Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01661/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01661-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jacqueline Sims
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

JACQUELINE SIMS, DBA JRS STAFFING 

SERVICES,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2016-1661

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 1:15-cv-00367-NBF, Senior Judge Nancy B. 

Firestone. 

______________________ 

Decided: July 8, 2016

______________________ 

 JACQUELINE SIMS, Lawrenceville, GA, pro se.

MICHAEL ANTHONY RODRIGUEZ, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also 

represented by BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E.

KIRSCHMAN, JR., STEVEN J. GILLINGHAM. 

______________________ 

Case: 16-1661 Document: 18-2 Page: 1 Filed: 07/08/2016
2 SIMS v. UNITED STATES

Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and BRYSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Jacqueline Sims appeals a final decision of the Court 

of Federal Claims denying her bid protest. We affirm.

I 

A 

On September 19, 2014, the Bureau of Prisons 

(“BOP”) issued a solicitation for horticulture instructional

services at the Federal Prison Camp in Alderson, West 

Virginia (“FPC Alderson”). The solicitation was designated as a small business set-aside contract. It required an 

instructor to provide classes at FPC Alderson with a 

regular work schedule from 8 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., five days 

a week. The contract was to be for one base year and four 

option years. The solicitation indicated that pursuant to 

an affirmative determination of responsibility, the offers 

would be evaluated to determine which quotation was 

most advantageous to the government, “considering 

technical capability, past performance, and price.”

On October 17, 2014, Ms. Sims submitted a quotation 

in response to the solicitation through her sole proprietorship, JRS Staffing Services. Two other bidders also 

submitted quotations, including Mr. Arbaugh, who was at 

that time the horticulture instructor at FPC Alderson. In 

her quotation, Ms. Sims indicated that she would offer the 

current instructor a right of first refusal to perform the 

services should she be awarded the contract. If he were to 

decline, Mr. Sims proposed a candidate with significant 

experience working on dairy farms.

The contracting officer evaluated Ms. Sims’s offer on 

the basis of technical capability, past performance, and 

price. The officer determined that her quotation conformed to the solicitation; her past performance history 

Case: 16-1661 Document: 18-2 Page: 2 Filed: 07/08/2016
SIMS v. UNITED STATES 3

was neutral, as she had not performed contracts similar 

in nature, size, and scope to the horticulture instruction 

contract; and that Ms. Sims’s quote was the lowest cost 

quote of the three received. However, the contracting 

officer found that Ms. Sims did not satisfy the “responsibility” requirement because she lacked the capacity to 

complete performance if offered the contract. In support 

of that determination, the contracting officer made several findings. 

First, the contracting officer found that Ms. Sims had 

failed to accept an offered award of a contract for cosmetology instruction services at FPC Alderson in 2012. 

On that occasion, Ms. Sims was offered a contract on 

March 30, 2012, with an effective date to begin performance on April 9, 2012. The contracting officer told Ms. 

Sims that because the cosmetology program had been 

halted, the prison was anxious to complete a contract and 

resume instruction. Three days after the award, Ms. 

Sims indicated that she had not finalized the insurance 

needed to begin work on the contract and would complete 

that process within a week. One week later, on April 10, 

2012, Ms. Sims informed the contracting office that she 

had still not secured insurance and that she intended to 

accept the contract offer once the insurance arrangements 

were finalized. On April 13, Ms. Sims informed the 

contracting officer that she had not been able to secure 

insurance on the private market and that she would seek 

it from a state program. She estimated it would take two 

more weeks to get an insurance policy. On April 16, the 

contracting officer withdrew the award.

Second, the contracting officer noted that Ms. Sims 

had failed to accept a contract offer in October 2014 for 

culinary arts instruction at the Federal Correctional 

Institution in Tallahassee, Florida. On September 29, 

2014, after being awarded a contract offer by the BOP, 

Ms. Sims expressed concerns about being able to find a 

replacement candidate with the required qualifications 

Case: 16-1661 Document: 18-2 Page: 3 Filed: 07/08/2016
4 SIMS v. UNITED STATES

should her preferred candidate resign during the contract. 

The contracting officer promptly responded that the 

requirements would not be changed and told Ms. Sims to 

respond by the close of business on September 30 if she 

was still interested in the contract. After receiving no 

response from Ms. Sims by the deadline, the contracting 

officer rescinded the offer to Ms. Sims and offered it to the 

next highest bidder.

Third, a company managed by Ms. Sims, Jacqueline 

R. Sims L.L.C., dba JRS Management, was awarded a 

contract to provide culinary arts instruction at the Federal Correctional Institution in Miami, Florida. Her company failed to provide a candidate during the base year, 

and the contract was terminated.

Finally, the contracting officer noted that Ms. Sims 

had previously been referred to the Small Business Administration for a Certificate of Competency and that the 

referral had been declined.

Based on those findings, the contracting officer determined that Ms. Sims would not be able to comply with 

the required performance schedule under the contract and 

made a determination of non-responsibility. On January 

29, 2015, the contracting officer referred Ms. Sims to the 

Small Business Administration (“SBA”) to seek a Certificate of Competency (“COC”). 

