Health Systems Marketing & Development Corp. v. United States
United States Court of Claims
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BRUGGINK, Judge.
This is a suit to recover bid proposal preparation costs. Plaintiff is a disappointed bidder in a negotiated procurement. Defendant terminated negotiations, allegedly because plaintiff’s cost proposals were non-responsive. Defendant has moved for summary judgment.1 For the reasons that follow, the motion is denied.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND2
The parties agree as to some of the background circumstances. Other, more particular facts, are discussed in the context of determining whether a relevant dispute of fact exists.
The Agency for International Development (“AID”) and the…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Honeywell, Inc. v. The United States v. Haz-Tad, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1989
- Keco Industries, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1974
- Heyer Products Company v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1956
- John Reiner & Company, Individually and to the Use of Kurz & Root Company (Incorporated) v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1963
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Analytical & Research Technology, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1997
- Cubic Applications, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1997
- Aerolease Long Beach v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1994
- Bean Stuyvesant, L.L.C. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2000
- International Resource Recovery, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2004
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.