hyperion, Inc.  v. United States, No. 13-1012 C (Apr. 17, 2014) (successful post-award protest; awardees proposals on small business set-aside did not establish that they would comply with requirement in FAR 52.219-14 (Limitations on Subcontracting) that at least 50% of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel would be expended by their employees)

WHR Group, Inc., et al. v. United States, No. 13-515 C (Apr. 8, 2014) (agency's corrective action in response to earlier GAO protest, i.e., canceling and resoliciting requirements for relocation services was unreasonable because, inter alia, (i) the original protest had been against only one of the four awards; (ii) the Contracting Officer's conclusory musings in his notes to file concerning the advisability of removing a solicitation requirement for 100% financial capability as part of the corrective action do not amount to agency findings on the administrative record that would justify the step; and (iii) the proposed corrective action was more drastic than would have been required to address any alleged flaws in the evaluation or the terms of the solicitation, itself)

Jordan Pond Co., LLC v. United States, No. 13-913 C (Apr. 8, 2014) (unsuccessful protest; agency's technical evaluation was not flawed in any significant way that prejudiced protester; draft contract's failure to incorporate certain features from awardee's proposal that evaluators had found desirable was not objectionable)

Ocean Ships, Inc. v. United States, No. 13-964 C (Apr. 7, 2014) (unsuccessful post-award protest; protester did not show how it was prejudiced by agency's failure to amend solicitation to take into account 4% wage rate escalation that occurred after submission of offers and that none of the offerors had taken into account in their proposals; rational bases for technical, past performance, and best value  evaluations)

FCN, Inc. v. United States, No. 13-616 C (Apr. 4, 2014) (successful post-award protest; Government did not properly investigate, conduct price realism analysis of, or follow FAR Part 45 procedures with regard to the awardee's proposal, in which it asserted it would utilize government-furnished property to perform significant parts of contract work)

DM Petroleum Operations Co. v. United States, No. 14-80 C (Mar. 27, 2014) (unsuccessful post-award protest; agency exercised reasonable judgment in its evaluations of protester's and awardee's proposals)

CMI Management, Inc. v. United States, No. 13-982 C (Mar. 20, 2014) (unsuccessful preaward protest of exclusion from competitive range; rational bases for agency's evaluations of various areas of protester's proposal; no unequal treatment of offerors during evaluation)

Manus Medical, LLC v. United States, No. 14-26 C (Mar. 19, 2014) (successful post-award protest; agency's corrective action in response to prior protest (i.e., agency's submission of proposal that had omitted information required for a past performance evaluation to SBA for CoC review) was improper because the issue was a matter of responsiveness rather than responsibility)

Management and Training Corp. v. United States, No. 12-683 (Mar. 14, 2014) (denies protest of DOL's decision to set aside contract for operation of Job Corps Center for small businesses)

Bannum, Inc. v. United States, No. 14-140 C (Mar. 11, 2014) (firm whose offer did not comply with mandatory solicitation requirement and was, therefore, nonresponsive, lacks standing to protest; Blue & Gold Fleet does not require a preaward protest to GAO or court: letter addressed to Contracting Officer and explicitly objecting to solicitation terms was sufficient to preserve right to later protest in court, even if it did not conform to all regulatory requirements for agency-level protest)

Optimization Consulting, Inc. v. United States, No. 13-103 C (Feb. 28, 2014) (protester waived objections to pricing model to be used in evaluation by failing to protest prior to deadline for submission of proposals; Past Performance rating, which downgraded rating given by Contracting Officer, due, in part, to personal knowledge of situation by one of the evaluators, is not objectionable)

B&B Medical Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 10-448 C (Feb. 10, 2014) (dismisses protest as moot because revised regulation will result in protester being considered an eligible small business despite its differences with the Government over the application of the non-manufacturer rule)

Innovative Management Concepts, Inc. v. United States, No. 14-100 C (Feb. 6, 2014) (dismisses protest framed as an appeal of a prior GAO protest decision)

Sentrillion Corp. v. United States, No. 13-636 C (Jan. 23, 2014) (unsuccessful post-award protest; agency properly evaluated proposals under solicitation's requirements for partnership agreements and business licenses)

SRA International, Inc. v. United States, No. 13-969 C (Jan. 14, 2014) (FASA limitations on task order protests do not deprive court of jurisdiction over claim that agency's use of FAR 9.503 to waive OCI was ineffective); vacated by Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, dismissed by Court of Federal Claims

