International Management Services, Inc. v. United States (2007)
green
· 46 citation events
across 3 courts.
Showing the 19 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2008 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
200820172026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Tinton Falls Lodging Realty, LLC v. United States (2015)
In International Management Services, Inc. v. United States, the Court of Federal Claims held that a bid protestor lacked standing to challenge a small business set-aside contract because the protester had been deemed other than small. 80 Fed.Cl. 1, 4-8 (2007).
green
Magnum Opus Technologies, Inc. v. United States (2010)
Servs., Inc. v. United States, 80 Fed.Cl. 1, 6-7 (2008); Pride Int’l LLC v. United States, 64 Fed.Cl. 754 , 757 n. 6 (2005); see also Labatt Food Serv. v. United States, 577 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed.Cir.2009) (“Labatt ”) (actual bidder lacked standing because alleged error was not the cause of its failure to receive award); N.C.
green
Harmonia Holdings Group, LLC v. United States (2020)
Servs., Inc. v. United States, 80 Fed.
“The Area Office's formal size determination may be appealed to the OHA, but if no appeal is taken, the Area Office's size determination is the final decision of the agency.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)
green
Hill International, Inc. v. Virgin Islands Public Finance Authority, Office of Disaster Recovery (2026)
Servs., Inc. v. United States, 80 Fed.
finding a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be obtained because of the Blue & Gold waiver
green
Government Technical Services LLC. v. United States (2009)
Servs., Inc. v. United States (Int'l Mgmt.), 80 Fed.Cl. 1, 4-5 (2007) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (b)).
citing 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (b)
green
Taylor Consultants, Inc. v. United States (2009)
Svcs., 80 Fed.Cl. at 6 (“[P]laintiff is not an ‘interested party” entitled to pursue either claim because under the facts of this case, there is no chance, much less a substantial chance, that plaintiff could be awarded the contract.”).
“[P]laintiff is not an ‘interested party” entitled to pursue either claim because under the facts of this case, there is no chance, much less a substantial chance, that plaintiff could be awarded the contract.”
green
Superior Optical Labs, Inc. v. United States (2022)
Servs., Inc. v. United States, 80 Fed.
green
Bluewater Management Group, LLC v. United States (2020)
Servs., Inc. v. United States, 80 Fed.
holding that the protestor, which was not a small business, lacked standing to challenge the award of a contract set aside for a small business
green
Safeguard Base Operations, LLC v. United States (2019)
Servs., Inc. v. United States, 80 Fed.
“The Area Office’s formal size determination may be appealed to the OHA, but if no appeal is taken, the Area Office’s size determination is the final decision of the agency.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)
green
Excel Manufacturing, Ltd. v. United States (2013)
Servs., Inc. v. United States, 80 Fed.Cl. 1, 6-7 (2007) (dismissing a bid protest for lack of standing because the plaintiff was not eligible to compete for the small business set-aside contract at issue in that case).
dismissing a bid protest for lack of standing because the plaintiff was not eligible to compete for the small business set-aside contract at issue in that case
green
Plasan North America, Inc. v. United States (2013)
Servs., Inc. v. United States, 80 Fed.Cl. 1, 6-7 (2007) (plaintiff was not an “interested party” because it had no chance, much less a substantial chance, of award since it was not a small business on a small business set aside contract, and there remained a qualified bidder in competitive range).
plaintiff was not an “interested party” because it had no chance, much less a substantial chance, of award since it was not a small business on a small business set aside contract, and there remained a qualified bidder in competitive range
green
Contract Services, Inc. v. United States (2012)
Servs., Inc. v. United States, 80 Fed.Cl. 1, 4 (2007) (“The court may look to evidence outside of the pleadings to determine the existence of subject matter jurisdiction.”).
“The court may look to evidence outside of the pleadings to determine the existence of subject matter jurisdiction.”
green
Crassociates, Inc. v. United States (2011)
Servs., Inc. v. United States, 80 Fed.Cl. 1, 8-9 (2008) (plaintiff waived objection to portion of solicitation designating the procurement as a small business set aside by failing to object prior to the contract award); Frazier v. United States, 79 Fed.Cl. 148, 177 (2007), aff’d, 301 Fed.Appx. 974 (Fed.Cir.2008) (noting that "[t]he proper time to challenge the provisions of a prospectus is before bids are required to be submitted, in a pre-award bid protest”); Benchmade Knif…
plaintiff waived objection to portion of solicitation designating the procurement as a small business set aside by failing to object prior to the contract award
green
Linc Government Services, LLC v. United States (2010)
Srvcs., Inc. v. United States, 80 Fed.Cl. 1, 9 (2007).
Servs. v. United States, 80 Fed.Cl. 1, 4 (2007).
green
PlanetSpace Inc. v. United States (2010)
Servs., Inc. v. United States, 80 Fed.
"Plaintiffs argument that Torres is not a small business lacks merit because neither the contracting officer nor the SBA has determined that Torres is not a small business, and this court lacks authority to entertain a size protest." (citation omitted)
green
White Hawk Group, Inc. v. United States (2010)
This court, for example, “lacks any authority to entertain a size protest.” See International Management Services, Inc. v. United States, 80 Fed.Cl. 1, 7 (2008) (citing 13 C.F.R. § 121.1002 ).
citing 13 C.F.R. § 121.1002
green
Global Computer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States (2009)
Servs., Inc. v. United States, 80 Fed.Cl. 1, 5 (2008)) (citation omitted).
Servs., Inc. v. United States, 80 Fed.Cl. 1, 8-9 (2008) (holding disqualified bidder waived objection to procurement small business set-aside by not filing protest during bid period); Frazier v. United States, 79 Fed.Cl. 148, 177 (2007) (“The proper time to challenge the provisions of a prospectus is before bids are required to be submitted, in a pre-award bid protest.”); Benchmade Knife Co. v. United States, 79 Fed.Cl. 731, 737 (2007) (holding protestor waived objections to…
holding disqualified bidder waived objection to procurement small business set-aside by not filing protest during bid period