jurisdiction

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 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

Under the False Claims Act’s (“FCA”) first-to-file bar, “no person other than the Government may intervene or bring a related action based on the facts underlying the pending action.”  But can a relator amend her complaint to add, remove, or substitute relators without violating the first-to-file bar?  Recently, the Third…
Continue Reading Third Circuit Addresses the Scope of the FCA’s First-to-File Bar

Earlier this Fall, the Armed Service Board of Contract Appeals dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the certified claim lacked a proper signature. Appeal of NileCo General Contracting LLC, ASBCA No. 60912 (Sept. 22, 2017). This simple oversight proved decisive. Although this case does not chart a new course in Contract Disputes Act (CDA) jurisprudence, it serves as a helpful reminder that the Board’s jurisdiction hinges on compliance with basic requirements. Failing to meet any of those requirements could have significant consequences.
Continue Reading Government Contracts 101 Reminder: Certified Claims Must Include a “Signature”

When must a party’s “defense” be asserted as a Contract Disputes Act (CDA) claim in order to raise that defense during a Court of Federal Claims or Board of Contract Appeals proceeding?

In Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. United States, the Court of Federal Claims moves us one step closer to solving this peculiar government contracts riddle called Maropakis.  In this decision, the court held that the government’s affirmative defense of offset was not a claim under the CDA, and therefore, did not need to be asserted through a contracting officer final decision before it could be raised before the court.  This decision is important because it further limits the applicability of the Maropakis doctrine and reinforces that Maropakis only applies to “defenses” that seek payment of money or the adjustment/interpretation of contract terms.Continue Reading The Latest Clue to Solving the Maropakis Riddle: The Affirmative Defense of Offset

This week, the General Accountability Office (“GAO”) published a decision reaffirming its jurisdiction over protests of “mixed transaction” leases.  Generally, GAO’s protest jurisdiction is limited to the procurement of goods and services, which does not include leases of federally-owned property.  However, in certain circumstances, a transaction involving a lease includes a procurement of goods and services.  GAO characterizes these as “mixed transactions” and has exercised jurisdiction over protests involving such transactions.

Specifically, GAO has outlined two categories of mixed transactions.  The first involves transactions where the government agency receives a direct but intangible benefit that aids the agency in the discharge of its mission.  The second are transactions where the agency receives a concrete and tangible benefit that involves the delivery of goods and/or services of more than de minimus value.

Last year, GAO addressed both categories in a protest by Blue Origin against NASA for use of a launch pad at the Kennedy Space Center.
Continue Reading GAO Reaffirms Protest Jurisdiction Over “Mixed Transaction” Leases, But Questions Remain

The Court of Federal Claims recently considered the extent to which its Tucker Act bid protest jurisdiction extends to Government “make-or-buy” decisions.  In VFA, Inc. v. United States, No. 14-173 (Fed. Cl. Oct. 21, 2014), VFA protested a Department of Defense (“DOD”) announcement that it would “standardize” the various facility-assessment software tools used by its component departments with a single DOD-owned “Sustainment Management System” (“SMS”).  VFA, a provider of facility-assessment software and processes, argued that DOD’s action violated the Competition in Contracting Act, and that DOD should obtain the software via the competitive procurement process.  The Court reduced the underlying issue to a simple analogy: “if the Government owned an apple orchard, must it go to the market and compare prices of other apples before picking in its orchard?”  The Court concluded no, it must not, and dismissed VFA’s protest.
Continue Reading COFC: Not Everything Is “In Connection With A Procurement”