The protester alleged a requirement to obtain a license from the original equipment manufacturer was unduly restrictive. The COFC agreed. The licensing requirement was not rationally related to the agency’s needs.
Piedmont Propulsion Systems, LLC v. United States, COFC No. 23-330C
- OEM License Requirement – The agency issued a solicitation for repair of aviation components. The solicitation required the awardee to be licensed by the OEM. The protester, who had been performing the incumbent contract without an OEM license, filed a protest with COFC. The protester argued the licensing requirement was unduly restrictive.
- Requirement Was Unduly Restrictive – The court sided with the protester, finding the agency didn’t understand the license requirement. The agency claimed it needed the license requirement to ensure the contractor would have access to the proprietary OEM data for repairs. But OEM licensees were themselves not allowed to access OEM proprietary data. Thus, the license requirement did not yield the benefit the agency claimed.
- Other Protest Arguments – The protester raised other arguments as to why the solicitation was unduly restrictive. The court found most of these arguments were derivative of the licensing argument. Given that it was sustaining the primary argument, the court didn’t address the other restrictions.
The protester is represented by Christopher Lockwood, Richard J.R. Raleigh, Jr., and Joshua A. Mullen of Womble Bond Dickinson LLP as well as Jerome S. Gabig of Government Procurement Lawyer, LLC. The intervenor is represented by Benjamin B. Strawn of Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP. The government is represented by Nathanael Brown Yale of the Department of Justice along with Allen Lotz and Richard Tschampel of the Coast Guard.
--Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor
COFC - Piedmont Propulsion