{
  "schema_version": 2,
  "evidence_tier": "LOADED",
  "ingestion_note": "Page-anchored structured record from the reissued public opinion PDF (Apr. 14, 2026). Narrative summaries are board-safe digests aligned to the pagination below; reconcile verbatim quotations against the source PDF.",
  "opinion_pagination": {
    "page_count": 19,
    "source_pdf_pages": "Opinion pagination follows the reissued public PDF (19 pages)."
  },
  "source_pdf": {
    "filename": "AFIS V United States Defendent Dawson April 14 2026 show_public_doc (1).pdf",
    "relative_path": "data/reference/AFIS V United States Defendent Dawson April 14 2026 show_public_doc (1).pdf"
  },
  "page_map": {
    "case_metadata": [1, 1],
    "solicitation_evaluation_factors": [2, 4],
    "gao_corrective_action": [5, 5],
    "post_award_debrief_tables": [6, 6],
    "procedural_history_claims": [7, 7],
    "likelihood_of_success_standard": [8, 8],
    "dawson_affiliate_factors_1_and_4": [9, 12],
    "afis_cpars_past_performance": [12, 13],
    "factor_2_oral_presentation": [13, 13],
    "factor_3_key_personnel": [14, 14],
    "price_best_value": [14, 15],
    "agency_negotiations_changed_requirements": [15, 16],
    "irreparable_harm_remedy": [16, 18],
    "conclusion": [19, 19]
  },
  "case_metadata": {
    "caption": "ASRC Federal Infrastructure Support, LLC v. United States; Dawson MCG, LLC, Intervenor",
    "court": "United States Court of Federal Claims",
    "cofc_number": "26-451",
    "legacy_district_docket": "1:26-cv-00451",
    "judge": "Richard A. Hertling",
    "filed_under_seal_date": "2026-04-03",
    "reissued_date": "2026-04-14",
    "publication_status": "reissued_public_opinion"
  },
  "parties": {
    "plaintiff": "ASRC Federal Infrastructure Support, LLC (AFIS)",
    "defendants": ["United States"],
    "intervenor": "Dawson MCG, LLC"
  },
  "solicitation_ids": ["70LCHS25RPFB00001", "70LCHS25RPFB00002"],
  "gao_history": [
    {
      "docket": "B-423751.1",
      "forum": "GAO",
      "note": "Dismissed (matter record)"
    },
    {
      "docket": "B-423751.2",
      "forum": "GAO",
      "note": "Dismissed after corrective action (matter record)"
    }
  ],
  "evaluation_factors": {
    "factor_1": "Experience / past performance attribution and meaningful involvement",
    "factor_2": "Oral presentation / technical approach",
    "factor_3": "Key personnel / staffing",
    "factor_4": "Past performance / CPARS-linked confidence"
  },
  "findings_summary": {
    "factor_1_affiliate": "Court found AFIS likely to succeed on Dawson Factor 1 where affiliate experience was not adequately tied to meaningful involvement (pp. 9–12).",
    "factor_4_pp": "Court found AFIS likely to succeed on Dawson Factor 4 where DHS evaluation was arbitrary and capricious on the current record (pp. 9–12 merits discussion; pp. 12–13 past performance).",
    "factor_2_oral": "Factor 2 oral presentation issues preserved for a fuller record (p. 13).",
    "factor_3_key_personnel": "Factor 3 key personnel issues tied to evaluation traceability (p. 14).",
    "cpars_past_performance": "AFIS CPARS and past-performance discussion (pp. 12–13).",
    "affiliate_meaningful_involvement_standard": "Meaningful-involvement standard for credited affiliate or related-entity experience (pp. 8–12).",
    "preliminary_injunction": "Denied: AFIS did not show irreparable harm; remedy may be administrative (pp. 16–19).",
    "remedy_posture": "Remedy may include reevaluation and a new best-value determination (pp. 16–19)."
