Stan Hinton

Home
Contact Me
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



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

2017

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)

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)

2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

2007

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

2006

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2005

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 
 

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