Summary
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Court of Federal Claims judgment declaring arbitrary and capricious an agency’s override of the automatic stay imposed under the Competition in Contracting Act. The court held that the appeal remained justiciable under the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception to mootness, even after the government withdrew the override. It further held that a protestor seeking declaratory relief challenging a CICA stay override need only establish that the agency action was arbitrary and capricious, without satisfying the traditional four-factor test for injunctive relief.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the government's appeal was within the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception to mootness after GSA withdrew the CICA stay override.
- Whether a bid protestor seeking declaratory relief against an arbitrary-and-capricious CICA stay override must also satisfy the traditional four-factor test for preliminary injunctive relief.
Holdings
- The appeal remained justiciable because the dispute over the legal standard governing review of a CICA stay override was capable of repetition yet likely to evade review.
- A bid protestor seeking a declaration that an agency override of a CICA automatic stay was arbitrary and capricious need only establish that the override was arbitrary and capricious; the protestor need not separately prove likelihood of success, irreparable harm, favorable equities, and public benefit.
Key quotations
“A dispute qualifies for th[is] exception only if (1) the challenged action is in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to cessation or expiration, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subjected to the same action again.” (7)
“A bid protestor seeking a declaration that an agency override of a CICA stay is arbitrary and capricious need only show that, in fact, the agency’s override was arbitrary and capricious.” (10)
“If a court determines that the government’s override is arbitrary and capricious, that agency action is a nullity and the default rule – i.e., the automatic stay – is reimposed.” (14)
“There is no place in this statutory regime for courts to superimpose the judge-made four-factor test governing equitable relief as an additional burden on the protestor.” (14)
Factual background
Life Science Logistics had operated Strategic National Stockpile facilities for many years and was the incumbent provider for the National Capitol Region facility. After the government awarded a replacement contract to Integrated Quality Solutions, LSL filed a GAO protest that triggered CICA's automatic stay. The General Services Administration overrode the stay based on a written determination that urgent and compelling circumstances existed and that overriding the stay was in the government's best interest. The Court of Federal Claims declared the override arbitrary and capricious, and the government appealed after GAO later sustained LSL's protest and GSA withdrew the override.
Procedural history
After the General Services Administration awarded the National Capitol Region Strategic National Stockpile contract to Integrated Quality Solutions LLC, Life Science Logistics protested the award before the Government Accountability Office, triggering CICA's automatic stay. GSA overrode the stay, and LSL sued in the Court of Federal Claims under the APA. The Court of Federal Claims issued a declaratory judgment that the override was arbitrary and capricious without applying the traditional four-factor equitable-relief test. While the appeal was pending, GAO sustained LSL's protest and GSA withdrew the override, mooting the underlying dispute, but the Federal Circuit applied the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception and affirmed.