Joint Venture of Comint Systems Corp. v. United States
102 Fed. Cl. 235
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- NIEITS is a Defense Department IT services acquisition managed by WHS under the DA&M IT community, with OSD, WHS, and PFPA as key customers.
- Solicitation HQ0034-10-R-0046 sought multiple award ID/IQ Basic Contract plus Task Orders 1 and 2 for net-centric IT services with a $2,500 base per award and up to $495 million total.
- Fourteen offerors submitted proposals; all met minimum eligibility criteria and were deemed eligible for award; oral proposals followed the written submissions.
- Amendment 5 changed the deployment schedule by delaying concurrent award of Task Orders 1 and 2 with the Basic Contract and indicated pricing for Task Orders would be used for evaluation only; revisions were not accepted.
- SSA and SSAC determined DMI, NetCentrics, and PowerTek offered the best value for the Basic Contract without discussions; awards were issued to those three, with debriefings provided to other offerors.
- Comint and NetServices filed protests alleging various evaluation and process errors; the court ultimately held they lacked standing to protest and dismissed their complaints.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Comint have standing to protest? | Comint claims prejudice from marginal rating and pagination limits. | No substantial chance of award; rating incongruity is insufficient for standing. | Comint lacked standing; dismissed. |
| Did NetServices have standing to protest? | NetServices argues Amendment 5 and alleged process flaws harmed its competitive position. | Record evidence shows no substantial chance of award given SSAC/SSA findings and price evaluation. | NetServices lacked standing; dismissed. |
| Was the court properly denied jurisdiction due to standing defects? | Plaintiffs contend procurement errors denied them a fair chance at award. | Standing requires prejudice; plaintiffs did not show substantial chance of award. | Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rex Serv. Corp. v. United States, 448 F.3d 1305 (Fed.Cir.2006) (two-part standing test: actual or prospective bidder plus direct economic interest with prejudice)
- Myers Investigative & Sec. Servs., Inc. v. United States, 275 F.3d 1366 (Fed.Cir.2002) (standing requires showing who could compete for the contract)
- Textron, Inc. v. United States, 74 Fed.Cl. 277 (Fed.Cl.2006) (prejudice required to prove standing in procurement challenges)
- Labatt Food Serv., Inc. v. United States, 577 F.3d 1375 (Fed.Cir.2009) (prejudice necessary for standing; connection between error and outcome must exist)
- Weeks Marine, Inc. v. United States, 575 F.3d 1352 (Fed.Cir.2009) (distinction between postaward and preaward standing; substantial chance standard applies postaward)
- Afghan Am. Army Servs. Corp. v. United States, 90 Fed.Cl. 341 (Fed.Cl.2009) (considerations in evaluating best-value procurements in protest context)
- USfalcon, Inc. v. United States, 92 Fed.Cl. 436 (Fed.Cl.2010) (assessing truth of protest allegations and record supplementation)