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

Hamilton Sundstrand Power Sys. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims

February 6, 2007, Filed

No. 06-874C

Opinion

 [*512]  BRUGGINK, Judge.

This is a bid protest action for declaratory and injunctive relief brought by plaintiff Hamilton Sundstrand Power Systems ("Hamilton") against the United States, acting through the United States Air Force ("Air Force"). Plaintiff objects to the Air Force's allegedly unequal and unfair evaluation of its technical proposal submitted in response to Request for Proposals ("RFP") No. FA8518-05-R-75369. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment [**2]  that the Air Force's decision to eliminate plaintiff's proposal from the competitive range was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise contrary to law. Plaintiff further requests  [*513]  that we set aside the award of Contract No. FA8533-06-D-0007 to Science & Engineering Services, Inc. ("SESI") 2 and reinstate plaintiff in the competitive range.

At a preliminary hearing on December 29, 2006, and by separate order, we denied plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin SESI's continued performance of the contract. Plaintiff's motion was instead converted into a request for a permanent injunction and a motion for judgment on the administrative record pursuant to Rule 52.1 of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims. In its cross-motion and opposition, defendant moved, inter alia, to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The Administrative Record ("AR") has been filed and the matter is fully briefed.  [**3]  Oral argument on the parties' motions was heard on February 2, 2007. For the reasons set out below, we deny defendant's motion to dismiss, deny plaintiff's motion for judgment on the administrative record and request for a permanent injunction, and grant defendant's cross-motion for judgment.

BACKGROUND

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.

75 Fed. Cl. 512 *; 2007 U.S. Claims LEXIS 43 **

HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND POWER SYSTEMS, Plaintiff v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant,

Subsequent History:  [**1]  Reissued: February 21, 2007 1

Prior History: Matter of: Hamilton Sundstrand Power Sys., 2006 U.S. Comp. Gen. LEXIS 209 (Comp. Gen., 2006)

CORE TERMS

Air, proposals, compliance, mobility, notice, unequal treatment, offerors, narrative, flow diagram, argues, unacceptable, protest, illustration, instructions, configuration, deferred, control panel, cart, downgraded, plate, air flow, complies, demonstration, integration, unequally, baseline, alleges, level of detail, tie down, identification

Governments, Courts, Courts of Claims, Public Contracts Law, Dispute Resolution, Jurisdiction, Administrative Law, Judicial Review, Standards of Review, Arbitrary & Capricious Standard of Review, Evidence, Burdens of Proof, Allocation, Bid Protests, Civil Procedure, Justiciability, Standing, Injury in Fact, Personal Stake, General Overview, Bids & Formation, Offer & Acceptance, Competitive Proposals