Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, PRC Inc. appealed the dismissal of its Motion for Costs by the General Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals related to a protest against a contract award by the Air Force to Electronic Data Systems Corporation (EDS). Initially, the Board sustained PRC's protest due to Air Force's procurement violations. However, following an appeal by EDS and the Air Force’s subsequent cancellation of the procurement, the Board's decision was vacated as moot. The vacatur order led to the dismissal of PRC's complaint and its Motion for Costs, with the Board citing a lack of jurisdiction due to the absence of a standing violation determination post-vacatur. PRC argued that the vacatur should not impede its right to recover costs under 40 U.S.C. Sec. 759, as the original Board finding of a violation should suffice. The appellate court reversed the Board’s dismissal, holding that the vacatur did not eliminate the jurisdiction to consider PRC's cost claims. The case was remanded for reinstatement of PRC's Motion for Costs, emphasizing that the vacatur should not nullify PRC's right to pursue cost recovery. PRC is seeking substantial amounts in both protest and proposal preparation costs.
Legal Issues Addressed
Cost Recovery under 40 U.S.C. Sec. 759subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: A prerequisite for cost recovery is a determination by the Board that an agency action violated a statute or regulation, which the Board made in this case.
Reasoning: A prerequisite for such costs is a determination by the Board that an agency action violated a statute or regulation, which the Board made in this case.
Impact of Vacatur on Cost Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The vacatur order should not negate the Board's original protest decision as it pertains to PRC's cost claim, establishing a valid basis for PRC's claim.
Reasoning: The vacatur order should not negate the Board's original protest decision as it pertains to PRC's cost claim, establishing a valid basis for PRC's claim.
Jurisdiction of the Board under Vacatur Orderssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The vacatur order does not deprive the Board of jurisdiction to consider PRC's claim for protest and proposal costs.
Reasoning: The court concluded that the vacatur order did not deprive the Board of jurisdiction to consider PRC's claim for protest and proposal costs.
Mootness of Appealssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appeal by EDS was considered moot following the Air Force's cancellation of the procurement, leading to vacatur of the Board's decision.
Reasoning: The court agreed the appeal was moot but denied PRC's motion to dismiss, vacating the Board's decision sustaining PRC's protest and remanding the case for dismissal of PRC's complaint.
Review Standard for Jurisdictional Questionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Jurisdictional questions and interpretation of cost-shifting statutes are reviewed de novo.
Reasoning: Jurisdictional questions are reviewed de novo, as is the interpretation of cost-shifting statutes.