In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No. 18-856

(Filed: June 9, 2021)

***************************************

CITIZANT, INC., *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

v. * Motion to Reopen; Rule 60(b)(6);

* Extraordinary Circumstances; Bid 

* Preparation and Proposal Costs;

THE UNITED STATES, * Relief from Judgment.

*

Defendant, *

*

and *

*

*

HALVIK CORP., *

*

Defendant-Intervenor. *

***************************************

Tenley Anne Carp, Washington, DC, counsel for Plaintiff.

Barbara E. Thomas, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, DC, counsel for 

Defendant.

Alexander Jonathan Brittin, McLean, VA, counsel for Defendant-Intervenor.

ORDER AND OPINION

DIETZ, Judge.

Successful protestor, Citizant, Inc. (“Citizant”), seeks to reopen its bid protest for the 

purpose of requesting bid preparation and proposal costs. Citizant alleges that the United States 

General Services Administration (“GSA”) failed to abide by a court order granting injunctive 

relief when GSA entirely cancelled the solicitation instead of taking corrective action under the 

solicitation and reevaluating its proposal. Citizant argues that GSA’s actions create extraordinary 

circumstances sufficient to justify relief under Rule 60(b)(6) of the Rules of the Court of Federal 

Claims. Because Citizant fails to sufficiently demonstrate “extraordinary circumstances” under 

Rule 60(b)(6), the Motion to Reopen the Protest is DENIED.
2

I. BACKGROUND

Citizant filed a bid protest in this Court on June 15, 2018 challenging GSA’s proposal 

evaluation process and subsequent selection of eighty-one offerors—to the exclusion of 

Citizant—for a position on the Alliant 2 Small Business (“A2SB”) Government-wide 

Acquisition Master Contract. Compl., ECF No. 1. Citizant filed two successive amended 

complaints alleging additional flaws in GSA’s evaluation process. See 1st Am. Compl., ECF No. 

61; 2nd Am. Compl., ECF No. 78. In its operative complaint, Citizant requested that the Court 

(1) direct GSA to correct the evaluation flaws and establish a new list of awardees in accordance 

with the solicitation, (2) direct GSA to award Citizant placement on the A2SB contract, (3) 

award Citizant its costs for bringing the bid protest action and attorney’s fees, consultant fees and 

expenses pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1491(b) and 2412, and (4) grant such other relief as the Court 

deems just and proper. 2nd Am. Compl. at 46. 

The parties filed cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record. See Pl.’s Mot. 

J. on Administrative R. [hereinafter Pl.’s MJAR], ECF No. 53; Def.’s Mot. J. on Administrative

R., ECF No. 65. In its motion for judgment on the administrative record, Citizant renewed its 

requests for injunctive relief and award of its costs and reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses.

Pl.’s MJAR at 39. 

On March 11, 2019, this Court issued an opinion in favor of Citizant, holding that 

Citizant was prejudiced by errors in GSA’s proposal evaluation process. See Citizant v. United 

States, 142 Fed. Cl. 260 (2019) [hereinafter March 11th Order]. The Court granted Citizant’s 

request for injunctive relief by enjoining GSA from proceeding with the awardee list and 

directing GSA to reevaluate the proposals in a manner that redresses the errors identified in the 

opinion. Id. at 275. The Court found Citizant’s request for attorney’s fees premature but

welcomed Citizant to file the necessary application under the Equal Access to Justice Act 

(“EAJA”). Id. (stating that “the court will look favorably upon such an application”). Citizant

filed an application for attorney’s fees, which was ultimately resolved by settlement with GSA.

See Pl.’s Mot. for Att’y Fees, ECF No. 125; Pl.’s Notice of Acceptance of Offer of J., ECF No.

130.

On March 26, 2019, in response to the March 11th Order, GSA rescinded eighty-one 

contracts awarded under the A2SB solicitation. See Def.’s Resp. to Pl.’s Mot. [hereinafter Def.’s 

Resp.], ECF No. 140. GSA thereafter issued a public notice seeking comments on a draft 

amendment to the A2SB solicitation. Id. at 3. After close of the comment period, GSA decided 

against amending the A2SB solicitation and instead opted to cancel the A2SB solicitation

entirely and re-procure the requirements under a new solicitation. Id. at 4. GSA publicly 

announced cancellation of the A2SB solicitation on July 2, 2020 and, in the public notice, 

communicated that “the government is examining and wants to bring to market significant 

updates and new requirements to A2SB.” Id. In October 2020, GSA announced the upcoming reprocurement of the A2SB requirements under a new name, Polaris. Id. A draft version of the 

Polaris solicitation was released by GSA on December 31, 2020.1 Id. 

