Netstar-1 Government Consulting, Inc. v. United States
98 Fed. Cl. 729
| Fed. Cl. | 2011Background
- NetStar-1 challenges ICE's blanket purchase agreement with ALON for program management support for OCIO, alleging an unmitigated organizational conflict of interest and a competitive disadvantage as incumbent.
- NetStar-1, incumbent on a prior contract, is providing services under a bridge contract that expires June 28, 2011; ALON will begin transitioning around May 28, 2011.
- NetStar-1 filed the complaint on May 11, 2011, along with a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction; ALON intervened as defendant-intervenor on May 12–13, 2011.
- A status conference and accelerated briefing were held; argument on the preliminary injunction occurred May 26, 2011, during a current trial in Boston, MA.
- The court analyzes four traditional elements for a preliminary injunction and finds likelihood of success on the merits and other factors favoring NetStar-1.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Likelihood of success on the merits | NetStar-1 contends ALON OCI conflicts invalidate award. | ALON argues mitigation and lack of prejudice. | Likely answer: likelihood of prevailing on the merits. |
| Irreparable harm absent injunction | NetStar-1 will suffer competitive disadvantage and loss of key personnel. | No irreparable harm beyond monetary damages; harms are speculative. | Irreparable harm shown; injunction warranted. |
| Balance of hardships | Injunctive relief preserves fair competition and incumbent interests; government interests align with best value. | Delay harms timely acquisition of services and transition to new contract. | Hardships strongly favor NetStar-1; injunction appropriate. |
| Public interest | Public interest supports honest competition and preventing agency discretion abuse. | Public interest favors timely award and service delivery. | Public interest supports granting injunction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Am. Signature, Inc. v. United States, 598 F.3d 816 (Fed.Cir.2010) (four-factor test for preliminary injunction; no one factor controlling)
- Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7 (Sup. Ct.2008) (drastic nature of injunction; irreparable harm, etc.)
- CRAssociates, Inc. v. United States, 95 Fed.Cl. 357 (Fed.Cl.2010) (context for balancing factors in bid protests)
- Altana Pharma AG v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 566 F.3d 999 (Fed.Cir.2009) (emphasizes first two factors are most critical)
- Reilly’s Wholesale Produce v. United States, 73 Fed.Cl. 705 (Fed.Cl.2006) (injury to be cognizable for equitable relief; burden of proof)
- Impresa Construzioni Geom. Do-*732menico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324 (Fed.Cir.2001) (rational basis and procedural considerations for OCI)
- Axiom Res. Mgmt., Inc. v. United States, 564 F.3d 1374 (Fed.Cir.2009) (fact-specific, discretionary mitigation of OCI)
- Turner Constr. Co. v. United States, 94 Fed.Cl. 561 (Fed.Cl.2010) (unequal access to information and related issues)
- NKF Eng’g, Inc. v. United States, 805 F.2d 372 (Fed.Cir.1986) (appearance of conflict can preclude award; prejudice presumptions)
- ARINC Eng’g Servs., LLC v. United States, 77 Fed.Cl. 196 (Fed.Cl.2007) (unequal access to information and competitive advantage)