MORI Associates, Inc. v. United States
102 Fed. Cl. 503
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- MORI protested NIH/NIDDK IT services procurement NIHNIDDK-08-01 after ATC won the initial award and MORI GAO protests followed; second award to ATC and subsequent protests; procurement was cancelled November 2010, prompting MORI to challenge the cancellation and later a new Help Desk solicitation under CIO-SP2Í/ID/IQ; MORI alleged bias, misevaluation, PIA issues, and improper cost analyses; court later supplemented the record and addressed jurisdiction, rational basis, and potential injunctions; ultimately MORI obtained a judgment on the cancellation as arbitrary and granted permanent and preliminary injunctions restraining related actions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review cancellation | MORI asserts ADRA preserves preexisting cancellation review rights | Government argues no reviewable statute/regulation violation in cancellation | Court holds jurisdiction over cancellation challenge |
| Arbitrary and capricious cancellation | Cancellation lacked rational basis and misused cost analysis | Changes in agency needs and cost savings justify cancellation | Cancellation deemed arbitrary and capricious; MORI prevails on the merits |
| Rule of Two and Help Desk solicitation | Help Desk not properly set aside for small business per Rule of Two | Rule of Two did not apply or was not triggered in this context; jurisdiction limits | Court finds likely Rule of Two violation; injunction against Help Desk solicitation |
| Standing and prejudice | MORI suffered nontrivial competitive injury from cancellation | No standing or prejudice shown for some counts | Standing found; MORI has the requisite competitive injury |
| Injunctive relief and scope | Injunction appropriate to rescind cancellation and halt contested Help Desk action | Injunction would disrupt agency operations and contradict discretionary decisions | Permanent injunction against cancellation; preliminary injunction against Help Desk/related award |
Key Cases Cited
- Parcel 49C Ltd. P'ship v. United States, 31 F.3d 1147 (Fed.Cir.1994) (cancellation challenges grounded in implied contract to fair treatment)
- Resource Conservation Group, LLC v. United States, 597 F.3d 1238 (Fed.Cir.2010) (ADRA expands bid protest jurisdiction over procurement challenges)
- Wetsel-Oviatt Lumber Co. v. United States, 43 Fed.Cl. 748 (Fed.Cl.1999) (arbitrary cancellation requires rational basis; cost data integrity matters)
- Bartels Trust, 617 F.3d 1357 (Fed.Cir.2010) (plain language interpretation governs statutory analysis)
- Galen Med. Assocs. v. United States, 369 F.3d 1330 (Fed.Cir.2004) (FAR 1.602-2(b) as binding requirement in bid protests)