Ramcor Services Group, Inc. v. United States
1999 WL 538210, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 17031, 185 F.3d 1286 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction under the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act (ADRA), 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1), to review an interested party's objection to an agency's alleged violation of a statute 'in connection with a procurement,' which includes an agency's decision to override a Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) automatic stay.
Facts:
- RAMCOR Services Group, Inc. (RAMCOR) held a maintenance and support services contract with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) at the Border Patrol Academy.
- After discovering an impropriety in the original contract, the INS initiated a new contract award process.
- In its evaluation for the new contract, the INS excluded RAMCOR from the competitive range, citing inadequacies in its proposal.
- RAMCOR filed a pre-award bid protest with the General Accounting Office (GAO).
- The GAO protest triggered an automatic stay under the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA), prohibiting the INS from awarding the new contract.
- The INS issued a written 'Determination and Finding' of 'urgent and compelling circumstances' to override the automatic CICA stay.
- Following the override, the INS awarded the new contract to a different company, OMNI-CUBE.
Procedural Posture:
- RAMCOR sought a preliminary injunction in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (trial court) to stop the INS from proceeding with the new contract.
- The Court of Federal Claims granted the preliminary injunction, reinstating the statutory stay.
- The INS moved to quash the injunction, arguing the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
- Before the court could rule on the jurisdictional motion, the GAO denied RAMCOR's bid protest on the merits.
- The Court of Federal Claims then lifted the injunction and dismissed the case as moot.
- RAMCOR filed an application in the Court of Federal Claims for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).
- The Court of Federal Claims denied the EAJA application, ruling that it lacked original jurisdiction and, alternatively, that the government's position was substantially justified.
- RAMCOR (appellant) appealed the denial of its EAJA application to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal 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 the Court of Federal Claims have jurisdiction under the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1), to review a federal agency's decision to override an automatic stay provision of the Competition in Contracting Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Rader, Circuit Judge
Yes. The Court of Federal Claims possesses jurisdiction to review an agency's override of a CICA stay because such an action constitutes an 'alleged violation of statute... in connection with a procurement' under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1). The court reasoned that the statutory phrase 'in connection with a procurement' is very sweeping in scope. Because an agency's override of a CICA stay directly affects the award and performance of a government contract, it falls comfortably within that broad jurisdictional grant. The court rejected the trial court's view that a challenge must also include the merits of the contract award, as this would render the 'violation of statute' prong of § 1491(b)(1) superfluous, violating principles of statutory construction. Furthermore, the ADRA incorporates the Administrative Procedure Act's standards of review, meaning an agency 'violates' the CICA stay provision if its override decision is arbitrary and capricious, providing the Court of Federal Claims a substantive basis for review. Despite finding jurisdiction, the court affirmed the denial of EAJA fees, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the government's litigating position was 'substantially justified' based on evidence of RAMCOR's poor performance and the agency's urgent needs.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and expands the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims in government contract litigation. It establishes that the court can hear bid protests based solely on procedural violations 'in connection with' a procurement, without requiring a challenge to the final contract award itself. This provides contractors a critical forum to challenge agency actions like CICA stay overrides, ensuring agencies cannot circumvent the protest process without judicial oversight. By confirming that the Administrative Procedure Act's standards of review apply in these cases, the decision solidifies the Court of Federal Claims' role as a primary venue for adjudicating pre-award procurement disputes.
Unlock the full brief for Ramcor Services Group, Inc. v. United States