Skip to main content

Gritter-Francona, Inc v. United States

Fed. Cl.March 31, 2022No. 22-3
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
summary judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The court denied the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the administrative record and granted the defendant's cross-motions in a bid protest challenging the award of a Defense Health Agency contract to GC Associates, LLC.

Excerpt

REPORTED OPINION AND ORDER, reflecting redactions to the opinion previously entered under seal on March 24, 2022. Signed by Senior Judge Charles F. Lettow. Keywords re Reported Order: Post-award bid protest evaluation of technical factors and past performance best value determination.

What This Ruling Means

**Government Contract Dispute Over Bid Process** This case involved Gritter-Francona, Inc. challenging how the U.S. government awarded a contract to another company. The company filed what's called a "bid protest," claiming the government made mistakes when evaluating which company should win the contract. Specifically, they argued the government didn't properly assess technical qualifications and past performance when deciding which bid offered the "best value." The court issued a decision about whether the government followed proper procedures when evaluating the competing bids and selecting a winner. However, the specific outcome - whether the court sided with the company or the government - isn't clear from the available information. **Why This Matters for Workers:** Government contracting decisions can significantly impact employment opportunities. When companies compete for federal contracts, the winning bid often determines which workers get hired for those projects. If bid protest processes work fairly, it helps ensure contracts go to qualified companies that can provide stable employment. While this case doesn't directly change worker rights, fair government contracting procedures help maintain competitive job markets and can protect employment opportunities in companies that rely on federal contracts.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Danziger v. United States
Fed. Cl.May 2026
Plaintiff Win
Diaz
Fed. Cl.Mar 2026

UNREPORTED OPINION DISMISSING CASE: The plaintiff filed his claim for wrongful discharge more than 18 years after April 16, 2007, and as a result his claims are untimely under 28 U.S.C. &167; 2501. Thus, the Court lacks jurisdiction over the plaintiff&039;s claims. The defendant&039;s [17] motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and the case is DISMISSED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment. No costs are awarded

Defendant Win
Michalovic Crawley v. United States
Fed. Cl.Dec 2020

REPORTED ORDER granting Unopposed Motion for Conditional Certification and Notice. Joint Status Report due by 1/8/2021. Signed by Senior Judge Nancy B. Firestone. (lb) Service on parties made. Keywords re Order on Motion, Reported Order: Fair Labor Standards Act 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) Conditional Certification

Plaintiff Win
Adams
Fed. Cl.Dec 2020

REPORTED ORDER Denying Motion to Dismiss - Rule 12(b)(6). The United States' Answer is due by 12/28/2020. The parties shall submit a Joint Preliminary Status Report by 1/11/2021. Signed by Judge David A. Tapp. (jm) Service on parties made.

Plaintiff Win
Abrantes
Fed. Cl.Dec 2020

REPORTED OPINION denying Motion to Dismiss - Rule 12(b)(1) and (6). On or before 2/12/2021, defendant is directed to FILE an answer or otherwise respond to plaintiffs' complaint and on or before 2/12/2021, the parties are directed to CONFER and FILE a Joint Status Report informing the court of their positions on the consolidation of this case with any other matters before the court. Signed by Judge Patricia E. Campbell-Smith. (mp) Service on parties made. Modified font of text on 12/13/2020 Keywords re: Reported Order on Motion to Dismiss. Motion to Dismiss RCFC 12(b)(6) Border Patrol Agent Pay Reform Act, 5 U.S.C. § 5550 Back Pay Act, 5 U.S.C. § 5596 Anti-Deficiency Act (ADA), 31 U.S.C. §§ 1341-42 Government Employees Fair Treatment Act of 2019 (GEFTA) Pub. L. No. 116-1, 133 Stat. 3 (2019).

Plaintiff Win

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.