107 Fed. Cl. 795
Fed. Cl.2012Background
- SA-TECH held the incumbent contract to operate and maintain Yakima Training Center ranges and facilities; the Army proposed transferring the work to Skookum under the JWOD AbilityOne program, intending to perform it with a 60% severely disabled workforce.
- SA-TECH protested the decision to add the YTC contract to the AbilityOne Procurement List, challenging the sufficiency of the Committee's suitability determination.
- The Committee and MICC advanced a plan to place the contract on the Procurement List despite questions about Skookum's capability and the feasibility of achieving meaningful employment for severely disabled workers at Yakima.
- The process included prior administrative reconsiderations, a lack of a formal pre-award capability survey, and reliance on Skookum's proposal and other AbilityOne work to justify capability.
- The court granted SA-TECH's motion for judgment on the administrative record and enjoined the Procurement List designation and award to Skookum, finding arbitrary and capricious conduct by the Committee and MICC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether placement on the Procurement List was arbitrary and capricious | SA-TECH argues the record lacks a proper suitability determination | Skookum and MICC contend record supports suitability | Yes; arbitrary and capricious |
| Whether the 75% severely disabled labor rule applied to the contract itself | SA-TECH contends 75% threshold applies to contract labor, not entire entity | Committee treats 75% as entity-wide standard | Unnecessary to decide; record insufficient to uphold |
| Whether Skookum could provide the work with a meaningful number of severely disabled workers | Record shows lack of specific job-to-disability mapping and feasible placement | Skookum claimed capability and offered plans | No; record demonstrates significant concerns about capability |
| Whether MICC failed to provide a counter-weight to AbilityOne and adequately assess risks to incumbent SA-TECH | MICC abdicated counter-weight and relied on Skookum’s assurances | MICC followed relevant procedures in reevaluation | Yes; counter-weight deficient |
| Whether the court should grant injunctive relief to SA-TECH | SA-TECH would suffer irreparable harm without injunction | Public interest favors AbilityOne | Yes; injunction granted |
Key Cases Cited
- McGregor Printing Corp. v. Kemp, 20 F.3d 1188 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (fact questions cannot be resolved by generic experience; need specific evaluation)
- RAMCOR Serv. Grp., Inc. v. United States, 185 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (jurisdiction over JWOD-related procurement protests exists when statute is connected to a procurement proposal)
- Angelica Textile Serv., Inc. v. United States, 95 Fed.Cl. 208 (Fed. Cl. 2010) (court recognizes JWOD-based procurement challenges and associated remedies)