This case is a post-award bid protest in which plaintiff Mitchell Consulting Services Group Inc. challenged the Department of the Army's award of a contract for Test and Evaluation Technical Support Services to defendant-intervenor Defense Testing & Evaluation Support Services JV, LLC. After the suit was filed, the Army announced corrective action that included canceling the award, amending the solicitation to update a FAR clause on SAM.gov registration, and revalidating offerors' registrations under the new version of the clause. The government moved to dismiss the case as moot under RCFC 12(b)(1), arguing that the corrective action eliminated any live controversy. The Court of Federal Claims denied the motion, holding that the agency's written decision to take corrective action created irretrievable legal consequences affecting the parties' interests, including changes to the solicitation terms and the potential for protest-proofing claims, so the dispute remained justiciable under Article III standards adopted by the court.
This case is a post-award bid protest in which plaintiff Rick Aviation, Inc. challenged the Defense Logistics Agency's exclusion of its proposal for a jet fuel supply contract under Solicitation No. SPE607-25-R-0201. The court considered whether exceptions to the "late is late" rule applied when the plaintiff's electronic submission was never received before the award, whether the agency used unstated evaluation criteria regarding email protocols, and whether the plaintiff had standing to contest the award to intervenor Avfuel, Inc. The court held that the proposal was untimely and not covered by any exception, that no unstated criteria were used, and that the plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the award to Avfuel. It therefore granted the cross-motions of the defendant and intervenor for judgment on the administrative record and denied the plaintiff's motion.
This case involved multiple plaintiffs who owned land parcels underlying or adjacent to a former railroad right-of-way in Greensboro, North Carolina, seeking just compensation after the federal government converted the corridor into a public recreational trail under the National Trails System Act's rail-banking program. Liability for the taking was undisputed, so the court focused solely on determining the amount owed. The plaintiffs requested approximately $10.75 million plus additional damages, while the government argued no compensation was due. The court awarded the plaintiffs $8,914,102, based on the standard before-and-after valuation method measuring the diminution in the parcels' fair market value from the new perpetual trail easement, and rejected claims for extra severance damages such as privacy walls as they would result in overcompensation.
Travis Ray Thompson sued the United States seeking Economic Impact Payments enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic along with relief on an identity theft claim and an abatement. The court previously dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because Thompson's tax returns were unsigned and listed an incorrect Social Security number. Thompson moved for reconsideration under RCFC 59, asserting that he had since obtained his correct SSN and could cure the defects. The court denied the motion, finding it untimely under the rule's 28-day filing requirement, inapplicable under the subsection invoked, and unsupported by any change in law or newly discovered evidence that could not have been obtained earlier with due diligence. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, Thompson remains free to refile a properly documented claim.
This case concerns claims by Slide Fire Solutions and related parties that a 2018 ATF rule classifying bump stocks as machineguns under the National Firearms Act effected a taking of their bump stocks and intellectual property or an illegal exaction by requiring their destruction or surrender within 90 days. The plaintiffs sought compensation under the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause and related theories after complying with the rule. The court granted in part and denied in part the government's motion to dismiss, allowing claims for a per se taking of the bump stocks, an illegal exaction for the costs of destruction, and a regulatory taking of the intellectual property rights to proceed, while dismissing the illegal exaction claim regarding the value of the bump stocks themselves. The core reasoning was that the complaint plausibly alleged government action that deprived the plaintiffs of property interests without compensation in certain respects, while other claims failed to state a viable legal theory under takings or exaction precedents.
The case involved plaintiff Aaron C. Mazie filing a complaint against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims. After the court ordered him to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and why sanctions should not apply, and to pay the filing fee, Mazie failed to comply or respond substantively. The court dismissed the case with prejudice under RCFC 41(b) for failure to prosecute and comply with orders. It also imposed an anti-filing injunction due to Mazie's pattern of filing multiple frivolous cases that had been dismissed in this and other courts, requiring him to obtain leave of the Chief Judge and file through licensed counsel for any future complaints.
.jpg?width=900)