Federal Court of Claims Decision Released: GSA OASIS+ sustainment

No. 24-1961C

Background

QED, doing business as Q2 Impact, protests its disqualification from a large solicitation issued by the General Services Administration (GSA).1 Q2 Impact alleges that it was improperly disqualified from consideration due to the government’s incorrect interpretation of a statutory provision that prohibits government agencies from contracting with entities that use certain high-risk equipment in their work. The government responds that under its interpretation of the statute and the regulations promulgated under the statute, Q2 Impact was properly disqualified. Both parties asked the court to interpret the relevant statute and regulations, and Q2 Impact moved for a preliminary injunction.

Discussion

This court’s jurisdiction is primarily defined by the Tucker Act, which provides the court with “jurisdiction to render judgment on an action by an interested party objecting to a solicitation by a Federal agency for bids or proposals for a proposed contract or to a proposed award or the award of a contract or any alleged violation of statute or regulation in connection with a procurement or proposed procurement.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b). The court can grant “any relief that the court considers proper,” including injunctive relief. Id. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b), the Court of Federal Claims has “jurisdiction to review both pre-award and post-award bid protests.” Banknote Corp. or America v. United States, 365 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The court “review[s] the agency’s decision pursuant to … the standards found in the Administrative Procedure Act” (APA). Id. “Among the various APA standards of review in section 706, the proper standard to be applied in bid protest cases is provided by 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A): a reviewing court shall set aside the agency action if it is ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in …

Decision

The court held a hearing on the motions for a statutory interpretation and for a preliminary injunction. After hearing arguments and taking a recess, the court issued a ruling from the bench, interpreting the statute in the way that Q2 Impact, not the government, reads it. The court also denied Q2 Impact’s motion for a preliminary injunction without prejudice on the basis that there was no prejudice to Q2 Impact at that time in waiting for a final judgment in the case. The parties requested a written opinion, so this opinion memorializes the court’s ruling from the bench on the statutory interpretation. More has happened since the hearing that has changed the parties’ arguments on the injunction, so this opinion will not address the request for a preliminary injunction. To the extent that circumstances have changed, this opinion addresses the facts as they were at the time of the hearing, on January 29, 2025. The court interprets the statute in the way that Q2 Impact reads it. Thus, the court determines that GSA’s decision to disqualify Q2 Impact from the solicitation was based on an incorrect interpretation of the statute.

For the reasons stated above, this court has determined that GSA’s decision to exclude Q2 Impact from the OASIS+ competition was based on an erroneous interpretation of § 889.

Read the decision here.

🔊 Listen to Story