United States Court of Federal Claims

Nos. 15-135 C

 15-136 C

(Filed Under Seal April 10, 2015)

Reissued April 14, 20151

CADDELL CONSTRUCTION 

CO., LLC, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

THE UNITED STATES,

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Pre-Award Protest; Jurisdiction; 

Competition in Contracting Act; 

Override of Stay in Effect During 

Pending GAO Protest.

Dirk Haire, Fox Rothschild LLP, Washington, DC, for plaintiff. Alexa 

Santora and Sonia Tabriz, of counsel.

Albert S. Iarossi, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States 

Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., with whom appeared Benjamin C. Mizer, 

Acting Assistant Attorney General, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Director and Allison 

Kidd-Miller, Assistant Director.

ORDER

Merow, Senior Judge

Plaintiff filed two bid protests on February 10, 2015. The cases have been 

consolidated for consideration of preliminary matters, including the government’s 

challenge to this court’s jurisdiction. See Doc. 11.

2 On April 1, 2015, the parties 

argued their positions on the plaintiff’s motions for judgment on the administrative 

record, see Doc. 16, and the government’s motionsto dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, 

see Doc. 19. 

1 Reissued without redactions pursuant to defendant’s notice, doc. 25, filed April 14, 2015.

2 The relevant filings in this case are virtually identical. For ease of reference, the court will cite 

to the documents filed in Case No. 1:15-cv-135.

 
I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is one of several bidders for a contract to construct embassy facilities 

in Maputo, Mozambique. See Doc. 1, ¶ 10. Prior to filing the protest action in this 

court, plaintiff filed two protests before the GAO, challenging the pre-qualification 

of two of its competitors for the contract award. See Doc. 16-1 at 5. The GAO’s 

decisions are expected on or about April 20, 2015, see Doc. 16-1 at 7, and the merits 

of the GAO protests are not before this court. The plaintiff filed these actions 

alleging that the government violated its duty to stay the contracting process 

pursuant to the Competition in Contracting Act (“CICA”) while the GAO protests 

are pending, and that its failure to stay the contracting process amounted to an 

unlawful override. See 31 U.S.C. 3553(c)(1)-(2) (prohibiting agencies from 

awarding contracts during the pendency of a GAO protest unless certain 

requirements are met).

The complaint states:

29. The Agency Report admits that the Protest “triggers the stay on 

contract award provided by 31 U.S.C. 3553(c)(1)” but further 

provides that the solicitation “will continue as scheduled without 

regard to the protest.”

30. Although unclear, it appears that this constitutes OBO’s

[Overseas Buildings Operations’] decision to override the 

mandatory CICA stay.

See Doc. 1.

The government admits that it has continued to evaluate proposals despite the 

GAO protests, but denies that it has taken any action that violates CICA or that its

conduct constitutes an override. See Doc. 19 at 11.

II. ANALYSIS

As a threshold issue, this court must determine whether it has jurisdiction to 

adjudicate plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff bears the burden to establish subject matter 

jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. See Reynolds v. Army & Air Force 

Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Here, the government challenges 

the factual basis for the court’s jurisdiction, as opposed to the facial sufficiency of 

the plaintiff’s jurisdictional allegations. See Doc. 19 at 13, 16. As such, the court 

2
will take as true only the uncontroverted factual allegations, and it is not restricted 

to the face of the complaint in making its determination. See Reynolds, 846 at 747; 

see also Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Watkins, 11 F.3d 1573, 1583-84 (Fed. Cir. 1993). 

If the court does not have jurisdiction, it must dismiss the complaint. See RCFC 

12(h)(3). 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1), the Court of Federal Claims has 

jurisdiction:

to render judgment on an action by an interested party objecting to a 

solicitation by a Federal agency for bids or proposals for a proposed 

contract or to a proposed award or the award of a contract or any alleged 

violation of statute or regulation in connection with a procurement or a 

proposed procurement.

The Federal Circuit has held, as both parties acknowledge, that this grant of 

jurisdiction covers claims that the government violated the CICA override provision, 

31 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2). See RAMCOR Servs. Group, Inc. v. United States, 185 F.3d 

1286, 1289-90 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Doc. 1, ¶ 4; Doc. 19 at 9-10. The court, 

therefore, must decide whether the plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a CICA violation 

such that it has jurisdiction in this case. 

The sections of CICA relevant to this analysis are as follows: 

(c)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, a contract 

may not be awarded in any procurement after the Federal agency has 

received notice of a protest with respect to such procurement from the 

Comptroller General and while the protest is pending.

(2) The head of the procuring activity responsible for award of a 

contract may authorize the award of the contract (notwithstanding a 

protest of which the Federal agency has notice under this section)--

(A) upon a written finding that urgent and compelling 

circumstances which significantly affect interests of the United 

States will not permit waiting for the decision of the Comptroller 

General under this subchapter; and

(B) after the Comptroller General is advised of that finding.

3
31 U.S.C.A. § 3553(c)(1) and (2).3

Plaintiff alleges that the court has jurisdiction based on its claim that the 

government violated 31 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2). See Doc. 1, ¶ 4. Specifically, plaintiff 

claims that the government acknowledged that a stay was in place, but announced 

its intention to continue with solicitation activities. Plaintiff cites to a report that the 

government issued on February 9, 2015, admitting that the GAO protest “triggers 

the stay on the contract award provided by 31 U.S.C. 3553(c)(1),” and stating that 

the solicitation “will continue as scheduled without regard to the protest.” Doc. 1, ¶ 

29; see also Doc. 16-1 at 7 (citing AR at 118, 129). According to the plaintiff, the 

government’s statement “constitutes . . . [a] decision to override the mandatory 

CICA stay,” Doc. 1, ¶ 30, but without the proper documentation and justification, 

see id. ¶¶ 35-44. 

