Systems Application & Technologies, Inc. v. United States
100 Fed. Cl. 687
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- The Army awarded the contract for aerial target flight operations and maintenance to SA-TECH, displacing Kratos, the incumbent.
- Kratos protested to the GAO, and the Army proposed corrective action (terminate SA-TECH, amend the RFP, accept revised proposals, reselect).
- Amendments 3 and 4 updated wage determinations to reflect the Kratos CBA and allowed revised proposals without changing evaluation criteria.
- Kratos alleged the CBA labor mix affected evaluation; GAO dismissed Kratos’s protest; Army proceeded with corrective action planning.
- SA-TECH challenged the Army’s proposed corrective action in court; the United States and Kratos moved to dismiss and for/against judgment on the record.
- The court ultimately denied the dismissals, granted SA-TECH’s judgment on the administrative record, and enjoined the Army from implementing the proposed corrective action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1491(b)(1). | SA-TECH argues broad Tucker Act jurisdiction over corrective action protests. | Defendants contend limited or no jurisdiction over corrective-action protests. | Court has jurisdiction under §1491(b)(1). |
| Whether SA-TECH has standing to protest. | SA-TECH, as current awardee, has a direct, nontrivial competitive interest. | Defendants challenge standing based on lack of final award or direct injury. | SA-TECH has standing. |
| Whether the protest is ripe for judicial review. | Protest is ripe because corrective action affects the procurement process and SA-TECH’s rights. | Protest is not ripe since corrective action is prospective and contingent. | Protest is ripe for review. |
| Whether the Army’s decision to take corrective action was rational in light of the GAO email. | GAO attorney’s email was irrational, and the Army relied on it inappropriately. | The Army’s decision could be grounded in Kratos’s supplemental protest analysis and independent considerations. | GAO email irrational; decision to take corrective action lacks rational basis. |
| Whether the Army’s corrective action violates procurement laws/regulations. | Corrective action upsets a lawfully awarded contract and undermines open competition. | Corrective action is permissible to ensure fair competition. | Action violates procurement statutes/regulations; prejudicial to SA-TECH established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jacobs Tech., Inc. v. United States, 100 Fed.Cl. 186 (2011) (standing and preaward/postaward protest considerations)
- Sheridan Corp. v. United States, 95 Fed.Cl. 141 (2010) (standing and remedial aspects of bid protests)
- Turner Constr. Co. v. United States, 645 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (deference to agency decisions in procurements)
- Centech Grp., Inc. v. United States, 554 F.3d 1029 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (merits review standards in bid protests; tradeoffs and rationality)
- Fort Carson Support Servs. v. United States, 71 Fed.Cl. 571 (2006) (deference to procurement officials and evaluation discretion)