Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Bionetics Corp. v. United States

Bionetics Corp. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims

May 9, 2022, Filed

No. 22-120

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

TAPP, Judge.

This dispute centers on The Bionetics Corporation's ("Bionetics") data-entry error. As a result of that error, the Air Force excluded Bionetics from consideration of a multi-million-dollar contract award. Although Bionetics' error is costly, the solicitation explicitly reserved the Air Force's discretion whether to allow Bionetics to correct its error. The Air Force's exercise of that discretion does not violate the Administrative Procedure Act and, therefore, the Court must deny Bionetics' [*2]  protest. To that end, Bionetics' Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record (Pl.'s Mot. for J. on the AR ("MJAR"), ECF No. 25) is denied, and both the United States' and Leo Tech LLC's cross-motions for judgment on the Administrative Record (USA xMJAR, ECF No. 27; Int.'s xMJAR, ECF No. 28) are granted.2

I. Background

This protest stems from the Air Force's Request for a Proposal (the "RFP" or the "Solicitation")3 to provide all personnel, equipment, tools, materials, supervision, and other items and services necessary to perform a ground equipment project at Hill Air Force Base in Utah and Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona. (Administrative Record ("AR") at 1290-2085 (the RFP), 4304-4441 (Amendment 003), ECF Nos. 23-24). Bionetics is the incumbent, currently performing under the predecessor contract. (See e.g., AR 1219). The Air Force awarded the new contract to Leo Tech, LLC. (AR 8075-8078).

A key provision of both the predecessor contract and the protested contract is the requirement that employee wages comply with the Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") incorporated by operation of the McNamara-O'Hara Service Contract Act ("SCA"). (AR 1724). ] The McNamara-O'Hara SCA requires [*3]  contractors to pay service employees prevailing wages set by the United States Department of Labor or a CBA. 41 U.S.C. §§ 6701-6707. Bionetics submitted a proposal indicating it would comply with the CBAs in effect at Hill Air Force Base and Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. (AR 2637).

However, after notifying Bionetics that the Air Force would award the contract to Leo Tech, the Air Force also informed Bionetics that its price proposal was rejected because it was incomplete. (AR 8075-78, 8106). The Solicitation's completeness requirement stated:

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2022 U.S. Claims LEXIS 922 *; __ Fed.Cl. __

THE BIONETICS CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, and LEO TECH LLC, Intervenor-Defendant.

Subsequent History: Reissued: May 16, 2022 [*1] 1

CORE TERMS

rates, Solicitation, offerors, clarifications, incomplete, pricing, protest, proposals, administrative record, evaluated, terms, material term, procurement, protestor, REDACTED, argues, noncompliance, correction, compliant, employees, reserved, mandatory minimum, prevailing wage, compliance, demanded, parties, merits, xMJAR

Business & Corporate Compliance, Wage & Hour Laws, Scope & Definitions, Prevailing Wages, Administrative Law, Judicial Review, Administrative Record, Evidence, Burdens of Proof, Allocation, Standards of Review, Arbitrary & Capricious Standard of Review, Public Contracts Law, Dispute Resolution, Bid Protests, Governments, Courts, Courts of Claims, Civil Procedure, Summary Judgment, Motions for Summary Judgment, Cross Motions, Motions, Entitlement as Matter of Law, Genuine Disputes, Justiciability, Standing, Burdens of Proof, Bids & Formation, Offer & Acceptance, Acceptances & Awards, Offers, Contract Formation, Offers, Definite Terms, Contract Provisions, Changes Clauses, Costs & Prices, Price Analysis, Authority of Government Officers, Contracting Officers, Cost Analysis