Janeen D. Smith, Dba Brandt Development v. United States

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
JANEEN D. SMITH, DBA BRANDT
DEVELOPMENT,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2025-1837
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:25-cv-00284-CNL, Judge Carolyn N. Lerner.
______________________
Decided: May 13, 2026
______________________
JANEEN S MITH , Austin, TX, pro se.
RETA EMMA BEZAK , Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
PATRICIA M. M CCARTHY, D OUGLAS K. M ICKLE, BRETT
SHUMATE .
______________________
Case: 25-1837 Document: 38 Page: 1 Filed: 05/13/2026

-- 1 of 5 --

SMITH v. US 2
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, STOLL and STARK , Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Janeen D. Smith, doing business as Brandt Develop-
ment, appeals a decision of the United States Court of Fed-
eral Claims dismissing her complaint for failure to state a
claim and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Ms. Smith submitted a bid for the Air Force Research
Laboratory’s (Air Force) Request for Proposal (RFP)
No. FA8650-17-S-2002 Call 3 Expendable Hypersonic
Multi-mission ISR and Strike (Mayhem). S. Appx. 1–2.1
Prior to awarding the contract, the Air Force notified
Ms. Smith that her proposal was classified as “Not Se-
lectable” and therefore would not be considered for award.
S. Appx. 2; S. Appx. 55. Ms. Smith did not request debrief-
ing. S. Appx. 2. The Air Force awarded the contract to Lei-
dos Holdings, Inc. (Leidos). Almost two years later,
Ms. Smith submitted a contract dispute letter protesting
the award, which the Air Force dismissed as untimely.
S. Appx. 2. Ms. Smith then filed a complaint in the Court
of Federal Claims, alleging she submitted the lowest-price
bid, but the Air Force rejected it “for an improper techni-
cality that has no legal basis to warrant rejection.”
S. Appx. 2 (internal quotation marks omitted); S. Appx. 18.
Ms. Smith also alleged Leidos breached its contract and
committed fraud against the Government with its bid and
performance under the Mayhem contract. S. Appx. 3.
The trial court dismissed Ms. Smith’s complaint be-
cause she failed to establish statutory standing or state a
claim over which the trial court has jurisdiction.
1 “S. Appx.” refers to the appendix attached to the
Government’s brief.
Case: 25-1837 Document: 38 Page: 2 Filed: 05/13/2026

-- 2 of 5 --

SMITH v. US 3
S. Appx. 1–7. Relevant here, the trial court concluded
Ms. Smith failed to establish statutory standing because
the Air Force classified her proposal as “Not Selectable” in-
dependent of its award to Leidos, and she failed to timely
object to the classification. S. Appx. 5–6. The trial court
also concluded it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over
Ms. Smith’s claims related to Leidos’ bid and performance
under the Mayhem contract. S. Appx. 6–7. Ms. Smith ap-
peals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
D ISCUSSION
We review de novo the trial court’s decisions as to fail-
ure to state a claim and statutory standing. B.H. Aircraft
Co. Inc. v. United States, 89 F.4th 1360, 1362 (Fed. Cir.
2024). We also review de novo whether the Court of Fed-
eral Claims has subject matter jurisdiction. 112 Genesee
St., LLC v. United States, 166 F.4th 1017, 1021 (Fed. Cir.
2026). Under the Tucker Act, the Court of Federal Claims
has jurisdiction over actions “by an interested party object-
ing to a solicitation by a Federal agency for bids or pro-
posals for a proposed contract or to a proposed award or the
award of a contract [by the Federal agency.]” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1491(b)(1).
I
To establish statutory standing, a plaintiff contesting a
government contract award must demonstrate it is an “in-
terested party” by showing the plaintiff (1) is an actual or
prospective bidder and (2) has a direct economic interest in
the procurement or proposed procurement. Percipient.AI,
Inc. v. United States, 153 F.4th 1226, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2025).
To show a direct economic interest in the procurement or
proposed procurement, a plaintiff “must show that it had a
substantial chance of winning the contract.” REV, LLC v.
United States, 91 F.4th 1156, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (quot-
ing CliniComp Int’l, Inc. v. United States, 904 F.3d 1353,
1358 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).
Case: 25-1837 Document: 38 Page: 3 Filed: 05/13/2026

-- 3 of 5 --

SMITH v. US 4
On appeal, Ms. Smith does not dispute the Air Force
deemed her proposal “Not Selectable.” Nor does she show
she otherwise qualified as an “interested party” under the
Tucker Act. Ms. Smith instead argues she experienced “a
direct economic injury” of a “loss of contract award, lost
competitive standing, and unequal access to procurement
materials.” Smith. Br. 27. However, she fails to show she
“had a substantial chance of winning the contract” given
her proposal’s “Not Selectable” classification. REV, LLC,
91 F.4th at 1163. Ms. Smith therefore fails to establish the
Court of Federal Claims erred in concluding she lacked the
requisite statutory standing to state a claim for relief. See
CACI, Inc.-Fed. v. United States, 67 F.4th 1145, 1151 (Fed.
Cir. 2023).
Ms. Smith argues the Air Force “failed to provide a
meaningful explanation of the exclusion” and “withheld
material evaluation information necessary to understand
or challenge the decision.” Smith Reply Br. 6. But when
the Air Force notified Ms. Smith that her proposal was
“Not Selectable,” it noted “a debriefing w[ould] be provided”
if requested, and Ms. Smith did not request a debriefing.
S. Appx. 2; S. Appx. 55. Ms. Smith knew the Air Force clas-
sified her proposal as “Not Selectable” on August 10, 2022,
so she was required to submit a protest no later than 10
days after that date. S. Appx. 55; Federal Acquisition Reg-
ulation § 33.103(e) (requiring protests to be filed “no later
than 10 days after the basis of protest is known or should
have been known, whichever is earlier”). Ms. Smith did not
submit her contract dispute letter until almost two years
after the Air Force awarded the contract to Leidos. Her
protest was thus untimely.
II
Ms. Smith also argues that we have jurisdiction over
her “claims regarding [the Air Force’s] contract administra-
tion errors and violations of procurement law and the
[FAR].” Smith Br. 18. Ms. Smith’s claims regarding the
Case: 25-1837 Document: 38 Page: 4 Filed: 05/13/2026

-- 4 of 5 --

SMITH v. US 5
Air Force’s administration of the contract, however, alleged
wrongdoing by Leidos, not the Air Force. S. Appx. 29 (al-
leging Leidos provided the Air Force with “frivolous AI gen-
erated” conceptual designs and alleging Leidos violated its
contract terms). These claims fall outside the trial court’s
jurisdiction because they do not relate to an injury suffered
by “a solicitation by a Federal agency for bids or proposals
for a proposed contract or to a proposed award or the award
of a contract or any alleged violation of statute or regula-
tion in connection with a procurement or a proposed pro-
curement.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1). Additionally, the trial
court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over
Ms. Smith’s claims regarding Leidos’ performance under
the contract because Ms. Smith did not allege she had a
Contract Disputes Act claim by virtue of being in privity of
contract with the United States. 41 U.S.C. § 7101(7); Dal-
ton v. Sherwood Van Lines, Inc., 50 F.3d 1014, 1017 (Fed.
Cir. 1995) (Contract Disputes Act is the “exclusive mecha-
nism” for resolving disputes related to contract manage-
ment.).
CONCLUSION
We have considered Ms. Smith’s remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 25-1837 Document: 38 Page: 5 Filed: 05/13/2026

-- 5 of 5 --