Guzar Mirbachakot Transportation v. United States
104 Fed. Cl. 53
Fed. Cl.2012Background
- GMT challenges the Army NAT procurement for Afghanistan trucking services under RFP W91B4N-11-R-5000.
- GMT’s full proposal (four volumes) was submitted via e-mail with zip files and later reorganized into individual files after an Army instruction to not accept zip attachments.
- The Army determined portions of GMT’s proposal submitted in zip files were late and did not evaluate them; GMT argues the solicitation did not prohibit zip submissions.
- The Court found the zip-file transmission did not violate the solicitation and that the Army’s late-rejection was arbitrary and capricious.
- The Court granted GMT injunctive relief mandating re-evaluation of GMT’s full proposal and awarded partial bid and proposal costs associated with reorganizing and resubmitting GMT’s proposal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether zip files violated the solicitation’s format requirement | GMT's interpretation was reasonable | Army's policy prohibited zip formats | Ambiguity exists; GMT’s interpretation reasonable |
| Whether the Army’s abandonment of responsiveness criteria was lawful | Selective waivers were discriminatory against GMT | Waivers applied to all to maximize competition | Abandonment was arbitrary and prejudicial to GMT |
| Whether GMT’s full proposal should be evaluated despite late portions | Full timely submission should be evaluated | Late portions may be nonresponsive under criteria | GMT entitled to evaluation of full proposal under injunction |
| Whether GMT is entitled to bid and proposal costs | Costs wasted by reorganizing/retransmitting should be recoverable | Full costs not recoverable if partial success | Award limited to costs re: reorganizing/retransmitting due to zip-file issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Banknote Corp. of Am., Inc. v. United States, 365 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (ambiguity in contract language and interpretation rules apply to bid protests)
- LAI Servs., Inc. v. Gates, 573 F.3d 1306 (Fed.Cir. 2009) (ambiguity and reasonable interpretations in procurement contracts)
- Metric Constructors, Inc. v. National Aeronautics & Space Admin., 169 F.3d 747 (Fed.Cir. 1999) (ambiguous contract terms; contra proferentem applies to drafter)
- Fort Vancouver Plywood Co. v. United States, 860 F.2d 409 (Fed.Cir. 1988) (grey area of ambiguity; patent vs latent)
- Oenga v. United States, 96 Fed.Cl. 479 (Fed.Cl. 2010) (latent ambiguity; contra proferentem applies)
- Axiom Resource Management, Inc. v. United States, 564 F.3d 1374 (Fed.Cir. 2009) (supplementation of record for technical issues allowed)
- Gentex Corp. v. United States, 58 Fed.Cl. 634 (Fed.Cl. 2003) (fair opportunity and disclosure of rules in procurement)