Justia U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

FlightSafety International Inc. (FlightSafety) supplied the U.S. Air Force with commercial technical data under subcontracts awarded by CymSTAR, LLC. The data included restrictive markings, which the Air Force challenged. The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board) determined that the restrictive markings were improper under applicable statutes and regulations, leading FlightSafety to appeal.The Board found that the restrictive markings placed by FlightSafety on the technical data were improper. The Board concluded that the government had unrestricted rights to the data, as it was necessary for operation, maintenance, installation, or training (OMIT data). The Board also determined that the government could challenge the restrictive markings under the Validation Clause, which was not limited to challenges based on the funding source of the data.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the Board's decision. The court held that the government had unrestricted rights to the OMIT data and that the restrictive markings placed by FlightSafety contradicted these rights. The court also held that the government could challenge the restrictive markings under the Validation Clause, which was not limited to challenges based on the funding source of the data. The court found that the restrictive markings, including the terms "proprietary" and "confidential," as well as the requirement for written authorization, were impermissible as they contradicted the government's unrestricted rights. The court also found that the copyright notice in the markings was misleading and contradicted the government's rights. View "FLIGHTSAFETY INTERNATIONAL INC. v. AIR FORCE " on Justia Law

In 1957, Congress enacted the Price-Anderson Act (PAA) to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, providing indemnity for contractors and others involved in nuclear activities. The PAA mandated that the government indemnify contractors and other "persons indemnified" for public liability arising from nuclear incidents. In 1962, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) entered into an indemnity agreement with Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, which processed uranium for the government. Cotter Corporation later purchased radioactive materials from Mallinckrodt and was sued in 2012 by plaintiffs alleging harm from these materials.The United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed Cotter's claim for indemnification under the PAA and the indemnity agreement, ruling that Cotter was not entitled to indemnification because its activities did not arise out of or in connection with the contractual activities of Mallinckrodt. The court also dismissed Cotter's contract claim, concluding that Cotter lacked standing as a third-party beneficiary and failed to state a claim for breach of contract.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the Claims Court's decision. The Federal Circuit held that Cotter's liability for the nuclear incident plausibly arose out of or in connection with the contractual activities of Mallinckrodt, as the materials causing the incident were produced under the contract. The court also found that Cotter sufficiently alleged it was an intended third-party beneficiary of the indemnity agreement and that the government breached the contract by not indemnifying Cotter. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "COTTER CORP., N.S.L. v. US " on Justia Law

The case involves 27-35 Jackson Avenue LLC ("Jackson"), the owner of a New York City office building, which leased two floors to the United States government for the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Field Office. The lease, starting in May 2009, included a clause allowing termination if the premises were rendered untenantable by fire or other casualty, as determined by the government. In January 2015, a burst sprinkler head caused extensive water damage, leading the government to vacate the premises and eventually terminate the lease, citing untenantability.The United States Court of Federal Claims granted summary judgment in favor of the government, finding that the government did not breach the lease agreement. The court held that the government’s determination of untenantability was within its discretion and was not made in bad faith. Jackson's claim that the government acted unreasonably and in bad faith was rejected, as the court found no evidence to support these allegations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The appellate court held that the government’s determination of untenantability was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. The court emphasized that the lease explicitly allowed the government to make this determination. Additionally, the court found that Jackson failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of bad faith or a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court concluded that the government acted within its contractual rights and upheld the summary judgment in favor of the government. View "27-35 JACKSON AVE LLC v. US " on Justia Law

