Q Integrated Companies, LLC v. United States
132 Fed. Cl. 638
| Fed. Cl. | 2017Background
- HUD issued Asset Management contract solicitations (including Areas 7A, 1D, 5P) as small‑business set‑asides; HUD awarded those three areas to Sage despite Q Integrated submitting lower prices.
- Q Integrated protested, alleging improper past‑performance evaluation, irrational evaluation of Sage, and failure to hold meaningful discussions.
- The Court of Federal Claims granted Q Integrated’s motion for judgment on the administrative record in part, awarded injunctive relief limited to certain option years, and awarded bid preparation and proposal costs.
- The government appealed and later moved for relief from judgment under RCFC 60(b); the court denied that motion but the government appealed the denial to the Federal Circuit (appeal pending).
- Q Integrated filed separate applications for bid costs and for attorneys’ fees under EAJA; the court suspended consideration of those filings pending resolution of intervening SBA size determinations and later pending the government’s Federal Circuit appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court may decide Q Integrated’s application for bid preparation and proposal costs while the government’s appeal on the merits is pending | Q Integrated contends the award is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(2) and should be adjudicated now | Government’s appeal divests the trial court of jurisdiction over matters that are part of the merits | The court is divested of jurisdiction over bid costs because such costs are part of the merits; consideration is suspended until the appeal is resolved |
| Whether the trial court may decide Q Integrated’s EAJA attorneys’‑fees motion while the merits appeal is pending | Q Integrated seeks EAJA fees as the prevailing party under 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) | Government notes the underlying judgment may be reversed on appeal, altering prevailing‑party status | The court retains jurisdiction over EAJA fee motions (they are collateral) but prudentially suspends ruling until the appeal resolves to determine prevailing‑party status |
| Whether the court should decide bid costs and EAJA fees separately or together | Q Integrated implicitly prefers prompt adjudication | Government benefits from awaiting final appellate outcome | The court will consider both requests together after the appeal to avoid overlaps and inconsistency; parties must file a joint status report within 10 days of the Federal Circuit decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56 (jurisdiction transfers to court of appeals upon notice of appeal)
- Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S. 196 (attorneys’ fees are collateral to the merits)
- Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Cent. Pension Fund, 134 S. Ct. 773 (unresolved fee issues do not prevent final judgment on merits)
- PGBA, LLC v. United States, 389 F.3d 1219 (Court of Federal Claims has discretionary relief under § 1491(b)(2))
- Tinton Falls Lodging Realty, LLC v. United States, 800 F.3d 1353 (standing analysis in procurement/size‑related contexts)
- Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324 (standing and interested‑party analysis in bid protests)