Aircraft Charter Solutions, Inc. v. United States
109 Fed. Cl. 398
| Fed. Cl. | 2013Background
- ACS filed a post-award bid protest on January 4, 2013 seeking injunctive and declaratory relief regarding the State Contract with DynCorp and its Afghanistan airlift operations.
- DynCorp’s State Contract, awarded in 2005, was amended over time to include Afghanistan operations via Modification 12 (effective June 28, 2006).
- ACS’s USAID contract for Embassy Air services was set to expire in January 2013, with potential extensions; ACS sought relief while USAID continued to fund related services.
- The court moved to expedited briefing and decided dispositive issues on cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record, including a laches defense and merits on cardinal change.
- The court ultimately dismissed the protest on laches, but also analyzed whether a cardinal change occurred; it concluded no cardinal change because Afghanistan airlift was within the solicitation’s scope and changes clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue | ACS has a substantial chance to win a contract for airlift services in Afghanistan if successful. | ACS lacks the direct economic interest or standing to challenge the procurement. | ACS has standing. |
| Laches bar to protest | Delay is excusable given evolving procurement issues and ongoing protests. | Three-year delay caused substantial economic prejudice; laches bars relief. | Laches barred the protest. |
| Cardinal change whether Afghanistan airlift was out of scope | Afghanistan airlift services were beyond the scope of the original counternarcotics solicitation. | Afghanistan airlift services were within the scope and permissible under the Changes clause. | No cardinal change; within scope. |
| Injunctive relief entitlement | An injunction is warranted to prevent DynCorp’s performance and to preserve ACS’s competitive opportunity. | Given laches and lack of merits, injunctive relief is inappropriate, and national security considerations weigh against it. | Injunction denied; relief not warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- AT&T Commc’ns, Inc. v. Wiltel, Inc., 1 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (cardinal change framework; focus on competition scope)
- Banknote Corp. of Am. v. United States, 365 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (arbitrary and capricious standard in bid protests)
- Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (prejudice and the role of the 52.1 standard in protest review)
- CW Gov’t Travel, Inc. v. United States, 61 Fed. Cl. 559 (2004) (laches considerations in bid protests)
- Rex Serv. Corp. v. United States, 448 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (standing requires actual or prospective bid/offeror with direct economic interest)
- ITAC v. United States, 316 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (standing and procedural posture in bid protests)
- Advanced Data Concepts v. United States, 216 F.3d 1054 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (highly deferential standard for bid protests)
- Honeywell, Inc. v. United States, 870 F.2d 644 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (deference in injunction analysis; caution against premature relief)
- GEO Grp., Inc. v. United States, 100 Fed. Cl. 223 (2011) (considerations on irreparable harm and protest delay)
- Elmendorf Support Servs. Joint Venture v. United States, 105 Fed. Cl. 203 (2012) (timeliness and balance of hardships in injunctive relief)