In response, the government argues that this court does not have jurisdiction 

because the agency has not violated CICA’s stay or override provisions. The 

government insists that no contract has been awarded, the agency has incurred no 

obligations, no override has been instituted, and the agency has notified the GAO 

that the stay remains in place. See Doc. 19 at 11. As a basis for these assertions, the 

government submitted the Declaration of Department of State contracting officer 

Jimmy Lai. See id. at Ex. A. Plaintiff has offered no additional evidence to counter 

Mr. Lai’s declaration.

Plaintiff’s argument conflates the concepts of violating the CICA stay and 

instituting an override. Its position is predicated on its contention that the 

government violated the stay by continuing with the solicitation process after 

plaintiff filed its GAO protests. Plaintiff claims that violating the stay essentially 

amounts to a de facto override. See Doc. 16-1 at 9. The court is not entirely 

convinced of this logic, but because plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to 

support its claim that the government violated the stay, the court need not decide 

whether a violation of the stay necessarily amounts to an override.

CICA states that “a contract may not be awarded” while a GAO protest is 

pending. 31 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(1). Therefore, to support this court’s jurisdiction,

even under its own theory, plaintiff must allege that a contract has been awarded. In 

3 The court notes that although this case is pre-award, the plaintiff repeatedly cites to 31 U.S.C. § 

3553(d) in the complaint, a subsection of the statute that applies to post-award contract 

performance. Because both parties have made their arguments under § 3553(c), and because 

plaintiff alleged this court’s jurisdiction under § 3553(c), the court will treat its references to § 

3553(d) as a typographical error, and address the merits of the argument.

4

 
order for a contract to be deemed awarded, the contracting officer must have signed 

and mailed the award letter. See Stebel v. United States, 108 Ct. Cl. 35, 44 (1947). 

And a binding contract does not exist until the letter is delivered. See Rhode Island 

Tool Co. v. United States, 130 Ct Cl. 698, 703 (1955). Plaintiff does not allege either 

that the government has issued an award letter here, or that one has been delivered 

to any of the bidders. Instead, it advocates for a very broad reading of the award 

prohibition, and claims the agency should be required to “declin[e] to take further 

action which will moot GAO’s ability to render recommendations.” See Doc. 16-1 

at 12. Under this reasoning, plaintiff claims, the agency’s continued solicitation 

activities should be considered a violation of the stay. 

In its briefs, though not in the complaint, plaintiff repeatedly expresses its 

belief that the agency intends to award the contract before GAO issues its decision. 

See e.g., Doc. 16-1 at 9 (“OBO’s decision to rank offerors, select an awardee, and 

move to dismiss Caddell’s GAO Protests as academic based on OBO’s intent to 

award constitutes a de facto override decision.”); id. at 9 n.5 (“What Caddell objects 

to, and what violates CICA, is OBO’s intention to use its selection of an offeror as 

the intended awardee to convince GAO to dismiss the protests as academic.”); id.

at 13 (“OBO intends to use its selection of an apparently successful offferor [sic] to 

argue that GAO lacks the ability to recommend relief.); id. at 13 (“OBO does not 

intend to ‘wait[] for the decision of the Comptroller General.’”); id. at 13 (“OBO 

intends to use its award decision to avoid a decision of the Comptroller General.”)

(emphasis in original); id. at 13 (“Because OBO intends to take action to moot the 

GAO Protests and disturb the status quo, OBO effectively overrides the automatic 

CICA stay.”).

Perhaps an intention to award the contract would be sufficient to establish 

jurisdiction under some set of circumstances, but plaintiff has not alleged any facts 

to support its allegation of the government’s intent beyond the agency’s statement 

that the solicitation would continue. Relying solely on this statement is problematic,

because plaintiff has not demonstrated that continuing solicitation activities is the

same as issuing an award letter. The court views these as distinct steps in the 

contracting process, and § 3553(c)(1) is unambiguous in prohibiting only the final 

step of awarding a contract. Furthermore, reliance on this statement is made all the 

more awkward for plaintiff’s position, since plaintiff has conceded that it “does not 

necessarily object to OBO’s continued review of offerors’ qualifications.” Doc. 16-

1 at 9 n.5. Particularly considering this comment, plaintiff has failed to articulate 

exactly what conduct it believes is a violation of the stay.

5
When pressed at oral argument to identify the specific conduct to which

plaintiff objects, plaintiff’s counsel stated that the contracting officer notified the 

GAO that its source selection process was complete on March 12, 2015, more than 

one month after plaintiff filed the complaints at issue. See Oral Argument Recording 

at 2:01PM, 2:07-2:08PM, 2:42PM, 2:46PM. She admitted, however, that this 

notification is not part of the record. See id. at 2:07PM. The government’s counsel 

denied any knowledge of the notification, see id. at 2:21PM, and notes that nothing 

in the record before the court shows that an awardee has been selected, see id. at 

2:44PM. Because it is neither part of the record nor has it been filed with the court, 

regardless of its content, this alleged notification cannot be considered as evidence 

in this case.

Plaintiff’s theory that this court has jurisdiction because the government has 

instituted a de facto override is predicated on its allegation that the government 

violated the CICA stay. The court finds that the continued evaluation of proposals, 

the only violative conduct alleged by plaintiff, is not the same as awarding a contract, 

the only conduct that is specifically prohibited by the CICA stay provision. As such, 

plaintiff has failed to establish that this court has subject matter jurisdiction.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the government’s motions to dismiss are 

GRANTED, and plaintiff’s motions for judgment on the administrative record are

DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

s/James F. Merow 

James F. Merow

Senior Judge

6