Sra International, Inc. v. United States
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 17680
Fed. Cir.2014Background
- SRA International had provided network support to the FDIC under a GSA GWAC task order (ISC-2) and competed for successor task order ISC-3 under the Alliant GWAC; GSA awarded ISC-3 to CSC.
- SRA protested to GAO alleging two organizational conflicts of interest (OCIs) arising from CSC’s intended use of subcontractor Blue Canopy, which previously audited FDIC/SRA work.
- GSA received CSC’s agreement to drop Blue Canopy (curing the "impaired objectivity" OCI), but later issued an FAR 9.503 waiver (post-award) as to any remaining "unequal access to information" OCI; GAO dismissed the protest as academic.
- SRA filed a post-award bid protest in the Court of Federal Claims seeking to void the OCI waiver, enjoin award of ISC-3 to CSC, and rescission of the task order, arguing the waiver violated FDIC rules and was procedurally inadequate.
- The Government moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under FASA’s bar on protests “in connection with the issuance or proposed issuance of a task or delivery order” (41 U.S.C. § 4106(f)); the CFC held it had jurisdiction to review the waiver under the Tucker Act (third prong) and sought GAO advisory input; following GAO advisory that the waiver was not arbitrary, the CFC dismissed the case as moot.
- On appeal, the Federal Circuit held the CFC lacked jurisdiction because SRA’s challenge to the OCI waiver was “in connection with the issuance” of a task order and thus barred by FASA; the court vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction to review a post-award OCI waiver under the Tucker Act despite FASA’s bar on protests in connection with task-order issuance | SRA: Tucker Act’s third prong permits review of alleged statutory/regulatory violations "in connection with a procurement," and a temporally separate, discretionary waiver is not "in connection with" issuance | Government: The waiver was made to enable issuance of ISC-3 and thus is "in connection with" the task-order issuance; FASA bars judicial review of such protests | Held: FASA’s plain-language bar applies; the challenge to the waiver is "in connection with the issuance" of ISC-3, so CFC lacked jurisdiction and case must be dismissed |
| Whether temporal separation or discretionary nature of the waiver removes it from FASA’s bar | SRA: Post-award timing and discretionary nature make the waiver distinct from the issuance and outside FASA | Gov/CSC: Timing and discretion irrelevant; connection to award is dispositive | Held: Neither discretion nor post-award timing removes the waiver from FASA’s reach; connection to issuance controls |
| Whether the relief sought (rescission of task order) affects jurisdictional analysis | SRA: Challenge targets the waiver’s validity, not strictly the award | Gov: The requested remedy—setting aside the award—shows the protest is about issuance | Held: The remedy sought (rescission of the task order) supports conclusion that the protest is in connection with issuance and thus barred |
| Whether GAO exclusive jurisdiction or advisory opinion alters court’s jurisdiction | SRA: Tucker Act jurisdiction for statutory/regulatory claims remains | Gov: FASA assigns exclusive GAO jurisdiction for covered task-order protests | Held: FASA precludes CFC jurisdiction; GAO role and advisory opinion do not create CFC jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Distributed Solutions v. United States, 539 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (Tucker Act third-prong analysis of procurement-related statutory claims)
- Blueport Co. v. United States, 533 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (standard of review for jurisdictional questions)
- Billings v. United States, 322 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (statutory and regulatory construction reviewed without deference)
- Mission Essential Personnel, LLC v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 170 (Fed. Cl. 2012) (relief sought bears on whether protest is "in connection with" task-order issuance)
- Unisys Corp. v. United States, 90 Fed. Cl. 510 (Fed. Cl. 2009) (jurisdictional implications informed by requested relief)
- Global Computer Enterprises v. United States, 88 Fed. Cl. 350 (Fed. Cl. 2009) (post-award modifications and temporal separation considered in jurisdictional analysis)