  },
  "primary_source": {
    "type": "cofc_opinion_reissued",
    "short_cite": "ASRC Federal Infrastructure Support, LLC v. United States; Dawson MCG, LLC, Intervenor, No. 26-451 (Fed. Cl. 2026) (reissued public opinion Apr. 14, 2026)",
    "judge": "Richard A. Hertling",
    "filed_under_seal_date": "2026-04-03",
    "reissued_date": "2026-04-14",
    "cofc_number": "26-451",
    "public_detail_url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-cofc-1_26-cv-00451",
    "public_pdf_url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cofc-1_26-cv-00451/pdf/USCOURTS-cofc-1_26-cv-00451-0.pdf",
    "disposition_summary_board_safe": "Preliminary injunction denied; AFIS showed likely success on portions of the merits tied to Factors 1 and 4; irreparable harm not shown; remedy may include reevaluation and new best-value tradeoff.",
    "grounding_note": "Primary COFC source for Phil when this JSON is present; legacy passage seed is fallback only."
  },
  "passages": [
    {
      "passage_id": "cofc_20260414_case_cover",
      "title": "Caption, court, filing, and judge (case metadata)",
      "tags": ["cofc", "caption", "metadata", "procedural"],
      "source_url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-cofc-1_26-cv-00451",
      "source_page_start": 1,
      "source_page_end": 1,
      "text": "The opinion identifies ASRC Federal Infrastructure Support, LLC as plaintiff, the United States as defendant, and Dawson MCG, LLC as intervenor, before Judge Richard A. Hertling, Court of Federal Claims, No. 26-451, with the public reissue date April 14, 2026, and prior sealed filing April 3, 2026."
    },
    {
      "passage_id": "cofc_20260414_solicitation_evaluation",
      "title": "Solicitation and evaluation-factor framework",
      "tags": ["cofc", "solicitation", "evaluation", "factor_1", "factor_2", "factor_3", "factor_4"],
      "source_url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-cofc-1_26-cv-00451",
      "source_page_start": 2,
      "source_page_end": 4,
      "text": "The court summarizes the DHS/FLETC solicitation structure, the stated best-value tradeoff, and the four evaluation factors (experience/meaningful involvement, oral presentation/technical approach, key personnel, and past performance) that frame the agency’s source selection and the parties’ challenges."
    },
    {
      "passage_id": "cofc_20260414_gao_history",
      "title": "GAO protest and corrective-action history",
      "tags": ["cofc", "gao", "corrective_action", "procedural"],
      "source_url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-cofc-1_26-cv-00451",
      "source_page_start": 5,
      "source_page_end": 5,
      "text": "The opinion recounts prior GAO docket activity, dismissals, and the corrective-action path that returned the competition to the agency and ultimately to this post-award COFC challenge."
    },
    {
      "passage_id": "cofc_20260414_post_award_tables",
      "title": "Post-award debriefing and evaluation tables",
      "tags": ["cofc", "debrief", "evaluation", "record"],
      "source_url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-cofc-1_26-cv-00451",
      "source_page_start": 6,
      "source_page_end": 6,
      "text": "The court references post-award debriefing materials and tabular evaluation summaries that anchor the administrative record for rated factors and confidence levels."
    },
    {
      "passage_id": "cofc_20260414_procedural_history",
      "title": "Procedural history and claims",
      "tags": ["cofc", "procedural", "claims"],
      "source_url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-cofc-1_26-cv-00451",
      "source_page_start": 7,
      "source_page_end": 7,
      "text": "The opinion sets out case posture, claims, intervenor alignment, and the scope of review on the administrative record relevant to the preliminary-injunction motion and the merits preview."
    },
    {
      "passage_id": "cofc_20260414_los_standard",
      "title": "Likelihood of success on preliminary injunction",
      "tags": ["cofc", "likelihood_of_success", "standard", "preliminary_injunction"],
      "source_url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-cofc-1_26-cv-00451",
      "source_page_start": 8,
      "source_page_end": 8,
      "text": "The court applies the familiar preliminary-injunction framework: likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, balance of hardships, and public interest, with emphasis on arbitrary-and-capricious review of the agency record at this stage."
    },
    {
      "passage_id": "cofc_20260414_factor1_affiliate",
      "title": "Dawson affiliate experience; Factor 1 and related Factor 4 merits discussion",
      "tags": ["cofc", "holding", "factor_1", "affiliate", "meaningful_involvement", "dawson"],
      "source_url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-cofc-1_26-cv-00451",
      "source_page_start": 9,
      "source_page_end": 12,
      "text": "The court explains why, on this record, AFIS is likely to succeed on its Factor 1 challenge where Dawson’s proposal credited affiliate experience without adequate traceability to the offeror’s own meaningful involvement in the evaluated work. The discussion ties agency findings to the contemporaneous proposal and evaluation artifacts through page 12."
