Decision Released: Court of Federal Claims DOJ Civil Division IT Services

Background

In December 2022, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) issued a Task Order Request for Proposal No. 15JPSS23R00000012 (the “Task Order”), wherein the DOJ sought to procure information technology services for its Civil Division.  The DOJ received offers from plaintiff, Computer World, and defendant-intervenor, Hygeia Solutions Partners (“Hygeia”), who is also the incumbent contractor.  See Complaint at 1, 3–6, ECF No. 1 [hereinafter Compl.].  Both offerors provide information technology services to federal agencies and private entities.   Id. at 3.

In May 2023, the DOJ awarded the Task Order to Hygeia after concluding that its offer provided the best value to the government.  Id. at 6–8.  Computer World subsequently protested the award at the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”), challenging, in part, the sufficiency of the DOJ’s comparative evaluation between Computer World and Hygeia.  Id.  The DOJ then took its first voluntary corrective action to perform a comparative evaluation of the offerors more thoroughly …

Discussion

This Court and the United States Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) have repeatedly stressed that any claim—even if it is predicated upon an agency’s inadequate corrective action—that is made “in connection with the issuance or proposed issuance of a task or delivery order” is beyond our subject-matter jurisdiction.  SRA International, Inc., 766 F.3d at 1413 (construing 41 U.S.C. § 4106(f)(1)); Percipient.ai, Inc., 104 F.4th at 847; e.g., Nexagen Networks, Inc. v. United States, 124 Fed. Cl. 645, 653–54 (2015); Mission Essential Pers., LLC v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 170, 179 (2012).  Because Computer World claims that the DOJ’s task order corrective action was inadequate, the precedent is controlling, and the suit must be dismissed pursuant to …

Decision

Law should guide litigants.  Particularly, jurisdictional guideposts point to whether “the power of the court should be exerted [o]n [a claimant’s] behalf.”  McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. of Indiana, 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936).  This matter, according to all parties, is no exception; a single already adjudicated question decides it:  Is the protest “connected to the issuance or proposed issuance of a task order?”  E.g., Plaintiff’s Response to Both Defendant and Defendant Intervenor’s Motions to Dismiss at 2, ECF No. 23 [hereinafter Pl.’s Response]; Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss at 2, ECF No. 21 [hereinafter Def.’s Mot.].  Unsurprisingly, the answer is yes—meaning dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is required.  See SRA International, Inc. v. United States, 766 F.3d 1409, 1413 (Fed. Cir. 2014).  Plaintiff Computer World Services Corporation’s (“Computer World”) complaint, ECF No. 1, is thus dismissed without prejudice.

Read the decision here.

🔊 Listen to Story