Digitalis Education Solutions, Inc. v. United States
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 26
| Fed. Cir. | 2012Background
- Digitalis appeals a Court of Federal Claims dismissal for lack of standing in a post‑award protest of a sole‑source procurement.
- The DoD had used STARLAB planetariums; Digitalis previously sold digital planetariums but did not win the contract.
- DoD initiated a sole‑source procurement process in Sept. 2010, posting a notice of intent to award to Science First and inviting capability statements.
- Sky Skan submitted a capability statement; DoD refined the requirement and added language asserting STARLAB curricula and teacher trainers.
- The DoD awarded the contract to Science First on Sept. 25, 2010 for fifty digital planetariums; Digitalis objected to the process, later filing suit on Dec. 6, 2010.
- The Court of Federal Claims dismissed Digitalis for lack of standing, and Digitalis appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Digitalis had standing as an interested party. | Digitalis argues it could have had standing if a full competition occurred. | Digitalis was not an actual/prospective bidder and had no direct economic interest; no substantial chance to win. | Digitalis lacked standing. |
| Whether failure to submit a capability statement forecloses standing. | Even without filing, Digitalis could challenge reasonableness of the time period. | Standing requires a submitted capability statement during the period. | Rex Service governs; failure to submit precludes standing. |
| Whether the five‑day posting window was reasonable enough to permit bidding. | Time period was unreasonably short. | Reasonableness is fact‑intensive; five days could be reasonable in context. | Court did not reach merits; Digitalis still lacked standing. |
| Whether Rex Service applies to sole‑source procurements. | N/A or broader challenge to process. | Rex Service applies; failure to bid means no direct economic interest. | Rex Service control; Digitalis lacked standing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rex Serv. Corp. v. United States, 448 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (standing requires actual/prospective bid and substantial chance to win; failure to bid defeats standing)
- MCI Telecomms. Corp. v. United States, 878 F.2d 362 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (protest eligibility requires expectation to submit offer before closing date)
- Infrastructure Def. Techs. v. United States, 81 Fed. Cl. 375 (2008) (extends Rex Service rule to sole‑source procurements)
- Cal. Indus. Facilities Res., Inc. v. United States, 80 Fed. Cl. 633 (2008) (reasonableness of solicitation response time depends on context)
- Labatt Food Serv., Inc. v. United States, 577 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (standing de novo; underlying facts reviewed for clear error)