The plaintiff had a contract with the VA to provide transportation services to veterans. The protester filed a combined bid protest and claim to challenge the VA's partnership with Uber. As part of the protest, the plaintiff alleged the partnership was an illegal procurement. For the claims, the plaintiff contended the Uber partnership breached the existing contract. The COFC dismissed the bid protest count for lack of jurisdiction. The court found the partnership did not directly benefit and thus was not a procurement under the Tucker Act.
28 Trans, LLC v. United States, United States Court of Federal Claims, No. 26-204C
- Background: The Department of Veterans Affairs operates multiple transportation programs to help veterans reach medical appointments. 28 Trans, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business, held a five-year contract to provide nonemergency special-mode ground transportation for disabled veterans in the San Francisco area. The protester challenged the VA's partnership with Uber Health, arguing the agency illegally awarded sole-source contracts to Uber outside proper procurement channels. The protester also alleged this arrangement breached its contract by diverting rides that should have been assigned under its agreement. The government moved to dismiss the i-bid protest portion of the suit.
- Procurement vs. Public Service: The protester argued the VA's collaboration with Uber Health constituted an illegal procurement that circumvented competitive bidding requirements. The court dismissed this claim for lack of jurisdiction. Under the Tucker Act, bid protest jurisdiction exists only for procurements—defined as acquiring property or services "for the direct benefit or use of the United States Government." The Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act further distinguishes procurement contracts from cooperative agreements intended to perform public services. Here, the rideshare services benefited individual veterans, not the government itself. The court found it irrelevant that VA staff booked the rides or that the program generated cost savings for the agency. The ultimate beneficiaries were veterans receiving transportation, placing the arrangement outside the scope of a procurement contract subject to bid protest jurisdiction.
- Contract Claims Survive: While dismissing the bid protest claim, the court preserved the protester's remaining eight counts, including breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and equitable adjustment claims. The court noted these allegations raise contract performance questions separate from procurement jurisdiction issues. Whether the VA's actions actually breached the contract terms or violated good faith obligations remained for future adjudication on the merits.
---
The protester is represented by J. Larry Stine and Thomas L. Walker of Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Schneider & Stine, PC. The intervenor, Uber Technologies, Inc., is represented by Moshe B. Broder, David Robbins, Elizabeth M.D. Pullin, Jennifer Eve Retener, and Megan C. Bodenhamer of Jenner & Block LLP. Amici curiae Navarre Corporation and GovTranz LLC are represented by William M. Weisberg of Law Offices of William Weisberg PLLC. The government is represented by Kristin E. Olson, Brett A. Shumate, Patricia M. McCarthy, and Frankline E. White, Jr. of the U.S. Department of Justice, with assistance from Natica Neely and Kate Gorney of the Department of Veterans Affairs.