B 

After the referral to the SBA, Ms. Sims submitted an 

application for a COC. Her submission included information about her companies, the names of candidates she 

was considering for the horticulture position, and a history of her previous contracts. 

An SBA procurement analyst reviewed Ms. Sims’s 

submissions and made findings about her capacity to 

perform. He found that Ms. Sims and her LLC had completed 12 contracts in the three prior years, primarily for 

Case: 16-1661 Document: 18-2 Page: 4 Filed: 07/08/2016
SIMS v. UNITED STATES 5

religious services, and that she and her LLC were engaged in five ongoing contracts. He also found 13 instances in which the government had made an offer for an 

award that Ms. Sims did not accept, or in which the 

contract was later terminated. He noted that Ms. Sims 

indicated that in most of those cases the reason she had 

not accepted the award was that the terms of the award 

were different from the terms of the solicitation. The 

analyst found that Mr. Sims had no current employees 

suited for the position at FPC Alderson, but that the two 

candidate instructors for whom Ms. Sims submitted 

resumes for appeared to be qualified.

As part of its investigation, the SBA contacted three 

contracting officers who had dealt with Ms. Sims in the 

past. The first stated that Ms. Sims had filed protests 

relating to four solicitations and one contract, and that 

she had been offered another contract but had not accepted it. The second officer verified that Ms. Sims had two 

contracts currently open—one ongoing and the other not 

yet started. That officer did not have any comments on 

Ms. Sims’s performance. The third officer described her 

as “aggravating, unreasonable, argumentative and litigious” during negotiations, and said that he did not 

exercise an option on one of her contracts because she 

demanded a modification of the contract so that she would 

not be liable if an instructor failed to meet the terms of 

the contract.

Based on all of those findings, the procurement analyst recommended that the SBA not issue Ms. Sims a 

COC. The analyst specifically noted that she had no 

experience in the past three years completing a contract 

for instruction other than for religious services, that she 

did not have any current employees with the requisite 

skills, that she did not perform on 25 percent of the contracts offered to her, and that she had difficulty resolving 

administrative issues that arose in the contracting process.

Case: 16-1661 Document: 18-2 Page: 5 Filed: 07/08/2016
6 SIMS v. UNITED STATES

An SBA review committee voted to decline the COC. 

The SBA informed Ms. Sims that her COC had been 

declined, and the BOP then offered the horticulture 

contract to the next lowest bidder, Mr. Arbaugh.

C 

Ms. Sims filed a bid protest in the Court of Federal 

Claims. She argued that the contracting officer’s nonresponsibility decision and referral to the SBA was arbitrary and capricious, primarily because it was based on 

information improperly considered. She also argued that 

the SBA’s denial of a COC was arbitrary and capricious.

The Court of Federal Claims found that the contracting officer’s decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious, 

and that the contracting officer properly relied on available information about Ms. Sims’s ability to perform the 

contract, including her prior performance record. The 

court also found that the SBA had acted rationally and 

had properly considered the available evidence.

II

We review the trial court’s judgment on the administrative record without deference. Colonial Press Int’l, Inc. 

v. United States, 788 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2015). 

The challenger must show that the contracting officer’s 

decision lacked a reasonable basis and that the contracting agency failed to provide “a coherent and reasonable 

explanation of its exercise of discretion.” Banknote Corp. 

of Am. v. United States, 365 F.3d 1345, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 

2004). “Because responsibility decisions are largely a 

matter of judgment, contracting officers are generally 

given wide discretion to make this decision.” John C. 

Grimberg Co. v. United States, 185 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. 

Cir. (1999). We review the SBA’s denial of a COC by the 

same standard. See 5 U.S.C. § 706.

Case: 16-1661 Document: 18-2 Page: 6 Filed: 07/08/2016
SIMS v. UNITED STATES 7

A 

We conclude that the contracting officer had a reasonable basis for his non-responsibility determination. To be 

determined responsible, a contractor must “[b]e able to 

comply with the required or proposed delivery or performance schedule, taking into consideration all existing 

commercial and governmental business commitments.” 

48 C.F.R. § 9.104-1(b). In this case, the contracting officer

rationally based his decision on Ms. Sims’s history of 

failing to accept offers after submitting bids. By making 

bids and then failing to accept contract offers after protracted negotiations, Ms. Sims caused delays in agency 

procurement. It was rational for the contracting officer to 

take that history into account and determine that it was 

likely she would be unable to comply with the proposed 

delivery schedule.

Ms. Sims argues that it was improper for the BOP to

consider her failure to accept the contract for culinary 

arts instruction at Federal Correctional Institute Miami

because there was no information on the BOP’s record 

substantiating her failure to accept. That argument is 

meritless. A letter explaining the details of the FCI 

Miami contract was in the record before the BOP. 

Ms. Sims argues that there was no evidence on the 

record that she was associated with Jacqueline R. Sims 

LLC. Setting aside that Ms. Sims and her LLC share the 

same name, the affiliation is evidenced by the letter that 

contained the details about the FCI Miami contract.

