5 Key Bid Protest Decisions Of 2020
USA December 23 2020
In 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, and the U.S. Government Accountability Office issued five decisions worthy of particular note:
Inserso Corp. v. U.S.[1]
Teledyne Brown Engineering Inc.[2]
Kiewit Infrastructure West Co. v. U.S.[3]
LAX Electronics Inc. v. U.S.[4]
Centerra Integrated Facilities Services LLC.[5]
This article provides a brief overview of these five cases and discusses how they might shape the bid protest landscape going forward.[6]
Inserso
The Facts
In March 2016, the Defense Information Systems Agency posted the Encore III solicitation for indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts for IT services. The competition was divided into two suites: one for full and open competition and the other restricted to small businesses.
This installment of our monthly
Law360 bid protest spotlight examines three protest decisions from three different forums: one from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), one from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and one from U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC). In
Mayatech Corp., the GAO addressed its jurisdiction to hear bid protests of task orders valued at less than $10 million in limited circumstances. The Federal Circuit also addressed a jurisdictional question this month in
LAX Electronics, Inc., where it interpreted the meaning of the requirement that a bid protest must be “in connection with a procurement or proposed procurement” to invoke the COFC’s bid protest jurisdiction. Finally, in