Nika Technologies, Inc. v. United States, 987 F.3d 1025

Army Corps issued an RFP; NIKA submitted a bid but did not receive the award and timely requested a debriefing.
The Corps provided a written debriefing on March 4, 2020, and informed NIKA it could submit additional questions within two business days; NIKA submitted no questions.
NIKA filed a GAO protest on March 10 (six days after the written debriefing); GAO denied an automatic stay as untimely under 31 U.S.C. § 3553(d) (which permits a stay if notice is given within five days of the debriefing date).
NIKA sued in the Court of Federal Claims, arguing the debriefing includes the two-business-day question window per 10 U.S.C. § 2305(b)(5)(B)(vii), so the GAO filing was timely; the CFC granted a stay.
The government appealed; the underlying GAO protest concluded while this appeal was pending, rendering NIKA’s interest moot, so NIKA did not respond.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the case is moot or fits the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception	The controversy fits the exception; review warranted because timelines preclude full review before mootness	The order has expired and the appeal is moot	Exception applies: issue is capable of repetition and evades review; merits considered
Whether the "debriefing date" in 31 U.S.C. § 3553(d)(4)(A)(ii) is the date the bidder receives the debriefing or the end of the two-business-day question period	The debriefing includes the two-business-day question window (per 10 U.S.C. § 2305(b)(5)(B)(vii)), so the five-day GAO-filing deadline runs after that window	"Debriefing date" means the date the bidder receives the debriefing; the two-day question opportunity occurs after the debriefing but within the five-day filing window; only when questions are submitted does the deadline extend	Held for the government: "debriefing date" = date of receipt; NIKA’s GAO protest (filed on day six) was untimely and did not invoke the automatic stay

DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (mootness doctrine: case becomes non-justiciable when it no longer affects the parties)
Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (standards for mootness and exceptions)
Kingdomware Techs., Inc. v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1969 (recognizing issues that are capable of repetition yet evading review)
City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (requirements for showing the capable-of-repetition exception)
Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (emphasizing that capable-of-repetition does not require a showing that recurrence is more probable than not)