Background
The Department of Energy awarded Siemens Government Technologies an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for energy-savings projects. The Defense Logistics Agency later selected Siemens to develop a proposed project at Goodfellow Air Force Base. Siemens prepared a preliminary assessment, an investment-grade audit, and several additional courses of action requested by the agency, but DLA ultimately canceled the task-order procurement.
Siemens sought approximately $2.84 million in development costs and sued after DLA and DOE contracting officers denied its claims. Counts II and III of its second amended complaint invoked the Court of Federal Claims’ bid-protest jurisdiction and alleged, among other things, that the government failed to treat Siemens honestly and fairly and violated procurement statutes and regulations. A previously assigned judge declined to dismiss those counts, concluding that the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act’s task-order bar did not apply. The government moved under RCFC 54(b) for reconsideration of that ruling; its motion did not address Siemens’s contract claim in Count I.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the government’s motion for reconsideration. It held that the government had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances, a manifest error of law, or a mistake of fact warranting relief from the prior interlocutory ruling.
The court reaffirmed that FASA did not bar Counts II and III because Siemens’s claims were not directly and causally connected to the issuance or proposed issuance of the Goodfellow task order. Siemens sought reimbursement of costs after the procurement had been canceled rather than an order setting aside, compelling, or otherwise altering a task-order award. The court also concluded that the prior judge permissibly considered Siemens’s requested remedy and the reasoning of the Federal Circuit’s vacated panel opinion in Percipient.ai. Although that panel opinion lacked precedential force, its FASA analysis could retain persuasive value because the en banc court expressly declined to revisit the task-order-bar issue.
Key Takeaways
- FASA’s task-order bar does not reach every protest associated with a task order; the challenged action must be directly and causally connected to the order’s issuance or proposed issuance.
- The relief requested may help determine whether a protest falls within the task-order bar, although the remedy is not invariably dispositive.
- Reconsideration under RCFC 54(b) requires more than repeating arguments previously considered and rejected; the movant must identify exceptional circumstances such as manifest legal error or factual mistake.
Why It Matters
The decision preserves a potential Court of Federal Claims forum for contractors seeking bid-preparation or development costs after a task-order procurement is canceled, where the challenge would not affect the issuance or proposed issuance of an order. It also underscores that FASA’s jurisdictional limitation turns on the connection between the challenged agency conduct and task-order issuance, not merely on whether the dispute arose during a task-order procurement.
The ruling is procedural rather than a determination that Siemens will prevail. It leaves Counts II and III pending and does not resolve Count I or the ultimate merits of Siemens’s demand for development costs.