The protester argued the agency improperly bundled requirements. The Federal Circuit rejected the argument because the protester had not shown the requirements ever existed as separate contracts.
B.H. Aircraft Company Inc. v. United States, General Electric Company, DBA GE Edison Works, Fed. Cir., 2022-1766
- COFC Proceedings – The protester filed a protest alleging a solicitation improperly bundled a requirement for F414 afterburner liner replacement into a larger aircraft engine repair contract. The COFC dismissed for lack of standing, The protester was not an approved repair vendor of F414 afterburner liners and thus was not even qualified for an unbundled requirement. The COFC also dismissed for failure to state a claim. The protester had not shown the afterburner liner requirement had existed as a separate requirement.
- Standing – The protester appealed to the Federal Circuit. The court noted the standing issue was a matter of statutory, not Article III, jurisdictional standing. Thus, the court reasoned, it did not need to address standing before considering the merits of the bundling issue.
- Bundling – The bundling statute states the government should avoid unnecessary bundling of contract requirements. Bundling is the consolidation of two or more requirements previously performed under separate contracts. Here, the protester had not shown—or even alleged—that the afterburner liner requirement had existed as a separate contract that had been bundled into the current solicitation. The protester thus could not establish improper bundling.
The protester is represented by Sam Gdanski and Abraham Gdanski of Gdanski Law PC. The intervenor is represented by Richard Rector and Thomas Edward Daley of DLA Piper US LLP. The government is represented by Daniel B. Volk, Brian M. Boynton, Patricia M. McCarthy, and Douglas K. Mickle of the Department of Justice.
--Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor
Fed. Cir. B.H. Aircraft