Armstrong & Armstrong, Inc. v. United States, 514 F.2d 402 (9th Cir. 1975). · Go Syfert
Search
Armstrong & Armstrong, Inc. v. United States, 514 F.2d 402 (9th Cir. 1975). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
58 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 23 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Club Italia Soccer v. Shelby (ca6, 2006-11-30)
Treatment trajectory · 1975 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1975 2000 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Club Italia Soccer v. Shelby
6th Cir. · 2006 · confidence medium
Admin., 528 F.2d 1294, 1296 (7th Cir. 1975); Armstrong & Armstrong, Inc. v. United States, 514 F.2d 402, 403 (9th Cir. 1975); Merriam v. Kunzig, 476 F.2d 1233, 1242 (3d Cir. 1973); William F. Wilke, Inc. v. Department of Army, 485 F.2d 180 , 182-83 (4th Cir. 1973); Scanwell Laboratories., Inc. v. Shaffer, 424 F.2d 859, 865-67 (D.C.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Club Italia Soccer & Sports Organization, Inc., a Michigan Non-Profit Corporation v. Charter Township of Shelby, Michigan
6th Cir. · 2006 · confidence medium
Admin., 528 F.2d 1294, 1296 (7th Cir.1975); Armstrong & Armstrong, Inc. v. United States, 514 F.2d 402, 403 (9th Cir.1975); Merriam v. Kunzig, 476 F.2d 1233, 1242 (3d Cir.1973); William F. Wilke, Inc. v. Department of Army, 485 F.2d 180 , 182-83 (4th Cir.1973); Scanwell Laboratories., Inc. v. Shaffer, 424 F.2d 859, 865-67 (D.C.Cir.1970).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) American Cargo Transport, Inc. v. Natsios
D.D.C. · 2006 · confidence medium
Under the law that governs procurement decisions, a “[djissappointed bidders may challenge a government contract award under the [APA].” Iceland Steamship Co. v. United States Dep’t of the Army, 201 F.3d 451, 453 (D.C.Cir.2000); accord Scanwell Labs., Inc. v. Shaffer, 424 F.2d 859, 874 (D.C.Cir.1970) (citing Raoul Berger, Administrative Arbitrariness: A Synthesis, 78 Yale L.J. 965 (1969)); see also B.K Instrument, Inc. v. United States, 715 F.2d 713, 718 (2d Cir.1983); Kinnett Dairies, Inc. v. Farrow, 580 F.2d 1260, 1265-66 (5th Cir.1978); Hayes Int’l Corp. v. McLucas, 509 F.2d 247, 25…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) District of Columbia v. Group Insurance Administration
D.C. · 1993 · confidence medium
Admin., 528 F.2d 1294, 1296 (7th Cir.1975); Armstrong & Armstrong, Inc. v. United States, 514 F.2d 402, 403 (9th Cir.1975); Merriam v. Kunzig, 476 F.2d 1233, 1241-43 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 911 , 94 S.Ct. 233 , 38 L.Ed.2d 149 (1973).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Maruyama & Associates, Ltd. v. Mariana Islands Housing Authority
N. Mar. I. · 1984 · confidence medium
Armstrong & Armstrong, Inc. v. united States, 514 F.2d 402, 403 (9th Cir. 1975); McCarty Corp. v. United States, 499 F.2d 633, 637 (Ct.Claims 1974).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) B.K. Instrument, Inc. v. United States
2d Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
Merriam v. Kunzig, supra, 476 F.2d 1223, 1241-43 (3 Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 911 , 94 S.Ct. 233 , 38 L.Ed.2d 149 (1973); William F. Wilke, Inc. v. Department of the Army, 485 F.2d 180, 183 (4 Cir.1973); Hayes International Corp. v. McLucas, supra, 509 F.2d 247, 254-56 (5 Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 864 , 96 S.Ct. 123 , 46 L.Ed.2d 92 (1975); Armstrong & Armstrong, Inc. v. United States, 514 F.2d 402, 403 (9 Cir.1975) (per curiam); Airco, Inc. v. Energy Research & Development Administration, 528 F.2d 1294, 1296 (7 Cir.1975) (per curiam); but see People's Gas, Light & Coke Co. v. United St…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) B.K. Instrument, Inc. v. United States
2d Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
Merriam v. Kunzig, supra, 476 F.2d 1223, 1241-43 (3 Cir.), cert, denied, 414 U.S. 911 , 94 S.Ct. 233 , 38 L.Ed.2d 149 (1973); William F. Wilke, Inc. v. Department of the Army, 485 F.2d 180, 183 (4 Cir.1973); Hayes International Corp. v. McLucas, supra, 509 F.2d 247, 254-56 (5 Cir.), cert, denied, 423 U.S. 864 , 96 S.Ct. 123 , 46 L.Ed.2d 92 (1975); Armstrong & Armstrong, Inc. v. United States, 514 F.2d 402, 403 (9 Cir.1975) (per curiam); Airco, Inc. v. Energy Research & Development Administration, 528 F.2d 1294, 1296 (7 Cir.1975) (per curiam); but see People’s Gas, Light & Coke Co. v. United …
cited Cited as authority (rule) King v. Alaska State Housing Authority
Alaska · 1981 · confidence medium
Armstrong & Armstrong, Inc. v. United States, 514 F.2d 402, 403 (9th Cir. 1975).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Scanwell Laboratories, Inc. v. David D. Thomas, Acting Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration
D.C. Cir. · 1975 · confidence medium
See Heyer Products Co. v. United States, 140 F.Supp. 409, 412-13 , 135 Ct.Cl. 63, 69 (1956); Keco Industries, Inc. v. United States, 428 F.2d 1233, 1237 , 192 Ct.Cl. 773, 780 (1970); McCarty Corp. v. United States, 499 F.2d 633, 637 , 204 Ct.Cl. 768, 775 (1974). 6 This conclusion has also been reached by the Ninth Circuit in the recent case of Armstrong & Armstrong, Inc. v. United States, 514 F.2d 402, 403 (9th Cir. 1975), where the court awarded bid preparation damages of $9,414 under the court’s Tucker Act jurisdiction, and denied recovery under the Tort Claims Act.
cited Cited "see" Airco, Inc. v. Energy Research and Development Administration, and Cryogenic Technology, Inc., Intervening
7th Cir. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See Armstrong & Armstrong, Inc. v. United States, 514 F.2d 402, 403 (9th Cir. 1975), and cases cited therein.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Look v. United States
9th Cir. · 1997 · signal: see also · confidence low
We have held several times that “[i]t is well settled that a ‘disappointed bidder’ has standing to challenge a federal agency’s illegal award of a contract.” Big Country Foods v. Board of Education, 952 F.2d 1173 , 1176 (9th Cir.1992); see also Armstrong & Armstrong v. United States, 514 F.2d 402 , 403 (9th Cir.1975).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." 41 cont.cas.fed. (Cch) P 77,112, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3811, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6472 Durmond Look Planned Systems International v. United States
9th Cir. · 1997 · signal: see also · confidence low
We have held several times that "[i]t is well settled that a 'disappointed bidder' has standing to challenge a federal agency's illegal award of a contract." Big Country Foods v. Board of Education, 952 F.2d 1173 , 1176 (9th Cir.1992); see also Armstrong & Armstrong v. United States, 514 F.2d 402 , 403 (9th Cir.1975).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Big Country Foods, Inc. v. Board Of Education Of The Anchorage School District
9th Cir. · 1992 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Armstrong & Armstrong v. United States, 514 F.2d 402 , 403 (9th Cir.1975).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Big Country Foods, Inc. v. Board of Education of the Anchorage School District
9th Cir. · 1992 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Armstrong & Armstrong v. United States, 514 F.2d 402 , 403 (9th Cir.1975).
cited Cited "see, e.g." New England Insulation Co. v. General Dynamics Corp.
Mass. App. Ct. · 1988 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Armstrong & Armstrong, Inc. v. United States, 514 F.2d 402, 403 (9th Cir. 1975); Merriam v. Kunzig, 476 F.2d 1233 , 1242 & n.7 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 911 (1973).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Jets Services, Inc. v. Hoffman
M.D. Fla. · 1976 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Armstrong & Armstrong, Inc. v. United States, 514 F.2d 402, 403 (9th Cir. 1975); Hayes Internad Corp. v. McLucas, 509 F.2d 247, 254-57 (5th Cir. 1975).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Armstrong & Armstrong, Inc.
v.
The United States of America, Acting by and Through Rogers C. B. Morton, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, the United States Department of the Interior, Its Bureaus, Agents, Servants and Representatives
73-1983.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Apr 10, 1975.
514 F.2d 402
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published