Coastal Environmental Group, Inc. v. United States, No. 13-71 C (Jan. 6, 2014) (agency's decision to cancel contract renders original protest moot; however, court permits protester to supplement original complaint to challenge agency's decision to cancel original procurement)

2013

Eco Tour Adventures, Inc. v. United States, No. 13-532 C (Dec. 12, 2013) (successful protester against Government's erroneous determination that financial information omitted from competitors' bids was immaterial and that they were responsive is limited to recovery of bid preparation costs because statute does not authorize injunctions on competitions for concession contract)

NEIE, Inc. v. United States, No. 13-164 C (Dec. 6, 2013) (Contracting Officer's determination that otherwise successful offeror on SDVOSB set aside was non-responsible solely because its service-disabled owner had died after submission of its offer lacked rational basis)

Colonial Press International, Inc. v. United States, No. 13-403 C (Dec. 3, 2013) (GPO is not subject to SBA COC requirements; Contracting Officer had reasonable basis for determining low bidder nonresponsible)

Lyon Shipyard, Inc. v. United States, No. 13-508 C (Nov. 27, 2013) (Government engaged in meaningful discussions with offeror by advising it that its price was higher than Government estimate and, later, providing it an opportunity to revise its proposal, including its price, which it failed to do)

AquaTerra Contracting, Inc. v. United States, No. 13-587 C (Nov. 22, 2013) (protester lacks standing to protest award to another contractor because protester's proposed price is more than 25% higher than Corps of Engineers' IGE, making it ineligible for award under 33 U.S.C. 624(a)(2))

KWV, Inc. v. United States, No. 12-882 C  (Nov. 19, 2013) (denies EAJA application because Government's (losing) litigation position was substantially justified, "albeit barely")

Amazon Web Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 13-506 C (Nov. 8, 2013) (successful protest; GAO decision sustaining original protest lacked rational basis and its suggested corrective action was overbroad)

Dyncorp International LLC and Kellogg, Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 13-689 C (Nov. 5, 2013) ("best interests" override of CICA stay during bid protest was neither arbitrary nor capricious)

Miles Construction, LLC v. United States, No. 12-597 C (Oct. 31, 2013) (contractor entitled to attorneys' fees under EAJA because agency's position in underlying bid protest was not substantially justified)

Brookfield Relocation Inc. v. United States, No. 13-592 C (Oct. 4, 2013) (no jurisdiction over protest essentially asking the Government be required to take the corrective action it already has decided to take, action that is being challenged by other firms in related protests)

Mori Assocs., Inc. v. United States, No. 13-671 C (Oct. 1, 2013) (under 41 U.S.C. 4106(f)(1), no jurisdiction over protest by incumbent against agency's decision to procure follow-on services through use of multiple-award task order contract)

Jacqueline R. Sims, aka JRS Staffing Services v. United States, No. 13-494 C (Sep. 30, 2013) (solicitation's requirement that contractor perform certain start-up tasks related to recruitment and background checks of contract personnel before task order is issued is not objectionable)

BCPeabody Construction Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 13-378 C (Sep. 25, 2013) (successful protest; in a negotiated procurement, where the protester mistakenly submitted two, identical experience sheets for its major subcontractor, the Government should have sought clarification, rather than rating the proposal as unacceptable, especially because the winning offeror's proposal of the same subcontractor clearly showed it had the requisite experience that would have been shown on the protester's missing experience sheet)

Supreme Foodservice, GmbH v. United States, No. 13-245 C (Sep 18, 2013) (unsuccessful post-award protest involving multiple aspects of evaluation, language of J&A supporting bridge contract, and responsibility determination)

Archura LLC v. United States, No. 13-290 C (Sep. 17, 2013) (even though Government erred in rejecting proposal for missing brand and model information while accepting other offers with similar deficiencies, protester was not prejudiced because its price was so high that it did not have a substantial chance of award)

ST Net, Inc. v. United States, No. 13-223 C (Aug. 13, 2013) (unsuccessful post-award protest; agency decision to reject offer in negotiated procurement that included material omissions in required information, rather than to seek clarifications, had a rational basis)

