Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Data Gen. Corp. v. Johnson

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

February 29, 1996, Decided



 [*1558]  FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

The appellant, Data General Corporation (Data General), challenges the decision of the General Services Administration (GSA) Board of Contract Appeals (Board), denying its protest [**2]  of GSA's award of a contract to International Business Machines Corporation (IBM). Data Gen. Corp. v. General Servs. Admin., GSBCA 13092-P, 13098-P, 1995 Board Cont. Appeals Bid Protest Decisions (Federal Publications Inc.) P 48 (Feb. 6, 1995). The principal issue is whether the Board correctly held that Data General was not entitled to relief because it did not show that it had suffered prejudice as a result of any alleged improprieties in the procurement process. We affirm.

In 1992, GSA solicited proposals to provide extensive automatic data processing equipment and related supplies and services for the United States Forest Service. Id. at 3.

The solicitation stated that the proposals would be separately evaluated with respect to technical and cost factors. The technical evaluation would be based upon four items, each of which was further subdivided. Id. The solicitation stated that the agency's source selection authority "'will determine the proposal which provides the best overall value to satisfy Government needs'" and that the technical assessment would be "significantly more important" than cost. Id. at 4.

GSA designated five companies that submitted [**3]  proposals as within the competitive range. Id. at 4-5. These companies were IBM, Data General, Hewlett-Packard, GDE Systems, Inc. (GDE), and Digital Equipment Corporation (Digital). Each of them had further discussions with GSA, and then submitted its best and final offer (BAFO). Id. at 5-6.

Upon review of the companies' submissions, a GSA contracting officer noted several pricing discrepancies in IBM's BAFO. Id. at 6-8. Specifically, the tables showing special pricing provisions (B tables) provided for beginning dates for two discounts that differed from the dates indicated in another table that showed expected contract life cycle cost (L table) and in the automated files IBM submitted with its BAFO. Id. at 8. The beginning dates of these discounts had a substantial effect on the overall cost of the proposal.

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.

78 F.3d 1556 *; 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 3519 **; 40 Cont. Cas. Fed. (CCH) P76,943


Subsequent History:  [**1]  Rehearing Denied and In Banc Suggestion Declined May 7, 1996, Reported at: 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 11466.

Rehearing denied by, Rehearing, en banc, denied by Data Gen. Corp. v. Johnson, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 11466 (Fed. Cir., May 7, 1996)

Prior History: Appealed from: Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration.

Data Gen. Corp. v. General Servs. Admin., 1995 GSBCA LEXIS 63 (Gen. Services Admin. B.C.A., Feb. 6, 1995)


protest, procurement, regulation, reinstatement, Bid, pricing, clarification, redacted, bidder, communications, terminated, discounts, offeror, round, proceedings, proposals, revise, judicial estoppel, effective date, solicitation, prejudiced, re-award, agency's action, beginning date, Acquisition, tradeoff, reopen

Public Contracts Law, Dispute Resolution, Bid Protests, Administrative Law, Judicial Review, Standards of Review, Rule Interpretation, General Overview, Bids & Formation, Competitive Proposals, Offer & Acceptance, Acceptances & Awards, Civil Procedure, Preclusion of Judgments, Estoppel, Judicial Estoppel, Judgments, Contracts Law, Equitable Estoppel, Appeals, Abuse of Discretion, Agency Adjudication, Decisions, Collateral Estoppel, Governments, Federal Government, Employees & Officials