Free Memorandum - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:07-cv-00732-FMA

Document 16

Filed 10/22/2007

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS Bid Protest
STANLEY ASSOCIATES, INC., Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, and INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, Defendant-Intervenor. and ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Defendant-Intervenor. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 07-732 C Judge Allegra

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO INTERVENE OF GENERAL DYNAMICS ONE SOURCE, LLC This is a bid protest challenging a contract award by the General Services Administration ("GSA") to GD. Because GD is a contract awardee, it has a direct interest in the outcome of this case. The important interest of an awardee as an intervenor is reflected in this Court's standard post award protest practice of addressing a successful offeror's intervention at the initial status conference. See RCFC, App. C. § IV.8(b). Further, this Court routinely allows contract

-1-

Case 1:07-cv-00732-FMA

Document 16

Filed 10/22/2007

Page 2 of 3

awardees to intervene as party-defendants in bid protests. See, e.g., JWK International Corp. v. United States, 49 Fed. Cl. 371, 385 (2001). More specifically, as a successful offeror, GD is entitled to intervene as a matter of right because it has an interest relating to the subject matter of this action and is "so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede [GD's] ability to protect [it's] interest . . . ." RCFC 24(a)(2). In light of the fact that the protestor, Stanley Associates, Inc., seeks to overturn the award, GD plainly has an interest in preserving its right to perform the contract it was awarded. The disposition of this protest could impair that interest. As able as Government counsel are, this interest is not adequately represented by the Government, whose primary goal is to address the procurement process and not directly to preserve GD's ability to perform under this contract. Alternatively, GD moves for permissive intervention under Rule 24(b)(2), because (1) GD's motion was timely filed two business days after the Complaint was filed; (2) GD's "claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common;" and (3) GD's intervention will not unduly delay or prejudice adjudication of the action. RCFC 24(b)(2). For the foregoing reasons, GD respectfully requests that the Court grant its Motion to Intervene.

-2-

Case 1:07-cv-00732-FMA

Document 16

Filed 10/22/2007

Page 3 of 3

Respectfully submitted, s/ David A. Churchill David A. Churchill, Counsel of Record JENNER & BLOCK, LLP 601 Thirteenth Street, N.W. Suite 1200 South Washington, DC. 20005 Telephone: (202) 639-6056 Facsimile: (202) 637-6365 Counsel of Record for Intervenor, General Dynamics One Source, LLC Of Counsel: W. Jay DeVecchio Kevin C. Dwyer JENNER & BLOCK, LLP Dated: October 22, 2007

-3-