SpaceX challenged the Air Force’s award of three Launch Service Agreement prototype other transactions. The full opinion is available at the source link below.
Space Exploration Technologies Corp. v. United States
144 Fed. Cl. 433 (2019) · U.S. Court of Federal Claims · 2019-08-28
Summary
A case of first impression on whether the Court of Federal Claims has bid-protest jurisdiction over prototype other transactions. SpaceX challenged the Air Force's award of Launch Service Agreement prototype OTAs; the court held the OTAs were not procurement contracts and were not awarded 'in connection with a procurement,' dismissing for lack of Tucker Act jurisdiction and transferring venue.
Holding / Key points
The Court of Federal Claims held that it lacked Tucker Act jurisdiction because the Launch Service Agreements were prototype other transactions — not procurement contracts — and were not awarded “in connection with a procurement or proposed procurement.” The court treated the prototype OTA effort and the anticipated Phase 2 launch-services procurement as separate solicitations with distinct strategies and timelines, dismissed the protest for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and transferred the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The decision was an early and influential marker on the limits of forum for OT protests. Later Court of Federal Claims decisions have taken a broader view where a follow-on production contract is at issue.
Related resources
10 U.S.C. § 4022 — Prototype Projects (Prototype OT Authority)
10 U.S.C. § 4022 · 2022-01-01
Oracle America, Inc. (REAN Cloud) — GAO B-416061
B-416061, 2018 CPD ¶ 180 · U.S. Government Accountability Office (bid protest) · 2018-05-31