NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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. Cama rdo, Jr., of Auburn, New York, for plaintiff-appellant. Of co unsel on the brief was Kevin M. Cox

. Jeffrey S. Pease , Trial Attorney, Commercial Liti gation 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 Charit ies, Inc. Of counsel on the brief was Daniel S. Herzfeld

. Appealed from: United States Court of Federal Claims Judge Christine O.C. MillerNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

06-5066 BANNUM, INC.,
Pl aintiff-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 governm ent 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 regulati on prejudiced it. Bannum, Inc. v. United States , 69 Fed. Cl. 311 (2006). We affirm.
This case r e turns to this court following a r e mand to the Court of Federal Cla ims, see Bannum, Inc. v. United States , 126 Fed. Appx. 9 58 ( F ed. Cir. 2005),
for that court to conduc t further proceedings consis tent with our decision in Bannum, Inc. v. Unit ed States , 404 F.3d 1346 (Fe d . Cir. 2005). In the latter opinion, which involv ed Bannum’s non-sele ction for another contract covering a different Community Corrections Center, we held tha t the Bureau’s review of Bannum’s responses to criticisms of it s performance in operating a number of other Com m unity Cor r ections Centers, vi olated the governing regulation (F AR § 42.1503(b)), because it was made by pers ons not authorized to perform that function. Id. at 1351-52. On remand, the Court of Federal Claim s ruled that the Bureau’s failure t o comply with FAR § 42.1503(b) had not prejudiced Bannum because Bannum had not shown that if the aut horized officials had reviewed it s submissions, the result actually or probably would hav e been the aw ard 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 numerica l possibility, not evidenc e .” Ban n um , 404 F.3d at 1358. The Court of Federal Clai ms did not err in ruling that Bannum failed to establis h it was prejudiced.

06-5066 2CONCLUS ION The judgment of the Court of F ederal Claims dismissing Bannum’s complaint is
AFFIRMED

.

06-5066 3