Insights

In Bitmanagement Software GMBH v. United States, Case No. 23-1506 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 7, 2025), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) denied the appeal of Bitmanagement Software Gmbh (Bitmanagement) challenging the Court of Federal Claims’ (COFC) $154,400 damages award, and denying its demand for $85 million in damages resulting from the Navy’s infringement of Bitmanagement’s software copyright.  The Federal Circuit affirmed the COFC’s (1) use of a hypothetical negotiation approach to compute damages; and (2) decision to award damages using a “per use” rather than a “per copy” approach.

 On November 12, 2024, the Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) will issue an interim rule amending FAR 52.204-7 to clarify that an offeror’s failure to maintain System for Award Management (SAM) registration during the period between proposal submission and contract award does not render the offeror ineligible for award.  Providing welcome relief to agencies and contractors alike, the interim rule requires only that an offeror be registered in SAM at the time of offer submission and at the time of contract award.

On May 3, 2024, in Geospatial Technology Associates, LLC v. United States, COFC No. 16-346C, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims denied the government’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and, alternatively, for summary judgment due to alleged inaccuracies in a copyright registration, holding that plaintiff Geospatial Technology Associates, LLC’s (“plaintiff” or “GTA”) patent and copyright infringement claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1498 raise issues that “must be addressed at trial.” This newest development follows GTA’s original March 2016 lawsuit against several government agencies—including the Department of the Army, the Department of the Air Force, and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (“NGA”)—alleging patent and copyright infringement of the underlying software code of its product, “NINJA.pro.” 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held in Avue Technologies Corp. v. Department of Health and Human Services that an appellant’s non-frivolous allegation of a contract with the government via an end-user license agreement (EULA) incorporated into another contractor’s Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) agreement was sufficient to establish jurisdiction under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA).

Generally, a GAO protest challenging the terms of a solicitation is timely if filed within 10 days after the denial of an agency-level protest, “even if filed after bid opening or the closing time for receipt of proposals.”  4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(3).  Accordingly, the salient consideration for determining when that 10-day clock begins to run is when the agency denies the agency-level protest.  But in Marathon Medical Corp., B-422168.2, February 14, 2024, GAO held that if an agency has not ruled on a pre-award agency-level protest as of the closing date for receipt of proposals, then the protest is deemed denied as of that date—and the protester’s clock for filing a GAO protest begins to run—even if the agency later issues an actual decision denying the protest. 

The Federal Circuit’s decision in University of South Florida Board of Trustees v. United States, 22-2248 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 9, 2024) hints at the broad scope of the federal government’s license rights under the Bayh-Dole Act. 

The Small Business Administration has begun outreach to current participants in its 8(a) Business Development Program regarding the impact of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee’s July 19, 2023 decision enjoining SBA from applying a rebuttable presumption of social disadvantage to individuals of certain racial and ethnic groups.

On December 19, 2022, DoD issued a DFARS proposed rule that seeks to (1) implement the data-rights portions of the May 2, 2019 Small Business Innovation Research Program and Small Business Technology Transfer Program Policy Directive (SBIR/STTR Policy Directive), and (2) impose significant changes to technical data and computer software marking requirements.  The SBIR/STTR portion of the proposed rule follows DoD’s advance notice of proposed rulemaking issued on August 31, 2020 (see 85 FR 53758) and incorporates the eight written public comments that DoD received. The proposed changes to marking requirements go beyond the SBIR/STTR Policy Directive and respond to the Federal Circuit’s decision in The Boeing Co. v. Secretary of the Air Force, 983 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2020).

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2023, signed into law on December 23, 2022, makes numerous changes to acquisition policy. Crowell & Moring’s Government Contracts Group discusses the most consequential changes for government contractors here. These include changes that provide new opportunities for contractors to recover inflation-related costs, authorize new programs for small businesses, impose new clauses or reporting requirements on government contractors, require government reporting to Congress on acquisition authorities and programs, and alter other processes and procedures to which government contractors are subject. The FY 2023 NDAA also includes the Advancing American AI Act, the Intelligence Authorization Act for FY 2023, and the Water Resources Development Act of 2022, all of which include provisions relevant for government contractors.

On November 1, 2022, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released its Annual Report on Bid Protests for Fiscal Year 2022.  While the number of protests GAO received dropped by 12% for the second year in a row, the overall protest “Effectiveness Rate”—meaning the percentage of cases in which the protester received some form of relief, such as voluntary corrective action by the agency or a GAO sustain—increased to 51%, tying Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 for the highest rate in the past five years.  

Challenging an agency’s failure to award a “strength” for a proposal feature can prove to be an exercise in futility.  GAO frequently characterizes this oft-rejected argument as mere disagreement and defers to the agency’s conclusions.  But, following GAO’s decision in Tech Marine Business, Inc., B-420872, Oct. 14, 2022, the tide may be turning.  Agencies are now required to demonstrate that their decision not to award strength credit was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria.

