Sagam Securite Senegal v. United States
21-1138
| Fed. Cl. | Jul 26, 2021Background
- SAGAM Sécurité Senegal was the incumbent local-guard contractor for the U.S. Embassy in Dakar; State issued Solicitation No. 19AQMM18R0332 with award to the lowest-price technically acceptable offeror.
- Three firms bid (SAGAM, Torres, SAKOM); after rounds of discussions SAGAM and Torres were in the competitive range.
- The contracting officer (CO) copied specific, competition‑sensitive elements of SAGAM’s proposal (cost/pricing explanation tied to local laws) into follow‑up discussion questions to Torres.
- Torres was initially selected (lower price); after SAGAM’s GAO protest the agency announced corrective action and later concluded the CO violated the Procurement Integrity Act (PIA), cancelled the solicitation, and stated it would resolicit.
- SAGAM sued in the Court of Federal Claims, challenging State’s cancellation/resolicitation as arbitrary and capricious and arguing the proper remedy was disqualification of Torres; the court considered cross‑motions on the administrative record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of Count II (challenge to award to Torres) | Award rescinded; issue now moot | Award rescission renders award challenge moot | Granted dismissal of Count II as moot |
| Did the CO improperly disclose protected proposal information? | CO disclosed SAGAM cost/pricing-related, competition-sensitive material to Torres in violation of PIA and FAR fairness provisions | Agency equivocated but acknowledged an error; suggested disclosure may be close question | CO violated PIA and FAR fairness provisions |
| Was cancellation + resolicitation a reasonable corrective action, or should Torres have been disqualified? | Cancellation perpetuates the taint because Torres retains improperly disclosed info; reasonable action would be to disqualify Torres or otherwise remove the taint | Cancellation is an authorized corrective action under FAR and within agency discretion; Torres did not knowingly solicit disclosure | Cancellation/resolicitation lacked a rational basis; Torres must be disqualified |
| Prejudice — did SAGAM have a substantial chance of award absent the error? | With Torres disqualified, SAGAM was the only remaining acceptable offeror and thus had a substantial chance of award | (Defendant did not meaningfully contest prejudice in its filings) | SAGAM established prejudice (substantial chance) |
| Injunctive relief — should court enjoin cancellation and require award to SAGAM? | Irreparable harm (lost chance to compete/profits), balance of hardships and public interest favor injunction restoring status quo ante | Departmental disruption, need to resolicit based on changed conditions, national‑security concerns | Permanent injunction: enjoin cancellation/resolicitation, disqualify Torres, and direct State to proceed to award to SAGAM if responsible |
Key Cases Cited
- Centech Grp., Inc. v. United States, 554 F.3d 1029 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (standards for arbitrary and capricious review in procurement challenges)
- Dell Fed. Sys., L.P. v. United States, 906 F.3d 982 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (rational‑basis / reasonableness standard for agency corrective actions)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (arbitrary and capricious standard requires consideration of relevant factors)
- NKF Eng’g, Inc. v. United States, 805 F.2d 372 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (authority to disqualify offeror to protect procurement integrity)
- Parcel 49C Ltd. P’ship v. United States, 31 F.3d 1147 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (injunctive relief restoring status quo ante after an improper cancellation)
- Axiom Rsrc. Mgmt., Inc. v. United States, 564 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (limits on court substituting its judgment for contracting officer on conflicts review; scope of review)
- Banknote Corp. of Am. v. United States, 365 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (review and prejudice standards in bid protests)