CKY, Inc. entered into a fixed-price construction contract with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) in October 2012. CKY encountered unexpected conditions, including heavy rainfall and undisclosed culverts, which led to additional expenses. CKY sought compensation for these expenses, but the Corps denied the requests. CKY then filed a claim under the Contract Disputes Act, seeking $1,146,226 for the additional costs incurred. The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (Board) ruled in favor of CKY regarding the undisclosed culverts but denied compensation for other claims.The Board awarded CKY $185,000 plus interest for the expenses related to the undisclosed culverts. CKY then applied for attorney’s fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). The Board granted the application, concluding that the government’s position regarding the undisclosed culverts was not substantially justified. The Board limited its substantial-justification inquiry to the government’s litigation position on the specific claim where CKY prevailed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the Board erred by categorically narrowing its substantial-justification inquiry to the government’s litigation position and to the specific claim on which CKY prevailed. The court emphasized that the substantial-justification inquiry should consider both the agency’s pre-litigation conduct and its litigation position, and should treat the case as an inclusive whole rather than focusing on individual claims. The court vacated the Board’s decision and remanded the case for reconsideration without the categorical limitations previously applied. View "In Re SECRETARY OF THE ARMY " on Justia Law

In 2014, due to severe drought conditions, the United States Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) was unable to meet its water delivery obligations to both the Exchange Contractors and the Friant Contractors under the Central Valley Project (CVP). Reclamation prioritized delivering water to the Exchange Contractors, including water from the San Joaquin River, which resulted in a near-zero allocation to the Friant Contractors. The Friant Contractors and individual growers sued the United States, alleging breach of contract and takings without just compensation.The United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed the Friant Growers' breach of contract claims for lack of standing and dismissed the takings claims for lack of a property interest. The court granted summary judgment to the government on the Friant Contractors' breach of contract claims, concluding that the Exchange Contractors' rights under the Exchange Contract were superior and that Reclamation's actions were not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the Exchange Contract allowed Reclamation to deliver San Joaquin River water to the Exchange Contractors when necessary, and that the government did not breach the Friant Contract by doing so. The court also found that the government was immune from liability under the Friant Contract because its actions were not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Finally, the court affirmed the dismissal of the takings claims, concluding that the Friant Contractors and Growers did not have a property interest in the water delivered by Reclamation under California law. View "CITY OF FRESNO v. US " on Justia Law

The United States Department of the Navy issued a solicitation requesting technical support for its electromagnetic spectrum resources, requiring proposals to be submitted via email by a specified deadline. eSimplicity, Inc. submitted its proposal before the deadline, but it was not received by the Contracting Officer due to the email exceeding the maximum file size and being bounced back. The Navy deemed eSimplicity's proposal untimely and did not consider it.eSimplicity filed a pre-award bid protest with the United States Court of Federal Claims. The Claims Court ruled in favor of eSimplicity, concluding that the file size was an unstated evaluation criterion and that the government control exception could apply to electronically submitted proposals. The court remanded the case for the Navy to reconsider its decision or to take other actions consistent with the court's opinion. Subsequently, the Navy issued an amended solicitation and awarded the contract to eSimplicity.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court determined that the appeal was moot because the original solicitation had expired, and the contract had been awarded under a new solicitation. The court found that there was no longer a live controversy, as the issues presented on appeal concerned the now-expired solicitation. The court also rejected the government's argument that the case fell under the "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception to mootness, noting that the government had other opportunities to appeal similar issues in the past but chose not to do so. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. View "ESIMPLICITY, INC. v. US " on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between the municipality of Anchorage and the United States regarding two agreements related to the improvement of the Port of Alaska. In 2003, Anchorage and the United States, through the Maritime Administration (MARAD), signed a Memorandum of Understanding (2003 Memorandum) to upgrade and expand the port. In 2011, they signed a Memorandum of Agreement (2011 Memorandum) to address issues that arose during the project, including large-scale damage discovered in 2010.The United States Court of Federal Claims held that the United States breached the 2003 Memorandum by failing to deliver a defect-free port and the 2011 Memorandum by settling subcontractor claims without consulting Anchorage. The court awarded Anchorage $367,446,809 in damages, including $11,279,059 related to the settlement of subcontractor claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the 2003 Memorandum did not require the United States to deliver a defect-free port, as it lacked specific terms such as what was to be built, where, dimensions, deadlines, and costs. The court vacated the Court of Federal Claims' decision regarding the 2003 Memorandum and remanded for further proceedings.However, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Court of Federal Claims' decision that the United States breached the 2011 Memorandum by settling subcontractor claims without conferring with Anchorage. The court upheld the award of $11,279,059 in damages to Anchorage for this breach. The case was vacated in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for further consideration consistent with the Federal Circuit's opinion. View "ANCHORAGE v. US " on Justia Law

