Castle-Rose, Inc. v. United States
99 Fed. Cl. 517
| Fed. Cl. | 2011Background
- Castle-Rose protested the USACE Seattle District award of a demolition/disposal contract (W912DW-19-R-0045) to Advanced Technology after its bid was deemed late when delivered at 2:06 p.m.
- Solicitation required hand-carried proposals to be delivered by 2:00 p.m. July 7, 2010 to 4735 E. Marginal Way South or the depository on the 2nd floor; last-minute lobby delivery practice varied.
- Castle-Rose’s courier arrived in the lobby after the 2:00 p.m. deadline; the procurement technician marked Castle-Rose’s proposal late and placed it in a secure area.
- Castle-Rose learned of the late determination on September 8, 2010; it protested to the contracting officer and GAO, which dismissed the GAO protest.
- The court addresses standing, the late-delivery rule under FAR 15.208, and whether the government’s actions/supporting records justify overturning the award.
- The court ultimately grants the government’s motion for judgment on the administrative record and denies Castle-Rose’s motion for judgment on the administrative record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Castle-Rose have standing to challenge the award? | Castle-Rose had substantial chance of award as a lower bidder. | Castle-Rose’s late proposal lacks standing since late proposals have no substantial chance. | Castle-Rose has standing. |
| Was Castle-Rose's proposal timely or late under FAR 15.208? | Delivery occurred on time; lobby arrival should count under a reasonable interpretation. | Delivery was late; evidence shows arrival at 2:06 p.m. and boxes marked late. | Proposal properly deemed late; not eligible for award. |
| Does the government-control exception apply to make Castle-Rose timely? | Proposal was under government control before deadline. | Control is relinquished only when proposal is handed over; courier never relinquished control by 2:06 p.m. | Government-control exception not satisfied. |
| Does unanticipated-events or improper-government-action excuse apply? | Unanticipated events or improper government action delayed delivery. | No delay caused by government actions; no basis to extend deadline. | Unanticipated-events and improper-government-action exceptions do not apply. |
| Was Castle-Rose prejudiced by lack of timely notice of lateness? | Prompt notice would allow gathering evidence to prove timeliness. | Notice delay was not prejudicial given the late determination and lack of evidence to show timely delivery. | Delay in notice was not prejudicial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Labatt Food Serv., Inc. v. United States, 577 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (standing if substantial chance of award)
- Weeks Marine, Inc. v. United States, 575 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (participation and standing in bid protests)
- Rex Serv. Corp. v. United States, 448 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (standing and competitive range considerations)
- Information Handling Servs., Inc. v. Defense Automated Printing Servs., 338 F.3d 1024 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (standing and statutory interpretation in procurement)
- Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (arbitrary and capricious review in procurement)
- Keeton Corrs., Inc. v. United States, 59 F.3d 753 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (rational-basis and review standards in bid protests)
- Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (Supreme Court 1971) (standard of review for agency decisions (arbitrary and capricious))
- Resource Conservation Grp., LLC v. United States, 597 F.3d 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (implied-in-fact contract and ADRA jurisdiction)
- Bilfinger Berger AG Sede Secondaria Italiana v. United States, 97 Fed.Cl. 96 (Fed. Cl. 2010) (ADRA and implied contract claims in bid protests)
- L-3 Communications Integrated Sys., L.P. v. United States, 94 Fed.Cl. 394 (Fed. Cl. 2010) (jurisdiction to hear implied-contract claims in bid protests)