Potential Intervenors Denied Intervention in Multi-Billion Dollar Protest as Having No Legal “Interest” in Protest
The Court of Federal Claims issued a decision on September 27, 2016 denying two motions to intervene in a bid protest.
Nevada Site Science Support and Technologies Corporation (NVS3T) filed a bid protest alleging that the Department of Energy’s decision to rescind a multi-billion dollar contract awarded to it based on ownership issues involving the Plaintiff was arbitrary and capricious. Following the bid protest, Mission Support & Test Services, LLC and Nuclear Security & Technology, LLC filed Motions to Intervene.
The Court, in denying the motions to intervene, relied on Rule 24 of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims and found that the potential intervenors have no real interest in the dispute. Rather, their interest is simply potentially being awarded the contract if the Plaintiff loses the protest.
Perhaps the Court said it best: “However, the simple fact that a party might benefit form another’s legal misfortune does not lead to an understanding that said party should have a role in occurrence of that legal misfortune. If a singer suffers a voice injury and is, as result, fired from her job, it is hardly conceivable to believe that a Court would allow a rival singer to intervene in that case on the side of the employer simply because he might subsequently get the newly vacant job!”
Nevada Site Science Support and Technologies Corporation v. United States, Fed. Cl., No. 16-1118C, 9/27/16, available at https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2016cv1118-31-0.
Protest Deemed Moot Due to Completion of Contracts
In a decision on September 26, 2016 from the Court of Federal Claims, the Court found that Plaintiff’s protest was rendered moot in light of the fact that the contracts have been completed.
This post-award bid protest involved a Plaintiff’s challenge to the Government’s use of research and development funds to develop software that the Plaintiff claims is already commercially available.
As way of background, in 2004, the U.S. Navy on behalf of the Department of Defense’s Combating Terrorism Technical Support Office (CTTSO) awarded a contract to Georgia Tech Applied Research Corporation (GTARC) for development of a program to aid first responders dealing with hazardous materials. In 2008, GTARC received a contract to enhance the program it developed. The resulting system was developed as “freeware” – a product free of charge to first responders at all levels of government.
The contracts at issue in Alluviam’s bid protest were not awarded until 2013 and 2014 – the Broad Agency Announcements (BAA) were issued in 2013 and 2014, seeking development of technologies related to chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or explosives. Alluviam submitted a proposal to the 2013 BAA but was eliminated from competition at an early stage, which it did not protest; Alluviam declined to submit a bid for the 2014 BAA. Both contracts were awarded to GTARC and are now near completion.
In February 2016, Alluviam filed an agency protest challenging the 2014 contract claiming that the agency improperly used the BAA procedure and that a member of the agency staff had a conflict of interest with GTARC. After the protest was denied at the agency level, Alluviam filed the protest at the Court of Federal Claims.
The Court, in determining that Plaintiff lacks standing to bring this bid protest, noted the fact that Alluviam did not protest the agency’s rejection of its proposal under the 2013 BAA, nor did it submit any proposal for the 2014 BAA. The Court further found that Alluviam is essentially challenging the Government’s procurement method in developing an already available commercial product, but Alluviam should have challenged that method when the agency begun this process in 2004 – now, nearly twelve years later, Plaintiff lacks the standing to object to the completed contracts.
The agency made its decision to approach the development of hazardous material response programs nearly twelve years ago when it awarded its first contract to GTARC in 2004, and the work performed is now nearly complete. Because Alluviam was aware of this development approach since 2004, it lacked standing to bring the protest. The Court also found that the completion of the contracts rendered the case moot.
Alluviam , LLC v. United States, et al., Fed. Cl., No. 16-614C, 9/26/16, available at https://ecf.cofc.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2016cv0614-87-0.
Kim Kardashian Has Made It to the Supreme Court – Kind Of
In more fun news – thanks to Justice Stephen Breyer, Kim Kardashian will be forever included on the transcript for a Supreme Court case.
On October 4, 2016, Justice Breyer brought up the celebrity in oral arguments in the matter of Shaw v. United States, a case involving whether the bank-fraud statute’s language “scheme to defraud a financial institution” requires proof of a specific intent to cheat a bank. Specifically, the case involved the appeal of Lawrence Shaw, who was convicted of bank fraud after transferring $300,000 to his account from another’s.
In discussing the necessary intent for bank-fraud and questioning whether the defendant must have the intent to cause the bank to lose money, Justice Breyer analogized the situation to more recent events (for those of us that don’t keep up with the Kardashians, Kim was recently robbed of nearly $10 million in jewelry while in Paris): “Even Kardashian’s thief, if there is one, believes that all jewelry is insured. Indeed over insured. So it’s not theft?” Breyer continued, “I’m asking you, if the local person comes to the door and says, dear Miss Kardashian, I am your local jewelry cleaner. Please give me your jewelry. She does. And that’s not fraud. He wanted to get the jewelry. He tried to get the – he also believed that the friend has just loaned it for the evening, that she’s triple insured, and that she won’t even lose any money because the publicity will be worth it. Okay?”
A full copy of the Supreme Court transcript is available at https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/15-5991_7648.pdf.
About the Author:
Heather Mims is an associate attorney at Centre Law & Consulting. Her practice is primarily focused on government contracts law, employment law, and litigation. Heather graduated magna cum laude from the George Mason School of Law where she was the Senior Research Editor for the Law Review and a Writing Fellow.