The protester argued it was wrongfully excluded from competing for a $915 million contract deportation contract. However, the court held that under both Article III and the Tucker Act's "interested party" requirement, a protester must plead and prove it can actually perform the contract work—not just submit a proposal. Because the protester never alleged facts showing it could handle detention facilities, medical care, and international coordination (only flights), it lacked standing to protest.
CSI Aviation, Inc. v. United States, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, No. 25-1338C
- Background - The Department of Homeland Security awarded a contract to Salus Worldwide Solutions for Comprehensive Support to Removal Operations (CSRO)—a program supporting mass deportations under President Trump's executive orders. The $915 million contract required six distinct services: flight coordination, establishing international staging areas, facilities management, security, healthcare, and logistics support. DHS limited competition to vendors with integrated capabilities across all six areas. CSI Aviation, the prime contractor for ICE Air flights, protested after learning it was excluded from competing. CSI argued DHS violated procurement law by conducting a limited competition.
- Standing Requires Capability - CSI claimed it had standing because it wanted to compete and would have submitted a proposal under full and open competition. The court rejected this argument. Under Federal Circuit precedent, a protester challenging a limited or sole-source procurement must prove it's a "qualified bidder"—meaning it could actually perform the contract work. The court explained that when an agency limits competition on grounds of capability, the excluded protester must rebut the agency's implicit determination that the protester lacks the necessary qualifications. CSI's complaint contained only conclusory statements about being an "interested party" with a "substantial chance" of award, without alleging specific facts about its capabilities beyond air charter services.
- ICE Air Experience Doesn't Equal CSRO Capability - CSI argued its two decades of ICE Air flight experience qualified it for the CSRO contract. The court disagreed, finding this argument fatal to CSI's case. DHS's market research specifically concluded that ICE Air contractors "do not have the experience" for CSRO work because ICE Air involves only flight logistics—not detention facilities, consular coordination, medical services, or staging area construction. CSI never explained how its flight experience translated into the other five service areas that comprise most of the CSRO's scope of work.
- Last Minute Declaration - In its reply brief, CSI attempted to address its standing problem by submitting a declaration stating that it would have teamed up with other companies to provide non-aviation services. The court rejected this belated effort for multiple reasons. First, arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are waived—particularly standing arguments where the plaintiff bears the burden of proof. Second, the declaration provided no details about whether CSI had actually contacted potential teammates, secured commitments, or worked with them previously. Third, the solicitation required detailed teaming agreements with specific information about roles, responsibilities, and legal relationships. CSI provided none of this.
- Motion to Amend Denied as Futile - After oral argument, CSI moved to amend its complaint to incorporate the capability allegations from its reply brief. The court denied the motion, finding it futile, unduly delayed, and prejudicial. The amendments would be futile because even the new allegations didn't prove CSI could have performed the contract in May 2025—CSI admitted it had no subcontractors lined up and hadn't even contacted potential teammates when the contract was awarded. The motion was unduly delayed because CSI could have amended as a matter of right after the motion to dismiss was filed, but waited until after full briefing and oral argument. Granting the motion would prejudice defendants by requiring entirely new briefs addressing CSI's new standing theories, essentially restarting the case.
The plaintiff is represented by Jennifer S. Zucker, Tyler E. Robinson, Christopher M. O'Brien of Vinson & Elkins, LLP, and Cassidy Kim of Greenberg Traurig, LLP. The intervenor, Salus Worldwide Solutions Corporation, is represented by Scott Nicholas Flesch, Alejandro L. Sarria, and Connor W. Farrell of Miller & Chevalier Chartered. The government is represented by Reta Emma Bezak, Brett A. Shumate, Patricia M. McCarthy, Douglas K. Mickle, and Charlene T. Storino of the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security.
---