Bannum, Inc. v. United States
121 Fed. Cl. 543
Fed. Cl.2015Background
- Bannum, Inc. was the incumbent contractor operating an RRC in Clarksburg, WV; the BOP issued an RFP (June 2012) for RRC services in northern WV and later awarded the contract to Dismas Charities on March 30, 2015.
- Bannum filed multiple preaward and agency-level protests during the procurement; after the award it filed a GAO protest (April 6, 2015) that triggered an automatic CICA stay; the BOP issued a stop-work notice for the newly awarded contract.
- While Bannum’s third bridge contract (interim sole‑source extensions) ran through April 30, 2015, monitors identified facility sanitation, safety, medical/medication tracking, and staffing issues at Bannum’s Clarksburg RRC.
- Bannum’s third bridge contract expired April 30, 2015; instead of issuing another bridge to Bannum, the BOP moved 42 residents: 19 to Dismas’s Charleston facility, 23 to Renewal’s Pittsburgh facility (some to home confinement), using pre‑existing BOP contracts with those providers.
- Bannum sued in the Court of Federal Claims seeking a preliminary injunction, arguing the inmate transfers (without written override notice) were a de facto override of the CICA stay; the government moved for judgment on the administrative record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether transferring inmates under other BOP contracts constituted a de facto override of the CICA stay | Bannum: transfers effectively gave contract work to Dismas/Renewal and thus overrode the stay; BOP failed to give required written override notice | Gov: transfers used separate, pre‑existing contracts distinct from the protested award and therefore were not an override | Court: No de facto override — transfers were use/extensions of separate existing contracts, not performance of the protested award |
| Whether written notice of an override was required here | Bannum: absence of written notice supports finding of impermissible override | Gov: no override occurred, so no notice requirement was implicated | Court: Not reached as no override found; notice requirement not violated because transfers were distinct actions |
| Whether BOP abused its discretion in declining another bridge contract and reallocating inmates | Bannum: incumbent was entitled to be considered; facility was allegedly compliant | Gov: BOP has statutory authority to designate/transfers; monitors found safety/sanitation/staff issues; BOP discretion supports transfers | Court: BOP acted within its statutory discretion and reasonably relied on monitoring findings; no arbitrary-and-capricious showing by Bannum |
| Entitlement to preliminary injunction | Bannum: likely success and irreparable harm (loss of facility/employees and disrupted inmate programs) | Gov: Bannum cannot show likelihood of success on the merits because no override; public interest and agency discretion favor denial | Court: Denied — Bannum failed to meet burden (no override), so injunction not warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- RAMCOR Servs. Grp., Inc. v. United States, 185 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (Court has jurisdiction to review alleged violations of a CICA stay in bid protests)
- Banknote Corp. of Am. v. United States, 365 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (arbitrary-and‑capricious standard governs bid protest review)
- Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prejudice requirement for procurement violation claims)
- Access Sys., Inc. v. United States, 84 Fed. Cl. 241 (2008) (use/extension of a separate contract is not necessarily an override of a CICA stay)
- Reilly’s Wholesale Produce v. United States, 73 Fed. Cl. 705 (2006) (bridge/interim contracts can be treated as distinct, temporary contracts during a prolonged procurement)