Protest Challenging Potential Procurement Violations Is Not Ripe; Goodwill Industries of South Florida, Inc. v. United States, COFC No. 21-1391C

Protest seeking to enjoin procurements is dismissed as not ripe. The agency issued an acquisition plan for Hot-Weather Trousers and a solicitation for Combat Pants. The protester alleged that it was the mandatory source for these pants on the AbilityOne Commission’s Procurement, so award to anyone other than the protester would be improper. The court found the protest was not ripe. As to the Trousers, the agency had not yet issued a solicitation, so any harm to the protester was speculative. The agency had issued a solicitation for the Combat Pants, but the solicitation was on hold for a change in requirements. Until the solicitation was operative, the protester’s claims were contingent.

Background

The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) drafted an acquisition plan for Army Hot-Weather Trousers. The plan stated DLA would issue a solicitation for the pants and award IDIQ contracts on a best value basis. 

DLA also issued a solicitation for a different style of pants, Army Combat Pants. The Combat Pants solicitation planned to award IDIQ contracts on a best value basis. A few months after posting the solicitation, DLA put the procurement on hold indefinitely while waiting for specification changes.

Goodwill Industries of South Florida filed a protest with the Court of Federal Claims, seeking to enjoin any award made as part of the Trouser Acquisition Plan or the Pants Solicitation. Goodwill alleged the Trousers and Pants were listed on the AbilityOne Commission’s procurement list, and that it was AbilityOne’s approved supplier of the Trousers and Pants and thus the mandatory source for those items.

Legal Analysis

• Challenge to the Trouser Acquisition Plan Was Not Ripe — A claim is not ripe for judicial review when it is contingent upon future events that may not occur. Here, DLA had not yet issued a solicitation for the Trousers and had indicated that it may change its approach to acquiring them. While award of a Trouser contract to anyone other than Goodwill may be improper, the anticipation of future procurement violations will not make a protest claim ripe.  Until the issuance of a solicitation, any harm to Goodwill was speculative.
• Challenge to the  Pants Solicitation Was Also Not Ripe — While DLA had issued a solicitation for the Pants, it had also put the solicitation on hold while waiting for changes in specifications. Thus, neither the court nor Goodwill knew the final requirements, or if Goodwill’s position on the AbilityOne procurement list would be considered by DLA in the solicitation. Additionally, the court could not rule out the possibility that the pants specifications would change in a way that did not match Goodwill’s production. Again, the possibility of future procurement violations was too remote to be ripe.

Goodwill is represented by Alan M. Grayson. The government is represented by Eric E. Laufgraben, Steven J. Gillingham, Martin F. Hockey, Jr., and Brian M. Boynton of the Department of Justice as well as Allison Colsey Eck of the Defense Logistics Agency.