Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Opinion Preview

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

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

  • Case Opinion

Hydraulics Int'l, Inc. v. United States

Hydraulics Int'l, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims

August 8, 20221, Filed

No. 22-364

Opinion

 [*171]  OPINION AND ORDER

HOLTE, Judge.

Plaintiff Hydraulics International, Inc. brings this post-award bid protest of an "Other Transaction Agreement" for Aviation Ground Power Unit prototypes used to service military helicopters. Plaintiff contends the government misevaluated its whitepaper submission and, in awarding the prototype project to Sun Test System Inc. and John Bean Technologies, waived or relaxed a key solicitation requirement. To support its waiver theory, plaintiff moves to supplement the administrative record with a declaration from the president of Hydraulics International, [**2]  Inc. The government cross-motions to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims, or in the alternative, for judgment on the administrative record. Plaintiff further moves to transfer venue if the Court finds it lacks jurisdiction. For the following reasons, the Court: (1) denies the government's motion to dismiss; (2) denies as moot plaintiff's motion to transfer venue; (3) denies plaintiff's motion to supplement the administrative record; (4) denies plaintiff's motion for judgment on the administrative record; (5) and grants the government's motion for judgment on the administrative record.

I. Factual Background

A. Aviation Ground Power Unit 1.1 Upgrade

This protest involves an upgrade to military helicopter Aviation Ground Power Units ("AGPU"), used for servicing Army helicopters when not in flight. Admin. R. ("AR") at 668 (Selection Memorandum), ECF No. 23. The AGPU provides an alternate source for the energy outputs of the helicopter's engine so maintenance can be performed without operating the aircraft's engine. To this end, the AGPU provides electrical, pneumatic, and hydraulic outputs. Id. The current unit, AGPU 1.0, does not support the [**3]  Army's entire fleet of helicopters. Id. This prompted the army to seek an upgraded unit, AGPU 1.1, to service all models in the Army fleet. Id.

To ensure the AGPU 1.1 can meet the operational requirements if ultimately deployed,  [*172]  the Army provided a detailed specification in a Product Item Description ("PID"). AR at 207-22. Two requirements are relevant to this protest: (1) the AGPU must meet the minimum performance threshold for electrical, pneumatic, and hydraulic outputs while all three systems are operating simultaneously, AR at 207-13 (PID); and (2) the AGPU must be modular, such that one malfunctioning component can easily be replaced by another, and a malfunction in one output system does not affect the function of other components, AR at 213, 215 (PID).

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.

161 Fed. Cl. 167 *; 2022 U.S. Claims LEXIS 1706 **; 2022 WL 3150517

HYDRAULICS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.

CORE TERMS

Army, whitepaper, procurement, prototype, modularity, memorandum, evaluations, bid, protest, timeline, administrative record, compliant, Reply, declaration, offeror's, testing, acquisition, follow-on, compliance, contracts, documents, proposals, argues, Hydraulics, delivery, relaxed, denies, misevaluated, redesign, bidders

Governments, Federal Government, Claims By & Against, Evidence, Burdens of Proof, Allocation, Public Contracts Law, Bids & Formation, Competitive Proposals, Administrative Law, Sovereign Immunity, Preponderance of Evidence, Courts, Courts of Claims, Dispute Resolution, Motions, Torts, Public Entity Liability, Immunities, Offer & Acceptance, Acceptances & Awards, Bid Protests, Jurisdiction, Military & Veterans Law, Armed Forces, Organization, US Department of Defense, Judicial Review, Standards of Review, Arbitrary & Capricious Standard of Review, De Novo Standard of Review, Competency of Parties, Deference to Agency Statutory Interpretation, Authority of Government Officers, Contracting Officers, Civil Procedure, Injunctions, Grounds for Injunctions, Balance of Hardships, Remedies, Permanent Injunctions