Reilly v. United States
104 Fed. Cl. 69
| Fed. Cl. | 2012Background
- Clinton Reilly sued after being excluded from a GSA MEPS lease competition in Sacramento.
- GSA announced ~30,000 rentable square feet with an 83-foot setback; DoD ATFP standards later referenced in the SFO.
- Reilly, incumbent lessor since 1995, argues GSA arbitrarily relaxed setback via DoD Standards incorporated into the SFO.
- GSA awarded the Cannery Venture, LP lease on Sept. 29, 2010, but did not publish Cannery award notice.
- Reilly learned of Cannery award in Sept. 2010/Feb. 2011 and protested first to the GAO in June 2011; suit filed in Nov. 2011.
- Court held Reilly’s claims untimely due to laches, and dismissed the case, while addressing standing before laches.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing under Tucker Act | Reilly was effectively an offeror via expressions of interest | Reilly lacked an actual or prospective offeror status | Reilly has standing as an interested party |
| Waiver of protest rights | Blue & Gold distinctions should not apply since facts differ | Waiver due to not protesting before bid close | Not a knowing waiver; Blue & Gold distinguishable |
| Direct economic interest | Could have won contract if DoD standards applied | Reilly would not have substantial chance | Insufficient to show substantial likelihood; plus laches governs |
| Laches | Delay to file protest due to lack of information and interagency dispute | Unreasonable delay prejudices Government and Cannery | Claims dismissed as untimely due to laches |
Key Cases Cited
- KSD, Inc. v. United States, 72 Fed.Cl. 236 (2006) (standing when government precludes bidding despite protest grounds)
- Cybertech Group, Inc. v. United States, 48 Fed.Cl. 638 (2001) (standing where RFQ not provided to plaintiff)
- Blue & Gold Fleet, L.P. v. United States, 492 F.3d 1308 (Fed.Cir.2007) (unprepared protest waivers; timely protests important)
- Knowledge Connections, Inc. v. United States, 79 Fed.Cl. 750 (2007) (distinguishes Blue & Gold where protest grounds not known pre-bid)
- Labatt Food Serv. v. United States, 577 F.3d 1375 (2009) (requires substantial chance of award for direct economic interest)
- Aero Union Corp. v. United States, 47 Fed.Cl. 677 (2000) (laches considerations in bid protests; delay measured from knowledge to suit)