923 F. 2d 868 - Vanguard Technologies Corp v. United States

923 F2d 868 Vanguard Technologies Corp v. United States

923 F.2d 868

VANGUARD TECHNOLOGIES CORP., Appellant,
v.
The UNITED STATES, Appellee,
and
Oao Corporation, Intervenor.
The UNITED STATES, Appellant,
v.
OAO CORPORATION, Appellee.

Nos. 90-1031, 90-1146.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Sept. 28, 1990.

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.8(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision of the Court rendered in a nonprecedential opinion or order.

1

JOINT MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL ON THE GROUND OF MOOTNESS

2

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b), Appellant Vanguard Technologies Corporation ("Vanguard"), Appellant/Appellee the United States, and Appellee/Intervenor OAO Corporation ("OAO") jointly move this Court for voluntary dismissal of the above-captioned consolidated appeals, with prejudice, on the grounds that they have become moot.

3

These appeals arise from a bid protest decision of the General Services Board of Contract Appeals regarding the award of contract TIR-89-0056 by the Internal Revenue Service. Appellee/Intervenor OAO was the awardee and Appellant Vanguard was a disappointed bidder for that contract.

4

On June 4, 1990, OAO and Vanguard jointly moved the Court for a stay because of pending settlement discussions. By Order dated June 21, 1990, the Court granted the requested stay. In their last Status Report, filed September 10, 1990, the parties reported significant progress in the settlement negotiations, which involved the acquisition by Vanguard's successor, CBIS Federal Inc., of the part of OAO which was performing the contract.

5

On September 28, 1990, this transaction was consummated at a closing. On that same day, the parties entered into a formal Novation Agreement with the Internal Revenue Service, transferring the contract from OAO to CBIS Federal Inc. The documents and funds from the closing are being held in escrow until these appeals are dismissed.

6

Because of this transaction and the Internal Revenue Service's approval of it, there is no longer a dispute over award of contract TIR-89-0056. Because the underlying controversy has been resolved, the appeals have been rendered moot.

7

Accordingly, the parties jointly ask the Court to dismiss these appeals with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs.

8

FOR APPELLANT VANGUARD TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

9

Joseph J. Petrillo, Esq.

PETRILLO & HORDELL

10

915 15th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005

11

(202) 783-9150

FOR APPELLEE/APPELLANT THE UNITED STATES

Stuart M. Gerson

Assistant Attorney General

David M. Cohen

Director

12

Elizabeth Woodruff, Esq.

Commercial Litigation Branch

Civil Division

Department of Justice

8th Floor--Room 8030

13

550 11th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20530

14

(202) 724-7843

FOR INTERVENOR/APPELLEE OAO CORPORATION

15

J. Alan Galbraith, Esq.

WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY

839 17th Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 20006

16

(202) 331-5000