Veterans4You LLC v. United States


Issue(s) Presented

“The issues on appeal center on the interplay of the Rule of Two mandate in 38 U.S.C. §§ 8127, 8128 and the printing mandate in 44 U.S.C. § 501 requiring the GPO to conduct printing solicitations for federal agencies. The issues are as follows:”

  1. “Whether the printing mandate of 44 U.S.C. § 501 applies to the imprinted gun locks, keys and wallet cards required by the Solicitation.”
  2. “Whether the VA adequately explained and documented its reasons for using the GPO to conduct the Solicitation.”
  3. “Whether the CFC erroneously concluded that because the Solicitation was conducted by the GPO and not the VA, the VA was not required to conduct a Rule of Two analysis under 38 U.S.C. § 8127(d) and instead 38 U.S.C. § 8127(i) merely required the VA to request the GPO to comply with the Rule of Two ‘to the maximum extent feasible.’”
  4. “Whether the CFC properly concluded that the Rule of Two and printing mandate are not in conflict despite the invocation of the printing mandate resulting in complete non-adherence to the Rule of Two.”
  5. “Whether the CFC properly concluded that the GPO had reasonably complied with its own regulations and the VA’s request to adhere to the Rule of Two ‘to the maximum extent feasible.’”


“[W]e hold that the printing mandate in 44 U.S.C. § 501 applies only to the production of written or graphic published materials. Based on the undisputed factual record, we thus conclude that the solicitation at issue here does not involve ‘printing’ within the meaning of 44 U.S.C. § 501, because the goods which are the object of the solicitation (including the components that involve some element of ‘printing’ in a broad sense, such as the wallet card and the imprinted information on the body of the padlocks) are not written or graphic published materials.”

. . . .

“[W]e reverse the Court of Federal Claims’ determination that the printing mandate applied to the solicitation at issue here, and thereby obligated VA to route the solicitation through GPO. We remand to the Court of Federal Claims for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”