Red River Science & Technology, LLC v. United States
Court
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided
June 18, 2025
Jurisdiction
FS
Importance
45%
Case Summary
In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 24-2035 (Filed Under Seal: May 29, 2025) (Reissued: June 18, 2025) FOR PUBLICATION *************************************** RED RIVER SCIENCE & * TECHNOLOGY, LLC, * * Plaintiff, * * v. * * THE UNITED STATES, * * Defendant, * * and * * GEMINI TECH SERVICES LLC, * * Defendant-Intervenor, * * and * * VANQUISH WORLDWIDE, LLC, * * Defendant-Intervenor. * * *************************************** Jackson W. Moore, Jr., Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan, L.L.P., Raleigh, N.C., for Plaintiff. With him on the briefs was Amelia L. Serrat, Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan, L.L.P., Raleigh, N.C. Evan Wisser, Senior Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Defendant, United States. With him on the briefs were Yaakov M. Roth, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Patricia M. McCarthy, Director, Corinne A. Niosi, Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., as well as John C. Degnan, Senior Trial Attorney, Team I, and Maj. Danielle C. Naser, Trial Attorney, Contract Litigation & Intellectual Property Division, U.S. Army Legal Services Agency. Matthew T. Schoonover, Schoonover & Moriarty LLC, Olathe, KS, for Defendant-Intervenor, Gemini Tech Services LLC. With him on the briefs were Ian P. Patterson, Timothy J. Laughlin, and Haley M. Sirokman, Schoonover & Moriarty LLC, Olathe, KS. Michael D. Maloney, Williams Mullen, PC, Tysons, VA, for Defendant- Intervenor Vanquish Worldwide, LLC. With him on the brief was Anthony H. Anikeeff, Williams Mullen, PC, Tysons, VA. OPINION AND ORDER Red River Science and Technology, LLC (“Red River”) submitted a proposal to a solicitation issued by the Army under the Enhanced Army Global Logistics Enterprise (“EAGLE”) Program. Over the course of the procurement, Red River lost “apparent awardee” status on two occasions. Plaintiff then filed this pre-award protest objecting to various aspects of the Army’s management of the procurement. See Compl. (ECF 1). Gemini Tech Services LLC (“Gemini”) and Vanquish Worldwide, LLC (“Vanquish”), the other offerors in the competitive range, intervened over Plaintiff’s objection. Red River Sci. & Tech., LLC v. United States, 174 Fed. Cl. 431, 433 (2025). Red River moved for judgment on the administrative record, the government and Gemini have filed cross-motions, and I have heard oral argument.1 For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED and Defendant’s and Gemini’s motions are GRANTED. Red River filed a motion for leave to file new authority (ECF 58), which is GRANTED. The case is DISMISSED. BACKGROUND I. The Solicitation The EAGLE program is a basic ordering agreement governed by Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) § 16.703 (codified at 48 C.F.R. § 16.703); see also Def.’s MJAR at 3. The Army issued Solicitation No. W519TC-23-R-0022 — seeking Pursuant to the protective order in this case, the Court initially filed this opinion under seal on May 29, 2025, for the parties to propose redactions of confidential or proprietary information. The parties were directed to propose redactions by June 12, 2025. Plaintiff submitted proposed redactions and supporting memorandum. The Defendant has advised that the Government takes no position on the proposed redactions. No proposed redactions were received from the Defendant-Intervenors. The Court proposed an additional redaction, which Plaintiff has approved. As stated above, the Defendant has advised that the Government takes no position on the additional proposed redaction. The Court did not receive a response from the Defendant-Intervenors as to their position regarding the additional proposed redaction. The Court has incorporated all redactions, and makes them with bracketed ellipses (“[. . .]” below. 1 Pl.’s MJAR (ECF 40); Gemini’s MJAR (ECF 42); Vanquish’s Resp. (ECF 43); Def.’s MJAR (ECF 44); Pl.’s Reply (ECF 48); Def.’s Reply (
Case Details
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 18, 2025
Jurisdiction
FS
