CELERAPRO, LLC v. United States
1:23-cv-00808
Fed. Cl.Nov 14, 2023Background
- NASA created the Mission Support Future Architecture (MAP) to centralize administrative support across centers. DASS was procured as a single-award IDIQ 8(a) set-aside initially to cover JSC and SSC.
- CeleraPro is the incumbent at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) under a separate five‑year CASS II HUBZone contract awarded after DASS; NASA later elected not to exercise CASS II options.
- NASA modified its internal FAR supplement and made SSC the buying location for the Space Flight Region and began adding other centers (KSC, then proposing MSFC) to DASS via task orders.
- NASA issued scope determinations and consolidation determinations finding the DASS solicitation language (e.g., “other NASA operating locations”) and the DASS $76M ceiling justified adding KSC and MSFC without full competitive rebidding.
- CeleraPro protested, alleging the MSFC task orders materially departed from the original DASS procurement and therefore violated the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA).
- The Court denied the Government’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing, found CeleraPro had standing, but on the merits ruled for the Government: denied CeleraPro’s judgment motion and granted the Government’s cross‑motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing (statutory §1491(b)(1) / prospective bidder & prejudice) | CeleraPro, as incumbent and HUBZone awardee, would have a substantial chance and is an interested party if rebid competitively | CeleraPro lacks standing because the work is now an 8(a) follow‑on to DASS and CeleraPro is not 8(a) | Court denied dismissal; CeleraPro has statutory standing and showed prejudice as a prospective bidder |
| Whether DASS solicitation adequately advised offerors that additional Centers could be added (anticipation test) | DASS only reasonably informed offerors of JSC/SSC; language was too generic and proposals didn’t mention other centers | The RFP/SOW language ("other NASA operating locations/alternate work locations") and offeror proposals put offerors on notice; MAP goals anticipated consolidation | Court held solicitation reasonably informed offerors; the anticipation factor favors NASA |
| Whether adding MSFC materially changed the contract (cardinal‑change/CICA test: type, period, cost) | Addition (and prior KSC addition) materially increased contract magnitude/cost and thus required competition | Type of work and period are the same; the ~$9.96M MSFC task order fits within the $76M ceiling and IDIQ purpose—cost alone doesn’t show a material departure | Court held no material departure: nature/purpose unchanged; cost increase not dispositive; modification lawful under CICA |
| Relief and motions | CeleraPro sought declaratory relief and injunction; sought judgment on the administrative record | Government sought dismissal (no standing) and judgment on the administrative record in its favor | Court denied CeleraPro’s MJAR, granted Government’s cross‑motion for judgment; entered judgment for the United States |
Key Cases Cited
- CACI, Inc.-Fed. v. United States, 67 F.4th 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (statutory “interested party” is not jurisdictional; standing analyzed under Rule 12(b)(6) framework)
- AT&T Commc’ns, Inc. v. Wiltel, Inc., 1 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (test for whether a modification falls within the scope of the original competition; anticipation and comparison of work/period/cost)
- Weeks Marine, Inc. v. United States, 575 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (deferential APA review of procurement decisions)
- Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (if remedy is rebid, plaintiff need only show it could have competed)
- Myers Investigative & Sec. Servs., Inc. v. United States, 275 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (standing/prejudice analysis where relief sought is rebid)
- Honeywell, Inc. v. United States, 870 F.2d 644 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (courts should not substitute their judgment where a reasonable basis exists for agency action)