Ceradyne, Inc. v. United States
103 Fed. Cl. 1
Fed. Cl.2012Background
- Ceradyne, the United States government, and BAE challenged a 2010 Army XSBI solicitation award and subsequent contract modification under bid protest provisions.
- The Army sought 320,000 XSBI side body armor plates under Solicitation W91CRB-10-R-0082, with multiple offers evaluated on price and delivery and a 'next in line' mechanism for defaulted quantities.
- After GAO protests and a 2010 settlement, the Army conducted responsibility determinations and FAT/lot-acceptance testing from January to April 2011, terminating ArmorWorks for default and narrowing production.
- Ceradyne sought relief from the modification of BAE’s contract to produce an additional 90,000 XSBI plates, arguing the award was outside the original competition (CICA) and not properly in line with the 'next in line' rule.
- In May 2011, the Army modified Ceradyne’s contract to cover 40,000 defaulted units previously awarded to TPG, continuing urgent and compelling needs.
- The government and BAE moved to dismiss, arguing the BAE modification was within the scope of the original procurement and that Ceradyne’s challenge to the initial responsibility determinations was moot due to the settlement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BAE modification is within the original procurement scope | Ceradyne argues modification departs from scope and requires new competition. | Government and BAE contend modification mirrors original XSBI scope and falls within 'next in line' rules. | Modification within scope; protest dismissed. |
| Whether the responsibility-determination claim is moot due to settlement | Ceradyne asserts Army failed proper responsibility determinations in 2010. | Government and BAE say issue settled; moot. | Claim moot; dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Banknote Corp. of Am. v. United States, 365 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (arbitrary and capricious standard for bid protests)
- Axiom Res. Mgmt., Inc. v. United States, 564 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (scope of review; rational basis and regulatory compliance)
- Distributed Solutions, Inc. v. United States, 539 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (scope of protest; modifications within contract scope do not require new competition)
- AT&T Commc’ns v. Wiltel, 1 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (modifications must be within the scope of the original procurement)
- Northrop Grumman Corp. v. United States, 50 Fed.Cl. 443 (Fed. Cl. 2001) (considerations of scope and modifications in procurement)