Geo Group, Inc. v. United States
100 Fed. Cl. 223
| Fed. Cl. | 2011Background
- GEO Group, Inc. has long held a contract with the Bureau of Prisons to operate the Brooklyn Residential Reentry Facility; the contract expires July 31, 2011.
- BOP issued RFP-200-1042-NE on January 16, 2009 for residential reentry services in Brooklyn or Queens, NY.
- GEO assembled a bid team including Jack Brown, who had access to GEO’s sensitive bid and staffing information.
- Brown abruptly resigned March 13, 2009 after review of the draft proposal revealed near-identical language with a competitor’s bid.
- GEO alerted BOP to a potential Procurement Integrity Act issue; the DOJ OIG later issued a January 18, 2010 report finding no theft, bid-rigging, or procurement violations.
- BOP ultimately awarded the contract to Community First Services (CFS) on February 16, 2011; GEO protested the award and filed suit seeking a temporary restraining order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Likelihood of success on the merits | GEO argues Brown’s actions violated procurement integrity and created an unrebutted CO bias | CO’s evaluation and award to CFS were rational and in accordance with law | No likelihood of success on the merits; award upheld |
| Irreparable injury | GEO will lose the opportunity to compete and suffer harm from losing contract performance | Any injury is compensable or mitigated; ongoing effects can be addressed later | Irreparable injury not shown; monetary damages may suffice |
| Balancing of harms | Delaying the award harms GEO’s interests and employees | Delays impose administrative burdens and harm on CFS; GEO is self-inflicted by protest timing | Harms to GEO outweighed by burdens on the government and CFS; balance does not favor TRO |
| Public interest | Court should safeguard fair competition and integrity of procurement | Agency discretion should not be overly intruded; competition can proceed | Public interest favors allowing the new contract to proceed |
Key Cases Cited
- Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87 (U.S. 1983) (arbitrary agency action must be within reasoned decisionmaking in injunctive review)
- CACI, Inc.-Federal v. United States, 719 F.2d 1567 (Fed.Cir. 1983) (interference with procurement should be limited)
- United States v. John C. Grimberg Co., 702 F.2d 1362 (Fed.Cir. 1983) (limits on judicial review of procurement decisions)
- Data General Corp. v. Johnson, 78 F.3d 1556 (Fed.Cir. 1996) (prejudice required to prevail in bid protests)
- Alfa Laval Separation, Inc. v. United States, 175 F.3d 1365 (Fed.Cir. 1999) (preliminary injunction standard; need for strong showing of likelihood of success)
- NetStar-1 Gov’t Consulting, Inc. v. United States, 98 Fed.Cl. 729 (Fed.Cl. 2011) (organizational conflicts of interest; government involvement required for consideration)