Sage Acquisitions LLC ("Sage") entered into contracts with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") to provide management and marketing services for properties in HUD's Real Estate Owned ("REO") disposition program. Sage was awarded three contracts for different geographic areas. Sage filed claims with the HUD contracting officer for settlement costs due to the termination for convenience of the contracts, equitable adjustments for reduced property assignments, and damages for scope reduction. Sage also claimed damages for HUD's alleged breach of a contractual option provision and a related bridge contract.The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals ("Board") denied Sage's claims. The Board held that the contracts were Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity ("IDIQ") contracts, not requirements contracts, and that HUD had met its obligations by ordering the guaranteed minimum quantities. The Board also found that HUD did not breach the contracts by issuing six-month task orders instead of one-year orders and that HUD did not breach the bridge contract by using REO alternatives.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the Board's decision. The court held that the contracts were indeed IDIQ contracts, as they explicitly stated and included guaranteed minimums. The court found that the language in the contracts did not confer exclusivity to Sage, and HUD's reservation of the right to work with other contractors was incompatible with a requirements contract. The court also held that HUD's issuance of six-month task orders was permissible under the contract terms. Finally, the court concluded that HUD did not breach the bridge contract, as Sage was aware of HUD's use of REO alternatives, and HUD's actions were based on legitimate business purposes. View "SAGE ACQUISITIONS LLC v. HUD " on Justia Law

The Boeing Company filed a complaint against the United States, challenging a contracting officer's decision that required Boeing to pay over $1 million due to changes in its cost accounting practices. Boeing argued that the government's demand violated the relevant Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) provisions, which should offset increased costs with decreased costs, resulting in no net increase. Boeing's complaint included three contract claims and an illegal exaction claim.The United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed Boeing's contract claims without prejudice, stating it lacked jurisdiction to review the validity of the regulation under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court also dismissed the illegal exaction claim with prejudice, despite acknowledging jurisdiction, because it believed it lacked the authority to consider the claim under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA).The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the lower court's decision. The appellate court held that the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction under the CDA to resolve the contract dispute, including the validity of the underlying regulation. The court also held that the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over Boeing's illegal exaction claim under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1), and that the CDA does not preclude this jurisdiction. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings. View "BOEING COMPANY v. US " on Justia Law

The case involves a bid protest action initiated by Oak Grove Technologies, LLC against the United States Department of the Army's award of a contract to F3EA, Inc. The contract, known as SOF RAPTOR IV, was for procuring training services for special forces. Oak Grove, a competing bidder, alleged that the bidding process was flawed and that F3EA had an unfair advantage due to an organizational conflict of interest involving the chairperson of the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB), RM.The Court of Federal Claims reviewed the case and agreed with Oak Grove, finding that the Army's evaluation process was flawed. The court enjoined the Army from proceeding with the contract award to F3EA and ordered the Army to either restart the procurement process or reopen it to accept revised proposals. The court also sanctioned the government for failing to include material evidence in the administrative record, which delayed the proceedings and increased costs for Oak Grove.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case and vacated the judgment and injunction issued by the Court of Federal Claims. The appellate court held that Oak Grove had waived its argument that the Army was required to hold discussions with bidders, that F3EA was not required to include teaming agreements in its proposal, and that the Army's investigation into RM's alleged misconduct was adequate. The court also found that the Court of Federal Claims erred in determining that Lukos, another bidder, was financially irresponsible and ineligible for the contract. However, the appellate court affirmed the sanctions imposed on the government for failing to compile a complete administrative record. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. View "OAK GROVE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. US " on Justia Law