Background
Yona-Brixtel challenged the government’s award of a contract to Prime Source Technologies, LLC. While the protest was pending, the awardee fully performed the contract and the government closed it out.
The government moved to dismiss the protest’s requested relief other than bid-preparation and proposal costs. Yona-Brixtel agreed that its requests to halt contract performance and require meaningful discussions were moot, but argued that its requests for declaratory relief remained necessary to establish entitlement to costs.
The Court’s Holding
Senior Judge Victor J. Wolski granted the government’s motion in part. The court dismissed the requests for injunctive relief—counts 1, 2, 8, and 9 of the prayer for relief—because the challenged contract had already been completed.
The court denied the motion as to the requested declarations. Unlike in a case where completed performance leaves a declaration incapable of affording any relief, the requested determinations here remained material because Yona-Brixtel could recover bid-preparation and proposal costs only by proving prejudice from an unlawful or arbitrary procurement.
Key Takeaways
- Completed contract performance mooted Yona-Brixtel’s requests to stop performance and compel discussions.
- The completion of a procurement does not necessarily moot declaratory issues tied to a live claim for bid-preparation and proposal costs.
- A protester seeking those costs must establish prejudice from an unlawful or arbitrary procurement.
Why It Matters
The order distinguishes relief aimed at altering a completed procurement from adjudication needed to resolve a surviving monetary claim. A protester may still litigate the alleged procurement errors after performance ends when those findings are necessary to determine eligibility for bid-preparation and proposal costs.