## Facts

- The United States had a technical-data license with Colt’s covering M16 rifle data, permitting use of that data for competitive procurements of M16 rifles and parts.
- FN Manufacturing was a major producer of M16 rifles under competitive contracts using the licensed M16 technical data.
- Colt’s developed the M4 carbine, a compact variant derived from the M16 platform, and asserted proprietary rights in M4 technical data.
- After a Navy competitive solicitation used M4-related data in a manner Colt’s claimed exceeded the M16 license, Colt’s alleged breach and sought damages.
- To resolve the dispute, Colt’s and the government executed an “M4 Addendum” to the M16 license that (i) confirmed Colt’s proprietary interests in M4 data and (ii) restricted the government’s use of M4 technical data for competitive procurements for roughly 13 years.
- Following the addendum, the government awarded Colt’s a sole-source contract for M4 carbines.
- FN filed a bid protest under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b), alleging the addendum unlawfully compromised government technical-data rights (10 U.S.C. § 2320) and unlawfully foreclosed competition (CICA).

## Issues

1. Whether FN, as an interested party, stated a cognizable bid-protest claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b) challenging procurement decisions grounded in an amendment to a technical-data license.
2. Whether alleged government concessions restricting competitive use of technical data could violate 10 U.S.C. § 2320 and thereby support bid-protest relief.
3. Whether an agreement that effectively creates a long-term sole-source environment may constitute an unlawful, self-created restriction on competition under CICA.
4. Whether FN’s allegations, if proven, could justify injunctive relief.

## Decision

- The Court of Federal Claims held that FN’s allegations, if proven, could support injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b).
- The court allowed the protest to proceed, rejecting the view that FN’s legal theory was insufficient as a matter of law.
- The court did not resolve disputed facts or award final, permanent relief at this interim stage.

## Legal Principles

- Under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b), the Court of Federal Claims may review procurement actions and related arrangements when they directly affect competition and the legality of a solicitation or award.
- A contractor may challenge government action that allegedly surrenders or improperly restricts technical-data rights in a manner inconsistent with statutory requirements governing defense technical data (10 U.S.C. § 2320).
- CICA’s full-and-open-competition mandate can be implicated where the government’s own agreements operate as a de facto, long-term bar to competition without a valid exception.
- Injunctive relief may be available in a bid protest where challenged conduct is alleged to be contrary to law and causes competitive prejudice.

## Conclusion

The court held that a bid protest may proceed where a disappointed competitor plausibly alleges that the government, through a technical-data license addendum, unlawfully constrained its own ability to conduct competitive procurement, potentially violating statutory technical-data requirements and CICA and warranting injunctive relief if proven.


FN Mfg., Inc. v. United States, 42 Fed. Cl. 87 (Fed. Cl. 1998)