Acrow Corp. of America v. United States
2011 U.S. Claims LEXIS 33
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- Acrow challenged TACOM's five-year LOCB contract award to MBSI; Acrow sought injunction pending appeal under RCFC 62(c).
- Acrow appealed the court’s December 17, 2010 merits/opinion denying judgment on the administrative record and sustaining MBSI’s award.
- MBSI’s relationship to Mabey & Johnson Ltd. (M&J) and the SFO prosecutions raised allegations of improper practices affecting responsibility determinations.
- The contracting officer relied on a Memorandum for Record and an SFO Opening Note in assessing MBSI’s responsibility, and not on the Danos counterclaim text.
- Plaintiff argued the contracting officer relied on inaccurate statements by MBSI and should have reviewed the Danos counterclaim; the court disagreed.
- The court held the factors for an injunction pending appeal weigh against Acrow, denying the motion and leaving the award in place.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Likelihood of success on merits | Acrow contends the CO relied on inaccurate statements and failed to adequately consider Danos counterclaim. | Record shows rational basis for the CO’s determination within her discretion. | Not likely to succeed on the merits on appeal. |
| Irreparable harm | Without injunction, Acrow faces irreparable bid-competitiveness harm. | Injunction pending appeal is extraordinary and status quo should be preserved unless strong merits shown. | Irreparable harm acknowledged, but outweighed by other factors—no injunction warranted. |
| Public interest/public and national security | Injury to procurement integrity and national security public interest require injunction to protect process. | Public interest favors contractor best value and not undermining the procurement process; testing and duties upheld. | Public interest not served by granting injunction pending appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Standard Havens Prods., Inc. v. Gencor Indus., Inc., 897 F.2d 511 (Fed.Cir.1990) (balancing factors; flexible approach to stay/injunction analysis)
- Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770 (U.S. 1987) (plainly governs stay standard across courts)
- JWK Int’l Corp. v. United States, 49 Fed.Cl. 364 (Fed.Cl. 2001) (no rigid stay rules; flexible balancing)
- Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324 (Fed.Cir.2001) (deference to agency decision; discovery considerations)
- Diversified Maintenance Systems v. United States, 93 Fed.Cl. 794 (Fed.Cl.2010) (misrepresentations relevance to responsibility; not controlling hinge)
- Acrow Corp. of Am. v. United States, 97 Fed.Cl. 161 (Fed.Cl.2010) (prior merits ruling informing injunction decision)