BRANDT DEVELOPMENT v. United States
1:25-cv-00284
| Fed. Cl. | Jul 29, 2025Background
- Brandt Development (a sole proprietorship of Janeen D. Smith) submitted a bid for a $334 million Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) contract seeking hypersonic aircraft technology.
- The bid was classified as “Not Selectable” by AFRL, meaning it was not considered for award regardless of available funding.
- Brandt Development did not protest the classification until almost two years after contract award and after learning Leidos, Inc. had won the contract.
- The plaintiff alleged improper rejection of its bid, unethical treatment as a Woman-Owned Small Business, and claimed the winning bidder (Leidos) engaged in fraud post-award with government complicity.
- The government moved to dismiss, asserting lack of jurisdiction, improper party representation, mootness, and that Brandt was not an “interested party.”
- The court determined Brandt failed to state a claim concerning procurement and lacked jurisdiction over post-award allegations regarding contract administration and fraud.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over bid protest | Brandt suffered prejudice from improper bid rejection | Plaintiff lacked standing as "Not Selectable" bid had no chance | No jurisdiction/statutory standing |
| Timeliness of protest | Limitation period was tolled by fraud and late discovery | FAR deadline missed; plaintiff waived objection by not protesting timely | Protest was untimely; no tolling applies |
| Failure to state claim re: procurement process | AFRL acted improperly and unfairly in rejecting the bid | Plaintiff provides only conclusory, unsupported allegations | Allegations are conclusory; no claim stated |
| Jurisdiction over post-award fraud/contract admin | Leidos’ actions (fraud, contract breaches) taint the government award | Disputes over contract admin/fraud aren't covered by bid protest statute | No jurisdiction over post-award or fraud claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Holley v. United States, 124 F.3d 1462 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (plaintiff must state necessary elements for jurisdiction)
- REV, LLC v. United States, 91 F.4th 1156 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (defining "interested party" status under Tucker Act)
- COMINT Sys. Corp. v. United States, 700 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (pre-award protest waiver for untimely challenge)
- Info. Tech. & Applications Corp. v. United States, 316 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (substantial chance of award required to show prejudice)
- Dalton v. Sherwood Van Lines, Inc., 50 F.3d 1014 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (CDA as exclusive mechanism for contract disputes)