Information Technology & Applications Corporation v. United States

316 F.3d 1312 (2003)

From our private database of 46,100+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Information Technology & Applications Corporation v. United States

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
316 F.3d 1312 (2003)

  • Written by Liz Nakamura, JD

Facts

The United States Air Force (government) (defendant) issued a request for proposals (RFP) to provide professional support, management, and development services for its Space Warfare Center. The incumbent contractor was Information Technology & Applications Corporation (ITAC) (plaintiff). ITAC and RS Information Systems (RSIS) both submitted proposals in response to the RFP. Both proposals involved the employment of subcontractors to perform certain aspects of the contracted work. The government sent three evaluation notices (EN) to RSIS seeking additional information about the relevant past performance and experience of each of RSIS’s proposed subcontractors, to which RSIS substantively responded. The government then performed an independent Most Probable Cost analysis on RSIS’s proposal to evaluate the reasonableness of the proposed cost relative to the scope of the proposed work. The government found that RSIS’s proposed work hours were insufficient and increased the work hours on RSIS’s proposal. The government did not conduct a similar analysis on ITAC’s proposal because it determined that ITAC’s proposed work hours were so minimal as to be unrealistic, effectively dismissing ITAC from consideration. The government found that both ITAC and RSIS had submitted complete, fundamentally sound proposals that were equivalent as to the project management and past performance and experience evaluation factors. However, the government found that RSIS significantly outperformed ITAC on the cost/price and proposal risk evaluation factors. The government awarded the contract to RSIS. ITAC filed a post-award bid protest in the Court of Federal Claims, arguing that (1) the government improperly entered into bid discussions with RSIS and not with ITAC; and (2) ITAC could have adjusted its proposed work hours to be more competitive if the government had afforded ITAC the same revision opportunity it awarded RSIS. The claims courts denied the bid protest. ITAC appealed to the Federal Circuit.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Dyk, J.)

Dissent (Newman, 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 745,000 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 745,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,100 briefs, keyed to 987 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 745,000 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
  • 46,100 briefs - keyed to 987 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