ECDC Environmental, L.C. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
40 Fed. Cl. 236 (1998)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
ECDC Environmental, L.C. (ECDC) (plaintiff) submitted a sealed bid in response to a solicitation published by the United States Department of the Army Corp of Engineers (government) (defendant). The government’s two-step bidding process required bidders to submit a completed standard form SF-1442 for each step. SF-1442 had two sides: a front-side, which contained the government’s material bid terms and requirements, and a backside, which was to be filled out and signed by the bidder. The front-side of SF-1442 stated that the government required all bids to be held open for the government’s acceptance for a period of at least 90 days following submission. It is undisputed that ECDC’s step-one submission was fully responsive. However, in step-two, ECDC failed to submit the front-side of SF-1442 and only submitted the signed backside of the step-two SF-1442. After opening all submitted step-two bids, the government rejected ECDC’s bid as nonresponsive for failing to include the front-side of the step-two SF-1442. The government did not offer ECDC the opportunity to correct its mistake. ECDC moved for summary judgment in the United States Court of Federal Claims, arguing that (1) the government improperly rejected ECDC’s bid as nonresponsive; (2) the 90-day acceptance window from the front-side of the step-two SF-1442 should be incorporated by reference into ECDC’s bid because ECDC submitted a signed backside of the step-two SF-1442 without altering any of the government’s material terms; and (3) the government unreasonably failed to afford ECDC the opportunity to correct the apparent mistake in ECDC’s step-two bid submission.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Flutey, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.