Stratos Mobile Networks USA, LLC v. United States

Stratos Mobile Networks USA, LLC v. United States

Opinion

 [*1376]  MAYER, Chief Judge.

The United States and COMSAT Corporation ("COMSAT") seek review of the judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims, Stratos Mobile Networks USA, LLC v. United States, 44 Fed. Cl. 633 (1999), [**2]  concluding that the Navy's solicitation  [*1377]  of Contract No. N00039-99-D-3201 was improperly conducted and ordering injunctive relief. By our order of December 30, 1999, we granted expedited review because of potential national security concerns. Because the Court of Federal Claims erred in finding a latent ambiguity in the contract, we reverse the judgment and vacate the injunction.

Background

On March 1, 1999, the Department of the Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (Navy) issued a request for proposals (RFP) for an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract to procure leased-channel-mode, high-speed, satellite-based communication services through the International Maritime Satellite (INMARSAT) B high-speed data service. Section V of the RFP, entitled "Evaluation," informed bidders that "the Government will award a contract . . . to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation . . . will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered," and that the "award will be made to the offeror whose proposal meets the minimum technical requirements and offers the best value to the Government in terms of combination [**3]  of past performance and price." The RFP states that "price will be evaluated using the anticipated order amounts which follow." However, potential bidders were also informed that "offerors are cautioned that evaluation of the [anticipated] quantities does NOT obligate the Government to place orders in that manner. The Government is obligated to order only the minimum quantity . . . ." The RFP also instructs that "in the price evaluation, the Government will apply any discounts offered as applicable." Specific examples of discounts were provided, all of which were "without regard to the number of channels ordered" or "without regard to the number of months funded by the Government."

In addition to the anticipated quantities, the RFP specified a not-to-exceed quantity and informed bidders that

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