I. Is an agency’s termination for convenience of a contract for voluntary corrective action in response to the filing of a post-award bid protest in the Court of Federal Claims subject to review under the Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”) for breach of contract, where the record shows that: * the agency knew or should have known that the post-award bid protest had no merit; * the agency knew or should have known that the post-award bid protest was subject to a motion to dismiss for untimeliness; * the agency had a requirement and the funding and ability to perform the contract; and * the termination for convenience was based in part on the agency’s stated desire to obtain a better bargain for the same work by terminating the contract and cancelling the solicitation and awarding new contracts for the same work to other contractor(s).
II. If a termination for convenience is subject to judicial review for breach of contract under the CDA, what standard(s) of judicial review should be applied when reviewing a termination for convenience for breach of contract under the CDA?
III. If a termination for convenience is subject to judicial review for breach of contract under the CDA, should a CDA board of contract appeals give preclusive effect or deference to a non-binding GAO advisory opinion approving of the termination, that was issued months after the termination in the terminated contractor’s GAO protest against the cancellation of the solicitation, without considering the merits of the GAO’s advisory opinion?