Case: 21-1008 Document: 80 Page: 1 Filed: 07/19/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ ASSET PROTECTION & SECURITY SERVICES, L.P., Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, AKIMA GLOBAL SERVICES, LLC, Defendants-Appellees ______________________ 2021-1008 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:20-cv-00449-MBH, Senior Judge Marian Blank Horn. ______________________ Decided: July 19, 2021 ______________________ DAVID THOMAS RALSTON, JR., Foley & Lardner LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also rep- resented by JULIA DI VITO, FRANK S. MURRAY, GEORGE ELLSWORTH QUILLIN. DANIEL B. VOLK, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing- ton, DC, argued for defendant-appellee United States. Also represented by BRIAN MATTHEW BOYNTON, ROBERT EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR., DOUGLAS K. MICKLE. Case: 21-1008 Document: 80 Page: 2 Filed: 07/19/2021 2 ASSET PROTECTION & SECURITY v. US CHE PETER DUNGAN, Miles & Stockbridge P.C., Wash- ington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee Akima Global Services, LLC. Also represented by ROGER V. ABBOTT; ALFRED WURGLITZ, Rockville, MD. ______________________ Before DYK, PROST *, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges. DYK, Circuit Judge. The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) awarded a contract to Akima Global Services, LLC to pro- vide services at one of ICE’s detention facilities in Arizona. Asset Protection and Security Services, L.P., an unsuccess- ful bidder, brought a bid protest action in the Court of Fed- eral Claims (“Claims Court”), challenging the award. The Claims Court held that Asset was without standing to chal- lenge the award. We affirm. BACKGROUND The pertinent facts are not in dispute. In 2016, ICE issued a solicitation for a contractor to provide detention, food, and transportation services at its Florence Detention Center in Arizona. Asset was the incumbent contractor. The solicitation went through various modifications and amendments and provided several evaluation factors. Un- der the original solicitation, ICE indicated that proposals would “be evaluated for price realism, completeness, and reasonableness.” J.A. 430. While this version of the solicitation was pending, ICE received a question from a prospective offeror asking, “Ar- izona charges 4.5% ‘business tax’; will the Federal Govern- ment issue a tax exemption certificate to the successful * Circuit Judge Sharon Prost vacated the position of Chief Judge on May 21, 2021. Case: 21-1008 Document: 80 Page: 3 Filed: 07/19/2021 ASSET PROTECTION & SECURITY v. US 3 offeror?” Id. at 528. ICE responded, “Yes.” Id. Given ICE’s answer, Asset’s initial proposal included an explanation of the cost estimates factored into its pricing, stating that “[s]ales taxes were not charged due to the government’s ex- pressed intent to provide Team Asset with a tax-exempt certificate, where applicable.” Id. at 2022. Ultimately, ICE selected Akima for the contract award because the government determined that it offered the best value. Asset filed a bid protest with the Government Ac- countability Office (GAO). Rather than proceed with the bid protest, ICE decided to take voluntary corrective ac- tion. ICE then issued Amendment 17, which made several changes to the solicitation, and required offerors to supply ICE with specific pricing information in their proposals. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals