Our Experience with Bid Protests in Federal Courts

Some Relevant Cases:

Our attorneys have achieved the following results for our clients:

• The Court of Federal Claims held that a modification to a competitor's contract was outside its scope and improper. As a result, our client's contracts were reinstated and extended. CCL, Incorporated v. United States, 39 Fed. Cl. 780 (1997).
  
• After a hearing on the merits, the Claims Court (the predecessor to the Court of Federal Claims) refused to grant a competitor an injunction which would have upset the contract award to our client. The court held that the Navy was not obliged to wait for the ruling of another agency before making award. Southwest Marine, Inc. v. United States, 4 Cl. Ct. 275 (1984).
  
• After a four-day hearing, a Federal district court granted our request for an injunction stopping the phase-in of a Navy contract for operation of a missile range. The court held that there was sufficient evidence of bias on the part of the contracting officer to show that our client was likely to succeed on the merits of its suit. Dynalectron Corp. v. United States, 659 F. Supp. 64 (D.D.C. 1987). The case was ultimately settled.
  
• A decision by SBA's Office of Hearings and Appeals threatened to deny our client, a newly-organized small business, two critical contracts. Because the decision was defective, SBA settled a suit objecting to it in Federal district court. The settlement preserved the company's small business size status, and received both contracts. Later, a competitor filed suit, and the court upheld the terms of the settlement against its objections. The case history is discussed in Size Appeal of American Systems Engineering Corp., SBA No. 2405 (1986).
  
• We stopped a bid protest suit at the Court of Federal Claims, before a time consuming and expensive trial, by filing and winning a motion for summary judgment. Our client's competitor had alleged procurement improprieties, which it was unable to establish through discovery. Corvus Systems, Inc. v. United States, No. 85-365 (Cl. Ct. 1985).
  
• Through a variety of actions in different forums, we were able to prevent our client from losing a major maintenance contract to a small business concern with questionable qualifications. Control Data Systems, Inc. v. United States, 32 Fed. Cl. 520 (1994); Control Corp., B-253410; B-253410.3, July 5, 1995, 95-2 CPD 127, recon. denied, B-253410 et al., Dec. 5, 1995, 95-2 CPD 265.
  
• After the TMAC contract award was overturned on protest, we advised the IRS on how to make and justify a proper source selection. Although made to the highest-priced offeror, this second source selection survived a protest and an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., Inc.; et al. v. Department of the Treasury, GSBCA Nos. 11776-P; et al., 93-1 BCA 25,401, aff'd, Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., Inc. v. Bentsen, 4 F.3d 955 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
  
• An 8(a) contract under which the awardee was a mere conduit for the products of a large business was ruled illegal. Our client had been precluded from participating in the procurement, after the contract was unlawfully added to the 8(a) program. Cal Western Packaging Corp. v. Collins, No. 80-2548 (D.D.C. 1982), cited in Computer Data Systems, Inc.--Recon., B-205521 et al., July 26, 1982, 82-2 CPD 75.