The Court of Federal Claims dismissed a protest for lack of jurisdiction because the protester's appeal rights in a similar federal district court action had not yet expired and that action was therefore "pending" for purposes of 28 USC 1500. The district court dismissed the suit after concluding the CFC had exclusive jurisdiction over the protester's Administrative Procedure Act challenge to the government's decision to insource weather forecasting work. The protester then filed in the CFC, maintaining the CFC had Tucker Act jurisdiction over the challenge. In its motion to dismiss, the government argued the protest was jurisdictionally defective under 28 USC 1500. To obtain a dismissal under 28 USC 1500, the movant must show the government is the defendant in both actions, the two suits share the same operative facts and request the same relief, and there is an action pending in another federal court when suit is filed in the CFC.