Mission Critical Solutions v. United States
104 Fed. Cl. 18
Fed. Cl.2012Background
- Mission Critical I granted injunctive relief requiring HUBZone set-aside consideration for the IT services contract.
- MCS moved to enforce the February 26, 2010 order after 2010–2011 developments.
- Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 amended HUBZone language; the court noted changes from mandatory to permissive language.
- SBA decertified MCS as HUBZone; Army planned (and then effected) awards related to Copper River and later a Copper River award in 2011.
- Court must decide whether 2011 Copper River award is a new contract or a continuation of the prior procurement.
- Court analyzes standing, scope of injunction, and good-faith interpretation of the injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to enforce injunction | MCS has Article III standing to enforce the judgment. | Standing requires bid-protest-like showing; plaintiff may lack standing after HUBZone status change. | Plaintiff has standing to enforce the injunction. |
| Whether Army violated the injunction by awarding Copper River contract | Award violated the injunction because it applied the amended statute to a new contract. | Copper River award is a new procurement not covered by the injunction. | No violation; Copper River contract is a new contract not within the injunction. |
| Scope of injunction and contract at issue | Injunction covered the contract at issue and should apply to any continuation of that procurement. | Injunction limited to the contract at issue; does not extend to new procurements. | New contract analysis controls; injunction does not apply to 2011 award. |
| Good faith/ reasonable interpretation of the order | Army violated the order despite good-faith reading of amended law. | Actions based on reasonable, good-faith interpretation of the order and law. | No contempt; Army acted in good faith and reasonably interpreted the order. |
Key Cases Cited
- Filtration Development Co. v. United States, 63 Fed.Cl. 418 (2005) (civil contempt requires clear and convincing evidence)
- ViroMed Labs., Inc. v. United States, 87 Fed.Cl. 493 (2009) (contempt standard; good faith interpretation matters)
- Navajo Nation v. Peabody Coal Co., 7 Fed.Appx. 951 (2001) (good faith or reasonable interpretation of order standard)
- Savantage Fin. Servs., Inc. v. United States, 86 Fed.Cl. 700 (2009) (standing and enforcement of injunctions)
- McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 336 U.S. 187 (1949) (intent is not required for contempt)
- Abbott Labs. v. TorPharm, Inc., 503 F.3d 1372 (Fed.Cir. 2007) (injunction scope and ambiguity resolved in enjoined party's favor)
- Keeter Trading Co. v. United States, 79 Fed.Cl. 243 (2007) (fact-intensive inquiry to determine cardinal change)