On Monday, February 24, 2025, the Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) released the public version of a February 13 decision declining to dismiss Raytheon Company’s protest of a $648.5 million award under the Missile Defense Agency’s (“MDA”) interceptor development program. Judge Armando O. Bonilla held that the award was within the court’s jurisdiction over Other Transaction Authority agreements (“OTAs”).

Unsuccessful offerors have had difficulty finding a tribunal with jurisdiction over post-award protests involving OTAs. Under COFC and U.S. General Accountability Office (“GAO”) precedent, an offeror’s ability to protest an OTA award is limited. OTAs are not considered procurement contracts. They are considered non-traditional acquisitions usually involving innovative research and development or prototyping services. They are not based on the Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) or Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (“DFARS”) and are not subject to the Competition in Contracting Act (“CICA”). Under CICA and the GAO’s Bid Protest Regulations, GAO’s bid protest jurisdiction is limited to protests concerning alleged violations of federal agency procurement statutes or regulations in the award or proposed award of contracts for the procurement of goods and services, and solicitations leading to such awards. Under the COFC’s Tucker Act bid protest jurisdiction, COFC’s review is limited to protests “in connection with a procurement or a proposed procurement.” Disappointed OTA competitors also have been unsuccessful seeking relief in U.S. Federal District Courts.

Judge Bonilla’s decision in Raytheon navigates COFC precedent to find jurisdiction over a post-award OTA based on what the judge coined a “working definition.” Judge Bonilla found that the COFC can hear disputes over non-traditional acquisition deals if they are “intended to provide the government with a direct benefit in the form of products or services.” Judge Bonilla crafted his “working definition” of the COFC’s Tucker Act bid protest jurisdiction based on COFC decisions going back to 2019. According to the judge, these decisions “charted a more direct and interlinked path” from initial OTA award leading to a government purchase, and show that jurisdiction turns on the agency’s “immediate endgame.”

Judge Bonilla found that the $648.5 million MDA missile interceptor development OTA protested by Raytheon and earlier OTAs awarded by MDA provided for research and development services leading to production and delivery. According to Judge Bonilla, it did not matter that MDA “had not yet formally committed to purchasing an end product.” MDA’s intent to purchase was enough. MDA’s actions and communications regarding the interceptor program showed it intended to award a follow-on contract contemplated in the protested OTA if the awardee demonstrated its proposed solution works.

Judge Bonilla’s “working definition” will likely be challenged on appeal to the Federal Circuit. Thus, we do not know whether the expansion of COFC’s post-award protest jurisdiction over OTAs is here to stay.