Rlb Contracting, Inc. v. United States
120 Fed. Cl. 681
Fed. Cl.2015Background
- RLB Contracting, Inc. filed a bid protest in the Court of Federal Claims seeking a stay pending appeal of a decision re NAICS size standard for a shoreline restoration project in southern Louisiana.
- The court previously issued an injunction requiring USDA to reconsider its decision not to employ an exception to the size standard and later reaffirmed that order in October 2014.
- USDA issued a new redetermination selecting the larger size standard and awarding to another bidder; RLB sought to enforce the injunction but the court denied enforcement as to merits.
- RLB appealed the denial of enforcement; a motion to stay contract performance pending appeal was filed on February 20, 2015.
- The court denied the stay, applying the traditional injunction-pending-appeal framework (likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of harms, public interest) and finding no likelihood of success on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RLB is entitled to a stay pending appeal. | RLB argues it could suffer irreparable harm and has substantial likelihood on appeal. | USDA argues no likelihood of success and balance of harms weighs against a stay. | Stay denied. |
| Whether the court abused its discretion in denying full administrative review of the agency’s redetermination. | RLB claims substantial legal questions merit review of merits. | Court limited review to literal compliance with injunction. | No abuse; review limited to compliance; merits not reviewed. |
| Whether the equities favor a stay given potential cost and timeline impacts. | Delays threaten opportunity to compete for $22 million contract. | Delay imposes greater costs and risk to performance and site conditions. | Equities do not favor stay; harms not clearly tipped to plaintiff. |
| Whether the Federal Circuit would review the merits upon appeal. | Court’s contempt powers support post-judgment review of merits. | Compliance with the order negates the benefit of post-judgment review. | Unlikely to remand for merits; no stay. |
Key Cases Cited
- Acrow Corp. of Am. v. United States, 97 Fed. Cl. 182 (2011) (standard for injunction pending appeal factors; not a definitive stay)
- Standard Havens Prods., Inc. v. Gencor Indus., Inc., 897 F.2d 511 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (balance of factors governs temporary relief; no single factor decisive)
- Energy Recovery Inc. v. Hauge, 745 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (deference to trial court’s interpretation of its own order)
- E.I. Dupont Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 835 F.2d 277 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (substantial legal questions can justify stay in some contexts)
- Mission Critical Solutions v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 18 (2012) (agency actions after injunction; not always subject to injunction)
- McCall-Bey v. Franzen, 777 F.2d 1178 (7th Cir. 1985) (contempt powers invoked to enforce injunctions)
- Abbot Labs v. Torpham, Inc., 503 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (abuse of discretion standard for contempt proceedings)
- Additive Controls & Measurement Sys., Inc. v. Flowdata, Inc., 154 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (contempt proceedings not improper absent abuse)