About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


24 Fed. Cir. B.J. 263 (2014-2015)
Review of Record Review: Application of the Administrative Procedure Act Standard in Bid Protests before the United States Court of Federal Claims

handle is hein.journals/fedcb24 and id is 279 raw text is: Review of Record Review: Application of the Administrative Procedure Act Standard in Bid Protests Before the United States Court of Federal Claims By William J. Grimaldi, Domenique Kirchner, William P. Rayel; Edited by Kirk T. Manhardt Introduction Although it is beyond cavil that, under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) standard of review, a court must review the agency's decision based upon the agency's record,' parties often disagree as to the contents of that record. In bid protests before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (Court of Federal Claims), parties often dispute both the contents of the administrative record and their respective ability to supplement that record with extra-record evidence.2 'The Court of Federal Claims, prior to 2009, often utilized case law that relied upon the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) decisions such as Esch v. Yuetter' when resolving such disputes.4 Then, in 2009, in Axiom Resource Management, Inc. v. United States,5 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) tackled the subject of supplementation of the administrative record in bid protests, in- structing the Court of Federal Claims that reliance upon Esch is problematic.6 Rather, the Federal Circuit held that the Court of Federal Claims should limit supplementation to cases in which the omission of extra-record evidence pre- * Domenique Kirchner is a Senior Trial Counsel in the United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch, National Courts Section. William J. Grimaldi and William P. Rayel are Trial Attorneys in the National Courts Section. Kirk T. Manhardt is an Assistant Director in the National Courts Section. This article represents the authors' personal views and does not represent the official views of the Department ofJustice. 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2012). See PlanetSpace, Inc. v. United States, 90 Fed. Cl. 1, 4 (2009). 876 F.2d 976 (D.C. Cit. 1989). See id. at 991. 564 E3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2009). 6 Id. at 1380.