NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

06-5066 

BANNUM, INC., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

 Defendant-Appellee, 

 and 

DISMAS CHARITIES, INC., 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

 Joseph A. Camardo, Jr., Law Firm of Joseph A. Camardo, Jr., of Auburn, New 

York, for plaintiff-appellant. Of counsel on the brief was Kevin M. Cox. 

 Jeffrey S. Pease, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, 

United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee United 

States. With him on the brief were Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, David M. 

Cohen, Director, and Harold D. Lester, Jr., Assistant Director. 

 Alex D. Tomaszczuk, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, of McLean, Virginia, 

for defendant-appellee Dismas Charities, Inc. Of counsel on the brief was Daniel S. 

Herzfeld. 

 

Appealed from: United States Court of Federal Claims 

Judge Christine O.C. Miller 
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

 

06-5066 

BANNUM, INC., 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

 Defendant-Appellee, 

 and 

DISMAS CHARITIES, INC., 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

______________________________ 

DECIDED: January 19, 2007 

______________________________ 

Before NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and RADER, 

Circuit Judge. 

PER CURIAM. 

 An unsuccessful bidder on a government contract, the appellant Bannum, 

Inc. (“Bannum”), challenges the Bureau of Prison (the “Bureau”)’s award of three 

contracts for the construction and operation of Community Corrections Centers, 

which are designed to help prisoners who have served their sentences in 

readjusting to civilian life. The Court of Federal Claims denied the challenge, 
ruling that Bannum had failed to show that the Bureau’s violation of a 

procurement regulation prejudiced it. Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 69 Fed. Cl.

311 (2006). We affirm. 

This case returns to this court following a remand to the Court of Federal 

Claims, see Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 126 Fed. Appx. 958 (Fed. Cir. 2005), 

for that court to conduct further proceedings consistent with our decision in 

Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In the latter

opinion, which involved Bannum’s non-selection for another contract covering a 

different Community Corrections Center, we held that the Bureau’s review of 

Bannum’s responses to criticisms of its performance in operating a number of 

other Community Corrections Centers, violated the governing regulation (FAR § 

42.1503(b)), because it was made by persons not authorized to perform that 

function. Id. at 1351-52. 

On remand, the Court of Federal Claims ruled that the Bureau’s failure to

comply with FAR § 42.1503(b) had not prejudiced Bannum because Bannum had 

not shown that if the authorized officials had reviewed its submissions, the result

actually or probably would have been the award of the contracts to Bannum.

Bannum, 69 Fed. Cl. at 317-18. As in the prior case, Bannum’s challenge to the 

procurement “rests on mere numerical possibility, not evidence.” Bannum, 404 

F.3d at 1358. The Court of Federal Claims did not err in ruling that Bannum 

failed to establish it was prejudiced. 

06-5066 2
CONCLUSION 

The judgment of the Court of Federal Claims dismissing Bannum’s

complaint is 

AFFIRMED. 

06-5066 3