Bannum, Inc. v. United States

404 F.3d 1346 (2005)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Bannum, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
404 F.3d 1346 (2005)

  • Written by Liz Nakamura, JD

Facts

The federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) (defendant) issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a contract to provide community correction-center services in South Carolina. Bannum, Inc. (plaintiff) was the incumbent contractor. The RFP stated that proposals would be evaluated for best-value procurement using five evaluation factors, the most important of which was past performance. Past performance would be evaluated by reviewing the Contract Evaluation Forms (CEF) each contractor received in connection with prior BOP contracts. Bannum and Alston Wilkes Society (Alston Wilkes) both submitted responsive proposals. The BOP evaluated Bannum’s CEFs and assigned Bannum 296 out of 400 possible points on the past-performance factor. Bannum’s CEFs were then reevaluated in response to an order issued in an unrelated government proceeding; after the reevaluation, Bannum was assigned 312 out of 400 points in the past-performance factor. The government awarded the contract to Alston Wilkes because Alston Wilkes outperformed Bannum on all five evaluation factors, even considering Bannum’s reevaluated past-performance score. Bannum filed a bid protest in the United States Court of Federal Claims, arguing that the BOP’s CEF review process violated Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) § 42.1503 because the CEFs were reviewed by Management Center Administrators (MCA) rather than by officials who had supervisory authority over the contracting officers issuing the CEFs. The claims court held that the BOP’s CEF review process violated FAR § 42.1503 but denied Bannum’s bid protest because the violation did not prejudice Bannum’s chance of receiving the contract award. Bannum appealed to the Federal Circuit.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Gajarsa, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 742,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership