Sheridan Corp. v. United States
2010 U.S. Claims LEXIS 847
| Fed. Cl. | 2010Background
- Sheridan protested the agency’s corrective action to resolicit revised proposals after an initial award for a KC-135 hangar; no discussions were conducted with any offerors.
- JCN challenged Sheridan’s disparate treatment; due to JCN’s protest, the agency suspended Sheridan’s performance and proposed expanding the competitive range to include three firms for revised proposals.
- The agency disclosed Sheridan’s winning price during award and debriefings, and invited Sheridan, JCN, and Nauset to submit revised proposals due August 13, 2010.
- Sheridan sought declaratory and injunctive relief in district court; the court preliminarily enjoined the corrective action on September 1, 2010.
- The court held that the corrective action was unlawful, irrational, and not tied to any identifiable defect in the initial procurement, and permanently enjoined res solicitation.
- RFP anticipated no discussions; the procurement evaluated past performance and price, with no price discussions, and the RFP stated awards would be without discussions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sheridan has standing to challenge the corrective action | Sheridan is an interested party under the Tucker Act. | Standing lacks injury under Lujan and ripeness concerns apply. | Sheridan has standing under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1). |
| Whether the agency’s corrective action to resolicit proposals was lawful | Corrective action lacked rational basis; no defectJustifying re-solicitation. | Corrective action necessary to address errors in competitive range and evaluation. | Unlawful and irrational; not tied to any identified defect. |
| Whether the corrective action violated the no-discussion rule in the RFP | No discussions; competitive range concept inapplicable; resolicitation unnecessary. | Competitive range concept can be used to ensure fairness even without discussions. | Corrective action inappropriate; competitive range not applicable here. |
| Whether the agency’s disclosure of Sheridan’s winning price tainted the process | Price disclosure prejudices Sheridan and enables unwarranted competition. | Price disclosure was incidental and did not invalidate the process. | Disclosures harmed the procurement integrity; supports injunctive relief. |
| Whether the injunction is appropriate given the record | Injunction necessary to prevent further prejudice and preserve integrity of procurement. | Injunction would unduly delay construction and harm government interests. | Permanent injunction warranted to preserve procurement integrity. |
Key Cases Cited
- IMS Servs., Inc. v. United States, 32 Fed.Cl. 388 (1994) (pre-award-like basis for standing when corrective action reopens competition)
- Delaney Constr. Corp., 56 Fed.Cl. 470 (2003) (injunctions where corrective action reopens competition; preserves integrity)
- Ceres Gulf, Inc. v. United States, 94 Fed.Cl. 303 (2010) (standing when corrective action nullifies prior award and reopens bidding)
- Centech Group, Inc. v. United States, 78 Fed.Cl. 496 (2007) (court reviews the reasonableness of corrective action)
- Chapman Law Firm v. United States, 490 F.3d 934 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (scope of review of corrective action in bid protests)
- Blue and Gold Fleet, L.P. v. United States, 492 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (timing and fairness in bid protests; pre-award considerations)
- MCII Generator & Electric, Inc. v. United States, 2002 WL 32126244 (2002) (illustrates limits of corrective action when changed terms are not warranted)
- Hospital Klean of Texas, Inc. v. United States, 65 Fed.Cl. 618 (2005) (public interest in procurement integrity supports injunctions)