108 Fed. Cl. 711
Fed. Cl.2013Background
- Post-award bid protest in the US Court of Federal Claims challenging a sole-source CMAS contract.
- Air Force awarded a bridge contract for CMAS services to Harris on May 18, 2010, without competitive bidding.
- IDEA alleged violations of CICA, FAR 5.207, FAR Part 10, and related procurement rules.
- Air Force failed to post a contract synopsis, conduct market research, or adequately justify the sole-source award in the J&A (K 6.302-1/2).
- The court found significant regulatory violations, granted IDEA relief on Count I, and dismissed Counts II–IV without prejudice; ordered negotiation on bid preparation costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sole-source award violated CICA and related rules | IDEA: lack of advance planning and no market research. | Harris justification supported by urgency/one-source authority. | Yes; award irrational and unlawful. |
| Was there lack of advance planning by the Air Force | Air Force failed to plan competitive procurement. | Urgency justified sole-source. | Yes; lack of advance planning invalidates award. |
| Whether market research was properly conducted | No market research in J&A; improper reliance on old contract. | Market research not required due to urgency. | No; FAR Part 10 violation. |
| Whether IDEA had standing and suffered prejudice | IDEA had CMAS experience and substantial chance in a competitive process. | IDEA lacked standing. | IDEA had standing and showed prejudice. |
| Remedies and costs (bid preparation costs)", | Eligible for bid preparation costs; attorney fees TBD. | Costs may be limited or denied. | Bid preparation costs potentially awarded; moot on attorney fees pending further briefing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Banknote Corp. of Am. v. United States, 365 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (set-aside standard; arbitrariness or error in procurement decisions)
- Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (arbitrary, capricious standard; need for rational basis in awards)
- Emery Worldwide Airlines, Inc. v. United States, 264 F.3d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (test for irrational or unlawful sole-source awards)
- ITAC v. United States, 316 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (standing requires substantial chance of award)
- Rex Serv. Corp. v. United States, 448 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (prejudice standard in bid protests)