Clinicomp International, Inc. v. United States
134 Fed. Cl. 736
| Fed. Cl. | 2017Background
- CliniComp, an incumbent EHR vendor to some VA and DoD facilities, sued to enjoin the VA Secretary’s planned sole-source award to Cerner for a comprehensive, multi‑phase VA EHR modernization under the public‑interest exception to CICA.
- The Secretary issued a Determination & Findings (D&F) invoking 41 U.S.C. § 3304(a)(7) and FAR §§ 6.302‑7/1.704, explaining benefits of a single common VA‑DoD system and identifying Cerner as the prime for deployment and related services.
- The planned contract would cover ~1,600 VA sites, be implemented in 48 phases, and cost billions over ten years.
- CliniComp raised eight challenges (e.g., D&F noncompliance with FAR 1.704, improper use of the public‑interest exception, lack of advance planning, brand‑name justification, failure to consider cost, major‑system rules, and Congress notice violations) and sought injunctive relief.
- The government and Cerner moved to dismiss for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction (no standing). The court struck certain out‑of‑record declarations but permitted limited judicial notice; it then dismissed the case for lack of standing and denied injunctive relief as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to bring pre‑award bid protest | CliniComp contends it is a prospective bidder deprived of the chance to compete and therefore has direct economic interest. | VA/Cerner argue CliniComp lacks a substantial chance to win because it lacks comparable scale, scope, and experience for the multibillion‑dollar, enterprise‑wide VA contract. | Held: No standing — CliniComp could not have competed for the contract given the record (dismissal for lack of jurisdiction). |
| Whether the court may consider extra‑record materials on standing | CliniComp sought to strike declarations and citations outside the administrative record. | Defendants argued the court may consider extra‑record evidence for jurisdictional (standing) inquiries. | Held: Court may consider limited extra‑record materials for standing; nonetheless it struck certain declarations and found the administrative record sufficient. |
| Merits: validity of VA D&F under FAR 1.704 and use of public‑interest exception | CliniComp argued the D&F failed to comply with FAR 1.704 and the public‑interest exception was inapplicable or improperly justified. | Defendants argued the D&F and record clearly and convincingly justified invoking the public‑interest exception and complied with FAR. | Held: Court did not reach merits because of lack of standing; court observed the D&F appears to satisfy FAR 1.704 and justify the single common‑system decision, though record contained limited explanation for selection of Cerner. |
| Injunctive relief | CliniComp sought preliminary and permanent injunction to block award. | Defendants opposed; argued lack of jurisdiction and no likelihood of success on the merits. | Held: Injunctive relief denied as moot because case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires injury in fact, causation, and redressability)
- Myers Investigative & Security Services v. United States, 275 F.3d 1366 (substantial‑chance test applies in sole‑source standing inquiries)
- Orion Tech., Inc. v. United States, 704 F.3d 1344 (application of substantial‑chance test and non‑trivial competitive‑injury standard)
- Axiom Resource Management, Inc. v. United States, 564 F.3d 1374 (limits on supplementing the administrative record)
- Banknote Corp. of America v. United States, 365 F.3d 1345 (standard of review in bid protests: rational basis and regulatory compliance)
- Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324 (discussion of burdens in bid protest challenges)
- Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass'n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (arbitrary and capricious / failure to consider important aspects of the problem)