514 F.2d 402

ARMSTRONG & ARMSTRONG, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
The UNITED STATES of America, acting By and Through Rogers
C. B. MORTON, Secretary of the Department of the Interior,
the United States Department of the Interior, its Bureaus,
Agents, Servants and Representatives, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 73-1983.

United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.

April 10, 1975.

David M. Cohen, Atty., Civ. Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C. (argued), for defendants-appellants.

William B. Moore (argued), Seattle, Wash., for plaintiff-appellee.

OPINION

Before KOELSCH, BROWNING, and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

The United States appeals from a judgment awarding bid preparation costs to an unsuccessful bidder on a government contract. We affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 356 F.Supp. 514 (E.D.Wash. 1973).

2

We agree with the district court that in the circumstances of this case appellee, as the displaced low bidder, had standing to sue. Scanwell Laboratories v. Shaffer, 137 U.S.App.D.C. 371, 424 F.2d 859 (1970); Merriam v. Kunzig, 476 F.2d 1233 (3d Cir. 1973); Wilke v. United States, 485 F.2d 180 (4th Cir. 1973); Cincinnati Electronics Corp. v. Kleppe, 509 F.2d 1080 (6th Cir. 1975); and Hayes International Corp. v. McLucas, 509 F.2d 247 (5th Cir. 1975).

3

We also agree with the district court that jurisdiction was conferred by the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2). The invitation to bid, followed by submission of a bid, created an implied contract obligating the government to consider the bid fairly and honestly. Keco Industries, Inc. v. United States, 428 F.2d 1233, 192 Ct.Cl. 773 (1970); Continental Business Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 452 F.2d 1016, 196 Ct.Cl. 627 (1971).

4

Finally, on the merits, we agree with the district court that the government acted arbitrarily, and in violation of its own regulations, by adjusting the total bid of another bidder, Bovee & Crail, in order to reconcile that total with the correct sum of the 82 item bids that comprised the overall bid.

5

The government could not know from the face of the bid whether the error lay in one of the component items or in the summation. Bovee & Crail stated that the error was in the addition. Correction of the total made Bovee & Crail the low bidder. If, however, it had appeared that Bovee & Crail was already the low bidder, Bovee & Crail could have informed the government that the error was not in the addition but in one of the component items, and thus maintain the higher bid. This opportunity to second guess one's bid after the bids have been opened subverts the competitive bidding process, and creates the potential for abuse that federal procurement regulations are designed to prevent.

6

Affirmed.