T Square Logistics Services Corporation v. United States
134 Fed. Cl. 550
| Fed. Cl. | 2017Background
- Air Force solicitation required paper copies and an identical electronic copy on CD by 4:00 p.m. on May 5, 2017, for support services at Sheppard AFB.
- T Square shipped its materials via FedEx before the deadline but FedEx delayed delivery; T Square emailed an electronic copy to the agency on May 5 and informed the contracting office of the delay.
- A contract specialist emailed that late FedEx delivery was "not a problem" and that hard copies would be accepted when they arrived; relying on that, T Square did not arrange local printing/delivery.
- FedEx delivered the physical proposal on May 8; on May 16 the agency rejected T Square’s submission as untimely, noting email submission was unauthorized and that exceptions to lateness did not apply.
- T Square filed a pre-award bid protest in the Court of Federal Claims seeking reinstatement, a halt to further evaluation, and injunctive relief; cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record were briefed.
- The court found the agency failed to adequately consider/document waiver of the late paper submission as a minor informality and that T Square was prejudiced; injunction was granted to prevent award until reevaluation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to bring pre-award protest | T Square was an actual bidder and suffered non-trivial competitive injury when its proposal was rejected | Rejection as late meant zero chance of award so no prejudice/standing | Court: T Square has standing; pre-award rule requires showing a non-trivial competitive injury |
| Whether agency should have waived late paper/CD as an informality/minor irregularity | Waiver was appropriate because electronic submission was timely, paper/CD were shipped, no competitive advantage resulted, and agency staff indicated acceptance | Agency insisted FAR 52.212-1 required rejection because exceptions to lateness did not apply and email was not authorized | Court: Agency erred by failing to consider/document waiver under 52.212-1(g); waiver could be permissible and was not rationally addressed |
| Reliance on contract specialist’s email (government control / fair-treatment claims) | Contract specialist’s written assurance induced T Square to forgo other timely delivery options; agency later reversed without explanation | Agency contends specialist lacked authority to alter submission requirements; rejection followed FAR exceptions analysis | Court: Did not decide the government-control exception or other regulatory violations but found agency’s reversal unexplained and inadequate regarding waiver consideration |
| Injunctive relief (stay of evaluation and reinstatement) | Without injunction T Square will irreparably lose the opportunity and profits; public interest favors fair competition | Agency contends injunction unduly interferes with procurement discretion; noted it agreed not to award pending resolution | Court: Injunctive relief granted — award enjoined until agency reevaluates T Square’s eligibility; balance of harms and public interest favor relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (RCFC 52.1 judgment-on-the-record standard and two-step bid-protest review)
- Weeks Marine, Inc. v. United States, 575 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (pre-award standing requires non-trivial competitive injury)
- Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., 419 U.S. 281 (1974) (arbitrary-and-capricious standard is narrow; court defers to agency decisionmaking if rational)
- PGBA, LLC v. United States, 389 F.3d 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (four-factor test for permanent injunctive relief)
- Electronic On-Ramp, Inc. v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 151 (2012) (agency may waive minor informalities and consider late paper copies when no prejudice and fairness preserved)
- Progressive Indus., Inc. v. United States, 129 Fed. Cl. 457 (2016) (waiving submission format can be a valid exercise of agency discretion)