Monbo v. United States — Federal Circuit affirmed dismissal of FAA bid protest for lack of jurisdiction

Case
Dee Monbo v. United States
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Judge
Alan D. Lourie (George H. W. Bush, 1990); Kara F. Stoll (Barack Obama, 2015); Leonard P. Stark (Joe Biden, 2022)
Date Decided
September 15, 2026
Docket No.
25-2027
Topics
Bid Protests; FAA Procurements; Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Dee Monbo, proceeding pro se on behalf of Monbo Group International, challenged the Federal Aviation Administration’s cancellation of a solicitation for financial services. Monbo alleged that she had submitted a joint proposal with Monbo Group, that it was the lowest-priced proposal, and that they would have received the contract absent the allegedly improper cancellation.

The Court of Federal Claims dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It concluded that Congress created a comprehensive scheme requiring FAA procurement protests to proceed through the FAA’s Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition, with judicial review available in the appropriate court of appeals. Monbo appealed.

The Court’s Holding

The Federal Circuit affirmed. It held that Congress displaced the Court of Federal Claims’ otherwise applicable Tucker Act jurisdiction over FAA bid protests by establishing an exclusive administrative-review process through ODRA. Because Monbo challenged the cancellation of an FAA procurement solicitation, her protest belonged before ODRA rather than the Court of Federal Claims.

The court rejected Monbo’s reliance on an earlier district-court decision stating that her challenge to an Air Force procurement belonged, if anywhere, in the Court of Federal Claims. That decision involved a Department of Defense procurement governed by a different jurisdictional framework and therefore did not establish jurisdiction over an FAA procurement protest.

Key Takeaways

  • ODRA is the exclusive administrative forum for protests involving FAA procurements.
  • The specialized FAA review scheme displaces the Court of Federal Claims’ Tucker Act bid-protest jurisdiction.
  • Jurisdictional rulings concerning Department of Defense procurements do not control FAA procurement disputes because the agencies operate under different statutory frameworks.

Why It Matters

The nonprecedential decision underscores that contractors contesting FAA procurement actions must use the agency-specific ODRA process. Filing directly in the Court of Federal Claims cannot bypass that exclusive administrative scheme, even when a similar protest involving another federal agency might fall within the Claims Court’s jurisdiction.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top