On September 30, 2022, President Biden signed the SBIR and STTR Extension Act of 2022 (the Act), reauthorizing the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR), Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR), and six pilot programs for three years, until September 30, 2025.  The Act includes new due diligence and reporting requirements, award restrictions, and clawback provisions related to national security risks—particularly regarding firms with ties to China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran—and increased minimum performance standards for multiple SBIR/STTR award winners.  The passage and signing of the Act averted a potential lapse of these programs, which were set to expire the day of the reauthorization.

Protesters looking to challenge U.S. Government awards of “Other Transaction Agreements” (“OTAs”) face forum challenges—the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”), Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”), and federal district courts have all dismissed OTA protests for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, with GAO and the COFC concluding that OTAs are not procurement contracts.  But last week, in Hydraulics International, Inc. v. United States, the COFC held it could exercise jurisdiction over a challenge to an OTA award made in connection with a potential future procurement.

In 4DD Holdings, LLC v. United States, No. 15-945C (Fed. Cl. March 31, 2022), the Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) decided cross-motions for summary judgment on a claim by 4DD Holdings, LLC and T4 Data Group, LLC (collectively, “4DD”) brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b) and alleging that the government violated 4DD’s copyright by over-installing copies of 4DD’s computer program, TETRA, in contravention of the parties’ end-user license agreement (“EULA”). The government countered that 4DD waived the right to further compensation for additional copies of TETRA through a release signed as part of a modification to the contract, and, alternatively, that the government was entitled to make the additional copies of TETRA under copyright law. 

In an effort to boost the domestic mining industry for critical minerals, on March 31, 2022, President Biden issued Presidential Determination 2022-11, the Memorandum on Presidential Determination Pursuant to Section 303 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (“Presidential Determination”).  The Presidential Determination states that sustainable and responsible domestic mining, beneficiation, and value-added processing of strategic and critical materials for the production of large-capacity batteries, including lithium, nickel, cobalt, graphite, and manganese, are essential to national defense.  The Presidential Determination will allow the Department of Defense (“DoD”) to pursue various investment, purchase commitment, and purchase vehicles to support strategic and critical material mining and production in the United States pursuant to Title III of the Defense Production Act (“DPA”). 

While there’s no harm in gathering as much information as possible before filing a protest, would-be protesters must pay careful attention to GAO’s timeliness regulations. In K&K Industries, Inc., B-420422; B-420422.2, March 7, 2022, GAO highlighted the risk of attempting to unilaterally extend a debriefing beyond the Department of Defense (DOD) enhanced debriefing window.

In Avue Technologies Corp. v. HHS & GSA, CBCA 6360, 6627 (January 14, 2022), the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals dismissed an appeal alleging breach of a license agreement based on a novel jurisdictional issue:  Whether a software license agreement, in isolation, qualifies as a contract for the purpose of finding Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”) jurisdiction.  The Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) originally purchased a commercial subscription for Avue’s software off of a General Services Administration (“GSA”) Federal Supply Schedule contract held by another contractor, Carahsoft Technology Corp.  The schedule contract incorporated Avue’s Master Subscription Agreement (“MSA”), in the form of an End-User License Agreement (“EULA”), which the Board found to be incorporated into the FDA’s order.  Avue later submitted certified claims directly to the FDA and GSA contracting officers, accusing the FDA of misappropriating proprietary Avue Digital Services data in violation of the MSA. 

During December 2021, the House and Senate reached agreement on a compromise National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022.  On December 23, 2021, Congress presented S. 1605 to President Biden, which he signed on December 27, 2021. 

In Section 839 of the Fiscal Year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress directed the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) to prepare a report evaluating the implementation of Department of Defense (“DoD”) Instruction 5010.44 relating to Intellectual Property Acquisition and Licensing, including but not limited to, DoD’s establishment of a cadre of intellectual property (“IP”) experts previously directed by Congress. On November 30, 2021, GAO issued a final report to Congress entitled “DOD Should Take Additional Actions to Improve How It Approaches Intellectual Property” (“Report”). The Report made four recommendations: (1) DoD’s planned guidebook on IP (currently expected to be published in the first quarter of 2022) should clarify how DoD personnel can pursue detailed manufacturing or process data; (2) DoD should determine the collaboration, staffing, and resources needed to execute DoD’s proposed approach for the IP Cadre; (3) the Director of the IP Cadre should collaborate with the President of Defense Acquisition University (“DAU”) to prioritize IP-related tasks that DAU should undertake between 2023 through 2025; and (4) the Director of the IP Cadre should develop additional guidance to help identify the DoD personnel in key career fields that would benefit most from receiving IP training and credentials. In response to a draft of the Report, DoD concurred with each of these recommendations.