Maynard Cooper's Government Solutions Group Wins Reversal In One Of The Most Anticipated Government Contracts Decisions In Years

• Published date: 15 December 2021
• Subject Matter: Government, Public Sector, Government Contracts, Procurement & PPP
• Law Firm: Maynard Cooper & Gale PC
• Author: Ms Emily J. Chancey and W. Brad English

On Tuesday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Harmonia Holdings Group, LLC v. United States, No. 20-1538, a case that has garnered national attention for its potential to alter the way the United States Court of Federal Claims applies the so-called 'waiver rule' first articulated in Blue & Gold Fleet, L.P. v. United States, 492 F.3d 1038 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Brad English and Emily Chancey represented Harmonia in this case and were excited for the favorable ruling their client received.

The case involved a $325 million IT services contract issued by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Harmonia bid on CBP's contract. CBP twice amended its solicitation after receiving proposals, but limited the proposal changes bidders could make when responding to the amendments. Harmonia timely filed a formal pre-award agency-level protest, insisting that CBP had to allow bidders the freedom to revise their proposals as they saw fit in light of the recent amendments. The Agency denied Harmonia's protest and awarded its contract to Dev Technology Group.

Harmonia filed a post-award protest with the United States Court of Federal Claims. In addition to a number of challenges to CBP's evaluation and award decision, Harmonia insisted that it was unreasonable for CBP not to allow bidders to revise their entire proposals to respond to the amended solicitation. Ordinarily, the waiver rule requires challenges directed at the solicitation to be filed prior to the deadline for proposals or, in the case of post-deadline solicitation amendments, prior to award. See Blue & Gold Fleet, L.P., 492 F.3d at 1312; COMINT Systems Corp. v. United States, 700 F.3d 1377, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2012). However, Harmonia insisted that it preserved its pre-award protest ground by filing a timely agency-level protest, just as the Federal Circuit indicated it could in Bannum, Inc. v. Unites States, 779 F.3d 1376, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ('a formal, agency-level protest before the award would likely preserve a protestor's post-award challenge to a solicitation ... as might a pre-award protest filed with the GAO'). The Court of Federal Claims disagreed, and held that Harmonia waived its pre-award protest even though it had 'facially met the requirements under Blue & Gold.' In the Court of Claims' view, Harmonia did not 'diligently pursue' its pre-award ground to other protest venues after CBP denied it. Harmonia appealed.

On appeal, Harmonia argued that its pre-award...