The protester requested COFC reinstate its previously awarded contracts after the Federal Circuit reversed COFC’s injunction. The injunction had disqualified the protester from participating in the procurement. While the appeal was pending, the agency awarded the contract to another contractor. COFC refused to reinstate the protester because the Federal Circuit had chosen not to and doing so would disturb the current contract.
Michael Stapleton Associates, LTD v. United States, COFC Nos. 22-573, 22-620, 22-630
- Protest & Context – The protester was previously awarded a contract, but COFC’s injunction enjoined the protester from participating in the solicitation because of an organizational conflict of interest. The Federal Circuit reversed the injunction but did not remand the case for further proceedings or provide remand instructions. The protester then sought reinstatement of the previously-awarded contracts arguing that the Federal Circuit’s opinion nullified the injunction.
- Mandate Rule – COFC first recognized that the protester was now requesting it to carry out an action that the Federal Circuit court intentionally refrained from taking. During oral arguments, the protester had asked the Federal Circuit to reverse, remand, and reinstate the contracts. Although the Federal Circuit court did not explicitly mention remand in its written opinion, it “considered the parties’ other arguments” and found them “unpersuasive.” Thus, due to the mandate rule, COFC could not grant the protester the same relief the Federal Circuit considered and rejected.
- Current Status – COFC also acknowledged the practical difficulties of the protester’s request. The protester was no longer performing the services at any of the sites and was now requesting that the agency disrupt the current contract to remedy a past award. COFC concluded that reinstatement would be within the agency’s discretion alone.
- Administrative Process – The protester did not seek relief through the administrative process before seeking relief from the court because it wanted to pursue the avenue that would achieve the quickest resolution. COFC was unpersuaded. The protester was not allowed to challenge the award decision for the first time when it should have exhausted the mandatory administrative process.
- Rule 60 – As an alternative, the protester argued the court should grant relief from judgment under Rule 60. But COFC could not find prior examples of granting such relief for Federal Circuit reversal cases. Additionally, the request was brought more than a year after the court’s original decision. Thus, COFC rejected the argument.
The protester was represented by Walter Brad English, and Emily J. Chancey of Maynard Nexsen PC; and Ryan Christopher Bradel and Nicolas L. Perry of Ward & Berry PLLC. The agency was represented by Jana Moses, Steven J. Gillingham, Patricia M. McCarthy, and Brian M. Boynton of DOJ; and Joshua J. Hofer of USPS.
— Case summary by Joshua Lim, Assistant Editor
