Continental Services Group, Inc. v. United States
130 Fed. Cl. 798
Fed. Cl.2017Background
- ED issued Solicitation No. ED-FSA-16-R-0009 for debt collection and resolution services (ID/IQ with 5-year base and 5-year optional period).
- Continental Services submitted a proposal but was notified it was not selected because ED found its subcontracting plan inconsistent with its small-business participation commitments, rendering it "not responsible."
- Continental requested a GAO debriefing, then filed a GAO protest within five days, triggering an automatic stay of contract performance under 31 U.S.C. § 3553(d).
- Other offerors filed similar GAO protests; the Government began transferring work and contemplated beginning performance once related GAO stays were resolved. Continental alleges transfers are circumventing the GAO stay.
- Continental filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims and moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent awardees from performing and to block transfer of work to other contracting vehicles while the protest is pending.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether immediate injunctive relief is warranted to preserve the protest | Continental: ED’s starting performance or transferring work will irreparably harm its procurement rights and moot the protest | Gov’t: Performance may proceed once GAO lifts stays; cannot commit to staying performance pending this suit | Court granted TRO for 14 days restraining performance and transfers to prevent circumvention |
| Whether Continental showed likelihood of success on merits | Continental: merits strong enough when balanced with other factors (maintain integrity of competition) | Gov’t: merits untested; AR not produced so likelihood uncertain | Court found likelihood of success undecidable at TRO stage due to absent administrative record; nonetheless other factors justified relief |
| Whether public interest favors injunction | Continental: public interest supports preserving fair competition and integrity of procurement | Gov’t: public interest in timely performance of government contracts (argued implicitly) | Court held public interest favors injunction to protect competitive process |
| Balance of harms | Continental: harm from lost contract opportunity and mooting of protest is severe and irreparable | Gov’t: delay harms minimal relative to protestor’s loss | Court found balance weighs in favor of Continental Services |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. Ass'n of Importers of Textiles & Apparel v. United States, 413 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (sets four-factor test for injunctive relief in bid protests)
- FMC Corp. v. United States, 3 F.3d 424 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (weakness on one injunction factor may be overcome by strength of others)
- PGBA, LLC v. United States, 57 Fed. Cl. 655 (2003) (public interest and relative harms in procurement injunctions)