Crassociates, Inc. v. United States
103 Fed. Cl. 23
| Fed. Cl. | 2012Background
- CRA filed to enjoin Spectrum from performing on an Army contract after a prior injunction related to the same procurement
- Army conducted revised discussions and awarded the contract to Spectrum again, which CRA protested in this court
- This court denied CRA's motion for judgment on the administrative record and denied stay, proceeding to appeal
- CRA sought a stay pending appeal, applying the traditional stay factors (likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of harms, public interest)
- Court analyzed waiver and timeliness concerns, indicating CRA had previous opportunities to raise key issues and did not timely protest
- Court denied the stay, emphasizing no strong likelihood of success on appeal and lack of irreparable harm or compelling equities
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Likelihood of success on appeal | CRA argues there are meritorious challenges to the Army's conduct and the adequacy of the evaluation | Spectrum argues the Army acted within discretion and the record supports the award | CRA fails to show substantial likelihood of success on appeal |
| Irreparable harm to CRA if stay denied | CRA will lose incumbency advantages, key staff, and facilities without a stay | Harm is speculative and largely self-inflicted; incumbency harms are not irreparable | No irreparable harm shown; harms are speculative and self-inflicted |
| Balance of harms and public interest | Granting a stay would preserve CRA's incumbency and competitive position | Staying would unduly burden the Army and Spectrum and delay a long-delayed procurement | Equities do not favor a stay; the public interest and contractor interests weigh against it |
| Waiver/timeliness of protest grounds | CRA did not timely protest certain information-related issues | GAO/First-protest jurisprudence and prior findings show timely protest was required | Court reaffirms that CRA's arguments on waiver and timing do not justify a stay |
Key Cases Cited
- Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770 (1987) (stay standards and balancing factors for injunctions)
- E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 835 F.2d 277 (Fed.Cir.1987) (establishes stay framework; sliding-scale analysis)
- Standard Havens Prods. v. Gencor Indus., 897 F.2d 511 (Fed.Cir.1990) (sliding-scale factors for stay pending appeal)
- Roland Mach. Co. v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 749 F.2d 380 (7th Cir.1984) (sliding-scale approach to stay determinations)
- Sierra Military Health Servs., Inc. v. United States, 58 Fed.Cl. 573 (2003) (incumbency-related considerations and irreparable harms )
- San Diego Beverages & Kup v. United States, 997 F. Supp. 1343 (S.D. Cal. 1998) (limits on irreparable harm for losing procurement outcomes)