Full text
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
No. 24-365
(Filed: April 22, 2024)
AIRBOSS DEFENSE GROUP, LLC,
Plaintiff,
and
STRING KING LACROSSE LLC,
Plaintiff-Intervenor,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant,
and
NEW YORK EMBROIDERY
STUDIO, INC.
Defendant-Intervenor.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
Before the court is the parties’ joint status report (“JSR”) and motion for a scheduling
order. ECF No. 34. In their JSR, the parties explain that “HHS now intends to reconsider its
competitive range determination within the next thirty days, issue an amendment to the
solicitation revising the current requirements, engage in discussions as needed, and solicit
revised final proposals. Thereafter, HHS will make a new award decision.” Id. at 1-2.
The parties disagree as to how the case should proceed in light of this development. The
government avers that “this corrective action moots this protest,” and as such proposes a motion
to dismiss briefing schedule. Id. at 2. Plaintiff, on the other hand, “believes that resolution of
the Government’s motion to dismiss depends entirely on the results of the actions that the
Government has stated HHS will take,” and as such proposes a motion for judgment on the
administrative record briefing schedule. Id. at 2-3. Plaintiff-intervenor “represents that it
endorses the schedule proposed by ADG and would file its briefs on the dates proposed for ADG
Case 1:24-cv-00365-PSH Document 36 Filed 04/22/24 Page 1 of 2
2
to file its briefs.” Id. at 3. Defendant-intervenor “represents that it has no opposition to either
proposed schedule and defers to the Court’s judgment on efficiency and convenience to the
Court.” Id. at 4.
Having considered both proposals, the court adopts plaintiff’s proposed schedule, as
follows:
Event
Plaintiff-Intervenor StringKing files complaint
Government files the Administrative Record Responding to
ADG’s Protest and Providing the Details of the Agency’s
Corrective Action, including any new competitive range
determination, solicitation amendment, and discussion letters
Plaintiff and Plaintiff-Intervenor file Motions for Judgment on the
Administrative Record (“MJAR”)
Government and Defendant-Intervenor file Oppositions to Plaintiff
and Plaintiff-Intervenor’s MJARs and file Cross-MJARs
Plaintiff and Plaintiff-Intervenor file Replies in Support of their
MJARs and file Oppositions to the Government and Defendant-
Intervenor’s MJARs
Government and Defendant-Intervenor file Replies in Support of
their MJARs
Date
April 23, 2024
May 3, 2024
May 24, 2024
June 14, 2024
June 28, 2024
July 8, 2024
It is so ORDERED.
s/ Charles F. Lettow
Charles F. Lettow
Senior Judge
Case 1:24-cv-00365-PSH Document 36 Filed 04/22/24 Page 2 of 2