## Facts

- The Army deployed UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters to Iraq and identified an urgent need for engine inlet barrier filter (IBF) systems to prevent engine damage from sand and debris ingestion.
- Westar Corporation held the Army’s systems engineering and technical assistance (SETA) contract (Omnibus 2000), providing IBF-related systems support; its division, Aerospace Filtration Systems (AFS), had an IBF design.
- The Army directed its prime contractor, Sikorsky Aircraft, to evaluate IBF options through a trade study, then suspended the study and instructed Sikorsky to use AFS’s IBF system.
- Sikorsky’s contracting officer flagged a potential organizational conflict of interest (OCI) because the SETA contractor’s affiliate would supply the IBF system, but no formal mitigation plan or waiver was implemented.
- The Army, acting through Sikorsky, proceeded with a noncompetitive/limited-competition procurement for 240 IBFs, invoking the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) “unusual and compelling urgency” authority.
- Filtration Development Company, LLC (FDC), an IBF developer, sought opportunities to compete through communications with Army personnel but was not afforded a chance to compete.
- FDC filed a bid protest in the Court of Federal Claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b), seeking declaratory relief and a permanent injunction affecting Westar/AFS’s participation in the IBF procurement.

## Issues

1. Whether the Army lawfully invoked CICA’s “unusual and compelling urgency” exception to use noncompetitive or limited-competition procedures for the IBF procurement.
2. Whether Westar/AFS’s dual role (SETA support and IBF supply) created an impermissible OCI requiring mitigation, waiver, or setting aside the procurement.
3. Whether FDC established prejudice and entitlement to declaratory and injunctive relief.

## Decision

- The Court of Federal Claims denied FDC’s requested injunctive relief and permitted the procurement to stand.
- The court held the urgency determination was adequately supported by operational needs and justified use of the CICA urgency exception.
- The court treated the OCI allegations as serious but found an insufficient showing that the asserted conflict tainted the procurement in a way requiring judicial relief.
- The court concluded FDC failed to show the requisite prejudice (a substantial chance of award but for the alleged errors), defeating its bid-protest claim for relief.

## Legal Principles

- Under CICA, an agency may use other-than-competitive procedures when “unusual and compelling urgency” makes the government likely to be seriously injured by delay; the determination must be rationally supported by the record.
- Courts reviewing procurement decisions do not require an agency to select the most competitive or ideal method; the inquiry is whether the action was consistent with governing statutes and regulations and was not arbitrary.
- FAR OCI rules require agencies to avoid, neutralize, or mitigate significant OCIs (and allow waivers in appropriate circumstances), but a protester must still prove a procurement-law violation warranting relief.
- In a Tucker Act bid protest, the protester must prove both a significant procurement error and prejudice—typically a substantial chance it would have received the award absent the error.
- Injunctive relief in procurement cases requires consideration of success on the merits, irreparable harm, balance of hardships, and the public interest, including mission needs in urgent military contexts.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the Army’s urgent IBF procurement for deployed Blackhawk helicopters, concluding that the wartime urgency justification was legally sufficient and that, despite significant OCI concerns, the protester did not establish a prejudicial procurement-law violation warranting declaratory or injunctive relief.


Filtration Dev. Co., LLC v. United States, 60 Fed. Cl. 371 (Fed. Cl. 2004)