NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
06-5066
BANNUM, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
DISMAS CHARITIES, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Joseph A. Camardo, Jr., Law Firm of Joseph A. Camardo, Jr., of Auburn, New
York, for plaintiff-appellant. Of counsel on the brief was Kevin M. Cox.
Jeffrey S. Pease, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division,
United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee United
States. With him on the brief were Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, David M.
Cohen, Director, and Harold D. Lester, Jr., Assistant Director.
Alex D. Tomaszczuk, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, of McLean, Virginia,
for defendant-appellee Dismas Charities, Inc. Of counsel on the brief was Daniel S.
Herzfeld.
Appealed from: United States Court of Federal Claims
Judge Christine O.C. Miller
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
06-5066
BANNUM, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
DISMAS CHARITIES, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
DECIDED: January 19, 2007
The case caption as the opinion prints it. Every word is kept; only a line that is nothing but a drawn rule is left out.
Before NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and RADER,
Circuit Judge.
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.
CONCLUSION
The judgment of the Court of Federal Claims dismissing Bannum’s complaint is
AFFIRMED.
This is a verbatim capture of the text layer of the court's own document in Bannum, Inc. v. United States. Nothing is summarized or reworded, and the sections run in the order the court wrote them. One thing the page shows is not repeated in the text: the pagination furniture, which is the page numbers, the docket footer and the electronic filing stamp printed across the top of each page.