Precision Asset Management Corp. v. United States
125 Fed. Cl. 228
Fed. Cl.2016Background
- Post-award bid protest filed by Precision against HUD for Area 5A asset management evaluation.
- HUD/FA M administered FHA’s single-family mortgage insurance and outsources asset management; decision to be awarded Area 5A contract.
- Solicitation DU204SA-13-R-0005 ran in 2014; HUD used a two-step evaluation: technical acceptability then best-value with past performance and price.
- TEP assigned past performance ratings and emphasized recent, relevant references; Minemier received Good/Significant Confidence and lower price.
- Precision’s revised proposal lowered price but retained disputed past-performance references; HUD gave Precision Neutral/Unknown Confidence and Minemier Good/Significant Confidence.
- Court must determine standing before addressing merits; plaintiff seeks dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Tucker Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing under Tucker Act (interested party). | Precision has substantial chance if errors favored it. | Even with alleged errors, substantial chance not shown due to other bidder and price. | Plaintiff lacked substantial chance; standing denied. |
| Substantial chance standard and prejudice. | Errors would raise Precision’s ranking over Minemier. | Even best-case rating and lower Minemier rating do not show substantial chance. | No substantial chance shown; standing fails. |
| Merits reach requires standing first. | Court should evaluate errors on merits if standing exists. | Standing must be resolved before merits; no jurisdiction otherwise. | Court granted government’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alfa Laval Separation v. United States, 175 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (price is not sole determinant; surrounding circumstances matter for substantial chance)
- Information Technologies, Inc. v. United States, 316 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (substantial chance shown when errors would improve chances)
- Weeks Marine, Inc. v. United States, 575 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (interested party requirement is stricter than Article III standing)
- Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (prejudice requires more than bare numerical possibility)