1 The Court does not have additional information on the status of the Polaris solicitation; but, in reaching its 

decision, the Court determined that additional information was not necessary. 
3

Upon learning of the cancellation, Citizant “promptly contacted GSA to pursue its rights 

to bid and proposal costs[.]” Pl.’s Reply at 3, ECF No. 141. After negotiations stalled, on 

October 21, 2020, Citizant filed the pending motion to reopen the bid protest case “to request its 

bid and proposal costs as part of [its] protest.” Id. at 3; Pl.’s Mot. at 1.

II. DISCUSSION

Citizant requests that the Court reopen its bid protest to allow it to seek bid preparation 

and proposal costs because, as Citizant alleges, GSA has failed to comply with the March 11th

Order by cancelling the A2SB solicitation entirely instead of taking corrective action and 

reevaluating the proposals. Pl.’s Mot. at 1. In its motion, Citizant does not cite any authority or 

procedural mechanism to support its request. See id. Citizant’s motion also does not seek to 

enforce the injunctive relief granted by the March 11th Order or challenge GSA’s decision to 

cancel the A2SB solicitation as wrongful. Instead, in its reply, Citizant latches onto a possible 

procedural mechanism for reopening its case first raised by the government in its response—

Rule 60(b)(6) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims. See Pl.’s Reply at 3. Citizant argues

that GSA’s cancellation of the solicitation created “extraordinary circumstances” sufficient to 

justify relief under Rule 60(b)(6). See Pl.’s Reply at 1, 5. Citizant asserts that it is entitled to bid 

preparation and proposal costs because it succeeded on the merits in its protest and—since 

GSA’s subsequent cancellation of the solicitation rendered its bid preparation and proposal costs 

“unnecessary”—it has only now, after entry of judgment in its bid protest, met the conditions for 

recovering such costs. Pl.’s Reply at 3.

Rule 60(b) sets forth six grounds for relief from final judgment. RCFC 60(b). Rule 60(b) 

motions are left to the sound discretion of the trial court. Freeman v. Secretary of Dep’t of 

Health and Hum. Servs., 35 Fed. Cl. 280, 282 (1996). Under 60(b)(6)—the applicable ground 

here—a court may relieve a party from final judgment for “any other reason that justifies relief.” 

RCFC 60(b)(6). This catch-all provision generally empowers courts to provide relief when 

appropriate to accomplish justice. Klapprott v. United States, 335 U.S. 601, 614–15 (1949). The 

court’s authority under Rule 60(b)(6), however, is not without limitation, and the Rule must only

be applied in “extraordinary circumstances.” Mendez v. United States, 600 F. App’x 731, 733 

(Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 864 (1988)); 

CEATS, Inc. v. Cont'l Airlines, Inc., 755 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2014). While there is no

bright-line for what constitutes “extraordinary circumstances,” a movant typically must

demonstrate “both injury and circumstances beyond his control that prevented him from 

proceeding with the prosecution or defense of the action in a proper fashion.” Infiniti Info. 

Solutions, LLC v. United States, 93 Fed. Cl. 699, 706 (2010) (collecting cases). Such 

circumstances must suggest that the party is faultless. Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick

Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380, 393 (1993). Extraordinary circumstances that may justify 

relief include: “(1) the conduct of proceedings without the knowledge of the losing party; (2) 

unusual combinations of health and financial difficulties; or (3) gross negligence or severe 

misconduct by counsel.” Progressive Industries, Inc. v. United States, 131 Fed. Cl. 66, 70 

(2017). When ruling on a Rule 60(b) motion, a court must strike a “proper balance between 

conflicting principles that litigation must be brought to an end and that justice should be done.” 

G.G.M. v. Secretary of Health and Hum. Serv., 122 Fed. Cl. 199, 204 (2015) (citing Hutchins v. 

Zoll Med. Corp., 492 F.3d 1377, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 2007)).
4

In this instance, Citizant has failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances—more 

specifically, the necessary injury—to justify relief under Rule 60(b)(6).

2 GSA’s cancellation of 

the A2SB solicitation did not result in additional injury to Citizant beyond that remedied by the

injunctive relief granted in the March 11th Order.3 The injunctive relief did not guarantee 

Citizant a contract award under the now-cancelled A2SB solicitation, and it likewise does not 

guarantee that Citizant will ever receive a contract for the A2SB requirements, under the new 

Polaris solicitation or otherwise. Rather, the March 11th Order required GSA to “reevaluate the 

proposals in a manner that redresses the errors” found by the Court. Citizant, 142 Fed. Cl. at 275.

