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
