Supreme Court lets stand ruling that blocks subcontractors from protesting
Gettyimages.com/ joe daniel price
By
Nick Wakeman
Percipent's effort to replicate Palantir’s protest strategy falls short, cementing the traditional definition of what is an "interested party."
The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear an appeal by Percipient.AI leaves in place the precedent of who an “interested party” in bid protests.
Percipent.AI tried to force its way onto a team led by CACI International to provide the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency with intelligence data management support.
Percipient.AI felt that its commercial product should have been part of CACI’s solution. But instead of adding Percipent.AI to the team, CACI built a custom solution.
Following that rejection, Percipent.AI went to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims with similar arguments that Palantir used to force its way into the competition for the Army's Distributed Common Ground Systems-A program.
But Palantir pursued that opportunity as a prime contract and eventually won.
Percipent.AI had limited success at the Court of Federal Claims, which first ruled in 2023 that it should be allowed to protest. But the same judge later ruled it could not protest at the court because only the Government Accountability Office can hear protests involving task orders.
But by that time, it was too late for Percipent.AI to file a protest at GAO. Companies generally have 10 days to file a protest after they know or should know the basis for why they are protesting.
Percipent.AI then took its argument to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, where it was unsuccessful. The company finally turned to the U.S. Supreme Court, which on Monday said it would not hear the case. The Supreme Court did not give a reason for rejecting the appeal.
With that rejection, the traditional definition of “interested party” continues to apply to only those who are actual bidders for a contract.