Filed: Apr. 06, 2015
Latest Update: Apr. 06, 2015
Summary: ORDER GRANTING VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL SUSAN G. BRADEN , Judge . On March 23, 2015, Alliant Enterprise JV, LLC ("Alliant") filed a protest at the United States Government Accountability Office ("GAO"), challenging the Government's award of a task order under Request For Quotation No. 874576 to SBD Alliant Joint Venture ("SBD"). This triggered the Competition In Contracting Act's mandatory stay. See 31 U.S.C. 3553. 2 On March 24, 2015, the Government decided to override CICA's mandatory stay
Summary: ORDER GRANTING VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL SUSAN G. BRADEN , Judge . On March 23, 2015, Alliant Enterprise JV, LLC ("Alliant") filed a protest at the United States Government Accountability Office ("GAO"), challenging the Government's award of a task order under Request For Quotation No. 874576 to SBD Alliant Joint Venture ("SBD"). This triggered the Competition In Contracting Act's mandatory stay. See 31 U.S.C. 3553. 2 On March 24, 2015, the Government decided to override CICA's mandatory stay...
More
ORDER GRANTING VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL
SUSAN G. BRADEN, Judge.
On March 23, 2015, Alliant Enterprise JV, LLC ("Alliant") filed a protest at the United States Government Accountability Office ("GAO"), challenging the Government's award of a task order under Request For Quotation No. 874576 to SBD Alliant Joint Venture ("SBD"). This triggered the Competition In Contracting Act's mandatory stay. See 31 U.S.C. § 3553.2
On March 24, 2015, the Government decided to override CICA's mandatory stay. See Dkt. No. 13; see also 31 U.S.C. § 3553(d)(3)(C) ("The head of the procuring activity may authorize the performance of the contract (notwithstanding a protest of which the Federal agency has notice under this section) upon a written finding that performance of the contract is in the best interests of the United States; or urgent and compelling circumstances that significantly affect interests of the United States will not permit waiting for the decision of the Comptroller General concerning the protest[.]").
On March 25, 2015, Alliant filed a Complaint under seal in the United States Court of Federal Claims, protesting the Government's override of a mandatory stay. Dkt. No. 1. That same day, the court convened a telephonic status conference and requested that the Government file its override decision letter. The Government filed its March 24, 2015 decision letter. Dkt. No. 13. Later that day, the court convened a second telephonic status conference to inform the parties that the Government's decision letter did not meet the requirements of an override of CICA's mandatory stay. See Reilly's Wholesale Produce v. United States, 73 Fed. Cl. 705, 711 (2006) (listing four relevant factors).3 Still later that day, the Government filed a Notice Of Rescinding Override Of CICA Stay. Dkt. No. 17.
On March 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion To Voluntarily Dismiss ("Pl Mot."), pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC").4 Plaintiff's March 26, 2015 Motion states:
Based on [the Government's March 25, 2015 Notice of Rescinding Override], we understand that the agency is stopping the awardee SBD Alliant Joint Venture from performing the protested work pending GAO's determination in Comp. Gen. B-410352.5. In reliance on the [Government's] representations to the [c]ourt and our understanding of this action, [Alliant] is voluntarily seeking to dismiss its [C]omplaint without prejudice.
Pl. Mot. at 2.
It is the court's understanding that the Government will rescind its override, and that SBD will perform no work on the protested matter until GAO proceedings have concluded. Thus, Plaintiff's March 26, 2015 Motion To Voluntarily Dismiss is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to dismiss this case without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
