Jay Hymas

B-414546 May 23, 2017 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Jay Hymas, of Richland, Washington, protests the department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) use of cooperative farming agreements (CFA) in U.S. Fish and Wildlife refuges for 2017. Jay Hymas argues that the CFAs should be issued as procurement contracts because the agency is not following the proper procedures under the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act (FGCAA), 31 U.S.C. 6301-6308. The protester also alleges that the CFAs are "unlawful" because the agency is not providing proper notice of the "procurements." We dismiss the protest. We dismiss the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of:  Jay Hymas File:  B-414546 Date:  May 23, 2017 Jay Hymas, for the protester. Sherry Kinland Kaswell, Esq., Department of the Interior, for the agency. Peter D. Verchinski, Esq., Nora K. Adkins, Esq., and Amy B. Pereira, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Protest challenging the agency’s issuance of multiple cooperative farming agreements is dismissed where the protester has already sought and received an adjudication of the matter at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 2.  Protest challenging the agency compliance with the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act is dismissed where our Office does not review protests of the award, or protests of solicitations for the award, of cooperative agreements because they do not involve the award of a procurement contract, and are thus beyond our jurisdiction. DECISION Jay Hymas, of Richland, Washington, protests the Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) use of cooperative farming agreements (CFA) in U.S. Fish and Wildlife refuges for 2017.  Jay Hymas argues that the CFAs should be issued as procurement contracts because the agency is not following the proper procedures under the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act (FGCAA), 31 U.S.C. §§ 6301-6308.  The protester also alleges that the CFAs are “unlawful” because the agency is not providing proper notice of the “procurements.” We dismiss the protest. Jay Hymas’ challenges to the agency’s CFA program began in 2013 before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (COFC) and ultimately reached the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  See  Hymas v. United States, 117 Fed. Cl. 466 (2014); Hymas v. United States, 810 F.3d 1312 (2016).  On January 14, 2016, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision resolving the government’s appeal of the 2014 COFC decision.  As relevant to the current protest, the Federal Circuit concluded that the CFAs at issue were not procurements under the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA), but instead were properly issued as cooperative agreements.  In concluding that the CFAs were not procurements, the Federal Circuit found that the COFC had improperly taken jurisdiction to hear Jay Hymas’ protest of the agency’s use of CFAs.  The Federal Circuit vacated the COFC’s decision--which had found that the CFAs constituted procurements under CICA--and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case. On remand, the COFC transferred the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington.  On December 14, 2016, Mr. Hymas filed an amended complaint with the District Court, and on March 3, 2017, filed a motion for a temporary restraining order to enjoin the operation of existing CFAs and enjoin the FWS from entering into new CFAs.  On March 20, the District Court dismissed six of the seven counts in the amended complaint, and denied Hymas’ request for a temporary restraining order.  See Agency Motion to Dismiss, exh.