Akima Intra-Data, LLC v. United States
120 Fed. Cl. 25
| Fed. Cl. | 2015Background
- Akima Intra-Data, LLC had performed Base Operations Support (BOS) services at NGA’s Campus West since 1999; the Committee for Purchase from People Who are Blind or Severely Disabled added NCW BOS to the AbilityOne procurement list and selected ServiceSource, a nonprofit that employs people with severe disabilities, to perform the contract.
- Akima challenged the Committee’s listing decision and NGA’s selection of ServiceSource; the Court of Federal Claims denied Akima’s motion for judgment on the administrative record and entered judgment for the government on December 23, 2014.
- NGA awarded the NCW BOS contract to ServiceSource on January 7, 2015, with full performance to begin April 1, 2015; Akima sought a stay (injunction pending appeal) on January 13, 2015 to prevent transition.
- The court considered the four-factor injunction test (likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of harms, public interest) under RCFC 62(c) and applicable Federal Circuit and Supreme Court authority.
- The court found the statutory issues were of first impression (so a “substantial case” exists but likelihood of success unclear), but concluded Akima failed to show irreparable harm, and that government, ServiceSource, and public-interest harms outweighed Akima’s harms.
- The motion for an injunction pending appeal was denied because the balance of hardships and public interest favored allowing ServiceSource to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Likelihood of success on the merits: statutory interpretation of AbilityOne-related provisions and interplay with other statutes | Akima argued the court misinterpreted the 75% requirement and the interaction of the Javits-Wagner-O’Day and Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act; issues are novel and favor appellate review | Government argued court correctly applied law; novelty does not guarantee success on appeal | Court: Issues are of first impression supporting a "substantial case" but not a clear likelihood of success; this factor does not favor a stay decisively |
| Irreparable harm from loss of contract | Loss of the NGA contract will cause severe revenue loss and threaten Akima’s existence | Loss of a contract is ordinary competitive harm; Akima is a subsidiary of a large corporation with sufficient resources, so no unique irreparable harm shown | Court: No irreparable harm—incumbency loss alone is insufficient; Akima’s parent company resources undercut claim of irreparable injury |
| Balance of harms (effect on government and ServiceSource) | Akima: injunction warranted to preserve contract during appeal | Government: injunction would force reprocurement, added costs, and risk service interruption; ServiceSource: has begun hiring and incurred costs and would lose revenue used for programs benefiting severely disabled persons | Court: Harms to government and ServiceSource (including interruption, costs, and lost employment opportunities for disabled individuals) outweigh Akima’s harms |
| Public interest (AbilityOne employment goals) | Akima argued procedural/legal errors justify stay despite program goals | Government and intervenor emphasized AbilityOne’s statutory purpose to increase employment for persons with severe disabilities and concrete commitments by ServiceSource to hire over 50 such individuals | Court: Public interest strongly favors denying a stay because injunction would likely prevent employment opportunities for over 50 severely disabled persons |
Key Cases Cited
- OAO Corp. v. United States, 49 Fed. Cl. 478 (court discussion of injunction as extraordinary remedy)
- Standard Havens Products, Inc. v. Gencor Indus., 897 F.2d 511 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (four-factor injunction test and flexibility in weighing factors)
- Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770 (1987) (injunction factors and standards)
- E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum, 835 F.2d 277 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (injunction standards)
- Providence Journal Co. v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 595 F.2d 889 (1st Cir. 1979) (factor weighting discussion)
- Hamilton Watch Co. v. Benrus Watch Co., 206 F.2d 738 (2d Cir. 1953) (balancing harms precedent)
- Charlie's Girls, Inc. v. Revlon, Inc., 483 F.2d 953 (2d Cir. 1973) (balancing harms precedent)
- CRAssociates, Inc. v. United States, 103 Fed. Cl. 23 (2012) (incumbency loss not presumptively irreparable)
- PGBA, LLC v. United States, 60 Fed. Cl. 196 (2004) (limits on incumbency-based irreparable harm claims)
- Jacobson v. Lee, 1 F.3d 1251 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (novel legal questions deserving appellate consideration)