Decision Released: Court of Federal Appeals OASIS MAS Protest

Background

Plaintiff, BCG Federal Corporation (“BCG”), seeks an order declaring that the One Acquisition for Integrated Services (“OASIS”) Multiple Award Schedule (“MAS”) solicitation issued by the United States General Services Administration (“GSA”), Federal Acquisition Service (“FAS”) is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law.  BCG asserts that GSA conducted inadequate market research and made an improper commerciality determination under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”).  BCG further asserts that GSA improperly required all offerors to submit indirect cost data in violation of FAR subpart 15.4.  Before the Court is the government’s motion to dismiss BCG’s first amended complaint for lack of standing under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”) and for failure to state a claim under RCFC 12(b)(6).  Also before the Court are the parties’ cross-motions for judgement on the administrative record (“MJAR”).

Discussion

The government moves to dismiss BCG’s complaint under RCFC 12(b)(1) for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that BCG does not have standing under Article III of the United States Constitution and that its claim is moot. The government also moves to dismiss the complaint under RCFC 12 (b)(6) for failure to state a claim, arguing that BCG lacks statutory standing under the Tucker Act. The Court finds that BCG has standing under Article III, that its claims are not moot, and that it has statutory standing under the Tucker Act.

A motion to dismiss for lack of standing pursuant to RCFC 12 (b)(1) questions whether the court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of the underlying dispute…

Decision

For the reasons set forth above, the government’s combined motion to dismiss and MJAR [ECF 19] is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. Its motion to dismiss is DENIED, and its MJAR is GRANTED.

Read the Decision here. 01515646534 bcg

🔊 Listen to Story