Reema Consulting Services, Inc. v. United States
107 Fed. Cl. 519
Fed. Cl.2012Background
- Reema challenges ECBC's environmental sciences contract award to SMRC under RFP No. W911SR-09-R-0018 (IQID, 60-month term).
- RFP limited competition to SBA 8(a) firms; Task 1/2 required uncosted and cost detail, including a breakdown of equipment/materials.
- Reema failed to provide the required detailed equipment/materials breakdown for Task 1; SMRC similarly omitted, but SMRC included a separate “Other Direct Costs.”
- Cost/realism reviews and a tradeoff determined SMRC offered best overall value, despite Reema’s scheduling and materials breakdown deficiencies.
- SBA size protest found SMRC not small; CO proceeded pending OHA review; OHA upheld SBA size determination; ECBC later decided to reprocure as a small-business set-aside rather than 8(a).
- Plaintiff sought injunctive relief and bid-preparation costs; court later denied standing for injunction and denied bid costs, granting cross-motion for judgment on the administrative record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to seek injunctive relief | Reema argues ECBC’s corrective action is unlawful | ECBC’s actions are reasonable and voluntary corrective action | Plaintiff lacks standing for injunctive relief. |
| Assessing bid-preparation costs viability | ECBC's errors justify bid costs | Costs not causally tied to agency error; size-regulation timing caused loss | No recoverable bid preparation costs. |
| Size status and award eligibility | SMRC not small; award improper | CO relied on size representations; CCR/NAICS issues not triggering inquiry | ECBC acted reasonably under regulations; no basis to overturn award. |
| Regulatory compliance and evaluation consistency | ECBC misapplied RFP evaluation criteria | RFP criteria applied consistently; no arbitrary action | Not necessary to rescore or reprocure based on challenges. |
| Impact of SBA/OHA determinations on procurement | Agency must terminate after size affirmation | Discretion to suspend performance or proceed pending appeal | Agency acted within regulatory discretion; no injunction warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- ManTech Telecomms. & Info. Sys. Corp. v. United States, 49 Fed.Cl. 57 (2001) (review of corrective action under reasonable circumstances)
- Sheridan Corp. v. United States, 95 Fed.Cl. 141 (2010) (considerations for injunctive review in bid protests)
- Weeks Marine, Inc. v. United States, 575 F.3d 1352 (Fed.Cir. 2009) (standing and injury requirements in preaward protests)
- Rex Serv. Corp. v. United States, 448 F.3d 1305 (Fed.Cir. 2006) (protest standing and injury)
- CNA Corp. v. United States, 83 Fed.Cl. 1 (2008) (bid prep costs available only with causation by agency error)
- PGBA, LLC v. United States, 389 F.3d 1219 (Fed.Cir. 2004) (costs on bid protests and remedy scope)
- Ala. Aircraft Indus. v. United States, 85 Fed.Cl. 558 (2009) (awards and bid costs; 8(a) considerations)