103 Fed. Cl. 706
Fed. Cl.2012Background
- This is a post-award bid protest before the Court of Federal Claims challenging the ARAVI award to DynCorp International.
- Plaintiff was the incumbent on the prior contract and had a GSA task order that extended performance through October 2011 with reduced scope.
- The agency reevaluated proposals after GAO protest actions and ultimately awarded to intervenor on October 15, 2011 as the only technically acceptable offeror.
- GAO protests led to further extensions and a three-month sole-source task order through April 10, 2012 while protests remained pending.
- Plaintiff filed a complaint on February 10, 2012 and sought permanent injunctive relief; the court granted leave to file a supplemental declaration and later denied preliminary injunction.
- The court proceeded to analyze likelihood of success on the merits along with irreparable harm, balance of hardships, and public interest for a bid protest injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TEP reliance on personal knowledge invalidates PM/DPM experience | Plaintiff argues résumés lacked dates; TEP used personal Army experience to credit time. | Solicitation allows experience demonstration; résumés need not break down time by position. | Not likely to succeed; court finds no clear violation requiring reversal. |
| Whether intervenor failed to price freight-forwarding per the solicitation | Intervenor priced freight-forwarding as part of indirect costs, not per the three specified options. | Pricing could be discretionary; Q&A and agency guidance allowed alternative pricing and did not require a single method. | Not likely to succeed; pricing method acceptable under the solicitation. |
| Irreparable harm and public interest in granting injunction | Injuries include loss of personnel and potential disclosure of proprietary information; harms are irreparable. | Economic harm alone is insufficient; staffing and information risks are not proven at this stage. | Injunction denied; irreparable harm not shown, public interest not clearly favoring either party. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. John G. Grimberg Co., 702 F.2d 1362 (Fed.Cir. 1983) (injunction standards and limited extraordinary relief)
- FMC Corp. v. United States, 3 F.3d 424 (Fed.Cir. 1993) (non-determinative weighting of injunction factors)
- Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 60 Fed.Cl. 718 (Fed.Ct.Cl. 2004) (standard for preliminary injunction burden and evidence)
- Am. Signature, Inc. v. United States, 598 F.3d 816 (Fed.Cir. 2010) (public interest and bid protest injunctive considerations)
- Banknote Corp. of Am., Inc. v. United States, 365 F.3d 1345 (Fed.Cir. 2004) (jurisdiction and scope of injunctive relief in bid protests)