Cohen Financial Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 13-37 (Aug. 12, 2013) (in response to court's prior decision, agency conducted appropriate price realism analysis of low offeror)

Management & Training Corp. v. United States, No. 12-561 C (July 31,2013) (unsuccessful preaward protest against DOL's decision that to  solicitation to operate Dayton Job Corps Center should be set aside for small businesses)

Laerdal Medical Corp. v. United States, No. 13-256 C (July 29, 2013) (unsuccessful post-award protest against Government's decision to terminate its contract (and cancel solicitation) as corrective action in response to GAO protest because agency's evaluators had evaluated proposals' noncompliances with solicitation requirements as weaknesses instead of treating them as rendering proposal as ineligible for award)

Qwest Government Services, Inc., d/b/a CenturyLink QGS v. United States, No. 13-193 C (July 29, 2013) (unsuccessful preaward protest claiming solicitation does not provide sufficient information to permit fair and equal competition)

Excel Manufacturing, Ltd. v. United States, No. 13-361 C  (July 24, 2013) (unsuccessful post-award protest; successful offeror's proposal did not take exception to Limitations on Subcontracting clause and nothing in proposal indicated offeror would not comply)

McAfee, Inc. v. United States, No. 13-198 C (July 17, 2013) ("successful" preaward protest; Navy did not have any proper justification for sole source procurement under task order contract)

The McVey Co. v. United States, No. 13-145 C (July 9, 2013) (unsuccessful post-award protest; no error by the agency with respect to plaintiff's contentions regarding (i) evaluation of organizational conflicts of interest; (ii) evaluation of mitigation plan; or (iii) adherence by government evaluators to solicitation's evaluation scheme)

MVS USA, Inc. v. United States, No. 13-246 C (July 2, 2013) (unsuccessful post-award protest; Government did not violate FAR 8.405-2 in evaluating contractor's eligibility for facility security clearance even though approval came too late for task order award)

Trailboss Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, No. 13-296 C (June 13, 2013) (dismisses "protest" by contract awardee for lack of standing under 28 U.S.C. 1491(b)(1); only possible jurisdiction over claim by awardee involves CDA and awardee has not yet obtained Contracting Officer's decision on CDA claim)

Mil-Mar Century Corp. v. United States, No. 13-131 C (June 12, 2013) (unsuccessful post-award protest; rational bases for agency's past experience and price realism evaluations and its best value tradeoff analysis; exchanges with awardee constituted clarifications rather than discussions)

360Training.com, Inc. v. United States, No. 12-197 C  (June 7, 2013) (grants EAJA motion for attorneys fees and expenses incurred in successful bid protest, including attorneys fees incurred in unsuccessful motions during protest, except for fees associated with an ultimately unsuccessful government motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (because the jurisdictional issue was one of first impression) and fees associated with related district court litigation by another protester)

Advanced American Construction, Inc. v. United States, No. 12-694 C  (June 5, 2013) (requirements plaintiff claims awardee could not meet are not special responsibility standards but rather post-award requirements that are not subject to a bid protest; in limiting procurement to 8(a) firms, Government did not violate either FAR 19.805-1 (requirements for such set-asides) or FAR 10.001 (conducting market research) or FAR 10.002 (documenting results of market research))

Command Management Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 12-463 (June 4, 2013) (unsuccessful post-award protest; no evidence that former government official, who had been cleared to work for awardee after retirement from Government, violated post-employment restrictions or conflict-of-interest rules)  

Chameleon Integrated Services, Inc., No. 13-144 C (May 29, 2013) (dismisses post-award protest for lack of FASA jurisdiction over award of task order under GSA's GWAC STARS II multiple award IDIQ contract)

Davis Boat Works, Inc. v. United States, No. 13-58 C (May 28, 2013) (unsuccessful post-award protest; fact that Government downgraded aspects of proposal during reevaluation does not establish bad faith; Government's evaluation of technical and price proposals had a rational basis; Government did not permit awardee to substantially revise its proposal; agency error in evaluating awardee's key personnel did not prejudice protester)

Caddell Construction Co. v. United States, No. 13-20 C (May 22, 2013) (successful post-award protest; no record of reason why agency changed its initial decision to disqualify awardee from proceeding to Phase II of competition; subsequent reversal by Government of its initial decision to deny awardee ten percent Percy Amendment price preference also lacked adequate explanation in the record; agency failed to adequately document its final tradeoff analysis)

