Cases Part 1
This firm was lead counsel in Impresa Construzioni Geom. and Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2001) The impact of the underlying Garufi case on government contractors, and the public at large cannot be overstated. The Government Accountability Office revised its regulations to hear challenges to affirmative determinations of responsibility. In FN Manufacturing, Inc. B 297172, B 297172.2, 2005 Comp. Gen. Proc. Decision Page 212 December 1, 2005, the GAO explained the significant impact the Garufi series of cases had: “on December 31, 2002 our Bid Protest regulations were revised to add as a specified exception protests ‘that identify evidence raising serious concerns that, in reaching a particular responsibility determination, the contracting officer unreasonably failed to consider available relevant information or otherwise violated the statute or regulation.’ 67 Fed. Reg. 79, 833, 79, 836 (2002). This change was made in light of a seminal decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Impresa Construzioni Geom. and Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Garufi I”), which held that affirmative determinations of responsibility by contracting officers are reviewable by the Court of Federal Claims under the ‘arbitrary and capricious’ standard applicable under the Administrative Procedure Act. We explained in the preamble to the revision that it was ‘intended to encompass protests where, for example, the protest includes specific evidence that the contracting officer may have ignored information that by its nature, would be expected to have a strong bearing on whether the awardee should be found responsible. ’ 67 Fed. Reg. 79, 833, 79, 844; see also Verestar Gov’t Servs. Group, B 291854, B 291854.2, April 3, 2003, 2003 CPD P 68 at 4.”
In Garufi v. US, 238 F.3d 1324 (2001), Sam Gdanski argued that the Navy did not properly conduct a responsibility determination of my clients competitor. The case was remanded back to the Court of Claims where the Court decided in my clients favor. Garufi v. U.S., 52 Fed. Cl. 421 (2002).
Cases Part 1...
In Seattle Security Services v. US, 45 Fed. Cl. 560 (1999), I successfully argued that the agency failed to properly evaluate my clients experience. The Court agreed and my client was awarded the contract.
Before the General Accounting Office, in Si-Nor, Inc. B-282064 May 25, 1999 I argued that my client was not given the required small business preferences as required by the regulations. As a result, Si-Nor was awarded the contract.
In Safety Storage, Inc. B-280851 October 29, 1998, I convinced the GAO that the agency failed to do the necessary research in determining if the contract should be issued as a small business set aside. As a result, the agency was required to cancel the procurement, and determine if the contract should be set aside exclusively for small businesses. This is just a sampling of my published decisions, evidencing my experience in the government contracts field.
- In Centron Industries, Inc., ASBCA No. 52581, 2002-2 B.C.A. (CCH) P32,022. our firm helped facilitate the change of the contractor’s termination from a termination for default to a termination for convenience and the Protestor’s appeal was sustained as a matter of law.
- In Cyrus Contracting, Inc., IBCA 3232; IBCA 3233; IBCA 3895-98; IBCA 3896-98; IBCA 3897-98, 98-2 B.C.A. (CCH) P29,755.
- In Sayed Hamid Behbehani & Sons, WLL, B-288818.6, 2002 U.S. Comp. Gen. LEXIS 144; 2002 U.S. Comp. Gen. Proc. Dec. P163., September 9, 2002., our firm successfully defended the incumbent contractor in a GAO Protest in Kuwait.
Cases Part 1...
- In Garufi v. US, 238 F.3d 1324 (2001), a landmark decision in our favor, we argued that the Navy did not properly conduct a responsibility determination of our clients competitor. The case was remanded back to the Court of Claims where the Court decided in my clients favor. Garufi v. U.S., 52 Fed. Cl. 421 (2002). The court concluded that the contracting officer, based on his deposition testimony in the case, failed to conduct an independent and informed responsibility determination. Therefore the determination which the award was based on violated 5 U.S.C.S. § 706. The court sustained plaintiff's protest and awarded its bid preparation and proposal costs.
Cases Part 2
This firm was lead counsel in Impresa Construzioni Geom. and Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2001) The impact of the underlying Garufi case on government contractors, and the public at large cannot be overstated. The Government Accountability Office revised its regulations to hear challenges to affirmative determinations of responsibility. In FN Manufacturing, Inc. B 297172, B 297172.2, 2005 Comp. Gen. Proc. Decision Page 212 December 1, 2005, the GAO explained the significant impact the Garufi series of cases had: “on December 31, 2002 our Bid Protest regulations were revised to add as a specified exception protests ‘that identify evidence raising serious concerns that, in reaching a particular responsibility determination, the contracting officer unreasonably failed to consider available relevant information or otherwise violated the statute or regulation.’ 67 Fed. Reg. 79, 833, 79, 836 (2002). This change was made in light of a seminal decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Impresa Construzioni Geom. and Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Garufi I”), which held that affirmative determinations of responsibility by contracting officers are reviewable by the Court of Federal Claims under the ‘arbitrary and capricious’ standard applicable under the Administrative Procedure Act. We explained in the preamble to the revision that it was ‘intended to encompass protests where, for example, the protest includes specific evidence that the contracting officer may have ignored information that by its nature, would be expected to have a strong bearing on whether the awardee should be found responsible. ’ 67 Fed. Reg. 79, 833, 79, 844; see also Verestar Gov’t Servs. Group, B 291854, B 291854.2, April 3, 2003, 2003 CPD P 68 at 4.”
In Garufi v. US, 238 F.3d 1324 (2001), Sam Gdanski argued that the Navy did not properly conduct a responsibility determination of my clients competitor. The case was remanded back to the Court of Claims where the Court decided in my clients favor. Garufi v. U.S., 52 Fed. Cl. 421 (2002).
Cases Part 2...
In Seattle Security Services v. US, 45 Fed. Cl. 560 (1999), I successfully argued that the agency failed to properly evaluate my clients experience. The Court agreed and my client was awarded the contract.
Before the General Accounting Office, in Si-Nor, Inc. B-282064 May 25, 1999 I argued that my client was not given the required small business preferences as required by the regulations. As a result, Si-Nor was awarded the contract.
In Safety Storage, Inc. B-280851 October 29, 1998, I convinced the GAO that the agency failed to do the necessary research in determining if the contract should be issued as a small business set aside. As a result, the agency was required to cancel the procurement, and determine if the contract should be set aside exclusively for small businesses. This is just a sampling of my published decisions, evidencing my experience in the government contracts field.
- In Centron Industries, Inc., ASBCA No. 52581, 2002-2 B.C.A. (CCH) P32,022. our firm helped facilitate the change of the contractor’s termination from a termination for default to a termination for convenience and the Protestor’s appeal was sustained as a matter of law.
- In Cyrus Contracting, Inc., IBCA 3232; IBCA 3233; IBCA 3895-98; IBCA 3896-98; IBCA 3897-98, 98-2 B.C.A. (CCH) P29,755.
- In Sayed Hamid Behbehani & Sons, WLL, B-288818.6, 2002 U.S. Comp. Gen. LEXIS 144; 2002 U.S. Comp. Gen. Proc. Dec. P163., September 9, 2002., our firm successfully defended the incumbent contractor in a GAO Protest in Kuwait.
