Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:13-CV-00969, Judge Susan G. Braden.
JEFFERY M. CHIOW, Rogers Joseph O'Donnell, P.C. of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief were ROBERT S. METZGER and OLIYA S. ZAMARAY. Of counsel was PATRICIA A. MEAGHER, of San Francisco, California. Of counsel on the brief was MICHAEL J. SCHAENGOLD, Patton Boggs LLP, of Washington, DC.
STEVEN M. MAGER, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee United States. On the brief were STUART F. DELERY, Assistant Attorney General, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., Director, DONALD E. KINNER, Assistant Director, and CHRISTOPHER J. CARNEY, Trial Attorney. Of counsel on the brief were MARIE COCHRAN, Assistant General Counsel, Personal Property Division, United States General Services Administration, of Washington, DC; and KATHRYN R. NORCROSS, Senior Counsel, DUNCAN N. STEVENS and ROBERT J. BROWN, Counsel, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, of Arlington, Virginia.
CARL J. PECKINPAUGH, Computer Sciences Corporation, of Falls Church, Virginia, argued for defendant-appellee Computer Sciences Corporation. With him on the brief was EVAN D. WESSER. Of counsel on the brief were PAUL F. KHOURY and SAMANTHA S. LEE, Wiley Rein LLP, of Washington, DC.
Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.
Prost, Chief Judge.
SRA International, Inc. (" SRA" ) appeals the dismissal of its bid protest in which it alleged that the General Services Administration (" GSA" ) violated various laws by waiving an organizational conflict of interest (" OCI" ) after awarding a task order to Computer Sciences Corporation (" CSC" ) for services to be rendered to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (" FDIC" ). Although dismissing the case on other grounds, the United States Court of Federal Claims held that it had jurisdiction over the challenge to the validity of the OCI waiver under the Tucker Act, despite the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (" FASA" ) bar on jurisdiction over protests " in connection with the issuance or proposed issuance of a task or delivery order," 41 U.S.C. § 4106(f)(1) (2012). SRA Int'l, Inc. v. United States, No. 1:13-cv-00969, 114 Fed. Cl. 247, (Fed. Cl. Jan. 13, 2014) (" Order " ). Because the GSA executed the disputed OCI waiver in connection with the issuance of the task order, we vacate and remand with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.
Appellant SRA provided network infrastructure support to the FDIC since 2009 under the GSA's Millennia Government-Wide Acquisition Contract (" GWAC" ). Order at *1-2. SRA provided these services pursuant to a task order referred to as ISC-2. Id. at *2. While SRA had worked under ISC-2, Blue Canopy Group, LLC (" Blue Canopy" ) conducted security audits for the FDIC of SRA's network security. Id. at *3.
In June 2012, the GSA issued a Task Order Request pursuant to the Alliant GWAC, which superseded the Millennia GWAC. Id. at *2. Though the services were to be provided to the FDIC, the GSA procured the task order. See J.A. 180. In October 2012, the GSA awarded a task order to appellee CSC. Order at *2. SRA protested the award to the Government Accountability Office (" GAO" ), and the GSA terminated the task order for convenience. Id. The GSA then reissued the Task Order Request with certain corrective amendments, and, on August 14, 2013, the GSA again awarded a task order to CSC--referred to as ISC-3--for more than $365 million. Id. at *3.
SRA filed a second protest to the GAO for the award of ISC-3 on August 26, 2013,
alleging that there were two OCIs based on CSC's intended use of Blue Canopy as a subcontractor: " impaired objectivity" ; and " unequal access to information." Id. SRA alleged that Blue Canopy's work with the FDIC gave Blue Canopy " access to SRA's proprietary information" and knowledge of " how the FDIC evaluated SRA's work," ...