Bid Protests at COFC

Bid protests can also be brought at the Court of Federal Claims, a Federal Court established by Congress. This Court has jurisdiction over bid protest suits regarding an alleged violation of statute or regulation in connection with a procurement or proposed procurement. This includes suits objecting to the terms of a solicitation or contesting the proposed award or actual award of a contract. The Court of Federal Claims can: (1) issue temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions which can prevent contract award, or stop or limit contract performance if award has taken place; (2) issue a binding permanent injunction providing final relief, when a protest suit is successful;  (3) award the costs of bid or proposal preparation, where appropriate.

We have had experience in such suits, both before and after court jurisdiction over bid protests was centralized in the Court of Federal Claims. For instance:

  • After the Bureau of Prisons decided to take corrective action in response to a GAO protest we filed for our client, we successfully defended the corrective action in a suit brought by the awardee at the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.  American Sanitary Products, Inc. v. United States & Native Green, LLC, COFC No. 17-362, July 24, 2017.
  • We represented the lead plaintiff at the Court of Federal Claims in the successful protest of GSA’s Alliant procurement. Serco Inc., et al. v. United States, 81 Fed. Cl. 463 (2008). The court found errors in the technical, past performance, and price evaluations, as well as the best value tradeoffs.
  • The Court of Federal Claims held that a modification to a competitor’s contract was outside its scope and improper. As a result, our client’s contracts were reinstated and extended. CCL, Incorporated v. United States, 39 Fed. Cl. 780 (1997).
  • Through a variety of actions in different forums, we were able to prevent our client from losing a major maintenance contract to a small business concern with questionable qualifications. Control Data Systems, Inc. v. United States, 32 Fed. Cl. 520 (1994); Control Corp., B-253410; B-253410.3, July 5, 1995, 95-2 CPD 127,recon.denied, B-253410 et al., Dec. 5, 1995, 95-2 CPD ¶ 265.
  • We stopped a bid protest suit at the Court of Federal Claims, before a time consuming and expensive trial, by filing and winning a motion for summary judgment. Our client’s competitor had alleged procurement improprieties, which it was unable to establish through discovery. Corvus Systems, Inc. v. United States, No. 85-365 (Cl. Ct. 1985).
  • After a hearing on the merits, the Claims Court (the predecessor to the Court of Federal Claims) refused to grant a competitor an injunction that would have upset the contract award to our client. The court held that the Navy was not obliged to wait for the ruling of another agency before making award. Southwest Marine, Inc. v. United States, 4 Cl. Ct. 275 (1984).