Munilla Construction Management, LLC v. United States
130 Fed. Cl. 131
| Fed. Cl. | 2016Background
- Munilla Construction Management (incumbent contractor at Guantanamo Bay) submitted a proposal in response to a Navy RFP for port services that called for Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) award.
- The Navy awarded the contract to Seaward Services on October 27, 2016; Munilla was technically acceptable but not the lowest-priced.
- Munilla alleged Seaward’s (and another offeror SoBran’s) line-item pricing was unbalanced and ‘‘below cost’’ on some CLINs and that the Navy failed to perform the required CLIN-level price/unbalanced analysis under FAR 15.404-1(g)(2).
- Munilla filed a GAO protest (dismissed) and then a post-award bid protest in the Court of Federal Claims, and moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to halt transition/contract performance by Seaward.
- The Navy extended Munilla’s existing contract through January 31, 2017; transition to Seaward had begun and parties anticipated expedited resolution by January 31, 2017.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing / likelihood of success on the merits | Munilla: Navy failed to conduct required CLIN-level price/unbalanced analysis, so award to Seaward was improper. | Gov’t: Even if award to Seaward were set aside, another technically acceptable offeror (Crowley) would be next-lowest; Munilla therefore lacks a substantial chance to receive the award. | Court: Munilla failed to show likelihood of success; standing is doubtful because Crowley would be next in line. |
| Adequacy of price/unbalanced analysis | Munilla: Navy violated RFP/FAR by not determining whether Seaward’s CLIN pricing was unbalanced or unreasonable. | Gov’t: Agency was not required to perform the particular price analysis Munilla demands; GAO dismissed similar claim. | Court: Did not decide merits but found Munilla did not demonstrate likelihood of success at this preliminary stage. |
| Irreparable harm from allowing transition | Munilla: Loss of employees, loss of institutional expertise, and increased costs if transition proceeds before injunction would cause irreparable injury. | Gov’t: Incumbent loss of employees during transition is not irreparable; transition costs and disruption weigh against injunction. | Court: Munilla’s allegations are speculative and insufficient; loss of employees during transition is generally not irreparable. |
| Balance of equities / public interest | Munilla: Protect competition and prevent entrenchment of awardee. | Gov’t/Seaward: Suspending transition now would disrupt government and awardee; public interest favors allowing procurement to proceed absent clear likelihood of success. | Court: Equities and public interest favor denying TRO given weak showing on merits and lack of irreparable harm. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968 (1997) (TRO is extraordinary remedy requiring clear showing)
- Am. Signature, Inc. v. United States, 598 F.3d 816 (2010) (preliminary injunction factors applied in bid protest context)
- Info. Tech. & Applications Corp. v. United States, 316 F.3d 1312 (2003) (interested party must have substantial chance of award but for alleged procurement error)
- Weeks Marine, Inc. v. United States, 575 F.3d 1352 (2009) (standing requires direct economic interest)
- PGBA, LLC v. United States, 389 F.3d 1219 (2004) (loss of employees/succession is not necessarily irreparable harm)