Alltran Education, Inc. v. United States
17-517
| Fed. Cl. | May 2, 2017Background
- Multiple private debt-collection contractors (Plaintiffs and Intervenor-Plaintiffs) filed bid protests challenging the Department of Education’s (ED) 2016 awards under Solicitation No. ED-FSA-16-R-0009 after a GAO decision (Gen. Revenue Corp.) found ED’s evaluation unreasonable.
- The Government moved to dismiss one count (Count VII) of Continental Services’ complaint; numerous related preliminary injunction/TRO motions were pending across coordinated cases.
- The court convened oral argument and invited parties to draft a joint order to preserve the status quo pending ED corrective action; some parties objected to that collaborative process.
- The court granted the Government’s motion to dismiss Count VII without prejudice.
- The court found plaintiffs would suffer immediate and irreparable harm if ED allowed awardees to begin performance or shifted work to other contracting vehicles, and entered a preliminary injunction preserving the status quo until ED announces corrective action (or parties agree otherwise).
- The injunction bars ED and its agents from: (1) allowing purported awardees to perform under the solicitation and (2) transferring the work to other contracting vehicles to evade the protest. The order expires COB May 22, 2017 unless extended or superseded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Count VII of Continental Services’ complaint should survive the Government’s motion to dismiss | Count VII raises valid claims that warrant adjudication | Government moved to dismiss Count VII | Court granted dismissal of Count VII without prejudice |
| Whether immediate and irreparable harm would occur if ED allowed performance or transferred work | Allowing performance or transfer would irreparably harm protesters’ economic interests and competitive position | Government asserted continuation/transfer would not be barred and disputed irreparable harm showing | Court found plaintiffs would suffer immediate and irreparable harm and granted injunctive relief |
| Likelihood of success on the merits of the protests | Plaintiffs argued GAO’s adverse decision supports likely success | Government noted administrative record not yet produced and merits unbriefed | Court concluded plaintiffs likely to prevail in part given GAO’s finding that ED’s evaluation was unreasonable |
| Public interest and balance of hardships regarding injunctive relief | Public interest favors fair competition; hardship to protesters outweighs delay | Government argued delay could disrupt parties and borrowers | Court held public interest and balance of hardships favor injunction given $2.8B at stake |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. Ass’n of Importers of Textiles & Apparel v. United States, 413 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (four-factor preliminary injunction framework).
- FMC Corp. v. United States, 3 F.3d 424 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (no single injunction factor is dispositive; weaknesses can be balanced by strengths of others).
- Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729 (U.S. 1985) (judicial review of agency action is on the administrative record under the APA).
- PGBA, LLC v. United States, 57 Fed. Cl. 655 (Fed. Cl. 2003) (public interest supports preserving integrity of procurement competition).