This does not restrict GSA’s ability to make procurement decisions in connection with the A2SB 

solicitation, and its decision to cancel the solicitation does not support a finding that GSA has 

failed—or will fail—to redress the errors as required by the March 11th Order. 

Citizant vaguely alleges wrongful conduct by asserting that “GSA should not be allowed 

to circumvent the express provision for the award of [bid preparation and proposal costs] under 

28 U.S.C. § 1491 by merely issuing a solicitation for an entirely new A2SB procurement rather 

than issuing the corrective action promised in the original A2SB procurement.” Pl.’s Reply at 8. 

This allegation is unsupported. “It is well settled that good faith conduct by government officials 

is presumed, subject to an extremely difficult showing by the plaintiff to the contrary.” 

Nationwide Roofing & Sheet Metal Co., Inc. v. United States, 14 Cl. Ct. 733, 737 (1988). The 

Court is “required to assume the government [will] carry out the corrective action in good faith.” 

Chapman Law Firm Co. v. Greenleaf Const. Co., 490 F.3d 934, 940 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also 

Croman Corp. v. United States, 724 F.3d 1357, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“The presumption that 

government officials act in good faith is enshrined in our jurisprudence.”). Citizant does not 

provide any evidence that GSA cancelled the A2SB solicitation to avoid an obligation to 

reimburse Citizant bid preparation and proposal costs or to otherwise skirt compliance with the 

March 11th Order. As the government states in its response, GSA is planning a re-procurement 

of the A2SB requirements under a new solicitation and taking appropriate action to avoid the 

mistakes identified by the March 11th Order. See Def.’s Resp. at 5. Without any evidence to the 

contrary, Citizant has not overcome the presumption that GSA is acting in good faith and will

continue to carry out the corrective action.

Further, the injunctive relief granted to Citizant has not been rendered meaningless by 

GSA’s post-judgment decision to cancel the A2SB solicitation and re-procure the A2SB 

requirements under a new solicitation. The injunctive relief restored Citizant’s competitive 

position in the procurement by requiring GSA to rescind all previously-awarded contracts—to 

which Citizant was not an awardee—and affording Citizant another opportunity to compete for a 

contract. Because the relief granted by the Court has not been rendered meaningless and because 

Citizant has suffered no additional injury, permitting Citizant to reopen the case to seek bid 

preparation and proposal costs would constitute the type of additional affirmative relief that is 

2 A motion brought under Rule 60(b)(6) must be made “within a reasonable time.” RCFC 60(c); Fiskars, Inc. v. 

Hunt Mfg. Co., 279 F.3d 1378, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2002); see Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co., 507 U.S. at 393. The Court has 

discretion to determine what is reasonable. See, e.g., Moolenar v. Gov’t of Virgin Islands, 822 F.2d 1342, 1348 (3d 

Cir. 1987). In its decision, the Court denies Citizant’s request for relief under Rule 60(b)(6) because Citizant fails to 

demonstrate extraordinary circumstances. The Court does not reach a decision on timeliness.

3 In addition to injunctive relief, Citizant was also reimbursed attorney’s fees through its settlement with GSA.
5

impermissible under Rule 60(b)(6). See Dobyns v. United States, 915 F.3d 733, 738 (Fed. Cir. 

2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 1106, 206 L. Ed. 2d 178 (2020) (“[A] court may not use Rule 60 

to grant affirmative relief in addition to the relief contained in the prior order or judgment.”).

With respect to the primary objective of Rule 60(b)(6)—accomplishing justice—it must 

be acknowledged that Citizant is not the only offeror who suffered lost bid preparation and 

proposal costs due to GSA’s cancellation of the A2SB solicitation. GSA rescinded all eighty-one 

contracts awarded under the A2SB solicitation, and such awardees, as well as the other 

unsuccessful offerors, are now in the same position as Citizant—having incurred costs to develop 

a proposal that did not result in a contract due to GSA’s cancellation of the solicitation. If the 

Court were to allow Citizant an opportunity to request bid preparation and proposal costs under 

these circumstances, it would undoubtedly provide Citizant an advantage over other offerors, 

which is not in the interest of justice. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen the Protest is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Thompson M. Dietz 

THOMPSON M. DIETZ, Judge