Category Archives: U.S. Court of Federal Claims

COFC: False Information in SDVOSB Application Proper Grounds for VA Removal

Posted on by

While most of the rules for SDVOSB eligibility now reside with the SBA, the VA is still responsible for verification of entities for inclusion into its database of verified SDVOSBs and VOSBs. A recent Court of Federal Claims case describes what sort of conduct might get a business removed from the VA’s database–even if that conduct doesn’t run afoul of the SBA’s SDVOSB rule.

While the conduct in this case is somewhat egregious, it is a good reminder that VA has the power to thoroughly investigate the eligibility of an SDVOSB and can revoke the verified status based on inaccurate statements in an application.

Continue reading →

COFC: Agency Cannot Ignore Changed Solicitation Requirements after 4-Year Bid Protest Saga

Posted on by

A recent court case details the aftermath of a bid protest battle lasting over four years. During that period, the agency’s requirements had changed, and the court held that the agency was required to amend its solicitation as a result.

Continue reading →

Supreme Court Could Limit Agency Power

Posted on by

Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear a case that could have far reaching implications in agency law—including for government contractors. The Court granted certiorari to a case that could greatly diminish the amount of deference given to agencies interpreting their own regulations. 

For contractors, a Supreme Court decision to curtail agency deference could lead to increased success rates in bid protests and other disputes.  

Continue reading →

I Fought the Law, and the Law Won? Standing Issues Prevent Claim of Agency’s Rulebreaking

Posted on by

As we discussed in July 2017, Timberline Helicopters, Inc. has been involved in ongoing litigation regarding the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management’s (a.k.a. “BLM”) procurement of helicopter flight services to aid in fire-fighting and fire-suppression missions, services essential now more than ever.

Most recently, in Timberline Helicopters, Inc. v. United States, No. 18-1474C (Fed. Cl. Nov. 14, 2018), the Court of Federal Claims held that Timberline no longer had standing to bring its claims.

Continue reading →

Court of Federal Claims Rejects Unsupported Decision to Cancel Solicitation

Posted on by

An agency ordinarily enjoys very broad discretion in its procurement-related decisions. This includes whether an agency will award a contract or, instead, cancel a procurement.

Broad as this discretion is, however, an agency does not have carte blanche to cancel a procurement on a whim. As a recent Court of Federal Claims decision shows, an agency must support its decision with sufficient information, lest the cancellation decision itself be successfully protested.

Continue reading →

Voluntary Protest Withdrawal Following Outcome Prediction ADR Precludes Later Refiling, Says GAO

Posted on by

GAO’s outcome prediction alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) can be a tempting option for all parties to a protest, as it provides a preview of sorts for GAO’s written decision. A recent GAO decision, however, underscores that despite its relative informality, outcome prediction ADR can have significant repercussions on future protest developments.

Continue reading →

Populated or Unpopulated? Ambiguous JV Agreement Sinks 8(a) Award

Posted on by

An 8(a) joint venture agreement was ambiguous about whether the joint venturers intended to create a populated joint venture (which is no longer allowed) or an unpopulated joint venture–and the ambiguity cost the joint venture an 8(a) set-aside contract.

In a recent decision, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims upheld the SBA’s decision to reject a joint venture agreement that was ambiguous about whether the joint venture was populated or unpopulated.

Continue reading →