Clinicomp International, Inc. v. United States
17-1115
| Fed. Cl. | Dec 20, 2017Background
- CliniComp, Inc. challenged the VA Secretary’s sole-source award of a next-generation electronic health records contract to Cerner under the public-interest exception to the Competition in Contracting Act.
- The Court dismissed the pre-award bid protest for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on October 18, 2017, holding CliniComp lacked standing; CliniComp appealed to the Federal Circuit and moved for an injunction pending appeal under RCFC 62(c).
- CliniComp argued it would suffer irreparable harm (loss of VA business, organizational lock-in) and that the public interest favors preserving the status quo pending appeal.
- The government and Cerner opposed, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief, CliniComp was unlikely to succeed on the merits, irreparable harm was not shown, and delay would harm veterans and ongoing implementation efforts.
- The Court found the administrative record showed CliniComp lacked comparable experience or any realistic chance of winning the multi-billion-dollar procurement, and therefore lacked standing; the Court also concluded the balance of harms and public interest weighed against an injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an injunction pending appeal should issue under RCFC 62(c) to block VA award to Cerner | CliniComp: extraordinary relief warranted because Court erred on standing and injunction prevents waste and irreparable harm | Gov/Cerner: CliniComp lacks standing; unlikely to succeed on appeal; no irreparable harm; delay harms veterans and Cerner | Denied — injunction not warranted |
| Whether CliniComp has standing to bring pre-award challenge to sole-source award | CliniComp: qualifies as a potential competitor; can provide alternative EHR solution | Gov/Cerner: record shows CliniComp lacks experience and could not have competed for the comprehensive contract | Denied — Court held CliniComp lacks standing |
| Whether CliniComp demonstrated likelihood of success on the merits | CliniComp: record gaps and errors support appeal | Gov/Cerner: even record evidence supports the Secretary’s decision; CliniComp unlikely to prevail | Denied — no strong likelihood of success |
| Whether balance of harms and public interest favor injunction | CliniComp: injunction prevents waste and protects its business | Gov/Cerner: no imminent loss of business; delay harms veterans and ongoing implementation; public interest favors timely care | Denied — harms/public interest weigh against injunctive relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Myers Investigative & Sec. Servs. v. United States, 275 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (standing/substantial-chance test in bid protests)
- Digitalis Educ. Sols., Inc. v. United States, 664 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (applying substantial-chance rule outside strictly competitive procurements)
- Orion Tech., Inc. v. United States, 704 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (standing analysis in procurement challenges)