Hill International, Inc. v. Virgin Islands Public Finance Authority, Office of Disaster Recovery

Summary

The District Court of the Virgin Islands reviewed Hill International’s objections to a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation concerning its bid protest against the Virgin Islands Public Finance Authority. The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety, concluding that Hill lacked Article III standing to challenge VIPFA’s procurement authority and failed to state a claim concerning the allegedly arbitrary and capricious contract award. The court therefore dismissed Hill’s complaint, while declining to address exhaustion and treating service of process as moot.

Holdings

1. Hill lacked Article III standing to challenge VIPFA's authority to conduct the procurement because it failed to establish that its alleged injury was fairly traceable to VIPFA's use of its own procurement authority rather than the Department of Property and Procurement's authority, or that the requested relief would redress that injury.
2. Hill failed to state a plausible arbitrary-and-capricious claim based solely on the more than $106 million disparity between its bid and CH2M's bid because the RFP was a best-value procurement that weighed technical ability more heavily than price and did not require selection of the lowest-priced bidder.
3. Hill failed to state a claim based on an alleged undisclosed price-realism criterion because that theory was not pleaded in the Complaint, relied on materials outside the pleadings, and the cited evaluation concerns concerned technical capability and resource allocation rather than an analysis of whether Hill's price was too low.
4. Hill failed to state a plausible conflict-of-interest claim because alleging only that two employees of CH2M's parent company worked at the same agency as three evaluation-committee members supplied no hard facts showing that the individuals worked together, exchanged information, or improperly influenced the evaluation.
5. Hill's challenge to VIPFA's award of only one contract was barred by the Blue & Gold Fleet waiver rule because the RFP contained a patent ambiguity regarding the number of awards and Hill did not challenge that ambiguity before the close of bidding.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Hill had Article III standing to challenge VIPFA's authority to conduct the procurement rather than having the Virgin Islands Department of Property and Procurement conduct it.
2. Whether Hill plausibly alleged that VIPFA's award to CH2M was arbitrary and capricious based solely on the disparity between the bids.
3. Whether Hill plausibly alleged that VIPFA used an undisclosed price-realism criterion.
4. Whether Hill plausibly alleged an impermissible conflict of interest based on employees of CH2M's parent company working at the same government agency as evaluation-committee members.
5. Whether Hill plausibly alleged that VIPFA acted arbitrarily and capriciously by awarding one contract instead of the minimum of two allegedly required by the RFP.
6. Whether the Blue & Gold Fleet waiver rule barred Hill's post-award challenge to an alleged patent ambiguity in the solicitation.

Disposition

dismissed