Debarred Contractor Filed a Bid Protest—It Wasn’t Successful

A debarred plaintiff filed a bid protest challenging an award decision. COFC dismissed the complaint. As a debarred contractor, the protester’s alleged injury was not redressable; they were not an “interested party,” and thus lacked standing to protest.

Dee Monbo v. United States, COFC No. 24-cv-1179

• Background – The Navy debarred the plaintiff from contracting with the federal government through October 19, 2026. Nevertheless, the plaintiff initiated a bid protest challenging the Air Force’s decision to not considerher proposal in response to a solicitation for decoration services. Although the plaintiff alleged she jointly submitted her bid with another contractor, she brought the claim only on her own personal behalf.
• Decision – The Court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint because she lacked Article III standing. Her alleged injury was not redressable by the court because of her debarment from government contracting. Furthermore, she could not show statutory standing under the standard of 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1). In other words, she was not an “interested party” prejudiced by a significant error in the procurement process. Even if she did not lack standing, the court would dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute as the plaintiff failed to timely respond to the government’s motion to dismiss even after the court’s warning.

— Case summary by Joshua Lim, Assistant Editor.

[pdf-embedder url=”https://staging.pub-k.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/24-1179-•-MONBO-v.-USA.pdf” title=”24-1179 • MONBO v. USA”]