Industrial Property Management, Inc. v. U.S.

3 Citing cases

  1. Standard Communications v. U.S.

    No. 11-530 C (Fed. Cl. Nov. 22, 2011)

    Instead, the Government must explain specifically why it does not warrant a premium. No. 11-375 C, 2011 WL 4467756, at *22 (Fed. Cl. Sept. 27, 2011); cf. Indus. Prop. Mgmt., Inc. v. United States, 59 Fed. Cl. 318, 324 (2004) ("[T]he government is only required to make a `cost/technical tradeoff ... where one proposal is rated higher technically than another, but the other is lower in cost.'" (quoting State Mgmt. Servs. Inc., B-255528 et al., 1995 WL 19600, at *5 (Comp.

  2. Four Points by Sheraton v. U.S.

    No. 04-1589C (Fed. Cl. Jul. 14, 2005)

    Plaintiff offers little more than mere disagreements with the contracting officer's assessment of the adequacy of its oral presentation. `Such naked claims,' this court has stated, `by all appearances unsupported by anything in the record, fall far short of meeting the heavy burden of demonstrating that these findings were the product of an irrational process and hence arbitrary and capricious.'EP Prods. v. United States, 63 Fed. Cl. 220, 226 (2004) (citingJWK Int'l Corp. v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 650, 660 (2002));see Indus. Prop. Mgmt., Inc. v. United States, 59 Fed. Cl. 318, 323 (2004) ("`[t]he fact that [plaintiff] disagrees with the evaluator's conclusions is not enough for this court to overturn them.'"(citing Fru-Con Construction, Inc. v. United States, 57 Fed. Cl. 483, 484-85 (2003)). In short, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the evaluators' relative assessment of transportation and distance was arbitrary and capricious, or irrational.

  3. Pac. Sec. Alarm, Inc. v. Commonwealth Ports Auth

    2006 N. Mar. I. LEXIS 15 (N. Mar. I. 2006)   Cited 2 times

    In the context of a bid protest, a frustrated bidder must show not only that there was a significant error in the bidding process, but that the error prejudiced it in order to prevail. Industrial Property Management, Inc. v. U.S., 59 Fed.Cl. 318, 323 (2004). "To establish prejudice a protester must show that there is a 'substantial chance it would have received the contract award but for that error.'"