Beechcraft Defense Co., LLC, V. United States, No. 13-202 C (May 10, 2013) (upholds Government's decision to override CICA stay due to urgent and compelling circumstances and best interests of Government because D&F on which override was based had rational basis)

KWV, Inc. v. United States, No. 12-882 C (May 9, 2013) (successful preaward protest; VA's OSDBU improperly determined otherwise successful offeror was ineligible VOSB under VIP program, based on flawed analysis related to owner's residency)

Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business Network, Inc. v. United States, No. 12-224 (May 6, 2013) (dismisses complaint of non-profit organization that assists veterans in obtaining government benefits for lack of jurisdiction; plaintiff lacks standing to file bid protest because it does not allege a specific procurement violation and does not identify any particular procurements under which any of its members is an actual or potential bidder)

Insight Systems Corp, et. al. v. United States, Nos. 12-863C, 12-883C (May 6, 2013) (successful preaward protest; quotations both (i) submitted electronically and (ii) received by initial government mail server before time permitted by solicitation should not have been rejected simply because internal government server malfunction prevented them from being received on time in final government office designated for receipt of quotations)

Quest Diagnostics, Inc., v. United States, No. 12-907 C (May 1, 2013) (unsuccessful post-award protest; absent specific instructions to the contrary, awardee was free to amend parts of its proposal not affected by change to solicitation made as corrective action in response to prior protest; agency did not engage in unequal discussions by answering awardee's procedural question differently than it answered different procedural question by protester; technical and experience evaluations had rational basis, and error in one aspect was not shown to be prejudicial; best value analysis was adequate, though brief)

CMS Contract Management Services, et al., v. United States, Nos. 12-852 C, et al. (Apr. 19, 2013) (unsuccessful preaward protest; HUD Notice of Funding Availability ("NOFA"), which funds Performance-Based Contract Administrator ("PBCA") Program for administration of Project-Based Section 8 Housing Assistance Payment Contracts is not subject to CICA requirements), reversed by CAFC

State of North Carolina Business Enterprises Program, et. al. v. United States, No. 12-459 C (Apr. 17, 2013) (unsuccessful preaward protest; solicitation's requirement that offerors assume the risk of bidding a fixed price per meal without knowing what the actual headcount will be is not contrary to law)

Norsat International [America], Inc. v. United States, No. 13-41 C (Apr. 16, 2013) (denies post-award protest by incumbent against award to lower-priced, lower-rated offeror; but for one error that did not significantly prejudice the protester, the evaluation had a rational basis)

CW Government Travel, Inc., d/b/a CWTSatoTravel v. United States, No. 12-708 C (Apr. 11, 2013) (successful post-award protest; in awarding only one ID/IQ contract in excess of $103 million, GSA did not satisfy requirement of FAR 16.504(c)(1)(ii)(D)(1)(iii) that it first determine there was only one source qualified and capable of performing the work, but instead simply chose higher ranked offeror; agency treated offerors unequally in evaluations)

Cohen Financial Services, Inc. v. United States, No. 13-37 (Apr. 4, 2013) (successful post-award protest; record is devoid of any documentation of required price realism analysis)

Arcata Assocs., Inc. v. United States, No. 12-846 C (Apr. 3, 2013) (preaward protest; upholds OHA's prior decision in NAICS Appeal of Delphi Research, Inc. that original NAICS code chosen by Contracting Officer (541712) for procurement was erroneous and that correct designation for procurement was NAICS code 541513)

TigerSwan, Inc. v. United States, No. 12-62 C (Apr. 2, 2013) (Government (i) initially awarded contract to plaintiff for security services in Iraq; (ii) then (in midst of protests filed by competing offerors, including the incumbent) terminated the contract for convenience after it concluded it no longer needed many of the services; (iii) awarded second contract for reduced scope of work to plaintiff after quick turnaround solicitation limited to original competitors; (iv) but then terminated that contract for convenience as well (and awarded sole source contract to incumbent, which was already operating under bridge contract due to prior protests) on basis that protests and resulting stop work order and delays had made it impossible for plaintiff to mobilize and complete work in timely manner. Court denies Government's motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims for breach based on its objections to terminations for convenience, but grants motion to dismiss bid protest claims for bid preparation costs, because plaintiff had not bid on the sole source contract, which had been completed by the time of the decision)