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools
Case Summary
Summary of the key points and legal principles
In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 24-2035 (Filed Under Seal: May 29, 2025) (Reissued: June 18, 2025) FOR PUBLICATION
RED RIVER SCIENCE & * TECHNOLOGY, LLC, * * Plaintiff, * * v. * * THE UNITED STATES, * * Defendant, * * and * * GEMINI TECH SERVICES LLC, * * Defendant-Intervenor, * * and * * VANQUISH WORLDWIDE, LLC, * * Defendant-Intervenor. * *
Jackson W. Moore, Jr., Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan,
L.L.P., Raleigh, N.C., for Plaintiff. With him on the briefs was Amelia L. Serrat, Smith, Anderson, Blount, Dorsett, Mitchell & Jernigan, L.L.P., Raleigh, N.C. Evan Wisser, Senior Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Defendant, United States. With him on the briefs were Yaakov M. Roth, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Patricia M. McCarthy, Director, Corinne A. Niosi, Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., as well as John C. Degnan, Senior Trial Attorney, Team I, and Maj. Danielle C. Naser, Trial Attorney, Contract Litigation & Intellectual Property Division, U.S. Army Legal Services Agency. Matthew T. Schoonover, Schoonover & Moriarty LLC, Olathe, KS, for Defendant-Intervenor, Gemini Tech Services LLC. With him on the briefs were Ian P. Patterson, Timothy J. Laughlin, and Haley M. Sirokman, Schoonover & Moriarty LLC, Olathe, KS. Michael D. Maloney, Williams Mullen, PC, Tysons, VA, for Defendant- Intervenor Vanquish Worldwide, LLC. With him on the brief was Anthony H. Anikeeff, Williams Mullen, PC, Tysons, VA. OPINION AND ORDER Red River Science and Technology, LLC (“Red River”) submitted a proposal to a solicitation issued by the Army under the Enhanced Army Global Logistics Enterprise (“EAGLE”) Program. Over the course of the procurement, Red River lost “apparent awardee” status on two occasions. Plaintiff then filed this pre-award protest objecting to various aspects of the Army’s management of the procurement. See Compl. (ECF 1). Gemini Tech Services LLC (“Gemini”) and Vanquish Worldwide, LLC (“Vanquish”), the other offerors in the competitive range, intervened over Plaintiff’s objection. Red River Sci. & Tech., LLC v. United States, 174 Fed. Cl. 431, 433 (2025). Red River moved for judgment on the administrative record, the government and Gemini have filed cross-motions, and I have heard oral argument.1 For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED and Defendant’s and Gemini’s motions are GRANTED. Red River filed a motion for leave to file new authority (ECF 58), which is GRANTED. The case is DISMISSED.
BACKGROUND
I. The Solicitation The EAGLE program is a basic ordering agreement governed by Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) § 16.703 (codified at 48 C.F.R. § 16.703); see also Def.’s MJAR at 3. The Army issued Solicitation No. W519TC-23-R-0022 — seeking
Pursuant to the protective order in this case, the Court initially filed this opinion under seal on May 29, 2025, for the parties to propose redactions of confidential or proprietary information. The parties were directed to propose redactions by June 12, 2025. Plaintiff submitted proposed redactions and supporting memorandum. The Defendant has advised that the Government takes no position on the proposed redactions. No proposed redactions were received from the Defendant-Intervenors. The Court proposed an additional redaction, which Plaintiff has approved. As stated above, the Defendant has advised that the Government takes no position on the additional proposed redaction. The Court did not receive a response from the Defendant-Intervenors as to their position regarding the additional proposed redaction. The Court has incorporated all redactions, and makes them with bracketed ellipses (“[. . .]” below. 1 Pl.’s MJAR (ECF 40); Gemini’s MJAR (ECF 42); Vanquish’s Resp. (ECF 43); Def.’s MJAR (ECF 44);
Pl.’s Reply (ECF 48); Def.’s Reply (
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Legal Classification
Judicial Panel
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 18, 2025
Jurisdiction
FS
Court Type
federal
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools