This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential orders, and one erratum. The precedential opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims based on lack of standing. One order dismisses an appeal, while the other transfers a case to a district court. Here is the introduction to the opinion, selected text from the transfer order, and links to the dismissal and the erratum.
Rev, LLC v. United States (Precedential Opinion)
REV, LLC (“REV”) is a veteran-owned small business that provides software consulting services to private and public entities. In response to a solicitation (“Solicitation”) by the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”), REV participated in a bid process in hopes of joining the vendor pool for the VA’s Transformation Twenty-One Total Technology-Next Generation (“T4NG”) program. To determine who to add to its vendor pool, the VA conducted a two-step evaluation of the bids it received. While REV was among the successful participants in the first step, REV was eliminated at the second stage, never making it to the competitive range from which awardees were ultimately selected.
REV filed suit against the VA in the Court of Federal Claims. Several winning bidders intervened and also became defendants. The Court of Federal Claims granted the motions of the VA and the intervenor-defendants for judgment on the administrative record. In doing so, the trial court rejected on the merits REV’s critiques of the VA’s evaluation of the strength of REV’s own proposal. The court then dismissed for lack of standing REV’s challenges to the VA’s evaluation of rival bidders’ submissions and the VA’s establishment of the competitive range.
REV now appeals only the portion of the judgment based on its lack of standing. We agree with REV that because REV showed it had a greater than an insubstantial chance of securing an award had certain awardees been excluded from the bid process, which REV alleged they should have been, it has standing. We reverse this portion of the judgment and remand for the Court of Federal Claims to address the merits of REV’s claims attacking the VA’s assessment of competing bids and its establishment of the competitive range.
Emanuele v. Department of Transportation (Nonprecedential Order)
Upon consideration of the court’s October 17, 2023, order and Sarah P. Emanuele’s lack of response to that order,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
This case and all transmittals are transferred to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey pursuant to the court’s October 17, 2023, order and 28 U.S.C. § 1631.