## Facts

- The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) issued an RFP for Community Corrections Center services in the Florence, South Carolina area using a best-value tradeoff with weighted factors, led by past performance.
- Bannum, the incumbent contractor, and Alston Wilkes Society submitted proposals in April 2002.
- Past performance was evaluated using Contract Evaluation Forms (CEFs), which were prepared and reviewed under a BOP process tied to FAR § 42.1503.
- Under BOP practice, Management Center Administrators reviewed and approved CEFs, raising noncompliance concerns with FAR § 42.1503 and the RFP’s stated evaluation approach.
- Bannum initially received 296/400 past-performance points; after reevaluation in a related administrative context, its score increased to 312/400.
- Even with Bannum’s improved score, Alston Wilkes outscored Bannum on all evaluation factors and received the contract award.
- Bannum filed a post-award bid protest in the Court of Federal Claims, asserting that the flawed CEF approval process unlawfully harmed its past-performance rating and its award prospects.

## Issues

1. What showing of competitive prejudice is required for a disappointed offeror to obtain relief in a bid protest under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b).
2. Whether Bannum established that the BOP’s violation of FAR § 42.1503 and the RFP caused it competitive prejudice sufficient to warrant relief.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment for the United States, leaving the award to Alston Wilkes in place.
- The court accepted that the BOP’s CEF review and approval process violated FAR § 42.1503 and departed from the RFP’s evaluation terms.
- The court held that Bannum failed to show it had a substantial chance of receiving the award but for the procurement error.
- Because Bannum could not demonstrate competitive prejudice, the proven error did not justify injunctive or other bid-protest relief.

## Legal Principles

- In a bid protest, a protester must show competitive prejudice by demonstrating a substantial chance it would have received the contract award but for the agency’s error.
- Proof of a procurement violation (including violation of FAR-based performance-evaluation procedures) is insufficient for relief absent a showing that the error likely affected the award outcome.
- The prejudice requirement functions as a practical limit on remedies in best-value procurements, where the record must support that correction of the error could realistically change the award decision.

## Conclusion

The court held that although the agency’s past-performance evaluation process violated FAR § 42.1503 and the solicitation, Bannum was not entitled to relief because it did not prove that correcting the error would have given it a substantial chance of winning the contract.


Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2005)