Vas Realty, LLC v. United States
20-1417
| Fed. Cl. | Jun 23, 2021Background
- GSA conducted a solicitation (RLP) for a lease to house DHS-ICE in Warwick, RI; award went to Cape Moraine.
- VAS Realty protested the award, alleging procurement errors; Court dismissed the protest for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because VAS lacked standing.
- The Court found VAS’s final proposal exceeded the RLP’s maximum ABOA (usable) square footage by ~5,508 sq ft, a material nonconformance rendering VAS ineligible for award.
- VAS appealed the dismissal to the Federal Circuit and moved in the Court of Federal Claims for a stay and injunction under RCFC 62(d) to halt performance under the lease pending appeal.
- The government and Cape Moraine opposed the stay; the Court denied VAS’s motion, concluding VAS failed to show a strong likelihood of success on appeal and that the equities and public interest weighed against injunctive relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing: whether VAS has a direct economic interest to sue | VAS argued it had standing because its bid was responsive and, if Cape Moraine were ineligible, VAS would likely win a reprocurement | Government/Cape Moraine argued VAS’s proposal failed a material RLP term (ABOA max) making VAS ineligible | Court held VAS lacked standing because its proposal exceeded the RLP maximum ABOA and was therefore noncompliant |
| Cape Moraine’s eligibility: if Cape Moraine were ineligible, would VAS be a viable awardee? | VAS asserted Cape Moraine was ineligible, so a rerun would make VAS competitive | Defendants noted even assuming Cape Moraine deficient, the record shows VAS itself remained ineligible due to excess space | Court held that even if Cape Moraine were ineligible, VAS would still be ineligible, undermining VAS’s likelihood of success on appeal |
| Jurisdictional factfinding: whether the court erred by considering ABOA compliance at the jurisdiction stage | VAS contended the court should not have considered undisputed ABOA facts when deciding jurisdiction | Defendants asserted the court has an independent duty to assess jurisdictional facts in the record | Court reaffirmed its independent duty and found consideration of ABOA compliance appropriate for the jurisdictional inquiry |
| Irreparable harm and equities for injunction pending appeal | VAS claimed loss of its current lease, inability to compete, and lack of recourse constitute irreparable harm warranting stay | Defendants argued loss of incumbency is insufficient, while delay would harm public interest, taxpayers, and the awardee | Court found VAS’s asserted harms not irreparable in this context and that the balance of harms/public interest weighed against injunctive relief |
Key Cases Cited
- E.W. Bliss Co. v. United States, 77 F.3d 445 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (proposal failing to conform to material solicitation terms is unacceptable)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) (courts have independent obligation to determine subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Standard Havens Prods., Inc. v. Gencor Indus., Inc., 897 F.2d 511 (1990) (factors for injunction pending appeal and likelihood-of-success framework)
- Akima Intra-Data, LLC v. United States, 120 Fed. Cl. 25 (2015) (discussing standards for injunctions pending appeal in bid protests)
- CRAssociates, Inc. v. United States, 103 Fed. Cl. 23 (2012) (loss of incumbency alone does not automatically justify a stay pending appeal)