John W. Merriam v. Robert L. Kunzig, Administrator, General Services Administration
476 F.2d 1233 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An unsuccessful bidder on a federal government contract has standing to seek judicial review of a federal agency's contract award. Standing is established by meeting a two-part test: showing an "injury in fact" from the agency's action and demonstrating that the bidder's interest is arguably within the "zone of interests" protected by federal procurement statutes mandating fair and open competition.
Facts:
- On September 30, 1970, the General Services Administration (GSA) issued a Solicitation for Offers to lease office space in Philadelphia.
- The solicitation included specific criteria that a proposed new building had to meet to be exempt from a requirement for congressional approval, based on the Independent Offices Appropriations Act, 1971.
- Merriam and Gateway Center Corporation (Gateway) were among the companies that submitted bids.
- At the time of its bid, Gateway's proposed site was a vacant lot, and Merriam alleged Gateway did not meet the solicitation's criteria for a new building to be exempt from congressional approval.
- On February 18, 1971, the GSA Administrator authorized the award of a twenty-year lease to Gateway.
- The proposed Gateway lease was never submitted to Congress for approval.
- Merriam alleged that Gateway's bid contained false representations that it met the solicitation's criteria and that GSA officials knew these representations were false when they accepted the bid.
Procedural Posture:
- Merriam filed a bid protest with the General Accounting Office (GAO) challenging the GSA's award to Gateway.
- After the GAO did not issue a timely authoritative ruling, Merriam sued GSA and its officials in the U.S. District Court.
- The government defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing Merriam lacked standing to sue.
- The district court stayed proceedings pending a final ruling from the GAO.
- The GAO subsequently ruled the award to Gateway was improper but declined to recommend termination.
- The district court granted the government's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint on the grounds that Merriam, as an unsuccessful bidder, lacked standing.
- Merriam, as appellant, appealed the district court's dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an unsuccessful bidder on a federal government contract have standing to sue in federal court to challenge the legality of the contract award to a competitor?
Opinions:
Majority - Gibbons, Circuit Judge
Yes. An unsuccessful bidder on a federal government contract has standing to challenge the award in federal court. To establish standing, a plaintiff must satisfy the two-part test from Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp, requiring both an "injury in fact" and falling within the "zone of interests" of the relevant statute. Merriam suffered an injury in fact through the loss of a potentially profitable business relationship and the costs incurred preparing his bid. Furthermore, Merriam falls within the zone of interests protected by the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, which mandates "full and free competition" and requires that awards be made to a bidder whose bid conforms to the solicitation. This statute patently protects not only the government's interest but also the interests of bidders in a fair procurement process, allowing them to act as 'private attorneys general' to ensure agency compliance with the law.
Dissenting - Adams, Circuit Judge
No. While the plaintiff may have suffered an injury in fact, the majority improperly concludes he has a cognizable legal claim. The majority opinion fails to conduct a rigorous analysis to determine whether Congress, in enacting the procurement statutes, intended to create a private right of action for disappointed bidders. The opinion merely asserts that the statute protects bidders without citing legislative history or underlying statutory purpose. This approach risks opening the federal courts to a flood of litigation from disgruntled contractors and represents a judicial creation of a cause of action that Congress has not authorized.
Analysis:
This case is significant for establishing in the Third Circuit that unsuccessful bidders have standing to challenge federal contract awards, aligning it with the influential D.C. Circuit's decision in Scanwell Laboratories. By applying the 'zone of interests' test broadly to federal procurement statutes, the court empowered bidders to act as 'private attorneys general' to enforce fair competition rules. This decision strengthens judicial oversight of agency procurement actions and provides a crucial remedy for contractors who believe an award process was arbitrary, capricious, or violated the law, thereby shifting the balance of power slightly from the executive agencies to the judiciary and private litigants in the context of government contracting.
Unlock the full brief for John W. Merriam v. Robert L. Kunzig, Administrator, General Services Administration