This consolidated case involves post-award bid protests filed in the Court of Federal Claims by International Business Sales & Services Corporation (IBSS) and Fish and Lynker Ocean Alliance Team Partners LLC (FLOAT) challenging NOAA's award of multiple-award IDIQ contracts under two ProTech 2.0 solicitations for oceans and fisheries services to the 1stMission joint venture. The protests arose after the termination of a mentor-protégé agreement between IBSS and @Orchard (the small business partner), which had formed 1stMission, and after NOAA later novated the contracts to @Orchard. The court granted the government's and @Orchard's motions to dismiss, holding that neither plaintiff qualified as an "interested party" with statutory standing under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b) because IBSS had not submitted its own proposal and FLOAT had received an award under the solicitation it protested. The court further ruled that it lacked jurisdiction over claims challenging the novations because those involved routine contract administration matters outside the scope of bid protest review.
This case involves a petition under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act by Tasha Loyd, on behalf of her minor child C.L., seeking compensation for immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) allegedly caused by vaccines including Prevnar, DTaP, and others administered in 2013. The Special Master denied the claim, finding that the petitioner failed to prove by preponderant evidence that the vaccines caused the injury, particularly under the Althen prong requiring a reliable theory of causation. The Court of Federal Claims denied the motion for review, holding that the Special Master's determination was not arbitrary or capricious because the evidence did not establish a causal link between the Prevnar vaccine and ITP, despite references to molecular mimicry and other vaccines. The court noted that plausibility alone does not meet the required evidentiary standard, and no epidemiological studies or specific homology evidence supported the connection. The petition was dismissed, with judgment entered for the respondent.
This case in the Court of Federal Claims involves former and current members of Congress suing the United States for backpay stemming from automatic cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) to congressional salaries that Congress blocked through annual legislation since the ratification of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment. Plaintiffs argued that such COLA-blocking laws violate the Amendment by varying compensation without an intervening election of Representatives. The court addressed four threshold issues and held that plaintiffs are not estopped from bringing their claims, that the Twenty-Seventh Amendment applies to laws decreasing compensation, that COLA-blocking legislation varies congressional compensation, and that noncompliant laws are ineffective to the extent they attempt to change pay before an election intervenes. The decision rests on the plain text of the Ascertainment Clause and the Twenty-Seventh Amendment, along with the mechanics of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, while deferring other questions such as the continuing claims doctrine and specific retroactive application for further briefing.
The case involved SI Wireless, LLC, a small telecommunications provider that removed Huawei equipment from its network in Tennessee and Kentucky under the Secured Network Act reimbursement program administered by the FCC, seeking payment either through an alleged contract with the agency or directly under the statute via a Tucker Act claim in the Court of Federal Claims. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). It held that the SNA incorporates the Communications Act and thus the Hobbs Act, which vests exclusive jurisdiction over such agency reimbursement decisions in the federal circuit courts and displaces Tucker Act jurisdiction here. Separately, the suit was also barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1500 because SI had an earlier-filed mandamus petition pending in the D.C. Circuit that arose from the same operative facts concerning the FCC's suspension of payments.
This case is a bid protest by Sheela Inc., a small New Jersey business, challenging the U.S. Air Force's decision not to award it one of six contracts under a solicitation for indefinite quantity, indefinite delivery construction services at Joint Base McGuire Dix Lakehurst. The solicitation, set aside for small businesses, required proposals in separate volumes including past performance information with customer surveys submitted directly by references, and awards were to be made based on best value with past performance significantly more important than price. The court denied the protest after reviewing the administrative record, holding that Sheela failed to demonstrate the agency's past performance evaluations or confidence ratings were illegal or irrational, and that any minor issues in other offerors' price proposals caused no prejudice since past performance was the deciding factor and Sheela did not qualify for a substantial confidence rating.
The case involved consolidated bid protests by Fire Creek Company and Aleut Management Services, LLC, challenging the General Services Administration's award decisions under a solicitation for the OASIS+ program, specifically the 8(a) small business set-aside master contracts across multiple domains. Plaintiffs contended that they could satisfy minimum qualifying project requirements using projects performed by entities that were not currently 8(a)-certified at the time of the offer, relying on related solicitation provisions allowing such projects. The court granted the government's motion for judgment on the administrative record and denied the plaintiffs' motions, holding that the agency's interpretation was reasonable, the plaintiffs' reading was unreasonable, and any ambiguity in the solicitation was patent such that offerors had a duty to inquire before submitting proposals.