Serco, Inc. v. United States
101 Fed. Cl. 717
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- Serco is the incumbent PE services provider at JPED; contract expiry was July 31, 2011.
- Army issued RFP for JPED PE processing on March 1, 2011; Capstone was awarded the contract for PE processing.
- Serco filed a bid protest and sought TRO and preliminary injunctive relief; GAO denied protest on October 12, 2011.
- Plaintiff filed its complaint, TRO/PI motions, and supporting materials on November 3, 2011, including SSP excerpts, RFP, proposals, and discussions/evaluations documents.
- Intervenor Capstone and the government argued costs and turnover from a potential TRO; the court considered a bond and stated the TRO would be in effect for about two weeks.
- The court granted a TRO on reconsideration, ordering a $300,000 bond and prohibiting Capstone from performance pending resolution of the bid protest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a TRO is warranted in a bid protest | Serco; balance favors status quo for employees and Army readiness. | Capstone/United States; costs of delaying performance and turnover justify denial. | TRO granted; balance of hardships favors plaintiff. |
| Whether the public interest supports a TRO in this procurement | Public interest in prompt return of personal effects and avoiding turnover harms. | Public interest balanced against defense and government costs to extend performance. | Public interest served by preserving status quo; TRO appropriate. |
| Whether the bond amount under RCFC 65(c) is proper | Bond should reflect potential costs of TRO and turnover. | Estimated costs to cover two weeks of performance; security necessary. | Bond set at $300,000. |
| Whether the court should reconsider its initial TRO denial | Authority and materials show TRO should be granted after appearance of adverse parties. | No necessity to reconsider; initial denial was appropriate. | Reconsideration granted; TRO ultimately issued. |
Key Cases Cited
- FMC Corp. v. United States, 3 F.3d 424 (Fed.Cir. 1993) (standard for injunctive relief balance of factors)
- CC Distribs., Inc. v. United States, 65 Fed.Cl. 813 (Fed.Cl. 2005) (TRO framework in bid protests)
- PGBA, LLC v. United States, 389 F.3d 1219 (Fed.Cir. 2004) (injunction framework for bid protests)
- Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414 (1944) (public-interest considerations in injunctions)
- United States v. Carroll Towing Co., 159 F.2d 169 (2d Cir.1947) (sliding scale balancing approach)
- Linc Gov't Servs., LLC v. United States, 96 Fed.Cl. 672 (Fed.Cl. 2010) (balancing and standards in bid protests)
- Standard Havens Prods., Inc. v. Gencor Indus., 897 F.2d 511 (Fed.Cir. 1990) (serious questions on merits can sustain injunctive relief)
- Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U.S. 321 (1944) (equity practice and balancing public/private interests)