    },
    {
      "passage_id": "cofc_20260414_afis_cpars",
      "title": "AFIS CPARS and past-performance discussion",
      "tags": ["cofc", "afis", "cpars", "past_performance"],
      "source_url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-cofc-1_26-cv-00451",
      "source_page_start": 12,
      "source_page_end": 13,
      "text": "The opinion addresses AFIS’s CPARS-linked past performance and how the agency’s confidence narrative and record citations bear on the competitive picture alongside Dawson’s evaluated history."
    },
    {
      "passage_id": "cofc_20260414_factor4_past_performance",
      "title": "Factor 4 — Dawson past performance / CPARS confidence",
      "tags": ["cofc", "holding", "factor_4", "past_performance", "cpars", "dawson"],
      "source_url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-cofc-1_26-cv-00451",
      "source_page_start": 12,
      "source_page_end": 13,
      "text": "The court concludes AFIS is likely to succeed on its Factor 4 challenge where the agency’s confidence determination for Dawson did not adequately reconcile predecessor performance issues with cure documentation and stated evaluation expectations—reasoning characterized on this record as arbitrary and capricious."
    },
    {
      "passage_id": "cofc_20260414_factor2_oral_presentation",
      "title": "Factor 2 — oral presentation / technical approach",
      "tags": ["cofc", "holding", "factor_2", "oral_presentation"],
      "source_url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-cofc-1_26-cv-00451",
      "source_page_start": 13,
      "source_page_end": 13,
      "text": "The court flags oral presentation and technical-approach scoring issues under Factor 2 for development on a fuller record, including whether stated evaluation scheme and contemporaneous evaluative notes align without arbitrary shifts."
    },
    {
      "passage_id": "cofc_20260414_factor3_key_personnel",
      "title": "Factor 3 — key personnel",
      "tags": ["cofc", "holding", "factor_3", "key_personnel"],
      "source_url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-cofc-1_26-cv-00451",
      "source_page_start": 14,
      "source_page_end": 14,
      "text": "The opinion notes Factor 3 key-personnel sufficiency and mapping questions—whether named personnel and staffing narratives trace to scored obligations under the solicitation."
    },
    {
      "passage_id": "cofc_20260414_price_best_value",
      "title": "Price and best-value tradeoff",
      "tags": ["cofc", "price", "best_value", "tradeoff"],
      "source_url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-cofc-1_26-cv-00451",
      "source_page_start": 14,
      "source_page_end": 15,
      "text": "The court discusses price, cost realism where relevant, and the agency’s best-value tradeoff between non-price and price factors as reflected in the selection record."
    },
    {
      "passage_id": "cofc_20260414_agency_negotiations",
      "title": "Agency negotiations and changed requirements",
      "tags": ["cofc", "negotiations", "requirements", "record"],
      "source_url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-cofc-1_26-cv-00451",
      "source_page_start": 15,
      "source_page_end": 16,
      "text": "The opinion summarizes post-competitive dialogue, clarifications, and any requirement changes material to whether offerors were evaluated on a common basis."
    },
    {
      "passage_id": "cofc_20260414_irreparable_harm_remedy",
      "title": "Irreparable harm and remedy (administrative cure)",
      "tags": ["cofc", "holding", "irreparable_harm", "remedy"],
      "source_url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-cofc-1_26-cv-00451",
      "source_page_start": 16,
      "source_page_end": 18,
      "text": "The court explains why economic and competitive harms alleged here are largely remediable through reevaluation and a new best-value decision, undercutting a showing of irreparable harm for preliminary injunctive relief."
    },
    {
      "passage_id": "cofc_20260414_pi_denied_remedy",
      "title": "Preliminary injunction denied; remedy and conclusion",
      "tags": ["cofc", "holding", "preliminary_injunction", "irreparable_harm", "remedy", "conclusion"],
      "source_url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-cofc-1_26-cv-00451",
      "source_page_start": 17,
      "source_page_end": 19,
      "text": "The motion for preliminary injunction is denied because AFIS has not shown irreparable harm on this record; the alleged evaluation errors may be redressed by reevaluation and a new best-value determination with revised ratings. The opinion concludes that if AFIS prevails on judgment on the administrative record, the agency may be directed to reevaluate existing proposals—relief that can obviate the need for preliminary injunctive relief at this stage."
    }
  ]
}