Square One Armoring Service, Inc. v. United States
123 Fed. Cl. 309
Fed. Cl.2015Background
- GSA issued RFQ 873823 under the GSA MAS Schedule 84 to procure armored vehicles; award intended as LPTA to a responsible offeror meeting technical, past performance, and price criteria.
- Square One submitted a proposal; GSA sent clarification questions about (1) MAS part numbers for three spare keys and (2) ignition types (keyed vs. push-button). Square One responded that keys are OEM features or option add-ons on its GSA schedule and that a typographical error explained the ignition language.
- The Technical Evaluation Team rated Square One technically unacceptable for failing to provide MAS part numbers for spare keys and for proposing incorrect ignitions; only O’Gara was rated technically acceptable and received the award.
- Square One protested at GAO; GSA then took corrective action, cancelled the award to O’Gara, and announced it would revise the solicitation and permit resubmissions; GAO dismissed Square One’s protest as academic.
- Square One filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims challenging the original evaluation/award and GSA’s proposed corrective action. GSA moved to dismiss/for judgment on the record; court held Square One’s challenge to the original award is moot and that Square One lacks standing to challenge the proposed corrective action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge original award (post-award protest) | Square One would have had a substantial chance of award because its clarifications showed compliance and O’Gara was also noncompliant. | Square One was technically unacceptable and thus could not have had a substantial chance; moot because award cancelled. | Square One is an interested party for standing purposes (plausible substantial chance), but the challenge to the original evaluation/award is MOOT because GSA cancelled the award and offered corrective action. |
| Mootness of challenge to original evaluation/award | Court should adjudicate alleged errors and order award to Square One. | Cancellation of the award and corrective action eradicated the challenged injury; relief requested is no longer available. | Moot: cancellation and reprocurement render the original-evaluation dispute academic; court cannot order direct award to Square One. |
| Standing to challenge proposed corrective action (reprocurement) | Reprocurement is burdensome and may be pretextual; Square One will incur additional costs and potential unfairness. | Reprocurement benefits Square One (opportunity to compete); Square One has not shown a non-trivial competitive injury or redressable harm. | No standing: Square One failed to show a non-trivial competitive injury from reprocurement and thus lacks Tucker Act standing to contest corrective action. |
| Ripeness and good-faith concerns about corrective action | The decision to reprocure may be pretext for favoring O’Gara; thus relief is appropriate now. | Any execution concerns are speculative; presumption of government good faith applies and issues are not ripe until reprocurement concludes. | Unripe: speculative future harms and absence of concrete administrative action mean claims about implementation are premature; presumption of good faith applies absent extraordinary proof. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sharp Electronics Corp. v. McHugh, 707 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir.) (describing how GSA MAS schedule contracts and orders operate)
- Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 721 (2013) (mootness: a case is moot when issues are no longer live or parties lack cognizable interest)
- Los Angeles County v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625 (1979) (voluntary cessation does not ordinarily render a case moot; exception where recurrence is unlikely and effects eradicated)
- Chapman Law Firm Co. v. Greenleaf Constr. Co., 490 F.3d 934 (Fed. Cir.) (courts may review reasonableness of agency corrective action)
- Weeks Marine, Inc. v. United States, 575 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir.) (explaining standing requirements for bid protests and that Tucker Act standing is controlling)
- Info. Tech. & Appls. Corp. v. United States, 316 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir.) (prejudice standard: protester must show a substantial chance of award for post-award standing)
- Data Gen. Corp. v. Johnson, 78 F.3d 1556 (Fed. Cir.) (mere possibility of award is insufficient to show prejudice in post-award protest)
- Blue & Gold Fleet, L.P. v. United States, 492 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir.) (objections to solicitation terms must generally be raised pre-award)
- Croman Corp. v. United States, 724 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir.) (corrective action may moot original award challenge; courts review adequacy of proposed corrective action)