Geo-Med, LLC v. United States
17-1006
| Fed. Cl. | Jan 9, 2018Background
- Geo‑Med, an SDVOSB, supplies Custom Sterile Procedure Packs to 34 VA facilities and challenged VA Solicitation No. VA240C‑16‑R‑0007, which consolidated requirements for VISNs into a single procurement.
- VA issued a presolicitation sources‑sought in March 2016; Geo‑Med protested at GAO twice alleging improper bundling and related defects; GAO dismissed after corrective actions and found Geo‑Med not qualified to challenge bundling in one instance.
- The VA amended the solicitation multiple times, conducted market research, and the Contracting Officer concluded small businesses lacked necessary capabilities to perform the consolidated requirement.
- Geo‑Med filed this pre‑award bid protest in the Court of Federal Claims before the solicitation closed, seeking relief that the bundling was unnecessary and prejudicial to small business participation.
- The government moved to dismiss for lack of standing (delay and not a prospective bidder) and alternatively defended the bundling as supported by market research; the Court held oral argument and the VA stayed award pending decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing / prospective bidder status | Geo‑Med remained a prospective bidder and diligently pursued remedies (GAO protests) before solicitation closed | Geo‑Med delayed (250 days after GAO denial) and thus lacks prospective bidder status | Court: Geo‑Med was a prospective bidder, timely pursued protests, and has standing |
| Direct economic interest | Loss of ability to compete and likely loss of existing VA business if solicitation proceeds | No non‑trivial competitive injury | Court: Geo‑Med showed non‑trivial competitive injury; satisfies economic interest requirement |
| Whether solicitation improperly bundled requirements | Solicitation added specialized requirements and consolidated formerly separate procurements, making it unsuitable for small businesses | VA performed market research and consolidation was necessary and justified | Court: VA’s market research provided a rational basis; bundling not arbitrary or capricious; petition denied |
| Adequacy of agency market research / compliance with anti‑bundling law | VA failed to do sufficient market research and did not justify bundling under 15 U.S.C. § 631(j)(3) | CO’s Market Research Report analyzed capabilities, geography, quantity, TAA compliance, and justified consolidation | Court: Deferential review; CO’s documented market research was adequate; agency decision sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (Tucker Act requires separate money‑mandating source)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (standard for arbitrary and capricious review)
- Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346 (standard for RCFC 52.1 review in bid protests)
- Tyler Constr. Grp. v. United States, 570 F.3d 1329 (anti‑bundling statute prohibits unnecessary and unjustified bundling)
- Ala. Aircraft Indus., Inc. v. United States, 586 F.3d 1372 (deference limits and when agency action is implausible)
- Weeks Marine, Inc. v. United States, 575 F.3d 1352 (interested party and direct economic interest in bid protests)
- CGI Fed., Inc. v. United States, 779 F.3d 1346 (prospective bidder diligence principle)
- Geo‑Med, LLC v. United States, 126 Fed. Cl. 440 (prior CFC decision addressing similar VA solicitation and bundling analysis)