The Court of Federal
Claims granted the government's
renewed motion to dismiss a protest
challenging an insourcing decision
because the protester lost its
standing when its contractual
relationship with the government
ended. The protester contended the
government's decision to insource
base supply services violated
10 USC 129a and
10 USC 2463. When the court
denied the government's original
motion to dismiss for lack of
standing, the protester was the
incumbent in the sixth of nine
possible contract extensions. The
court held the protester had a
financial interest in maintaining
its incumbency and would be injured
if the government failed to conduct
a proper cost comparison (
56 CCF ¶79,839). The court
declined to issue a preliminary
injunction but allowed the protester
to file an amended complaint
reflecting the end of the contract.
The government renewed its motion to
dismiss, alleging the expiration of
the contract with no further
extension was a change in
circumstances that affected the
court's rationale supporting the
protester's standing.
Snapping Point
The court agreed,
noting
"[u]nder no circumstances would we
enter an injunction now that the
[government] has completely absorbed
the work itself." Following
the expiration of the contract, an
injunction would be more disruptive,
cause more waste by unwinding the
transition to government personnel,
and require the government to
consider opening an interim contract
to other bidders. Although
"jurisdiction normally would be
fixed at the time of filing a suit …
the litigant must maintain a posture
in which the injury suffered could
be ‘redressed by a favorable
judicial decision’ admitting of
specific relief." Here,
considering what would happen if the
court entered an injunction led
"inexorably" to the
conclusion that standing had
"been stretched to the snapping
point." (
Elmendorf
Support Services JV v. U.S.,
FedCl,
56 CCF ¶79,891) |