Optimum Services, Inc. v. Deb Haaland, Secretary of the Interior

I. Is an agency's termination for convenience of a contract for voluntary corrective action in response to the filing of a post-award bid protest in the Court of Federal Claims subject to review under the Contract Disputes Act ("CDA") for breach of contract, where the record shows that: * the agency knew or should have known that the post-award bid protest had no merit; * the agency knew or should have known that the post-award bid protest was subject to a motion to dismiss for untimeliness; * the agency had a requirement and the funding and ability to perform the contract; and * the termination for convenience was based in part on the agency's stated desire to obtain a better bargain for the same work by terminating the contract and cancelling the solicitation and awarding new contracts for the same work to other contractor(s). II. If a termination for convenience is subject to judicial review for breach of contract under the CDA, what standard(s) of judicial review should be applied when reviewing a termination for convenience for breach of contract under the CDA? III. If a termination for convenience is subject to judicial review for breach of contract under the CDA, should a CDA board of contract appeals give preclusive effect or deference to a non-binding GAO advisory opinion approving of the termination, that was issued months after the termination in