Sra International, Inc. v. United States
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 17680, 766 F.3d 1409, 2014 WL 4494775 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA), a bid protest challenging an agency's post-award organizational conflict of interest (OCI) waiver is considered 'in connection with the issuance' of a task order and is therefore barred from judicial review by the Court of Federal Claims.
Facts:
- SRA International, Inc. (SRA) held a contract with the General Services Administration (GSA) to provide network infrastructure support to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
- While SRA was the contractor, Blue Canopy Group, LLC (Blue Canopy) conducted security audits of SRA's network for the FDIC.
- In June 2012, the GSA issued a new Task Order Request (ISC-3) for the same services.
- On August 14, 2013, GSA awarded the ISC-3 task order to Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC), whose proposal included using Blue Canopy as a subcontractor.
- SRA alleged that CSC's planned use of Blue Canopy created an Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) because Blue Canopy's prior auditing work gave it unequal access to SRA's proprietary information.
- In response to the OCI allegation, CSC agreed to remove Blue Canopy as a subcontractor.
- On November 25, 2013, approximately three months after awarding the task order, the GSA issued a formal waiver for any remaining alleged OCI, stating the possibility of a conflict was 'exceedingly remote.'
Procedural Posture:
- After GSA awarded the ISC-3 task order to CSC, SRA filed a protest with the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
- In response to the GAO protest, GSA issued an OCI waiver, which led the GAO to dismiss SRA's protest as academic.
- SRA then filed a post-award bid protest in the United States Court of Federal Claims (the trial court), challenging the OCI waiver's validity.
- The Government moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the protest was barred by FASA.
- The Court of Federal Claims denied the Government's motion, holding that it had jurisdiction to review the waiver.
- Subsequently, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed SRA’s case on the merits as moot and entered final judgment for the Government.
- SRA, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act's (FASA) bar on protests 'in connection with the issuance or proposed issuance of a task or delivery order' strip the Court of Federal Claims of jurisdiction over a challenge to an agency's post-award waiver of an alleged organizational conflict of interest (OCI)?
Opinions:
Majority - Prost, Chief Judge.
Yes. A protest challenging a post-award OCI waiver is barred from judicial review if the waiver is 'in connection with the issuance' of a task order. The plain language of FASA clearly and unambiguously bars protests related to the issuance of task orders, and this bar applies even to post-award agency actions that are causally linked to the award. The court reasoned that neither the discretionary nature of the OCI waiver nor the temporal gap between the award and the waiver removes the action from FASA's jurisdictional bar. The waiver was directly and causally connected to the issuance of the task order because GSA issued it specifically to allow the award to CSC to proceed despite SRA's protest. Furthermore, the relief SRA sought—rescission of the task order—demonstrates that the protest was fundamentally about the issuance of the task order itself, not merely the waiver as a separate action. The court noted that Congress has repeatedly reaffirmed its intent to limit such protests by leaving FASA's general ban undisturbed through multiple amendments.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforces the broad jurisdictional bar established by the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA) on task order protests. It clarifies that the phrase 'in connection with' should be interpreted broadly, encompassing even post-award agency actions if they are causally linked to securing the original award. This holding limits the ability of unsuccessful bidders to challenge task order awards in the Court of Federal Claims by foreclosing arguments that try to isolate post-award corrective actions from the initial award decision. The ruling effectively channels most task order disputes to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and signals that attempts to circumvent the FASA bar through creative framing of the legal issue are unlikely to succeed.
