Category Archives: U.S. Court of Federal Claims

Offeror Provides Only First Pages of Teaming Agreements, Gets “Marginal” Score

Posted on by

An offeror provided a procuring agency with only the first pages of its teaming agreements with proposed subcontractors–and received a “Marginal” score on the small business participation factor as a result.

In a recent decision, the Court of Federal Claims held that the agency reasonably downgraded the offeror for failing to provide its entire teaming agreements, saying that the agency correctly determined that it was unable to determine what work would be performed by the subcontractors.

Continue reading →

COFC Dismisses Claim for Failure to State Dollar Amount, Despite Claimant’s Attempt to Camouflage Claim

Posted on by

A government contractor must include certain details in a certified claim, including a sum certain, signature, and a request for a final decision. With regards to the “sum certain,” a contractor cannot avoid this requirement by attempting to portray its claim as one not for monetary relief, when the contractor is really just asking for money.

Continue reading →

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 →