Adams and Associates, Inc. v. United States
109 Fed. Cl. 340
Fed. Cl.2013Background
- Adams protests a DOL decision to designate the Shriver Job Corps Center contract as a 100% small business set-aside, precluding Adams from competing as incumbent.
- The court addresses multiple pre-solicitation challenges, including what constitutes the administrative record and whether supplemental materials should be considered.
- DOL issued RFIs for multiple centers (Shriver and others); NAICS 611519 size standard capped small business receipts at $35.5 million, impacting eligibility.
- OSDBU concurred with the set-aside; Pendleton signed the DL1-2004 form for Shriver; a pre-solicitation notice followed and the solicitation was issued as a small business set-aside.
- Plaintiff moved to strike declarations and sought relief related to suspension of all Job Corps enrollments; the court issued an opinion in DESI contemporaneously and denies Adams’ cross-motions while granting the government’s AR-based judgment.
- The court ultimately holds that the Rule of Two and the fair proportion determinations were satisfied and that the contracting officer’s decision to set aside was not arbitrary or capricious.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the set-aside complied with the fair-proportion requirement under Section 644(a). | Adams asserts no fair-proportion determination was properly made. | DOL’s process satisfied the fair-proportion framework via NAICS sizing, OSDBU endorsement, and Rule of Two. | Fair-proportion determination satisfied; not unlawfully arbitrary. |
| Whether the Rule of Two analysis was arbitrary and capricious. | The analysis was too narrow and ignored broader nationwide context. | Rule of Two requires reasonable expectation of at least two small business offers and fair price; broad context not required. | Rule of Two analysis not arbitrary; reasonable expectation shown. |
| Whether the court has jurisdiction to review the fair-proportion determination under the Tucker Act. | The fair-proportion determination is a policy decision beyond reviewable procurement | Court has jurisdiction to review statutory/regulatory violations related to procurement. | Court has jurisdiction to review in connection with a proposed procurement. |
| Whether 20 C.F.R. Part 670 regulations and WIA authorize the FAR-based procedures used. | Regulations enacted late and ultra vires; competition should be broader under WIA. | Secretary had authority under WIA and other statutes to apply FAR/DOLAR procedures to Job Corps procurements. | Regulatory framework valid; FAR/DOLAR procedures properly apply to Job Corps procurement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Res-Care, Inc. v. United States, 107 Fed. Cl. 136 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (small-business set-asides are competitive and lawful under WIA)
- Axiom Res. Mgmt., Inc. v. United States, 564 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (courts may fill gaps in the AR to permit effective review)
- Schism v. United States, 316 F.3d 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (procurement review limits and scope of regualtory challenge)
- Tasker v. United States, 178 Ct. Cl. 56 (Ct. Cl. 1967) (review of procurement actions where regulations implicated)
- Greenleaf Constr. Co., Inc. v. United States, 67 F.1. 350 (Fed. Claims 2005) (reasonableness standard for pre-award competition analysis)