Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-23-01216/USCOURTS-ca13-23-01216-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States
Appellant
eSimplicity, Inc.
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

______________________

ESIMPLICITY, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellant

______________________

2023-1216

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:22-cv-00543-SSS, Judge Stephen S. Schwartz.

______________________

Decided: December 16, 2024

______________________

ERIC VALLE, PilieroMazza PLLC, Washington, DC, 

argued for plaintiff-appellee. Also represented by ISAIAS 

(CY) ALBA, IV, PATRICK TRENT ROTHWELL; KATHERINE 

BAUER BURROWS, Annapolis, MD. 

 JANA MOSES, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellant. Also 

represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON,PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY,

DOUGLAS K. MICKLE. 

 ______________________

Before DYK, CHEN, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.

Case: 23-1216 Document: 61 Page: 1 Filed: 12/16/2024
2 ESIMPLICITY, INC. v. US

CHEN, Circuit Judge.

The government appeals the United States Court of 

Federal Claims (Claims Court) decision concluding that the 

United States Department of the Navy (Navy) erred by

deeming untimely—and therefore not considering—a

proposal that eSimplicity, Inc. (eSimplicity) submitted in 

response to a solicitation. See eSimplicity, Inc. v. United 

States, 162 Fed. Cl. 372 (2022) (Decision). For the following 

reasons, we dismiss this appeal.

I.

The Navy issued Solicitation No. N0018922RZ011

(Solicitation I) requesting technical support for the Navy’s 

electromagnetic spectrum resources. Solicitation I 

required offerors to submit their proposals as email 

attachments by 5:00 PM EST on April 25, 2022. 

Solicitation I incorporated by reference Federal 

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.212-1, which provides in 

relevant part that a late-submitted offer “will not be 

considered unless it is received before award is made, the 

Contracting Officer determines that accepting the late offer 

would not unduly delay the acquisition[,] and” the offer 

meets one of three exceptions. FAR 52.212-1(f)(2)(i). One 

of those exceptions is the so-called “government control 

exception,” under which an untimely offer can be 

considered if “[t]here is acceptable evidence to establish 

that it was received at the Government installation 

designated for receipt of offers and was under the 

Government’s control prior to the time set for receipt of 

offers.” FAR 52.212-1(f)(2)(i)(B); see Decision, 162 Fed. Cl. 

at 377.

The Navy’s Contracting Officer received six timely 

proposals and an additional timely email from one of the 

offeror’s subcontractors. eSimplicity’s proposal was not one 

of those submissions. Although eSimplicity emailed its 

proposal approximately an hour and a half before the 

Case: 23-1216 Document: 61 Page: 2 Filed: 12/16/2024
ESIMPLICITY, INC. v. US 3

deadline, the Contracting Officer never received 

eSimplicity’s proposal. A subsequent investigation 

revealed that eSimplicity’s proposal had been received by a 

Defense Information Systems Agency server and queued 

for delivery, but the proposal was “bounced back by the 

destination server because it exceeded the maximum file 

size.” Decision, 162 Fed. Cl. at 377 (quoting J.A. 201). The 

Navy then sent to eSimplicity a letter explaining that the 

Navy would not consider eSimplicity’s untimely proposal. 

eSimplicity filed a pre-award bid protest with the 

Claims Court, which ruled in favor of eSimplicity. The 

Claims Court concluded that file size was an unstated 

evaluation criterion and that the government control 

exception can apply to electronically submitted proposals, 

but it did “not resolve whether [the] elements [of the 

government control exception] [we]re met.” Decision, 162 

Fed. Cl. at 386. The Claims Court remanded the case for 

60 days for the Navy to “reconsider its decision that 

eSimplicity’s proposal was untimely.” Id. at 387. It also 

noted that the “Navy may, in the alternative, cancel the 

Solicitation, revise the Solicitation to include a file size 

limit and new proposal deadlines, or take other action 

consistent with” the Claims Court’s opinion. Id. at 388.

On November 22, 2022, the Navy issued an amended 

solicitation (Solicitation II), reopening the competition and 

seeking receipt of initial proposals by 5:00 PM EST on 

December 6, 2022. eSimplicity submitted a proposal in 

response to Solicitation II, and the Navy awarded the 

contract to eSimplicity on June 29, 2023. 

II.

