.jpg?width=900)
Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
West Pacific-Cmcs Jv v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · 2026-06-15
In this bid protest case, West Pacific-CMCS JV challenged the U.S. Space Force's award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity construction contract known as the WOOKIE MACC, alleging arbitrary evaluation of its proposal, failure to refer it for a certificate of competency under the Small Business Act, and unequal clarifications with other bidders; the complaint sought termination of the awarded contracts and reevaluation of the plaintiff's proposal. One of the four contract awardees, JG Contracting, moved to intervene as of right under RCFC 24(a). The plaintiff opposed, arguing that the protest posed no risk to existing awardees because fewer than the maximum five contracts had been awarded and the challenge focused only on its own evaluation. The court granted the motion to intervene, reasoning that the plaintiff is master of its complaint, which explicitly requests termination of the existing contracts, creating a direct and immediate interest for the awardee that could be impaired by the litigation.
business & regulatoryprocedure
CALANDRELLA v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · 2026-06-12
This case involves plaintiffs who were subject to civil penalties by the SEC through administrative proceedings between 2006 and 2018, and who sought to recover those payments as illegal exactions after the Supreme Court's 2024 decision in SEC v. Jarkesy, which held that such penalties for securities fraud require a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment. The United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed the complaint, finding all claims barred by the Tucker Act's six-year statute of limitations. The court reasoned that Jarkesy did not constitute a change in law sufficient to suspend the accrual of the claims, which began when the SEC orders were issued and initial payments made, and that the continuing claims doctrine did not apply to extend the period for ongoing payments.
business & regulatoryprocedurefederal power
Bey v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · 2026-06-11
The case involved a pro se plaintiff who filed a complaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims against various New York state judges, court employees, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and law enforcement officers, without naming the United States as a defendant or alleging any conduct by the federal government. The court dismissed the complaint sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 12(h)(3), without first requiring payment of the filing fee or a request to proceed in forma pauperis. The core reasoning was that the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1), limits the court's jurisdiction to claims against the United States founded on the Constitution, federal statutes, regulations, contracts, or certain non-tort damages, and the complaint presented no such claim.
procedurefederal power
Siemens Government Technologies, Inc. v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · 2026-06-02
Siemens Government Technologies sued the United States, through the Army Corps of Engineers, in the Court of Federal Claims, alleging breach of an implied-in-fact contract and violations of Federal Acquisition Regulations after the Corps declined to issue an energy savings performance contract task order for projects at Army bases in Germany, leaving Siemens to absorb over $2 million in bid-preparation costs due to alleged internal coordination failures. The court first held that the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act’s bar on task-order protests did not apply, because the claims sought only reimbursement of bid costs rather than challenging the issuance or non-issuance of a task order itself. It then dismissed the complaint under RCFC 12(b)(6), concluding that the underlying IDIQ contract expressly permitted the Corps to determine a project infeasible and decline to proceed for any reason, that no facts showed dishonest or misleading conduct, and that the cited FAR provisions imposed no duty to coordinate internally or to award a task order. The opinion emphasized that the contract terms foreclosed recovery of the claimed costs and that Siemens had not alleged any breach of an enforceable obligation.
business & regulatoryprocedure
Nordbrock v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · 2026-05-08
In Nordbrock v. United States, the plaintiff, proceeding pro se, sued the IRS in the Court of Federal Claims seeking an order to process and approve claims for abatement of penalties and refunds of associated payments totaling $75,000 for tax years 1979, 1980, and 1981, alleging the assessments were untimely and backdated in violation of the statute of limitations. The defendant moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing the plaintiff had not duly filed timely administrative refund claims with the IRS. The court granted the motion and dismissed the case under RCFC 12(b)(6), holding that a taxpayer must show a timely administrative claim was filed prior to suit and that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any payments applied to the challenged penalties within the three-year limitations period under 26 U.S.C. § 6511(a) before filing his Form 843 claims in 2022. The court also denied leave to amend, noting the plaintiff had prior opportunities to address timeliness issues but provided no supporting evidence.
taxesprocedure
Asg Solutions Corporation v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims · 2026-05-06
In this case, ASG Solutions Corporation challenged the Navy's termination for default of its task order contract for engineering and program-management services at Naval Air Station Jacksonville, alleging wrongful termination, breach of contract, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing under the Contract Disputes Act. The complaint largely repeated claims from an earlier lawsuit (Case No. 23-1029), but added allegations questioning the authenticity of a contracting officer's memorandum due to alleged noncompliance with Navy correspondence policies. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(6), holding that issue preclusion barred relitigation because the issues were identical to those already decided on summary judgment in the prior action, which the Federal Circuit had affirmed. The court reasoned that ASG had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the validity of the termination in the first proceeding, and any new fraud claims did not alter the preclusive effect of the final judgment on the merits.
business & regulatoryprocedure