COFC Finds Jurisdiction Over SBIR Phase III Protests
Routing follow-on SBIR work through existing task orders instead of awarding a Phase III contract doesn't immunize the decision from bid protest review, the court held.
TL;DR
The Court of Federal Claims ruled in Strategi Consulting v. United States that it has jurisdiction to hear protests over SBIR Phase III awards, rejecting the Air Force's three arguments for dismissal: that no "procurement" occurred under the Tucker Act, that the FASA task order bar applied, and that the claim lacked redressability. The court applied a preponderance-of-evidence standard and found the Air Force had reviewed Strategi's Phase III proposal, declined to award the contract but requested its codebase, then routed similar TacSRT work to other contractors under existing task orders. For SBIR Phase II performers who watch their follow-on work get handed to someone else, the decision clears a path to COFC that the government argued didn't exist.
The Court of Federal Claims has opened a door that the government insisted was locked. In Strategi Consulting, LLC v. United States, COFC found it has jurisdiction to hear a protest challenging the Air Force's failure to award an SBIR Phase III contract, even when the follow-on work was routed through existing task orders rather than a new procurement.
Strategi developed "Voltron," a Tactical Surveillance, Reconnaissance and Tracking automation platform, under an SBIR Phase II contract. The company submitted a proposal for Phase III work. The Air Force, according to the court's preponderance-of-evidence finding, reviewed that proposal, declined to award Strategi a Phase III contract, requested Strategi's codebase, and then continued similar TacSRT development by assigning the work to four other contractors operating under a pooled task-order environment called Dragon Army.
The government's motion to dismiss rested on three arguments. First, the Air Force claimed no "procurement" occurred, so the Tucker Act didn't confer jurisdiction. COFC disagreed, citing the broad understanding of procurement as all stages of acquiring property or services. Second, the government invoked the FASA task order bar, but Strategi wasn't protesting the task orders themselves, it was protesting the decision to use other vehicles instead of awarding a Phase III contract. The court also found in the alternative that the Voltron work likely exceeded the scope of the underlying contracts, triggering the increased-scope exception to the bar. Third, COFC rejected the claim that the protest lacked redressability, noting that declaratory and injunctive relief were available remedies.
The government filed for voluntary remand after the ruling to "undertake new agency action," which reads as a recognition that the jurisdictional fight was lost. For SBIR Phase II performers who've seen their technology migrate to other contractors through non-SBIR vehicles, Strategi establishes that the courthouse door is open.
Published ·Updated ·Deep Fathom