NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (USA), INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES, ISS ACTION, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________

2020-1390

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:19-cv-01329-TCW, Judge Thomas C. Wheeler.

______________________

Decided: October 5, 2020

______________________

GERALD HOWARD WERFEL, Baker, Cronogue, Tolle & 

Werfel, LLP, McLean, VA, for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by HENRY TODD WHAY.

 LAUREN MOORE, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee United States. Also represented by JEFFREY B. CLARK, TARA K. HOGAN, ROBERT 

EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR.

 ROBERT JOSEPH SNECKENBERG, Crowell & Moring, 

Case: 20-1390 Document: 42 Page: 1 Filed: 10/05/2020
2 G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (USA) v. UNITED STATES

LLP, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee ISS Action, 

Inc. Also represented by DANIEL RUBEN FORMAN.

 ______________________

Before DYK, MOORE, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.

MOORE, Circuit Judge.

G4S Secure Solutions (USA), Inc., appeals a final decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims granting 

the government judgment on the administrative record for 

its award to ISS Action, Inc. and denying G4S’s cross-motion for judgment on the administrative record and its request for a permanent injunction. G4S Secure Sols. (USA), 

Inc. v. United States, 146 Fed. Cl. 265, 267 (2019). Because 

the government’s contract award was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance 

with law, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) issued a Solicitation for security and transportation services on the southwest border of 

the United States. J.A. 7. The Solicitation included three 

evaluation factors: (1) Experience and Risk Awareness/Mitigation, (2) Oral Presentation, and (3) Pricing 

Spreadsheet and Sample Task Order Submission. Id. To 

demonstrate experience under the first evaluation factor, 

offerors were required to submit a corporate experience 

questionnaire (CEQ), identifying “up to three (3) reference 

projects . . . demonstrating relevant experience performing 

projects similar in size, scope, and complexity” to the project in the Solicitation. J.A. 10003; 10012. An offeror was 

permitted to include in its CEQ two of its own past contracts and one of a teaming partner (i.e., a subcontractor), 

if the submission was under a Contractor Teaming Arrangement (CTA). J.A. 10003; 10012. In that case, the 

“Government [would] assess the collective experience in 

each vendor’s submittal.” J.A. 10012.

Case: 20-1390 Document: 42 Page: 2 Filed: 10/05/2020
G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (USA) v. UNITED STATES 3

G4S Secure Solutions (USA), Inc. and ISS Action, Inc.,

were the only two offerors to respond to the Solicitation. As 

part of its submission, G4S’s CEQ identified three of its 

own prior contracts. ISS’s CEQ identified two of its own 

prior contracts and one of its CTA partner’s prior contracts. 

Following the first phase of CBP’s evaluation, both G4S 

and ISS received a rating of “High Confidence” and were 

invited to participate in the second phase of the evaluation. 

J.A. 8. In phase two, G4S received a rating of “Some Confidence” for its technical and management approach (factor 

two), while ISS received a “High Confidence” rating. J.A. 

15. And although CBP viewed both pricing proposals as 

“low performance risks,” ISS’s proposal was $100 million 

less than G4S’s (factor three). J.A. 7–8. CBP selected ISS 

after determining that the “overall technical approach and 

expected performance level is higher for ISS Action and 

that level of performance costs much less than [G4S]; 

therefore, ISS Action offers the best value.” J.A. 10288.

G4S filed a bid protest in the Court of Federal Claims 

challenging CBP’s contract award to ISS as arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and as otherwise not in accordance with the law. ISS intervened. G4S and the 

government filed cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record. G4S also moved to enjoin ISS from commencing work under the contract. The Court of Federal 

Claims granted the government’s motion for judgment on 

the administrative record and denied G4S’s cross-motion 

and its request for a permanent injunction. G4S appeals. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).

DISCUSSION

We review de novo Court of Federal Claims decisions 

granting judgment on the administrative record in bid protest cases. Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346, 

1351 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Under this standard, we consider 

whether the agency’s action was “arbitrary, capricious, an 

abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with

Case: 20-1390 Document: 42 Page: 3 Filed: 10/05/2020
4 G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (USA) v. UNITED STATES

law.” See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(4). We 

may set aside a procurement decision “if it lacked a rational 

basis or if the agency’s decision-making process involved a 

clear and prejudicial violation of statute, regulation, or procedure.” Croman Corp. v. United States, 724 F.3d 1357, 

1363 (Fed. Cir. 2013). An agency is “entitled to a high degree of deference when faced with challenges to procurement decisions.” Orion Tech., Inc. v. United States, 704 

F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

G4S’s only merits challenge is to the trial court’s determination that “the record . . . supports CBP’s decision that 

ISS’s ‘collective experience’ was sufficient to warrant a 

High Confidence rating” in phase one of its evaluation.1

J.A. 13. G4S argues that CBP improperly permitted ISS to 

proceed to phase two on the basis of two contracts in ISS’s

CEQ that were not similar in size, scope, and complexity to 

the work in the request for quotes. We do not agree. One

of ISS’s contracts involved armed transportation services, 

and both contracts involved armed guard and security services, like those described in the Solicitation. J.A. 10100–

02. Moreover, G4S concedes that “ISS’s CTA partner had 

qualifying experience[.]” G4S Reply Br. at 8. And as the 

CEQ explained, CBP assessed “the collective experience in 

each vendor’s submittal.” J.A. 10012. Following a phone 

interview to evaluate ISS’s factor one submission, CBP 

noted several aspects that justified inviting ISS to participate in phase two, including (1) that ISS’s “contracts reflect 

the ability to hire and train personnel and demonstrate 

similar contract performance duties”; (2) ISS’s familiarity 

with and experience in related work and the direct experience of its CTA partner’s manager; (3) ISS’s ability to maintain and train its staff; and (4) ISS’s policy of maintaining 

1 G4S also challenges the trial court’s denial of its 

request for a permanent injunction. This challenge is contingent on G4S succeeding in its merits challenge.

Case: 20-1390 Document: 42 Page: 4 Filed: 10/05/2020
G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (USA) v. UNITED STATES 5

100% staffing and 100% of its vehicles as mission capable 

at all times. J.A. 10132. On this record, we hold that the 

Court of Federal Claims did not err in holding that CBP’s

determination that ISS’s experience and risk awareness/mitigation supported a “High Confidence” rating was 

not arbitrary, capricious, or in violation of law. Because 

the Court of Federal Claims did not err in granting the government judgment on the administrative record, denying 

G4S’s request for a permanent injunction was proper. 

CONCLUSION

We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments 

and do not find them persuasive. Because the Court of Federal Clams did not err in granting the government judgment on the administrative record and in denying G4S’s 

request for a permanent injunction, we affirm the judgment.

AFFIRMED

Case: 20-1390 Document: 42 Page: 5 Filed: 10/05/2020