The government appeals the Claims Court’s rulings 

that file size was an unstated evaluation criterion in 

Solicitation I and that the government control exception 

can apply to eSimplicity’s proposal submitted for 

Solicitation I. But first we must determine whether we 

may reach the merits of this appeal because eSimplicity 

Case: 23-1216 Document: 61 Page: 3 Filed: 12/16/2024
4 ESIMPLICITY, INC. v. US

contends that this appeal is moot. The government 

disagrees that the appeal is moot and argues in the 

alternative that the appeal meets the “capable of repetition 

yet evading review” exception to mootness.

“[I]t is axiomatic that a federal court may not address 

‘the merits of a legal question not posed in an Article III 

case or controversy,’ and that ‘a case must exist at all the 

stages of appellate review.’” Aqua Marine Supply v. AIM 

Machining, Inc., 247 F.3d 1216, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2001)

(quoting U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P’ship,

513 U.S. 18, 21 (1994)). This case or controversy 

requirement “underpins both our standing and our 

mootness jurisprudence.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. 

Laidlaw Env’t Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180 (2000). 

Mootness “addresses whether an intervening 

circumstance has deprived the plaintiff of a personal stake 

in the outcome of the lawsuit.” West Virginia v. EPA, 597 

U.S. 697, 719 (2022) (cleaned up). “Simply stated, a case is 

moot when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the 

parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” 

Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969). A case 

should generally be dismissed as moot “[w]hen, during the 

course of litigation, it develops that the relief sought has 

been granted or that the questions originally in controversy 

between the parties are no longer at issue.” Chapman L. 

Firm Co. v. Greenleaf Constr. Co., 490 F.3d 934, 939 (Fed. 

Cir. 2007); see also Kingdomware Techs., Inc. v. United 

States, 579 U.S. 162, 169 (2016) (noting a case is generally 

moot when “no live controversy in the ordinary sense 

remains because no court is now capable of granting the 

relief petitioner seeks”).

This case is moot because there is no longer a live issue. 

The issues presented on appeal are whether the Claims 

Court erred in concluding that Solicitation I contained an 

unstated file-size criterion or erred in concluding that the 

government control exception can apply to eSimplicity’s 

Case: 23-1216 Document: 61 Page: 4 Filed: 12/16/2024
ESIMPLICITY, INC. v. US 5

proposal submitted for Solicitation I. But the government 

does not dispute that Solicitation I no longer exists, that 

Solicitation I’s accompanying offers are now expired, or 

that the Navy has awarded a contract to eSimplicity for 

Solicitation II, which requested the same services as 

Solicitation I. Thus, “the questions originally in 

controversy between the parties are no longer at issue”

because those questions concern the now-expired 

Solicitation I. Chapman L. Firm, 490 F.3d at 939.

Indeed, the Navy’s conduct caused those issues to no 

longer be live. It is well settled that “a party’s voluntary 

action can render moot a case or controversy.” Kaw Nation 

v. Norton, 405 F.3d 1317, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also City 

News & Novelty, Inc. v. City of Waukesha, 531 U.S. 278, 

284 n.1 (2001) (dismissing an appeal as moot when “it is 

[the petitioner], not its adversary, whose conduct saps the 

controversy of vitality”); Aqua Marine, 247 F.3d at 1220 

(“As a general matter, a case becomes moot if, through the 

action of the party seeking review, the immediate 

controversy is terminated.”). Here, following the Claims 

Court’s decision, the Navy was given the choice either to 

reconsider the timeliness of eSimplicity’s proposal for 

Solicitation I or to issue a revised solicitation. If the Navy

chose the first option, then it could have continued to 

litigate the timing of eSimplicity’s proposal, including by 

appealing the Claims Court’s decision to this court. But 

that is not what happened. Instead, the Navy chose to 

issue and award a contract for Solicitation II, and it 

allowed Solicitation I to expire.

Nonetheless, the government contends this case is not 

moot because we can still provide effective judicial relief to 

the Navy. Appellant’s Br. 16. The relief the government 

seeks is “a reversal” so that the Navy may “exercise its 

right to terminate eSimplicity’s contract upon the basis 

that it should not have been awarded in the first place.” 

Appellant’s Reply Br. 3. But the government is appealing

a decision concerning Solicitation I, and eSimplicity was 

Case: 23-1216 Document: 61 Page: 5 Filed: 12/16/2024
6 ESIMPLICITY, INC. v. US

awarded a contract for Solicitation II. Thus, even if we 

were to find that the Claims Court erred in its decision 

regarding Solicitation I, our decision would not affect the 

separate award of eSimplicity’s contract for Solicitation II.

