Systems Application & Technologies, Inc. v. United States
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18031
| Fed. Cir. | 2012Background
- SA-TECH protested the Army's decision to take corrective action after initially awarding SA-TECH a contract for aerial target flight operations and maintenance; the Army amended the solicitation to include a new wage determination tied to a collective bargaining agreement and reopened discussions.
- The Army ultimately decided to terminate SA-TECH's award and reopen the procurement, citing corrective action and potential protest issues raised in GAO.
- SA-TECH argued the Army's corrective action was arbitrary, capricious, or unlawful, and challenged the Army's amendment to the solicitation and related procurement process.
- Kratos intervened, arguing the Army's actions and the GAO's stance warranted further scrutiny; the Court of Federal Claims held jurisdiction under the Tucker Act and rejected jurisdictional challenges.
- The Court of Federal Claims granted injunctive relief prohibiting the Army from implementing corrective action pending review, and the Army appealed to the Federal Circuit on jurisdiction and justiciability only.
- The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding the Tucker Act provides jurisdiction, SA-TECH had standing, and the action was ripe for judicial review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tucker Act §1491(b)(1) provides jurisdiction | SA-TECH contends protest concerns a procurement, within Tucker Act scope | Army argues narrower, non-procurement focus, limited jurisdiction | Yes, jurisdiction proper under Tucker Act |
| Whether SA-TECH has standing | SA-TECH suffered non-trivial competitive injury from corrective action | Standing not adequately shown | SA-TECH has standing as an interested party |
| Whether the protest was ripe for judicial review | Corrective action was final, not mere conjecture | Action remains interim until re-award | Protest ripe; corrective action final and binding for ripeness purposes |
| Whether the Court properly reviewed the merits of the Army's corrective action for arbitrariness | Challenge to agency action under governing procurement rules | Questions limited to jurisdiction; merits not before court | Court correctly reviewed jurisdiction and ripeness, not merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Resource Conservation Group, LLC v. United States, 597 F.3d 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (broad Tucker Act protest jurisdiction over procurement)
- Distributed Solutions, Inc. v. United States, 539 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (procurement protest scope under Tucker Act)
- Turner Construction Co. v. United States, 645 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (jurisdiction for post-award protests after corrective action)
- Centech Grp., Inc. v. United States, 554 F.3d 1029 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (preference for standing and procurement challenges)
- ManTech Telecomms. & Info. Sys. Corp. v. United States, 49 F.3d 57 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (bid protest standing and jurisdiction)
- Weeks Marine, Inc. v. United States, 575 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (standing and injury in bid protests)
- Rex Service Corp. v. United States, 448 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (direct economic interest in protest)
- Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd. v. United States, 529 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (ripeness framework in procurement context)
- Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (Sup. Ct. 1967) (ripeness doctrine—final agency action)