Bannum, Inc. v. United States

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.