Mori Associates, Inc. v. United States
98 Fed. Cl. 572
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- MORI filed a Supplemental Complaint concerning NIH’s November 29, 2010 cancellation of a procurement.
- The cancellation was based on projected NIDDK in-house staffing and an analysis of “minimum” cost savings from converting contract positions.
- The original administrative record included the cancellation decision and related memoranda but did not include MORI’s final proposal pricing page.
- MORI moved to supplement the administrative record, seeking documents that purportedly supported the cost-savings analysis and the mapping of MORI positions to government labor categories.
- The government proposed a Supplemental Administrative Record and ultimately the Court clarified that two MORI documents were at issue: MORI’s GSA FSS contract and a page from MORI’s final proposal revision showing discounts, but MORI narrowed to pricing information.
- The Court granted MORI’s motion to complete the administrative record by adding the pricing page from the final proposal revision, finding that this information was part of the procurement record and necessary for meaningful judicial review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MORI’s pricing page should be added to the record | MORI argues the pricing page is essential for a proper cost analysis | The government contends the pricing page was not considered in the initial decision | Yes; the pricing page is part of the procurement record and must be added |
Key Cases Cited
- Axiom Res. Mgmt., Inc. v. United States, 564 F.3d 1374 (Fed.Cir. 2009) (supplementation may be needed to avoid frustrating review)
- Diversified Maint. Sys., Inc. v. United States, 93 Fed.Cl. 794 (Fed.Cl. 2010) (administrative record may be supplemented for ignored relevant information)
- Orion Int’l Techs. v. United States, 60 Fed.Cl. 338 (Fed.Cl. 2004) (relevant information ignored may be added)
- Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138 (Supreme Court 1973) (administrative review requires consideration of relevant data)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mnt. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (Supreme Court 1983) (requires reasoned decision with adequate explanation)