Ward v. Carlton

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that because there had been no re-solicitation of the contract at issue the plaintiff, as an awardee, failed to establish bid protest standing
• concluding that it lacked jurisdiction over the contract awardee’s claim that the procuring agency would likely terminate its contract as a result of a successful size protest because (1) the awardee lacked standing under section 1491(b)(1) and (2
• finding the plaintiff was not an interested party and therefore lacked standing because the plaintiff was the awardee and the contract was not being resolicited
• rejecting protest standing when plaintiff was awarded a contract and attempted to protest the threatened termination of that contract for convenience
• “Contract awardees ... must ... bring contract claims pursuant to the [CDA.]”
• “Once a bidder has received a contract, it is no longer an actual or prospective bidder or offeror with regard to the particular procurement. Instead, the bidder has become an awardee, who is not an interested party for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).