Stephen P. Ramaley

The following are a few of Steve’s successful cases:

• Consolidated Safety Services, Inc. v. United States, 167 Fed. Cl. 543 (2023) – The U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC) overruled the decision of the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) upholding the contracting officer’s assignment of a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code to a solicitation. In a noteworthy opinion establishing new case law in the area of NAICS code selection, COFC rejected the agency’s selected code and remanded the matter for the agency to choose a NAICS code that “best” describes the work being procured.
• Allicent Technology, LLC v. United States, 166 Fed. Cl. 77 (2023) –The COFC sustained the protest of the U.S Department of Commerce’s decision not to award a contract on the agency’s $1.5 billion flagship vehicle for transformative technology services (known as CATTS). 
• Matter of VectorCSP, LLC, B-42764 (2023) – The Government Accountability Office (GAO) denied the protest where the agency's evaluations of the protester's and awardee’s proposals were reasonable and consistent with the solicitation criteria.
• Swift & Staley, Inc. v. United States, 159 Fed. Cl. 494, 2022 WL 1231428 (2022) – COFC upheld the decision of the SBA that the awardee of a $160 million contract for infrastructure support services at the Department of Energy's Paducah, Kentucky site was other than small for the contract and therefore ineligible for the award.
• Size Appeal of Swift & Staley, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-6125 (2021) – The SBA's Office of Hearings and Appeals upheld an Area Office determination that the awardee was other than small for the procurement and therefore ineligible for award.
• Matter of Exceed, LLC, B- 419010 (2020)  – GAO denied the protest where the agency's evaluation of the protester's quotation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation criteria.
• Size Appeal of North Wind Site Services, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5988 (2019) – The SBA's Office of Hearings and Appeals upheld an Area Office determination that the awardee was small for the procurement and therefore eligible for award.
• Matter of Sev1Tech, Inc., B-416811.1, .2 (2018) – GAO sustained the protest of an approximately $30 million task order award where the awardee had included a material misrepresentation in its proposal.
• Matter of Cyber Protection Technologies, LLC, B-416297.2 (2018) – GAO denied the protest of an almost $100 million contract award where the protester was not prejudiced by the agency waiving a SAM.gov registration. requirement, and where the agency had otherwise acted reasonably and in accordance with the terms of the solicitation.
• Matter of Erickson Helicopters, Inc., B-415176.3 (2017) – GAO dismissed the protest of the agency’s proposed corrective action where the protester merely anticipated improper action, and because GAO lacks jurisdiction to hear protests of DoD orders valued at less than $25 million.
• Size Appeal of Universal Strategy Group, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5840 (2017) – SBA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals denied the appeal where the underlying protest was properly dismissed.
• Size Appeal of Proactive Technologies, Inc., SBA No SIZE-5772 (2016) – SBA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals granted the appeal where the Area Office had not adequately examined the issue of whether the awardee was the “manufacturer” of the end items under 13 CFR § 121.406 (b) et seq. 
• Size Appeal of Quadrant Training Solutions LLC, SBA No SIZ-5768 (2016) – SBA’s Office of Hearings and Appeals granted the appeal where the award was made to a joint venture whose members did not have a current approved SBA Mentor-Protégé relationship.
• Matter of ManTech Advanced Systems International, Inc., B-409596.1, .2 (2014) – GAO denied the protest where the agency had reasonably declined to consider proposal content that exceeded the solicitation’s page limit.
• Matter of MT & Associates, LLC, B-410066 (2014) – GAO denied the protest where the agency had reasonably determined that the protester’s proposal was technically acceptable, and that this determination did not pertain to a matter of responsibility that should have been referred to SBA for a Certificate of Competency.
• Matter of Kardex Remstar, LLC, B-309030 (2014) – GAO sustained the protest where the agency had engaged in discussions that were misleading and not meaningful.
• Matter of EMW, Inc., B-409686.4 et seq. (2014) – GAO denied the protest of award of a large, multiple award IDIQ contract where the agency had reasonably eliminated the protester as technically unacceptable.
• Matter of Triad International Maintenance Corporation, B-408374 (2013) – GAO sustained protest of an approximately $180 million contract award where the agency had improperly considered the protester’s past performance, and had engaged in a price realism analysis where the solicitation did not provide for considering price realism.