Background
Wave Digital Assets, LLC challenged the U.S. Marshals Service’s award of a contract to store and liquidate seized cryptocurrency to Command Services & Support, Inc. The Court previously dismissed the protest, concluding that post-award criminal allegations involving CMDSS employee John Daghita concerned contract administration and fell outside the Court’s bid-protest jurisdiction.
Wave moved for reconsideration under RCFC 59. It argued that CMDSS had engaged in a procurement “bait-and-switch” by proposing one person as project manager but later allowing Daghita—who allegedly lacked required qualifications—to lead work involving USMS cryptocurrency assets. Wave relied in part on a previously sealed affidavit from a separate criminal case describing Daghita’s operational role. Wave also cited a proposed teaming agreement that never materialized as alleged evidence that CMDSS misled the agency.
The Court’s Holding
The Court denied reconsideration because Wave did not establish an intervening change in controlling law, previously unavailable evidence bearing on the legality of the award, or a manifest injustice that was virtually indisputable. Although the criminal-case affidavit had not been in the administrative record, it addressed personnel assignments made during contract performance rather than the propriety of the original award.
The Court held that Daghita’s alleged involvement beginning months after award concerned contract administration, not a reviewable flaw in the award decision. Wave therefore failed to show that the post-award personnel evidence justified reopening the dismissed bid protest. The Court likewise declined to grant relief based on the unrealized teaming arrangement.
Key Takeaways
- RCFC 59 reconsideration requires extraordinary circumstances, such as a controlling-law change, previously unavailable material evidence, or the need to prevent manifest injustice.
- Evidence that an awardee assigned allegedly unqualified personnel after award ordinarily concerns contract administration rather than the legality of the procurement decision.
- Evidence unavailable during the original proceedings does not warrant reconsideration when it does not bear on whether the agency lawfully made the award.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the jurisdictional boundary between bid protests, which examine the legality of an award, and disputes over how an awardee performs the resulting contract. Serious post-award allegations—even those involving the alleged theft of government-controlled cryptocurrency—do not by themselves establish that the agency’s award decision is reviewable or unlawful.
For disappointed offerors, the ruling also illustrates the demanding standard for reconsideration: newly surfaced information must be material to the award decision, not merely relevant to later contract performance.