Coast Professional, Inc. v. United States
120 Fed. Cl. 727
Fed. Cl.2015Background
- Dept. of Education (FSA) awarded identical 2009 GSA Schedule task orders (TOs) to 22 private collection agencies (PCAs) for defaulted student loan collection; TOs included CPCS performance ratings and an "award-term" extension clause (Section H.4) allowing extensions based on high CPCS scores and other conditions.
- CPCS scores were calculated quarterly; a score ≥85 over the recent periods could qualify a contractor for an award-term extension; award-terms would be issued as new task orders under the original GSA schedules, subject to the original terms and target pricing.
- In Dec. 2014–Feb. 2015 FSA conducted undisclosed FDCPA/UDAAP audits of recorded calls and calculated error rates; five contractors (including the four plaintiffs here) exceeded the audit threshold and were informed they would not receive award-term extensions despite qualifying CPCS scores.
- Education announced intent to extend awards to five other contractors; plaintiffs filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims seeking injunctive relief to block the award-term extensions and challenge the agency action as a procurement/bid protest.
- Defendant and intervenors moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the dispute is one of contract administration governed by the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), not a bid protest under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1).
- The Court concluded the award-term decisions were exercises of contract administration under the original TOs (H.4), not new procurements or competitive source selections, and dismissed the consolidated complaints for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has bid-protest jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1) to review Education’s refusal to issue award-term extensions | Plaintiffs argued the agency’s decision to award extensions was a procurement/award decision subject to § 1491(b)(1) and alleged violations of procurement rules (e.g., competitive range, disparate treatment) | Government argued the decision was contract administration under existing TO terms (H.4) and thus governed by the CDA, not the court’s bid-protest jurisdiction | Court held it lacked jurisdiction under § 1491(b)(1); the matter is contract administration and outside bid-protest jurisdiction, so complaints dismissed |
| Whether award-term extensions constituted new contracts or procurements triggering procurement rules (e.g., competitive range) | Plaintiffs contended extensions were effectively new awards or a down-select requiring procurement protections | Government contended extensions were continuations under existing TO clauses (no change in scope, no source selection/discussions) | Court held extensions were not new procurements; no competitive range or down-select occurred |
| Whether plaintiffs could invoke procurement statutes (CICA, FAR concepts) to challenge the decision | Plaintiffs invoked FAR/CICA concepts (past performance, disparate treatment) to characterize the decision as a procurement | Government said FAR/CICA concepts did not apply because there were no proposals, price/technical evaluations, or negotiated source selection | Court held procurement statutes/concepts did not apply and plaintiffs’ regulatory arguments were misplaced |
| Whether plaintiffs waived any protest rights by failing to challenge earlier solicitation terms | Plaintiffs argued their challenge now was timely and focused on agency action in 2015 | Government noted waiver doctrine (Blue & Gold) could bar late challenges to solicitation terms | Court did not decide waiver; dismissal rested on lack of jurisdiction rather than waiver determination |
Key Cases Cited
- Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (Sup. Ct.) (context on Dept. of Education/FSA authority over student loans)
- United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (Sup. Ct.) (sovereign immunity principle: United States must consent to suit)
- Dalton v. Sherwood Van Lines, Inc., 50 F.3d 1014 (Fed. Cir.) (CDA is exclusive remedy for contract-administration disputes)
- RAMCOR Serv. Group, Inc. v. United States, 185 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir.) (scope of court of federal claims bid-protest jurisdiction)
- Distributed Solutions, Inc. v. United States, 539 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir.) (limitations on bid-protest jurisdiction over contract-administration matters)
- Blue & Gold Fleet L.P. v. United States, 492 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir.) (waiver doctrine for challenges to solicitation terms)
- Data Monitor Sys., Inc. v. United States, 74 Fed. Cl. 66 (Fed. Cl.) (court lacks jurisdiction to enjoin contract termination; exemplifies contract-administration exclusions)