It is unclear what if any value yesterday’s ruling brings to the challenger, other than the satisfaction that their case had merit, as the T4NG IDIQ is nearing its completion.

Nevertheless, we share here as the court reversed the lower court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. More will be shared as it is made available.


“In the case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, REV, LLC (“REV”), a veteran-owned small business that provides software consulting services, appealed a decision from the United States Court of Federal Claims regarding a bid process by the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”).

REV participated in the VA’s bid process for its Transformation Twenty-One Total Technology-Next Generation (“T4NG”) program, aimed at replenishing the pool of Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) vendors. REV was successful in the first stage of the bid process, but was eliminated in the second stage and was not among the final awardees.

REV filed a lawsuit against the VA in the Court of Federal Claims, arguing that the VA’s evaluation process was arbitrary and capricious due to alleged flaws in the process, including the VA’s evaluation of rival bidders’ submissions. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed REV’s claims, ruling that REV lacked standing to challenge the VA’s evaluation of rival bidders’ submissions and the VA’s establishment of the competitive range. The court found that REV failed to show that it was prejudiced as it could not establish that it had a greater than an insubstantial chance of securing an award had certain awardees been excluded from the bid process.

On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit disagreed with the lower court’s decision, holding that REV had standing to challenge the VA’s evaluation of rival bidders’ submissions and the VA’s establishment of the competitive range. The court reasoned that REV had shown a substantial chance that it would have been added onto the T4NG contract if not for the alleged errors, thereby satisfying the requirements for standing. The court reversed the lower court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.” Source Justia – Read more here.

Or access the document here.

22-1759-2024-01-29



Want to get involved with OS AI? - A small number of Sponsorship Opportunities are now available here. Starting at $500.

How useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

We are sorry that this post was not useful for you!

Let us improve this post!

Tell us how we can improve this post?

Leave a Reply