The plaintiff argued that its bid was incorrectly rejected due to an improper technicality, which violated federal regulations. The court held that the plaintiff did not have standing because it was classified as “Not Selectable.” This was independent of the award to the awardee and meant the plaintiff's bid could not have won regardless of any alleged errors. Therefore, the Court granted the government's motion to dismiss.
Brandt Development v. The United States, COFC No. 25-284
- Background - The protester, Brandt Development, submitted a bid to the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) in response to a solicitation for a hypersonic aircraft technology contract valued at $334 million. However, the AFRL classified the protester's bid as “Not Selectable” four months before awarding the contract to the awardee, Leidos Holdings, Inc. Brandt Development later filed a bid protest, arguing it was improperly rejected based on an unidentified technicality, leading to this legal dispute.
- Prejudice and Standing - Brandt Development claimed it was prejudiced by the government’s actions and that it should have been awarded the contract instead of the awardee. The court determined that the protester could not prove prejudice since the AFRL’s classification of its bid as “Not Selectable” meant it had no chance to win the contract. Thus, the court concluded the protester lacked standing.
- Timeliness of the Protest - The protester argued that its protest was timely, extending beyond the usual deadlines due to alleged fraud and miscommunication by the government. Under federal regulations, protests must typically be filed within ten days of learning the basis for the protest. The court found that since the protester was notified of its status well in advance, it had waived its right to file a protest by waiting nearly two years. The court thus ruled the protest was untimely.
- Allegations of Improper Conduct - Brandt Development also alleged that the awardee engaged in fraud by submitting substandard work and that the government acted unethically. However, the court noted that these claims did not relate to the procurement process itself. Thus, the court reiterated that it lacked jurisdiction over contract administration.
The plaintiff is represented by Janeen D. Smith of Brandt Development. The government is represented by Kelly Palamar of the United States Department of Justice.