Guardian Moving and Storage Co., Inc. v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• asserting that the agency “previously found [its flood plain] documentation ... acceptable in two separate procurements” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
• denying motion to supplement with previous proposal that had been awarded the contract because the record was sufficient for judicial review
• finding protester not prejudiced where the agency notified all offerors of the extension via email
• restating Guardian’s arguments, including that MVS’s proposal did not satisfy the solicitation’s fire marshal documentation requirement
• distinguishing Geo-Seis in a case where the contracting officer granted a pre-deadline extension
• “[I]f the court found that both Guardian and MVS were ineligible for award, the agency would be obligated to resolicit the contract ....” (internal citations omitted).

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).