This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion, three nonprecedential orders, and one nonprecedential Rule 36 summary affirmance. The opinion addresses an appeal from a decision of the Court of Federal Claims regarding a government procurement contract. One order grants a motion to withdraw a petition for review, and the two remaining orders are dismissals. Here is the introduction to the opinion, text from the order granting the motion, and links to the dismissals and summary affirmance.

Sagam Securite Senegal v. United States (Nonprecedential Opinion)

In this bid protest action, the Department of State (“State” or the “agency”) appeals a decision by the Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) holding that State’s decision to cancel and resolicit a procurement contract lacked a rational basis.  After making an award to Torres-SAS Security LLC Joint Venture (“Torres”), State discovered that it had violated the Procurement Integrity Act (“PIA”) during its initial evaluation of proposals by sharing information from the proposal of SAGAM Securite Senegal (“SAGAM”) with competitor Torres.  State therefore determined cancellation and resolicitation was warranted.  SAGAM protested that decision.  The Claims Court granted SAGAM’s motion for judgment on the administrative record and entered a permanent injunction.  SAGAM Securite Senegal v. United States, 154 Fed. Cl. 653 (2021) (“Decision”).  Based on the unusual facts at hand, we affirm.

John Paul Jones, III v. Department of Health and Human Services (Nonprecedential Order)

Upon consideration of John Paul Jones, III’s motion to withdraw his petition for review and in light of respondent’s agreement that each side should bear its own costs upon the withdrawal, see Fed. R. App. P. 42(b),


(1) The motion is granted.  The petition is withdrawn. 

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.


Rule 36 Judgment