In a significant ruling, the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed a bid protest filed by 28 Trans, LLC against the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Uber Technologies, Inc. The court's decision, issued on July 23, 2026, affects the transportation services available to veterans, particularly those who rely on the VA for nonemergency medical transportation.
The case, identified by docket number 26-204, centers around a dispute involving transportation services for veterans. 28 Trans, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business, claimed that the VA unlawfully collaborated with Uber Health to provide rideshare services, undermining its own contract with the VA. The court's ruling means that 28 Trans's challenge to the VA's partnership with Uber Health will not proceed, impacting how veterans receive transportation to medical appointments.
This case is crucial as it highlights the complexities involved in federal contracts and the procurement process, especially when it comes to services intended for veterans. The decision could influence how the VA and similar agencies engage with private companies in the future.
Background
28 Trans, LLC provides nonemergency special-mode ground transportation services to veterans through a five-year contract with the VA San Francisco Health Care System. The company argued that the VA violated federal procurement laws by entering into a partnership with Uber Health, which it claimed constituted a series of sole-source contracts awarded outside of legal procurement avenues.
The dispute arose after the VA initiated a public-private collaboration with Uber Health to transport veterans to their medical appointments. 28 Trans alleged that this partnership resulted in the VA improperly assigning rides that should have been given to them to Uber Health instead. The company filed a nine-count complaint against the VA, seeking over $1.1 million in damages and attorney’s fees.
The case reached the Court of Federal Claims after 28 Trans's attempts to resolve the issue through administrative channels failed. The VA's motion to dismiss the bid protest was based on the assertion that the arrangement with Uber Health did not constitute a procurement within the court's jurisdiction.
The Ruling
The court, presided over by Judge Armando O. Bonilla, granted the VA's motion to dismiss Count I of 28 Trans's complaint, which was framed as a bid protest. The court ruled that the VA's engagement with Uber Health did not fall under the definition of procurement as outlined in the Tucker Act. Judge Bonilla stated, "The challenged arrangement between the VA and Uber Health is not a procurement contract because the rideshare services provided are intended for the direct benefit of veterans—not the federal government."
In dismissing the bid protest, the court emphasized that the VA's collaboration with Uber Health was designed to improve veterans' access to transportation for medical services, rather than to acquire services for the government itself. The ruling effectively limits the scope of what can be challenged in federal court regarding procurement-related disputes.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for both 28 Trans and the broader context of veteran transportation services. By dismissing the bid protest, the court has upheld the VA's ability to partner with private companies like Uber Health to enhance transportation options for veterans. This could lead to more innovative solutions in the future, as the VA seeks to improve services for its beneficiaries.
For 28 Trans, the decision represents a setback, as it limits their ability to contest the VA's actions in court. The ruling may also set a precedent regarding the interpretation of procurement laws and the extent to which companies can challenge federal contracts that involve partnerships with private entities.
What's Next
While Count I of the complaint has been dismissed, 28 Trans may still pursue its remaining claims against the VA. The court has ordered the defendant to file an answer to the operative complaint by August 6, 2026. Additionally, the involvement of Uber Health and other parties in this case may continue to evolve as the litigation proceeds.