That we cannot provide effective judicial relief to the 

Navy is bolstered by the fact that the government wavers 

on the effect a ruling by this court would have. The 

government has phrased its requested relief as the “ability 

to execute the available contract mechanisms,” Appellant’s 

Br. 17, and the “option to ameliorate” awarding eSimplicity 

a contract for Solicitation II, Appellant’s Reply Br. 4. At 

oral argument, we pressed the government on whether the 

Navy would cancel eSimplicity’s contract for Solicitation II 

if the government prevailed in this appeal. See Oral Arg. 

at 1:52–4:07 (available at https://oralarguments.cafc.us

courts.gov/default.aspx?fl=23-1216_09052024.mp3). The 

government refused to state that the Navy would cancel 

the contract—instead saying that “it very well may” 

terminate the contract but “there are no guarantees.” Id.

at 3:24–4:07. This hedging by the government further 

confirms our doubts that any decision by our court would 

provide effective judicial relief to the parties; rather, it 

makes it more likely that our decision would be an advisory 

opinion answering the two questions the government poses 

on appeal without resolving a case or controversy.

In the alternative, the government contends that we 

should hear this appeal under the exception to the 

mootness doctrine for a controversy that is capable of 

repetition, yet evading review. “That exception applies 

only in exceptional situations, where (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 

subject to the same action again.” Kingdomware, 579 U.S. 

at 170 (cleaned up). We decline to invoke this exception

because the issues raised by the government are not 

evading review.

Case: 23-1216 Document: 61 Page: 6 Filed: 12/16/2024
ESIMPLICITY, INC. v. US 7

As discussed, it was the Navy’s own choice to issue and 

award a contract for Solicitation II that prevented review 

of the Claims Court’s decision concerning Solicitation I. 

The government counters that doing so was the “only 

practical option.” Appellant’s Reply Br. 3. But this 

argument concedes that reconsidering the timeliness of 

eSimplicity’s proposal for Solicitation I was an option, just 

not the Navy’s preferred option.

The government also could have appealed at least the 

government-control-exception issue in other cases yet did 

not do so. In Watterson Construction Co. v. United States, 

98 Fed. Cl. 84, 95–97 (2011), and Insight Systems Corp. v. 

United States, 110 Fed. Cl. 564, 581 (2013), the Claims 

Court ruled that the government control exception can 

apply to proposals submitted by e-mail. Though the 

government argued the opposite position in those cases, 

Watterson, 98 Fed. Cl. at 95; Insight Sys., 110 Fed. Cl. at 

575, it did not appeal those decisions. That the government 

could have appealed the government-control-exception

issue in those cases yet chose not to do so suggests that the 

government merely wants to appeal this issue now—not 

that the issue has evaded review.

We also find unpersuasive the government’s argument 

for why these issues meet the evading review prong. The 

government contends that the “evading review element is 

met in this case because . . . the time constraints imposed 

by the trial court’s 60-day remand and the agency’s need to 

procure those engineering support services affected the 

Government’s opportunity to obtain ‘complete’ appellate 

resolution of the challenged agency action.” Appellant’s 

Reply Br. 7. This argument suffers from two main flaws. 

First, it is unsupported. The government has provided 

no evidence that the time constraints affected the 

government’s decision—let alone that choosing to 

reconsider its decision would have taken longer than 

choosing to amend the solicitation. We also note that if the 

Case: 23-1216 Document: 61 Page: 7 Filed: 12/16/2024
8 ESIMPLICITY, INC. v. US

time constraints were as critical as the government claims, 

then the government could have sought an expedited 

appeal, which it did not seek here. 

Second, this argument applies an incorrect standard. 

Just about anything can “affect” a party’s opportunity to 

appeal. But the proper standard requires that “the 

challenged action is in its duration too short to be fully 

litigated prior to cessation or expiration.” Kingdomware, 

579 U.S. at 170 (cleaned up). Under that standard, even if 

the government is correct that its opportunity to appeal 

was affected, it does not follow that the appeal evaded 

review. 

III.

We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments 

and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we 

dismiss this appeal.1

DISMISSED

COSTS

No costs.

1 The parties do not address whether the underlying 

decision should be vacated. See, e.g., Kaw Nation, 405 F.3d 

at 1323–26 (describing when it is appropriate to vacate a 

decision that has become moot on appeal). Accordingly, we 

also do not address that issue.

Case: 23-1216 Document: 61 Page: 8 Filed: 12/16/2024