Preferred Systems Solutions, Inc. v. United States, No. 12-842 C (Mar. 22, 2013) (unsuccessful post-award protest; although third-ranked offeror had standing to protest, agency's technical evaluation and price-realism analysis of low-priced offeror had rational bases)

Plasan North America, Inc. v. United States, No. 12-779 C (Mar. 11, 2013) (unsuccessful post-award protest; deference court pays to agency's evaluation of past performance and its tradeoff analysis)

G4S Technology CW LLC v. United States, No. 12-705 C (Mar. 12, 2013) (unsuccessful post-award protest; agency only engaged in clarifications with successful offeror and, therefore, was not required to conduct discussions with protester; agency's decision to exclude offeror from competition was unobjectionable where statements in proposal rendered it incomplete and precluded agency from determining price reasonableness)

NCL Logistics Co. v. United States, No. 11-535 C (Mar. 8, 2013) (unsuccessful post-award protest; Army's nonresponsibility determination was reasonable)

Aircraft Charter Solutions, Inc. v. United States, No. 13-9 C (Mar. 8, 2013) (unsuccessful post-award protest; contract modification was not cardinal change outside the scope contemplated by the solicitation, including the "Changes" clause)

Supreme Foodservice, GmbH v. United States, No. 13-001 (Mar. 4, 2013) (successful protest of declaratory judgment that override of (actually failure to implement) CICA's automatic stay during GAO protest of results of corrective action in response to prior protest was not adequately justified in the D&F under either the "best interests of the Government" or the "urgent and compelling circumstances" tests)

Metters Industries, Inc. v. United States, No. 13-116 C (Feb. 27, 2013) (apparent awardee of task order, who was subsequently found by SBA's Area Office to be other than small, wins injunction against awarding order to any other firm until its appeal is resolved by OHA because of its claim that it was small as of the date it last "updated" its LOGWORLD contract and should retain that status for five years for LOGWORLD orders)

Adams and Associates, Inc., v. United States, No. 12-731 C (Feb. 28, 2013) (unsuccessful pre-solicitation protest by incumbent of DOL decision to designate latest procurement for operation of Shriver Job Corps Center as small business set-aside)

Dynamic Educational Systems, Inc. v. United States, No. 12-730 C (Feb. 25, 2013) (unsuccessful pre-solicitation protest by incumbent of DOL decision to designate latest procurement for operation of Montgomery, Alabama Job Corps Center as small business set-aside; interpretation of "fair proportion" determination required by 15 U.S.C. 644(a) and Rule of Two requirement of FAR 19.502)

One Largo Metro, LLC v. United States, No. 12-501 C (Feb. 21, 2013) (unsuccessful post-award protest; court's deference to agency's evaluation)

McTech Corp. v. United States, No. 12-122 C (Feb. 19, 2013) (over protester's objections, dismisses protest as moot because agency's corrective action plan (canceling solicitation and moving procurement to another office) adequately mitigated original problems (improper conduct of procurement and possible bias against plaintiff))

Red River Communications, Inc. v. United States, No. 12-728 C (Feb. 15, 2013) (contractor who was not solicited for, or eligible to bid on, solicitation did not waive its right to protest under Blue & Gold Fleet rule by waiting until after bids were due to protest; solicitation for task orders does not impermissibly expand scope of underlying task order contact)

Miles Construction, LLC v. United States, No. 12-597 C (Feb. 14, 2013) (successful preaward protest; in handling protest of verified SDVOSB status, VA's ODBSU (i) misapplied VA regulations regarding restrictions on transfer of ownership in determining service-disabled veteran did not unconditionally own SDVOSB and (ii) expanded its review to areas of SDVOSB operating agreement not mentioned in protest without affording protested firm adequate opportunity to address those additional areas of scrutiny)

Innovation Development Enterprises of America, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-217 C (Jan. 29, 2013) (improper sole source award)

KWV, Inc. v. United States, No. 12- 882 C (Jan. 25, 2013) (successful protest; VA's prior determination that veteran did not control business solely on the basis that he lived in another state for six months of the year lacked a rational basis)  

Laboratory Corp. of America v. United States, No. 12-622 C (Jan. 14, 2013) (successful preaward protest; agency improperly rejected quotation submitted within time required by solicitation)


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