Share:
Siemens Government Technologies, Inc. filed suit seeking reimbursement for bid preparation costs after finding out the government already had a contractor performing some of its work. The government attempted to dismiss, arguing the protest was barred by the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA) jurisdictional task order bar, 10 U.S.C. § 3406(f). But COFC ruled the FASA bar was inapplicable because the task order at issue was void from the start.
Siemens Government Technologies, Inc. v. United States, COFC No. 22-698
- Context – The government tentatively awarded Siemens a contract for the installation of energy conservation measures at six overseas bases. On two of the six bases, Siemens discovered the government had already commissioned energy conservation measures in a parallel procurement. The government canceled the award for these two sites but kept the award for the four other sites. Siemens filed a protest, seeking to recover its bid preparation costs for pursuing the duplicative solicitations.
- Motion to Dismiss – The government moved to dismiss, arguing that claims were barred by the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA) task order bar because the Solicitation was for a task order. Additionally, the government alleged the claim was barred by collateral estoppel.
- FASA Task Order Bar – For the FASA bar to apply, there must be a proposed or issued task order, and the protest must be predicated upon the proposed or issued task order. Siemens’s complaint alleged the government’s solicitation was void because it could not propose a need that was already fulfilled. This was enough to overcome dismissal. The Court concluded the FASA bar was inapplicable if the task order was void from the start. Furthermore, because Siemens sought reimbursement of bid preparation costs rather than setting aside any task order, the protest was not predicated on a task order.
- Collateral Estoppel – The government also argued that Siemen’s protest was barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Siemens had filed a parallel appeal with the ASBCA. That appeal, however, turned on whether the government was contractually obligated to reimburse Siemens under the IDIQ. In this COFC case, Siemens sought reimbursement under statutory obligations, not contractual ones. Thus, the two proceedings involved different legal issues.
Siemens was represented by Michael Bhargava of Nichols Liu LLP. The government was represented by Reta E. Bezak of DOJ.
— Case summary by Joshua Lim, Assistant Editor
Share:
