Bannum, Inc. v. United States
115 Fed. Cl. 148
Fed. Cl.2014Background
- BOP solicited residential re-entry services (RRC) for Tupelo, MS, with an indefinite delivery, requirements-type, firm-fixed-price contract for ~40 offenders annually over two years plus three option years; Bannum was incumbent.
- Amendment 005 added PREA compliance requirements without revising evaluation criteria.
- Bannum and Dismas submitted proposals in 2012–2013; Bannum included pricing caveats stating PREA pricing was not included.
- BOP sought firm-fixed pricing for all requirements, including PREA; Bannum protested Amendment 5 and sought discussion/guidance on pricing.
- BOP awarded the contract to Dismas on July 19, 2013; Bannum protested to GAO, leading to a stay and subsequent administrative actions.
- Court must determine whether Bannum has standing; if not, lack of jurisdiction bars review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bannum has standing to protest. | Bannum was an actual bidder with a substantial chance of award. | Bannum's offer was nonresponsive for lacking PREA pricing; no substantial chance of award. | Bannum lacks standing; no substantial chance of award; no subject-matter jurisdiction. |
| Whether Bannum's pricing caveat rendered its offer nonresponsive. | Pricing did not reflect PREA, but award could still be based on compliant offers. | Solicitation required firm-fixed pricing including PREA; Bannum failed to price PREA. | Offer nonresponsive/non-compliant due to missing PREA pricing. |
| Whether the court should defer to APA standards or assess standing as a jurisdictional threshold. | Court should apply standard standing analysis; agency SSD not controlling for jurisdiction. | Standing is jurisdictional and separate from APA review of agency decision. | Court may assess standing independently of APA merits review; dismisses for lack of standing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1998) (jurisdiction is threshold; lacks standing requires dismissal)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (injury-in-fact and causation requirements for standing)
- Archura LLC v. United States, 112 Fed. Cl. 487 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (standing as threshold jurisdictional issue in bid protests)
- Info. Tech. & Applications Corp. v. United States, 316 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (standing and jurisdiction considerations in bid protests)