Sheridan Corp. v. United States
95 Fed. Cl. 141 | United States Court of Federal Claims | 2010
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
Sheridan Corporation won a federal construction contract for a KC-135 hangar in Maine. After a losing bidder protested, the agency decided to re-solicit revised proposals from the top three bidders instead of defending its original award. Sheridan sued, and the court ruled the agency's decision was illegal because there were no defects in the original bids and no changes to the project requirements. The court enforced Sheridan's contract, protecting it from a do-over competition that had no legitimate basis.
Key Takeaways
- •If you win a federal bid, an agency cannot force a re-competition just because someone protests—only if there are actual errors or requirement changes in the original solicitation.
- •Document everything during the bidding process. If an agency tries corrective action without explaining what was actually wrong, you have grounds to challenge it in court.
- •A contract suspension due to protest is not automatic grounds for the agency to restart the entire procurement. Demand a clear explanation of what defect or change justifies any corrective action.
The agency's corrective action is unlawful and not rationally related to any identifiable defect.
Frequently Asked Question
Can a federal agency force us to rebid after we've already won the contract?
No, not without a valid reason. The court ruled that an agency cannot re-solicit proposals or force a new competition unless there are actual defects in the original bids or the project requirements have changed. Simply because a losing bidder protests is not enough. The agency must explain what specifically was wrong.
Related Cases
General Services Commission v. Little-Tex Insulation Co.
The State does not waive sovereign immunity from breach-of-contract suits by accepting contract benefits; Chapter 2260's administrative procedure is the exclusive remedy for such claims.
PYCA Industries, Inc. v. Harrison County Waste Water Management District
A wastewater district is a citizen for diversity jurisdiction purposes and a political subdivision entitled to sovereign immunity from tort claims under pre-Pruett Mississippi law.
MCI CONSTRUCTORS, LLC v. City of Greensboro
District court properly confirmed arbitration award finding City entitled to $14.9 million damages; arbitration panel did not exceed its powers and award was not procured by undue means.
Linan-Faye Construction Co., Inc. v. Housing Authority of the City of Camden
District court erred in applying federal common law instead of New Jersey law to interpret the termination for convenience clause, but New Jersey courts would look to federal common law for guidance on this issue.
Blackstone Medical, Inc. D/B/A Orthofix Spinal Implants v. Phoenix Surgicals, LLC
Trial court properly denied motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict on breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims where evidence supported jury findings of wrongful termination and waiver of exclusivity provision.
Textron Defense Systems v. Sheila E. Widnall, Secretary of the Air Force
A contractor under a cost-plus-award-fee contract is not entitled to a pro-rata share of unearned award fees upon termination for convenience, as the award fee clause was expressly exempted from the termination clause and the contractor had no reasonable expectation of receiving fees for unperformed work.