Sonoran Technology and Professional Services, LLC v. United States
133 Fed. Cl. 401
| Fed. Cl. | 2017Background
- Air Force issued RFP for B-52/B-51 aircrew training requiring a facility security clearance (FCL) at award; Sonoran and Spectre Pursuit Group (SPG) were offerors.
- SPG lacked an FCL at proposal submission; Contracting Officer (Capt. Sidor) found SPG ineligible and awarded the contract to Sonoran on July 22, 2016.
- SPG protested; before resolution the Air Force took corrective action and referred SPG’s responsibility to the SBA; the SBA initially declined to decide because award had been made.
- After SPG later obtained an FCL and the parties represented that a COC would be processed, SBA reconsidered, issued a Certificate of Competency (COC) for SPG, and the Air Force terminated Sonoran’s contract and awarded it to SPG.
- Sonoran filed this protest challenging the termination and moved to amend its complaint to add two counts against the SBA for (1) improperly issuing a COC to an allegedly non-responsible bidder and (2) improperly reopening a prior declination to issue a COC.
- The court previously limited discovery into SBA deliberations as irrelevant to Sonoran’s original complaint; Sonoran then moved to amend on July 12, 2017. The court denied the motion to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court has jurisdiction to review SBA’s issuance of a COC | Sonoran: Court can review SBA’s issuance and agency process was arbitrary, capricious, violated regulations, and improperly reopened a declination | Govt/SBA: FAR makes SBA COC conclusive on responsibility; issuance is not judicially reviewable | Court: No jurisdiction to review issuance of a COC; FAR and precedent bar review of COC issuance |
| Whether Sonoran’s proposed amendment is timely and justified | Sonoran: newly discovered record materials and investigation justify amendment | Govt: Sonoran delayed and knew earlier that SBA reasoning was irrelevant; amendment would be futile | Court: Amendment denied for unjustified delay and futility (no jurisdiction) |
Key Cases Cited
- Cavalier Clothes, Inc. v. United States, 810 F.2d 1108 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (distinguishes judicial reviewability of SBA denials from issuance of COCs; issuance conclusive)
- Related Industries, Inc. v. United States, 2 Cl. Ct. 517 (Ct. Cl. 1983) (SBA certification treated as final and conclusive for responsibility)
- C&G Excavating, Inc. v. United States, 32 Fed. Cl. 231 (Fed. Cl. 1994) (court jurisdiction recognized for COC denials; distinguishes issuances)
- Stapp Towing, Inc. v. United States, 34 Fed. Cl. 300 (Fed. Cl. 1995) (confirms review of SBA decisions denying COCs)
- Red River Serv. Corp. v. United States, 60 Fed. Cl. 532 (Fed. Cl. 2004) (clarifies Cavalier Clothes: jurisdiction for denials, not issuances)
- Emerald Coast Finest Produce Co., Inc. v. United States, 76 Fed. Cl. 445 (Fed. Cl. 2007) (discusses futility of amendment where jurisdiction lacking)