Contract Services, Inc. v. United States
104 Fed. Cl. 261
Fed. Cl.2012Background
- CSI brought a post-award bid protest challenging Army’s award of a HUBZone set-aside contract at Fort Riley to FedServices.
- Solicitation W9124J-11-R-0003 contemplated best-value, with Mission Capability > Past Performance > Price, and allowed trade-offs.
- The HUBZone program requires certification on SBA’s List; CSI was not on the List at proposal, though later certified.
- Army declined to evaluate CSI’s proposal due to lack of HUBZone certification at submission.
- GAO protest was dismissed as lacking jurisdiction/standing; court proceedings followed to review the administrative record.
- Court denies CSI’s judgment on the record and grants the Army’s cross-motion, upholding disqualification for HUBZone certification timing and waiver rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CSI has standing as an interested party | CSI would have had a substantial chance if rebid | CSI was not in line for award; no substantial chance | CSI has standing as an interested party |
| Whether CSI waived its challenge to the solicitation's HUBZone timing under Blue & Gold Fleet | Challenged timing issue; not waived | Waived under Blue & Gold Fleet by not raising pre-bid | Waived; protest untimely under Blue & Gold Fleet |
| Whether the solicitation required HUBZone certification at proposal submission | Solicitation did not plainly require List presence at submission | Solicitation required List presence at submission and at award | Solicitation required HUBZone status both at submission and at award; CSI failed to meet at submission |
| Whether CSI's representations about HUBZone status invalidate standing or remedies | Exceptions/Assumptions section explains decertification history; may be offset by backdating guidance | Misrepresentations taint credibility and standing; could deny award | Court does not resolve based on outside evidence; representations were inaccurate; does not change waiver |
Key Cases Cited
- Blue & Gold Fleet, L.P. v. United States, 492 F.3d 1308 (Fed.Cir.2007) (waiver bar for untimely solicitation challenges; expedites resolution)
- Rex Serv. Corp. v. United States, 448 F.3d 1305 (Fed.Cir.2006) (defines 'interested party' and standing in bid protests)
- Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324 (Fed.Cir.2001) (need for clear, prejudicial statutory/regulatory violation in protest)
- Labatt Food Serv., Inc. v. United States, 577 F.3d 1378 (Fed.Cir.2009) (standing requirement; prejudice tied to substantial chance of award)
- Esterhill Boat Serv. Corp. v. United States, 91 F. Cl. 483 (Fed.Cl.2010) (standing if but-for error would yield substantial chance of award)