Mission Essential Personnel, LLC v. United States
104 Fed. Cl. 170
Fed. Cl.2012Background
- Mission Essential protested Army awards of three IDIQ contracts for Afghanistan intelligence support and later challenged the Army's corrective action that recompeted eight CLINs.
- GAO deemed the Army's corrective action appropriate and dismissed Mission Essential's protest; Army issued Task Order 12-01 for the eight CLINs.
- Mission Essential filed suit in this court on January 17, 2012 seeking relief and filed a motion for judgment on the administrative record with a concurrent TRO request.
- All parties moved to dismiss or for judgment on the administrative record; Mission Essential then voluntarily dismissed under RCFC 41(a)(1).
- Harding Security opposed the voluntary dismissal; the government did not object; the court had to resolve whether dismissal or dismissal-for-jurisdiction was appropriate.
- The court ultimately held it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under 10 U.S.C. § 2304c(e) because the protest related to the issuance of task orders and must dismiss without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the protest is in connection with a task-order issuance | Mission Essential contends the protest targets Army corrective action, not order issuance. | Government/Harding argue the protest is in connection with the issuance of task orders. | Yes; barred by § 2304c(e); lacks jurisdiction. |
| Whether Mission Essential can dismiss as of right under RCFC 41(a)(1) | 41(a)(1) dismissal should be allowed because no answer or summary judgment motion by opponents. | Motions for judgment on the administrative record replace summary judgment; rights expired. | No; cannot withdraw under 41(a)(1); dismissal must be under 41(a)(2). |
| Order of precedence between 41(a)(2) dismissal and 12(b)(1) motions | Court should allow voluntary dismissal under 41(a)(2). | Court should resolve jurisdiction first via 12(b)(1) before considering 41(a)(2). | Court must resolve jurisdiction first; then weigh 41(a)(2) merits if jurisdiction exists. |
| Disposition of the case given lack of jurisdiction | Dismissal with or without prejudice depending on merits. | Lack of jurisdiction warrants dismissal without prejudice. | Dismissal without prejudice; cross-motions denied as moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- DataMill, Inc. v. United States, 91 Fed.Cl. 740 (2010) (protest in connection with issuance of a noncompetitive delivery order)
- Global Computer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 88 Fed.Cl. 350 (2009) (modifications to a task order not barred by § 2304c(e))
- Unisys Corp. v. United States, 90 Fed.Cl. 510 (2009) (GAO stay issues not controlling merits; stay validity)
- Walter Kidde Portable Equip., Inc. v. Universal Sec. Instruments, Inc., 479 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (jurisdictional-first approach to Rule 41(a)(2))
- Freeman v. United States, 98 Fed.Cl. 360 (2011) (judgment on administrative record context affecting dismissal posture)