COFC Affirms that Owner Can’t Represent Their Company in Federal Court

The plaintiff challenged the National Library of Medicine's award decision after her company was not selected for a contract. She argued that she had standing and that the award process was flawed. The court ruled that the plaintiff could not represent her company pro se and lacked standing due to her debarment from federal contracting.

Dee Monbo v. United States, COFC No. 24-1658

• Background - Dee Monbo, representing her company Monbo Group International, Ltd. (MGI), filed a bid protest after MGI was not awarded a contract for acquisition support services from the National Library of Medicine (NLM). Monbo asserted various grounds for the protest, alleging arbitrary decision-making by NLM and claiming that her joint proposal with MGI had not been considered properly. Both Monbo and MGI were previously debarred from federal contracting, leading to questions about Monbo’s standing to file a protest.
• Representation Issue - The court found that Monbo could not represent MGI pro se. Under RCFC Rule 83.1(a)(3), a non-attorney cannot act on behalf of a corporation. The court assessed instances where Monbo's communications indicated she sought to represent MGI rather than herself, which led to the conclusion that the real party in interest—MGI—was unrepresented. This rule is important to ensure that corporate claims are adequately handled by licensed legal professionals.
• Lack of Standing - The court also held that Monbo lacked Article III standing because she had not suffered a direct injury from the award to the other bidder. For standing, plaintiffs must confirm they have experienced an actual injury that is redressable by a favorable ruling. Here, since MGI was the official offeror, and Monbo was debarred from federal contracting, the court determined that awarding a contract to Monbo was not feasible. Thus, Monbo's claims were both moot and non-redressable.
• Issue Preclusion - Referring to the earlier case Monbo I, the court reaffirmed that Monbo had no standing to bring a bid protest while she remained debarred. The doctrine of issue preclusion prevents relitigation of the same issues decided in a prior case. As Monbo’s situation regarding her debarment had not changed since Monbo I, the court dismissed her case, upholding the previous court's conclusions.

The plaintiff is represented by Dee Monbo, Owings Mills, MD, pro se. The government is represented by Kristin Elaine Olson, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.