MVL USA, INC. v. United States
1:24-cv-01057
Fed. Cl.May 6, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs (seven consolidated bid protests by MVL, ECC, JCCBG2, Harper, Hensel Phelps/HPCC) challenged the Executive Order 14063 and FAR rules requiring project labor agreements (PLAs) on federal construction contracts over $35 million as arbitrary, capricious, and in violation of the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA).
- On January 19, 2025, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motions for judgment on the administrative record as-applied to seven specific solicitations, finding agencies’ implementation of the PLA mandate stifled competition and was arbitrary and capricious; the Court ordered agencies to reassess each solicitation.
- After that decision, agencies took corrective action: DoD issued a FAR class deviation (then revised), GSA issued a class exception for land port of entry projects, four solicitations were canceled, three solicitations were amended to remove PLAs, and five related protests were dismissed voluntarily.
- Plaintiffs moved for a permanent injunction rescinding EO 14063 and the FAR PLA rules nationwide; the government moved to dismiss for mootness and argued the Court lacks authority to rescind regulations in a bid protest.
- The Court held mootness is threshold, analyzed whether agencies’ corrective action “completely and irrevocably eradicated” the effects of the alleged violations, and considered whether the Court’s Tucker Act bid-protest jurisdiction permits broad, prospective relief invalidating the EO/FAR rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of protests after agency corrective action | Plaintiffs: corrective actions are impermanent and there is a reasonable expectation PLAs may recur; so cases not moot | Govt: solicitations canceled or amended to remove PLAs; class deviation/exception in place; no reasonable expectation of recurrence; protests moot | Moot: Court dismissed all seven consolidated protests as moot — agencies’ cancellations/amendments and deviations/exception eradicated the effects. |
| Court authority to enjoin or rescind EO and FAR regulations in bid protest | Plaintiffs: Tucker Act grants Court authority to grant "any relief" in procurement disputes; Boeing supports reviewing/regulating validity of FAR provisions in Court of Federal Claims | Govt: DGR and precedent limit the Court; facial challenges to regulations belong in district court under APA; Boeing does not authorize nationwide rescission in bid protests | Held: Court lacks authority in this bid-protest posture to rescind or broadly enjoin EO/FAR beyond the specific procurements; requested nationwide injunction exceeds §1491(b) jurisdiction. |
| Availability of permanent injunction (equitable factors) | Plaintiffs: succeeded on merits; will suffer irreparable harm absent injunction; public interest favors injunction | Govt: plaintiffs already received relief as to the challenged solicitations; speculative future harm insufficient to show irreparable injury | Held: Even assuming merits, plaintiffs failed to show likely irreparable harm; injunction denied. |
| Scope of Boeing and related precedent for regulation validity in procurement cases | Plaintiffs: Boeing extends to bid protests and supports Court invalidating FAR/EO; exclusive jurisdiction rationale | Govt: Boeing limited; must be read with DGR and Tucker Act limits — as-applied review ok, facial/regulatory invalidation belongs in district court | Held: Boeing does not authorize the broad regulatory rescission plaintiffs seek in this bid-protest; Court’s role is limited to as-applied relief for interested parties. |
Key Cases Cited
- MVL USA, Inc. v. United States, 174 Fed. Cl. 437 (Fed. Cl. 2025) (Court’s January 19, 2025 as-applied ruling invalidating agencies’ PLA application to seven solicitations)
- Boeing Co. v. United States, 119 F.4th 17 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (held Court of Federal Claims may decide validity of regulations when integral to contract disputes, but scope is limited)
- DGR Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 690 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (Court of Federal Claims cannot invalidate properly promulgated agency regulations in bid protests)
- Chapman Law Firm Co. v. Greenleaf Const. Co., 490 F.3d 934 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (voluntary cessation/mootness principles in bid protests; when corrective action may moot claims)
- Los Angeles County v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625 (1979) (voluntary cessation exception to mootness; defendant must show no reasonable expectation of recurrence)
- RAMCOR Servs. Grp., Inc. v. United States, 185 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (broad reading of “in connection with” in §1491(b))
- Myers Investigative & Sec’y Servs., Inc. v. United States, 275 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (mootness is threshold jurisdictional issue)
- PGBA, LLC v. United States, 389 F.3d 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (injunction standards and requirement to show likelihood of success and irreparable harm)
- Turner Constr. Co. v. United States, 645 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Court of Federal Claims’ broad equitable powers to fashion remedies)