The Court of Federal Claims denied a protester's motion to enforce its order enjoining an award because the subsequent award was a new contract or procurement to which the injunction did not apply. The protester sought to enforce the CFC's order requiring the government to determine whether a set-aside was required under the Historically Underutilized Business Zone statute and enjoining an 8(a) sole source award of an information technology support services contract ( 54 CCF ¶79,272). After the CFC issued its decision, the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (PL 111-240) amended language in 15 USC 657a(b)(2)(B) on which the court had relied to hold the HUBZone program took priority over the 8(a) program. The parties disagreed whether a contract awarded in 2011 was a new procurement to which the current law would apply. The protester relied on cases analyzing whether a modification exceeded the scope of the original procurement and argued the two procurements were the same because the contracts' performance work statements were nearly identical.
(The news featured above is a selection from the news covered in the Government Contracts Report Letter, which is published weekly and distributed to subscribers of the Government Contracts Reporter. )