• R.D. Lieberman,Consultant

Federal Circuit Finds Ct. of Federal Claims has Jurisdiction Over Removal from Qualified Parts List

Reversing a Court of Federal Claims ruling, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) recently held that a bidder that had been removed from a Qualified Parts List (“QPL”), and thereby barred from responding to solicitations subject to that QPL, could challenge its removal under the Tucker Act bid protest jurisdiction, 18 USC § 1491(b)(1). Lax Electronics, Inc. DBA Automatic Connector v. United States, (Fed Cl. No. 2020-1498) (Nov. 3, 2020).


A QPL designates government approved sources of supply, frequently for spare parts for weapon systems. The Federal Acquisition Regulation states that “Qualification and listing in a QPL[] is the process by which products are obtained from manufacturers or distributors, examined and tested for compliance with specification requirements, or manufacturers or potential offerors, are provided an opportunity to demonstrate their abilities to meet the standards specified for qualification. The names of successful products, manufacturers, or potential offerors are included on lists evidencing their status.” FAR 9.203(a).


The Defense Logistics Agency (“DLA”) frequently buys spare parts that require the parts to meet certain specifications as shown by their listing as an approved source of supply in the QPL. Contractors that are not on the list cannot respond to a solicitation for a QPL item, unless they can be qualified prior to award.


The DLA removed Automatic Connector from a QPL for certain electronic connectors, and the contractor challenged the removal. Automatic sought relief from the Court of Federal Claims. Automatic’s complaint noted that DLA continued to solicit bids for the parts that it could no longer supply, given its removal from the QPL DLA was continuing to bar the company from a continuing stream of solicitations for the connectors while refusing to provide the company with any reasonable opportunity to arrange for qualification for the new awards.


The government moved to dismiss due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under §1491(b), stating that the statute only granted jurisdiction on an action by an interested party objecting to an alleged violation of statute or regulation in connection with a procurement or proposed procurement. The government disputed that Automatic Connector was an “interested party” and asserted that there was no “procurement or proposed procurement.”


The CAFC disagreed. The government principally relied on 2018 case, Geiler/Schrudde & Zimmerman v. United States, 743 F. App'x 974, 977 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (per curiam, where the Court found no jurisdiction because the plaintiffs had “failed to establish that the alleged violations occurred in connection with a procurement or proposed procurement.” No future procurements were asserted. Subsequent to that case, in Acetris Health, LLC v United States, 949 F.3d 719 (Fed. Cir 2020), the Court made it clear that the Claims Court had jurisdiction to hear a bid protest challenge to the government’s position that it could make a plaintiff ineligible to compete for future government procurements for which it was likely to submit bids, and there was no jurisdiction to examine the government’s actions. Here, there was a non-speculative stream of future government procurements that Automatic Connector was likely to bid on. DLA’s removal of Automatic Connector resulted in a disqualification from likely future procurements on which the company was likely to bid. Accordingly, the Court vacated the Court of Federal Claims decision and remanded for further proceedings.


Takeaway: If your company is removed from a QPL, the Court of Federal Claims will have jurisdiction under its bid protest statute, even if there is no pending procurement, but there are future procurements on which you are likely to bid based on that QPL.


For other helpful suggestions on government contracting, visit:

Richard D. Lieberman’s FAR Consulting & Training at https://www.richarddlieberman.com/, and Mistakes in Government Contracting at https://richarddlieberman.wixsite.com/mistakes.



2 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Discussions-High Price or an Unreasonable High Price?

Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) 15.306 states that negotiations with offerors in the competitive range are designed to “maximize the Government’s ability to obtain best value, based on the requ

Adverse Inference in Size Appeals

The Small Business Administration (“SBA”) Office of Hearings and Appeals (“OHA”) has a very clear-cut set of guidelines for deciding appeals of contractor’s size protests in connection with set-asides

The website of Richard Donald Lieberman, a government contracts consultant and retired attorney who is the author of both "The 100 Worst Mistakes in Government Contracting" (with Jason Morgan) and "The 100 Worst Government Mistakes in Government Contracting." Richard Lieberman concentrates on Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) consulting and training, including  commercial item contracting (FAR Part 12), compliance with proposal requirements (FAR Part 15 negotiated procurement), sealed bidding (FAR Part 14), compliance with solicitation requirements, contract administration (FAR Part 42), contract modifications and changes (FAR Part 43), subcontracting and flowdown requirements (FAR Part 44), government property (FAR Part 45), quality assurance (FAR Part 46), obtaining invoiced payments owed to contractors,  and other compliance with the FAR. Mr.Lieberman is also involved in numerous community service activities.  See LinkedIn profile at https://www.linkedin.com/in/richard-d-lieberman-3a25257a/.This website and blog are for educational and information purposes only.  Nothing posted on this website constitutes legal advice, which can only be obtained from a qualified attorney. Website Owner/Consultant does not engage in the practice of law and will not provide legal advice or legal services based on competence and standing in the law. Legal filings and other aspects of a legal practice must be performed by an appropriate attorney. Using this website does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Although the author strives to present accurate information, the information provided on this site is not guaranteed to be complete, correct or up-to-date.  The views expressed on this blog are solely those of the author. FAR Consulting & Training, Bethesda, Maryland, Tel. 202-520-5780, rliebermanconsultant@gmail.com

Copyright © 2020 Richard D. Lieberman