Bannum, Inc. v. United States

Federal Circuit

Bannum, Inc. v. United States

214 F. App'x 989

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

DecidedJanuary 19, 2007

Docket2006-5066

StatusUnpublished

This text of 214 F. App'x 989 (Bannum, Inc. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 214 F. App'x 989 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

An unsuccessful bidder on a government contract, the appellant Bannum, Inc. (“Bannum”), challenges the Bureau of Prison (the “Bureau”)’s award of three contracts for the construction and operation of Community Corrections Centers, which are designed to help prisoners who have served their sentences in readjusting to civilian life. The Court of Federal Claims denied the challenge, ruling that Bannum had failed to show that the Bureau’s violation of a procurement regulation prejudiced it. Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 69 Fed.Cl. 311 (2006). We affirm.

This case returns to this court following a remand to the Court of Federal Claims, see Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 126 Fed.Appx. 958 (Fed.Cir.2005), for that court to conduct further proceedings consistent with our decision in Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346 (Fed.Cir. 2005). In the latter opinion, which involved Bannum’s non-selection for another contract covering a different Community Corrections Center, we held that the Bureau’s review of Bannum’s responses to criticisms of its performance in operating a number of other Community Corrections Centers, violated the governing regulation (FAR § 42.1503(b)), because it was made by persons not authorized to perform that function. Id. at 1351-52.

On remand, the Court of Federal Claims ruled that the Bureau’s failure to comply with FAR § 42.1503(b) had not prejudiced Bannum because Bannum had not shown that if the authorized officials had reviewed its submissions, the result actually or probably would have been the award of the contracts to Bannum. Bannum, 69 Fed.Cl. at 317-18. As in the prior case, Bannum’s challenge to the procurement “rests on mere numerical possibility, not evidence.” Bannum, 404 F.3d at 1358. The Court of Federal Claims did not err in ruling that Bannum failed to establish it was prejudiced.

*991 CONCLUSION

The judgment of the Court of Federal Claims dismissing Bannum’s complaint is

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

An unsuccessful bidder on a government contract, the appellant Bannum, Inc. (“Bannum”), challenges the Bureau of Prison (the “Bureau”)’s award of three contracts for the construction and operation of Community Corrections Centers, which are designed to help prisoners who have served their sentences in readjusting to civilian life. The Court of Federal Claims denied the challenge, ruling that Bannum had failed to show that the Bureau’s violation of a procurement regulation prejudiced it. Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 69 Fed.Cl. 311 (2006). We affirm.

This case returns to this court following a remand to the Court of Federal Claims, see Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 126 Fed.Appx. 958 (Fed.Cir.2005), for that court to conduct further proceedings consistent with our decision in Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346 (Fed.Cir. 2005). In the latter opinion, which involved Bannum’s non-selection for another contract covering a different Community Corrections Center, we held that the Bureau’s review of Bannum’s responses to criticisms of its performance in operating a number of other Community Corrections Centers, violated the governing regulation (FAR § 42.1503(b)), because it was made by persons not authorized to perform that function. Id. at 1351-52.

On remand, the Court of Federal Claims ruled that the Bureau’s failure to comply with FAR § 42.1503(b) had not prejudiced Bannum because Bannum had not shown that if the authorized officials had reviewed its submissions, the result actually or probably would have been the award of the contracts to Bannum. Bannum, 69 Fed.Cl. at 317-18. As in the prior case, Bannum’s challenge to the procurement “rests on mere numerical possibility, not evidence.” Bannum, 404 F.3d at 1358. The Court of Federal Claims did not err in ruling that Bannum failed to establish it was prejudiced.

*991 CONCLUSION

The judgment of the Court of Federal Claims dismissing Bannum’s complaint is

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 F. App'x 989, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bannum-inc-v-united-states-cafc-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack