Court of Federal Claims Archives - Government Contracts Navigator

Supreme Court Weighs in for a Second Time on Jurisdiction over Grant Termination Cases

Dominique L. Casimir and Sara N. Gerber ●

The Supreme Court recently ruled for the second time that federal district courts likely lack jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) to hear challenges to terminations of federal grants. The first such ruling came in April of this year, when the Court granted an emergency stay in California v. Department of Education. On August 21, 2025, the Supreme Court issued another emergency stay, in NIH v. American Public Health Association, reaffirming the view that challenges to grant terminations are, in substance, breach of contract actions for money damages that belong in the Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act.

Since California, several lower courts have nevertheless asserted jurisdiction over grantee lawsuits seeking reinstatement of terminated grants, often distinguishing California on procedural or factual grounds. We have previously written about some of those cases (including Massachusetts v. Kennedy, which was later consolidated with NIH). Although the Supreme Court’s decision in NIH is an interim order, the jurisdictional question may now be functionally settled, particularly given Justice Gorsuch’s admonishment to lower courts that even if they “sometimes disagree with this Court’s decisions…they are never free to defy them. When this court issues a decision, it constitutes a precedent that commands respect in lower courts.” Following NIH, we expect terminated grantees will largely be forced into the Court of Federal Claims, which generally does not have authority under the Tucker Act to grant the equitable relief—reinstatement of grants—that many of them are seeking.

Claims Court Breathes Life into Another Path to Protest OTAs

Merle M. DeLancey, Jr. ●

On Monday, February 24, 2025, the Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) released the public version of a February 13 decision declining to dismiss Raytheon Company’s protest of a $648.5 million award under the Missile Defense Agency’s (“MDA”) interceptor development program. Judge Armando O. Bonilla held that the award was within the court’s jurisdiction over Other Transaction Authority agreements (“OTAs”).

Unsuccessful offerors have had difficulty finding a tribunal with jurisdiction over post-award protests involving OTAs. Under COFC and U.S. General Accountability Office (“GAO”) precedent, an offeror’s ability to protest an OTA award is limited. OTAs are not considered procurement contracts. They are considered non-traditional acquisitions usually involving innovative research and development or prototyping services. They are not based on the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) or Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (“DFARS”) and are not subject to the Competition in Contracting Act (“CICA”). Under CICA and the GAO’s Bid Protest Regulations, GAO’s bid protest jurisdiction is limited to protests concerning alleged violations of federal agency procurement statutes or regulations in the award or proposed award of contracts for the procurement of goods and services, and solicitations leading to such awards. Under the COFC’s Tucker Act bid protest jurisdiction, COFC’s review is limited to protests “in connection with a procurement or a proposed procurement.” Disappointed OTA competitors also have been unsuccessful seeking relief in U.S. Federal District Courts.

Open the Floodgates: Divided Federal Circuit Panel Expands Access to Court of Federal Claims

Shane M. Hannon and Scott Arnold ●

The Federal Circuit last Friday issued a decision that is, as the dissent put it, “a very important government contract case.” In Percipient.ai v. United States, the Federal Circuit adopted a narrow construction of the FASA task order bar, which prohibits the Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) from hearing a protest challenging the issuance of a task order. At the same time, the Federal Circuit held that under certain circumstances—such as in this case—potential subcontractors can challenge an agency’s violation of procurement law at the COFC.

The Federal Circuit effectively kicked down the drawbridge to the COFC. It increased the variety of cases the COFC can hear and the classes of government contractors—particularly subcontractors—that can bring those cases. Percipient.ai will have significant ramifications on the government contracting community.

Relief Requested: What the Federal Circuit’s CACI-Federal Decision Means for Your Bid Protest beyond Standing

Stephanie M. Harden ●

The primary holding of the Federal Circuit’s May 2023 decision in CACI, Inc.-Federal v. United States (Case No. 2022-1488), is that “statutory standing” is no longer a jurisdictional issue. This means that when considering whether a protester is an “interested party” under the Tucker Act, the Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) is not required to address statutory standing before the merits.

Although much has been written about this holding, our view is that there will be little or no impact on most bid protests stemming from this particular aspect of the decision, other than perhaps an uptick in denying protests on the merits without first addressing statutory standing.

We think the more interesting part of the decision is its reaffirmance of the Chenery doctrine, and specifically, the Federal Circuit’s direction about which issues must be remanded back to the agency, rather than decided by the COFC in the first instance. Although the Chenery doctrine is not new, the Federal Circuit has now made it clear that the doctrine greatly limits the COFC’s ability to order specific relief where an issue was not previously considered by the agency. On this issue, our takeaway is that CACI-Federal will actually lead to a reduction in the COFC weighing in on certain merits-based issues.

Confused about how Chenery relates to statutory standing? Read on for our analysis.

Court of Federal Claims Declines to Adopt GAO’s Rule for Post-Proposal Key Personnel Changes

Elizabeth N. Jochum and Robyn N. Burrows

For years, the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) has been moving towards an increasingly draconian position on offerors’ obligations to notify agencies when the availability of proposed personnel changes after proposal submission. A recent decision by the Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) in Golden IT, LLC v. United States expressly addressing and departing from the GAO precedent may give hope to offerors struggling with GAO’s requirement.

Golden IT, LLC (“Golden”) protested the Department of Commerce’s award of a single blanket purchase agreement to Spatial Front, Inc. (“SFI”). Among its many protest grounds, Golden claimed that SFI’s quote contained a material misrepresentation regarding key personnel because it proposed an employee who had allegedly left SFI after it submitted its bid and before receiving award. Golden claimed that SFI was obligated to notify the agency of the individual’s unavailability after submitting its proposal.

Is There No Balm in Gilead? The Federal Circuit’s Decision in Dell Federal Systems L.P. v. United States Reinforces Contractors’ Dwindling Options to Effectively Challenge Agency Corrective Action

Michael J. Slattery

Any company that has participated in a federal procurement, and has been involved in subsequent bid protest litigation, is likely familiar with the procuring agency’s ability to take “corrective action.” In a nutshell, “corrective action” refers to a procuring agency’s recognition that it may have committed an error during a procurement, and the agency’s determination that it will take steps to correct this error. Procuring agencies take corrective action in a number of different circumstances.

Perhaps most commonly, procuring agencies take corrective action after the U.S. Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) sustains a protest and recommends that the agency remedy the flaws that GAO has identified in the procurement. Agencies also take corrective action in the context of “outcome prediction” Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”). Pursuant to 4 C.F.R. § 21.10(e), GAO, on its own initiative or upon a request filed by the parties, may use flexible alternative procedures to promptly and fairly resolve a protest, including ADR. Often, when GAO informs a procuring Agency during an ADR conference that GAO is likely to sustain a protest, the procuring Agency will announce that it will take corrective action in order to remedy the procurement errors identified by GAO. See, e.g., Deloitte Consulting, LLC, B-412125.6, Nov. 28, 2016, 2016 U.S. Comp. Gen. LEXIS 348 at *1, *5 (wherein agency took corrective action after GAO sustained a protest). Continue reading “Is There No Balm in Gilead? The Federal Circuit’s Decision in Dell Federal Systems L.P. v. United States Reinforces Contractors’ Dwindling Options to Effectively Challenge Agency Corrective Action”

Critical GAO Bid Protest Deadlines and Timeline

Merle M. DeLancey Jr.

Almost daily, clients call our office seeking to protest the award of a federal government contract. Unfortunately, sometimes these calls are too late. While contracts can be protested at the agency level, the Court of Federal Claims, and the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”), GAO protests are the most common. The deadlines by which a protester must take certain actions to file a timely protest are confusing. Below we address some of the trickier and/or mandatory deadlines a potential protester must meet to file a timely protest, and we provide a useful sample timeline for protesters to follow during this critical process. Continue reading “Critical GAO Bid Protest Deadlines and Timeline”

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: