Tag Archives: Court of Federal Claims

Thank You, COFC Judicial Conference

Posted on by

I recently returned from the 35th Annual Judicial Conference for the Court of Federal Claims. I wanted to send a hearty thanks to all of the organizers of the conference, especially Judge Tapp! It was a great opportunity presenting on the topic of Private Conflicts: How the New Private Sector OCI Rules Could Impact Federal Procurement. I also thoroughly enjoyed the other presentations at the conference.

For those looking for more information on this topic, here are some resources for you:

Federal Circuit Decision: Slightly Opens Protest Door to Non-Offerors

Posted on by

Lately, we’ve seen a boom in protests being brought to the United States Court of Federal Claims (COFC) in lieu of protests brought at the Government Accountability Office (GAO). And it appears that the recent decision in Percipient.AI, Inc. v. United States, 2023-1970 (June 7, 2024) may have just set the course for even more. But the case here didn’t start with an offeror under a solicitation. Instead, it was brought by a commercial software company, Percipient.AI, Inc. (Percipient), who challenged the government’s acquisition of custom software at the Court of Federal Claims and then landed right in the lap of United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit).

Continue reading →

A Better Leg to Stand On: Federal Circuit Court Eases Way for Protesters to Show Prejudice at COFC

Posted on by

If you’re a contractor thinking about protesting an award decision to the Court of Federal Claims (COFC), you have to show that the agency’s mistake prejudiced you in some way (the same goes for GAO, as we have explored before). That is, you have to show that there was a substantial chance you would have received contract award if not for the agency’s mistake. In a recent decision by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, it appears that the COFC will have to give protesters a good bit of benefit of the doubt on this question going forward. We explore that here.

Continue reading →

Extraordinary Actions v. Day-to-Day Decisions for Joint Ventures: A Cautionary Tale

Posted on by

Back in 2020, we discussed an SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) decision stating that the managing venturer must control every aspect of the joint venture. This position, which we questioned in that article, has changed since that time, and we explored the changes to the regulatory language in question not long thereafter. But this regulatory language was still vague. Since that time, there has been much case law development. The Court of Federal Claims (COFC) held in 2022, “[a] minority owner’s control over “extraordinary” actions, such as actions intended to protect the investment of minority shareholders, will not result in a finding of negative control” and applied this idea to a populated joint venture. Swift & Staley, Inc. v. United States, No. 21-1279, 2022 WL 1231428 (Fed. Cl. Mar. 31, 2022), aff’d, No. 2022-1601, 2022 WL 17576348 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 12, 2022). It now appears, fairly established at this point, that non-managing venturers can have a say in what can best be described as “extraordinary actions.” These are the sorts of decisions that can completely change the trajectory of the joint venture. But contractors must still be very careful in giving the non-managing venturer a say in the joint venture’s decisions. As one firm learned the hard way in a recent COFC case, a joint venture with too many actions controllable by the non-managing venturer may end up ineligible for set-asides. Here, we explore this decision.

Continue reading →

COFC: Lapsed SAM Registration During Proposal Evaluations Makes Offeror Ineligible for Award

Posted on by

It’s a tale as old as time, and I’m not talking about “Beauty and the Beast.” I’m talking about an offeror who failed to comply with the registration requirements in FAR 52.204-7. What’s FAR 52.204-7? It’s the FAR provision that requires, among other things, all offerors to be registered in the System for Award Management, or SAM as it is better known. And, as we have seen many times before, there is no way around this rule. Often, failure to be registered in SAM limits an offeror’s eligibility before award is made, making the offeror ineligible for award. However, this time, it affected the award that had already been made, resulting in the court entering a preliminary injunction against the government continuing with its original award.

Continue reading →

Exception to the Rule: Evaluating Price at IDIQ Versus Order Level Is a Limited Exception

Posted on by

A recent COFC decision yielded some important insights about government contracting. We already wrote about some joint venture aspects of the decision. But the decision also touched on whether GSA’s solicitation violated federal procurement law by excluding price as an evaluation factor at the indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) level for a procurement.

Continue reading →

COFC Part II: Evaluation of Mentor-Protégé Joint Ventures

Posted on by

A couple of weeks ago, I explored the Court of Federal Claims case of SH Synergy, LLC v. United States. In that blog, linked below, I looked at the first question raised in the protest that centered on the question of whether a mentor with two approved mentor protégé joint ventures with two different protégés under the SBA’s Mentor-Protégé Program is restricted from placing competing offers for a solicitation, in this case GSA’s Polaris solicitation. The answer to that was yes, they are restricted pursuant to 13 C.F.R. § 125.9. Because this decision was chocked full of useful information, and as promised, I’m back to look at the second issue tackled in this mammoth COFC opinion: did the solicitation’s terms, which required mentor-protégé joint ventures, woman-owned small business joint ventures, and service-disabled veteran owned small business joint ventures to be evaluated in the same manner as offerors, generally, violate procurement regulations? As you will see, the answer to that question is also yes, and it appears that this decision has already had an impact on other procurements.

Continue reading →