Court of Federal Claims

This blog previously covered the Federal Circuit’s decision in Percipient.ai, Inc. v. United States, which addressed bid protest jurisdiction and standing at the Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”), and seemed to potentially open the door to a new category of protests.  Now, in an en banc ruling, the Federal Circuit vacated that decision and reached a different conclusion on bid protest standing.  The Federal Circuit left the jurisdictional questions unresolved, but even if future decisions construe COFC’s jurisdiction broadly, the Federal Circuit’s decision on standing will likely limit the universe of new protests that might otherwise result from such a broad construction of jurisdiction.    Continue Reading En Banc Decision in Percipient.ai, Inc. v. United States:  Federal Circuit Holds That Only Actual or Prospective Bidders or Offerors Have Bid Protest Standing Under Tucker Act

As we have covered on this blog, the rules governing the timing for bid protests at the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) and Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) can be both complex and unforgiving.  But a recent COFC decision, Starside Security & Investigation, Inc. v. United States, found the Competition in Contract Act’s (“CICA”) deadline to obtain an automatic stay during a GAO protest to be subject to equitable tolling (i.e., effectively extended) — at least in the circumstances of that case.Continue Reading COFC Decision Allows for Equitable Tolling of CICA Deadline to Obtain an Automatic Stay During a GAO Protest

As previously discussed on this blog, the Federal Circuit issued a major decision in June 2024 addressing bid protest jurisdiction and standing at the Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”): Percipient.ai, Inc. v. United States.

On September 5, 2024, the United States filed a petition for rehearing of that case — requesting that the Federal Circuit reconsider its decision, either through a rehearing by the same panel or by the full court in an en banc proceeding.  Subsequently, on September 26, 2024, the protester (Percipient) filed an opposition to the petition.  It will be worth watching whether the Federal Circuit grants the government’s petition and, if so, whether any rehearing will result in a change to Percipient.ai’s holdings.Continue Reading Percipient.ai, Inc. v. U.S.:  Government Requests Reconsideration of Federal Circuit’s Decision on Bid Protest Jurisdiction and Standing

On June 7, 2024, the Federal Circuit issued a major decision addressing bid protest jurisdiction and standing at the Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”).  In Percipient.ai, Inc. v. United States, the court found that COFC has jurisdiction to hear a protest challenging a matter of contract administration — even where the matter arose in connection with a task order — and articulated a new test for standing applicable to the facts presented in that case. Continue Reading Percipient.ai, Inc. v. U.S.:  Matters of Contract Administration Can Be Fair Game For COFC Protests, Even When They Involve a Task Order

On May 10, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision regarding bid protest standing in CACI, Inc.-Federal v. United States et al.  In that decision, the court declared previous decisions to no longer be good law and held that the Court of Federal Claims erred in finding the protester to lack standing.Continue Reading Federal Circuit Weighs in on Bid Protest Standing and Departs from Prior Cases

Earlier this week, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in The Boeing Company v. United States that clears the way for resolution of Boeing’s substantive challenge to a controversial FAR provision that can give the government windfall recoveries in Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) matters.  The Federal Circuit decision is notable for three reasons.  First, in rejecting the government’s argument that Boeing had waived its right to attack the relevant FAR provision, the court clarified the circumstances in which a contractor will be found to have waived its rights to object to FAR provisions.  Second, in concluding that the Court of Federal Claims had jurisdiction to consider the dispute, the court provided a useful primer on the three different kinds of jurisdiction available under the Tucker Act.

Finally, the Federal Circuit’s remand means the Court of Federal Claims will now address Boeing’s substantive challenge to FAR 30.606, which directs contracting officers to ignore offsets that save the government money when calculating the impact of changes to a contractor’s cost accounting practices.  Boeing’s argument that this provision amounts to a breach of contract and an illegal exaction will now be resolved on the merits.Continue Reading Federal Circuit Rejects Government’s Waiver and Jurisdiction Defenses, Paving the Way for a CAS Showdown at the Court of Federal Claims

It’s a big deal in the government contracts community whenever the Federal Circuit weighs in on a bid protest.  And it is a particularly big deal when the Federal Circuit issues a split opinion in a bid protest.  That’s what happened last week in Inserso Corporation v. United States (No. 2019-1933), where the Federal Circuit issued a split opinion denying a protest as waived under Blue & Gold.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Splits on Blue & Gold Question in Inserso

A long-standing dispute over the approach to country of origin determinations under the Trade Agreements Act (“TAA”) may soon be resolved, as the Federal Circuit recently heard oral argument in one of two cases presently examining key aspects of this statute.  Among other questions presented, the court may decide the standard for determining whether a product may be considered a U.S.-made end product — a question that could have far reaching implications for product manufacturers across all industries.
Continue Reading How Much Is Enough? Federal Circuit Appeal May Decide Level of U.S. Manufacturing Required Under the TAA

For the first time in several years, the version of the FY 2019 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that just passed the Senate does not contain any major reforms to limit bid protests.  But the bill the Senate sent to the conference committee process does contain two provisions aimed at bid protests.  Although they are minor, they portend and may lay the groundwork for future attempts to change the protest process.  Both provisions call for further study of issues addressed in the RAND Corporation’s January 2018 bid protest report.
Continue Reading Senate Largely Leaves Bid Protests Alone in Passed Version of FY 2019 NDAA After Threatening Major Revisions

Last year, we highlighted the Court of Federal Claims’ (“COFC”) decision in Starry Associates, Inc. v. United States, 127 Fed. Cl. 539 (2016), which sharply criticized a Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) decision to cancel a solicitation, a rare rebuke in an area where agencies enjoy considerable deference from the courts. The Court’s decision noted the unique circumstances of that case—a series of agency actions resulting in the cancelation of the solicitation at issue that the Court characterized as “capricious” and “reflect[ing] a lack of fidelity to the procurement process.” That cancelation resulted in multiple GAO protests, a hearing at GAO, multiple depositions of agency officials during a follow-on protest at the Court, and a decision enjoining HHS from cancelling the solicitation (raising the interesting question of whether HHS must now award the contract to Starry Associates). In a subsequent decision issued in the case last week, Starry Associates, Inc. v. United States, No. 16-44C (Fed. Cl. Mar. 31, 2017), the case’s exceptional nature was further demonstrated by the COFC’s decision to award “enhanced” attorney fees to plaintiff’s counsel.
Continue Reading COFC Awards Enhanced Attorney Fees In Protest Following “Egregious” Agency Conduct