Legal Opinion
Diversified Maintenance Systems, Inc. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided November 29, 2006No. 06-706CPublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER1
LETTOW, Judge.
This post-award bid protest involves a construction and maintenance contract entered by the United States Department of the Army (“the Army” or “the government”) with Cadence Contract Services, LLC (“Cadence”). The protestor, Diversified Maintenance Systems, Inc. (“Diversified”), an unsuccessful bidder for the contract, asks that the award to Cadence be set aside and that the contract instead be awarded to Diversified.
*123Diversified alleges, inter alia, that Cadence was ineligible for the award because Cadence was purportedly not a qualified HUBZone small business…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better EnvironmentSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. VolpeSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Califano v. SandersSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Todd Construction, L.P. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2009
- Knowledge Connections, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2007
- Contract Services, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2012
- Emerald Coast Finest Produce Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2007
- Cooley v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2007
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.