Tag Archives: Court of Federal Claims

SCOTUS to Hear Arguments on Agency Power

Posted on by

Oral arguments are to be held today (March 27, 2019) on a U.S. Supreme Court case that may dramatically reduce federal agency power.

The case, Kisor v. Wilkie, asks the Supreme Court to overturn longstanding precedent which established that an agency’s interpretation of its own regulation deserves deference so long as it is reasonable. If the Supreme Court overturns this precedent, it could change the balance of power—in favor of government contractors—in certain disputes with agencies.

Continue reading →

Section 809 Panel Recommends Eliminating COFC’s Ability to Consider Protests After GAO’s Resolution

Posted on by

Among its suggestions to streamline the acquisition process, the Section 809 Panel has proposed to eliminate the ability to file a protest at GAO and the Court of Federal Claims. Instead, the Panel would require protesters to choose between filing at GAO or the Court.

Let’s take a look.

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 →

8(a) JV Agreement Denied: Participant Brought Only Its 8(a) Status to Relationship

Posted on by

When companies seek to join forces under an 8(a) joint venture agreement, they often focus on meeting the SBA’s specific joint venture requirements. In doing so, however, they might overlook the threshold goal of an 8(a) joint venture: to allow an 8(a) to develop the necessary capacity to perform a contract.

As a recent Court of Federal Claims decision shows, overlooking this requirement can cause an 8(a) joint venture agreement to be rejected by SBA—and lead to the joint venture being found ineligible for an award.

Continue reading →

Small Business GAO Bid Protests Are Less Successful, RAND Study Says

Posted on by

GAO bid protests filed by small businesses are (statistically speaking) less likely to succeed than protests filed by large contractors, according to the RAND Corporation’s recent bid protest study.

The disparity isn’t the result of discrimination against small businesses, but rather a product of other factors: primarily, the motivation to protest, the understanding of the protest system, and access to legal counsel.  RAND raises an important point, but offers no fair and easy solution.  Perhaps, given that protests overall are “exceedingly uncommon,” a solution isn’t needed–but it’s wise to think about whether there are ways to help small businesses become better educated about bid protests.

Continue reading →

Bid Protest Report Gives Insight into COFC Protests

Posted on by

When we write about bid protest decisions on SmallGovCon, odds are that we’re writing about a GAO decision. For good reason: GAO is the most common forum protesters bring bid protests.

But SmallGovCon readers also know there’s another possible forum for protests: the Court of Federal Claims.

The GAO publishes an annual bid protest report with statistics about the number and effectiveness rate of protests, among other things. But until very recently, we didn’t have much hard data about the frequency and efficacy of COFC protests. The recently-released RAND bid protest report changed that, by including a deep dive on DoD bid protests at COFC.

Let’s take a look.

Continue reading →

Federal Court Interprets SDVOSB “Unconditional Ownership” Less Strictly Than SBA

Posted on by

The Court of Federal Claims recently issued an opinion that defines “unconditional ownership” of an SDVOSB in a more relaxed manner than the SBA, creating a split of authority on the issue.

The Court, rejecting SBA precedent, held that certain restrictions on ownership of an SDVOSB by a service-disabled veteran are acceptable under the SBA’s unconditional ownership regulations. In particular, the SDVOSB company can retain a right of first refusal that would allow it to purchase the shares of the veteran upon death, incompetency, or insolvency, and that right does not result in a violation of the unconditional ownership requirement.

With the Court and the SBA’s administrative judges staking out different positions, what should SDVOSBs do?

Continue reading →