She next argues that the BOP acted irrationally because it treated her failure to accept offers as indicative of 

non-responsibility when she was free reject them as a 

matter of contract law. While she is correct that she was 

legally free to reject the offers, it does not follow that it 

was improper for the government to consider her history 

in making a responsibility determination. Serially bidding for contracts and failing to accept offers, as Ms. Sims 

Case: 16-1661 Document: 18-2 Page: 7 Filed: 07/08/2016
8 SIMS v. UNITED STATES

has done, delays the ability of the government to obtain 

needed services on a timely basis, and it was therefore 

reasonable for the contracting officer to take that conduct 

into account.

Ms. Sims also argues that the BOP contracting officer 

was mistaken when he said that Ms. Sims had previously 

been referred to the SBA for a COC and that a COC had 

been denied. The record shows that, after she was referred for a COC, she failed to submit a timely application, and the SBA then closed the matter without making 

a determination. In that regard, Ms. Sims is correct that 

the contracting officer mischaracterized the nature of the 

SBA’s action. However, the fact that the contracting 

officer was mistaken as to one of the grounds that he cited 

for his decision does not mean that his decision as a whole 

necessarily lacked a rational basis. “We do not reverse 

simply because there are uncertainties, analytic imperfections, or even mistakes in the pieces of the picture petitioners have chosen to bring to our attention, . . . but only 

when there is such an absence of overall rational support

as to warrant the description ‘arbitrary or capricious.’” 

Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Peck, 751 F.2d 1336 (D.C. Cir. 

1985). The contracting officer relied on multiple factors, 

including several instances in which Ms. Sims did not 

accept offered contracts, and those factors make his 

decision as a whole rational. In context, the inaccuracy in 

the characterization of the SBA’s action regarding the 

prior COC referral was not so significant as to render the 

contracting officer’s decision arbitrary or capricious.

B 

We also conclude that the SBA had a reasonable basis 

to deny Ms. Sims a COC. The SBA obtained information 

from government agencies having prior dealings with Ms. 

Sims. It reviewed her past performance on other contracts, and it noted the high percentage of offers that she 

had failed to accept. She has not shown that either the 

Case: 16-1661 Document: 18-2 Page: 8 Filed: 07/08/2016
SIMS v. UNITED STATES 9

SBA’s process or its decision on the merits of the COC 

denial was arbitrary and capricious. 

Ms. Sims argues that it was improper for the SBA to 

consider the fact that she did not employ an individual 

who was qualified to serve as a horticulture instructor. 

We disagree. Given Ms. Sims’s history of failing to provide qualified instructors after being offered contracts, it 

was reasonable for the SBA to take into account that she 

neither employed any qualified instructors nor had binding commitments from them. She argues that this failure 

is excused because she was required to offer the contract 

to the incumbent, Mr. Arbaugh, under a provision of the 

Federal Acquisition Regulations prohibiting the displacement of qualified workers. See 48 C.F.R. § 52.222-

17. However, even if the contract required her to give Mr. 

Arbaugh a right of first refusal, it was reasonable for the 

SBA to consider the fact that she lacked contingent commitments from any other qualified candidates in the 

event that Mr. Arbaugh refused her offer. 

Ms. Sims next argues, as she did regarding the contracting officer’s non-responsibility determination, that 

the SBA erred by considering offers that did not ripen into 

contracts, as she was free to decline them. As discussed 

above, while she was free as a matter of contract law to 

decline the offers, the fact that she did so frequently 

speaks to her reliability as a potential contracting party, 

and it was rational for the SBA to take that past conduct 

into account.

Finally, Ms. Sims argues that the SBA should not 

have considered her previous business dealings because 

they were not sufficiently similar to the horticulture 

instruction contract. She also argues that the SBA should 

not have considered the fact that she had limited experience completing contracts other than for religious services. Ms. Sims is incorrect to suggest that the SBA is 

narrowly constrained with regard to what information it 

Case: 16-1661 Document: 18-2 Page: 9 Filed: 07/08/2016
10 SIMS v. UNITED STATES

can consider when it makes a competency determination. 

The pertinent regulations require an applicant to “include 

all information and documentation requested by SBA and 

any additional information which the firm believes will 

demonstrate its ability to perform on the proposed contract”; the SBA is then entitled to “obtain clarification or 

confirmation of information provided by the applicant by 

directly contacting suppliers, financial institutions, and 

other third parties upon whom the applicant’s responsibility depends.” 13 C.F.R. § 125.5(d). In addition, the SBA 

has broad discretion to consider factors bearing on the 

contractor’s responsibility that were not cited by the 

contracting officer. Id. at § 125.5(f). The regulations thus 

give the SBA substantial latitude in seeking information 

that could be relevant to a contractor’s reliability. Ms. 

Sims has made no showing that the agency exceeded its 

authority in this case.

C 

The Court of Federal Claims correctly concluded that 

the contracting officer had a reasonable basis for the 

determination of non-responsibility and that the SBA had 

a reasonable basis to deny her a COC.

We have considered Ms. Sims’s remaining arguments 

but find them unpersuasive.

No costs.

AFFIRMED

Case: 16-1661 Document: 18-2 Page: 10 Filed: 07/08/2016