Cardinal Maintenance Services, Inc. v. United States

63 Fed. Cl. 98 (2004)

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

Cardinal Maintenance Services, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims
63 Fed. Cl. 98 (2004)

  • Written by Liz Nakamura, JD

Facts

The United States Air Force (government) (defendant) issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a custodial services contract at Hickam Air Force Base (Hickam). Cardinal Maintenance Services, Inc. (Cardinal) (plaintiff), the incumbent contractor, and Navales Enterprises, Inc., both submitted responsive proposals. The government conducted a best-value evaluation and determined that Navales’s proposal represented the best value for the government. Navales was awarded the contract and commenced performance. The Navales contract initially included an “Add/Delete of Service Cost Sheet” (cost sheet) allowing the government to make certain minor changes to the scope of the contracted work, as limited by the cost sheet. The Navales contract was modified eight times after the initial award, resulting in an approximately 80 percent increase in the overall contract cost. The third modification removed the cost sheet from the contract, including the associated restrictions on contract term changes. One of the changes made after the cost sheet was removed was so significant that the government ultimately removed the modified responsibilities from Navales’s contract and created a new, separate contract, which was then awarded to a different contractor. Cardinal filed a post-award protest against the government in the Court of Federal Claims, arguing that the government violated the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) by substantially modifying Navales’s contract post-award without first engaging in a full and open bidding competition.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Firestone, 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