Courts, Boards, & GAO

Trending Now

Missing in Action: Protester’s Small Business Commitment Doc Goes Rogue, Lands in Wrong Volume,Tanks Proposal • GAO Sustains Protest Over Unreasonable Response Times in RFQ Amendments • Supreme Court Refuses to Extend ‘Battlefield Preemption’ Defense to Conduct the Government Never Authorized • House Approves Bill to Fund the Department of Homeland Security and End the Record Shutdown • ‘America’s Seed Fund’ Is Being Revamped for Modern Warfare

Published on July 25, 2023 • Law

Agency Tried to Take Corrective Action But COFC Said Agency Can’t Just Call a Mulligan

cofc

The agency tried to dismiss protests, arguing it was taking corrective action. The COFC refused to dismiss, finding the agency hadn't shown how the corrective action would moot the protests.

AccelGov v. United States; ISI-Markon JV, LLC v. United States, COFC Nos. 23-693C, 23-720C

The Corrective Action – The protesters filed suit, arguing the agency misevaluated proposals. The agency took corrective action, saying it would cancel the award and resolicit proposals. The agency moved to dismiss the protests.
COFC Denies Motion to Dismiss – The protesters opposed the motion to dismiss, saying the corrective action lacked details. The court agreed. An agency doesn’t have carte blanche to simply call a mulligan and end cases unilaterally. Rather, the government bears the burden of proving a corrective moots the case. Here, the agency had not met that burden. The agency hadn’t explained how the corrective action related to the alleged defects in the evaluation. It appeared the agency was trying to reset the procurement rather than address the protesters’’ arguments.

--Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor

COFC - AccelGov

Get daily insights on bid protests, CDA claims, and contract litigation that shape the GovCon landscape with our Protests & Claims newsletter, delivering up-to-the-minute intelligence Monday–Saturday — Subscribe here.