W&D Ships Deck Works, Inc. v. United States

No. 97-308C (1997)

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

W&D Ships Deck Works, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 97-308C (1997)

Facts

The federal government (defendant), through the Military Sealift Command, Atlantic (MSCLANT), issued a request for proposals (RFP) for a negotiated fixed-price contract to paint navy ships and apply non-skid surfaces to ship decks. The RFP stated that all proposals must contain technical information responsive to each evaluation factor, including (1) a demonstration the offeror understood all work items; (2) information about control of the materials used and discarded; (3) a detailed list of the tools and facilities the offeror had to complete the work; (4) the identity of all subcontractors and the offeror’s plan to oversee the subcontractors’ work; (5) detailed descriptions of all quality control plans; and (6) the offeror’s relevant past experience. The RFP stated that proposals that failed to provide adequate technical information would be rejected. W&D Ships Deck Works, Inc. (W&D) (plaintiff) submitted a timely but technically and substantively deficient proposal. W&D’s proposal was deemed technically inadequate because: (1) W&D’s proposal only discussed the deck work, not the paint work, thereby leaving out a significant component of the project; (2) W&D’s material control discussion was vague and cursory; (3) W&D did not list its equipment and facilities; (4) W&D did not describe how it would ensure the quality of its subcontractors’ work; (5) W&D did not include any detailed quality control plans; and (6) W&D did not provide sufficient past experience information. The government’s contracting officer rejected W&D’s proposal, stating that it was outside the competitive range because it was technically inadequate. W&D petitioned the Court of Federal Claims to enjoin the government from awarding the MSCLANT contract until W&D’s proposal was reinstated into the competitive negotiation process.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Weinstein, 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 735,000 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 735,000 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 735,000 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