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

The U.S. Air Force solicited bids from private companies to supply equipment and services to build a new radar system. Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, and Lockheed Martin cleared early hurdles; each received a solicitation for proposals for Engineering and Manufacturing Development. The Air Force subsequently sent Evaluation Notices to Raytheon and Northrop that “contractors would not be permitted to use IR & D costs to reduce their costs of performing . . . if those costs were implicitly or explicitly required for contract performance.” Raytheon objected; Northrop did not.. The Air Force then changed its view and accepted Raytheon’s treatment of certain costs as IR & D costs, but never communicated its new view to Northrop. In final proposals, Raytheon proposed IR & D cost reductions, whereas Northrop did not. The Air Force awarded the contract to Raytheon. Northrop and Lockheed filed protests with the Government Accountability Office (31 U.S.C. 3551). In response, the Air Force “decided to take corrective action” and to reopen discussions. Raytheon filed a protest under 28 U.S.C. 1491(b) to challenge the decision to take corrective action. The Federal Circuit affirmed denial of the protest, concluding that the reopening decision was proper based on the disparate-information violation. View "Raytheon Co. v. United States" on Justia Law

The Department of the Navy furloughed Einboden, a civilian employee for six days in 2013 as part of budget cuts made pursuant to sequestration legislation, 2 U.S.C. 901a. Einboden argued that his position was not subject to the cuts because money saved by the furlough could have been transferred from the Navy working capital fund to other activities with appropriate notice to the congressional defense committees. An AJ and the Merit Systems Protection Board upheld the decision, finding that the furlough was a “reasonable management solution to the financial issues facing the agency,” that notice of proposed furlough was not procedurally deficient, and that “although [Einboden’s work group] may have had adequate funding to avoid a furlough . . . , it was reasonable for DOD to consider its budget holistically, rather than isolating the situation of each individual Navy.” The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting Einboden’s contention that the Navy should be required to show actual re-programming of the funds saved by his furlough. View "Einboden v. Dep't of the Navy" on Justia Law

Astornet alleges that it is sole exclusive licensee and owner of all rights in the 844 patent, issued in 2009 to Haddad as the inventor and entitled “Airport vehicular gate entry access system” and asserted the patent against NCR, MorphoTrust USA, and BAE Astornet alleged that the three had contracts with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to supply boarding-pass scanning systems; that TSA’s use of the equipment infringed and would infringe the patent; and that NCR and MorphoTrust were bidding for another contract to supply modified equipment whose use by TSA would also infringe. The Federal Circuit affirmed dismissal, finding that Astornet’s exclusive remedy for the alleged infringement was a suit against the government in the Court of Federal Claims under 28 U.S.C. 1498. View "Astornet Techs., Inc. v. BAE Sys., Inc." on Justia Law

In 2008 Miller was appointed by the Department of the Interior, National Park Service, as Park Superintendent, GS-13, for Sitka National Historical Park (SNHP). In 2010, Miller was removed from her position after she refused a management-directed reassignment to a different position at the same grade and pay in Anchorage, Alaska. The Merit Systems Protection Board sustained the removal action, but later vacated the Initial Decision, reversed Miller’s removal, and ordered Miller’s reinstatement to her position as Park Superintendent. The Office of Personnel Management sought review. The Federal Circuit reversed. Substantial evidence supported the Initial Decision that the agency established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it had legitimate management reasons for Miller’s reassignment; and that Miller failed to rebut the agency’s prima facie case. View "Cobert v. Miller" on Justia Law

Shapiro began working for the Social Security Administration as an administrative law judge in 1997. As early as 1998, the Agency informed Shapiro that his performance was lacking. Shapiro’s poor performance continued and, in early 2000, “a tremendous backlog” of cases in his docket became apparent. The Agency began to take an active role in assisting Shapiro, including reviewing cases, drafting decisions, and returning them for signature. Shapiro’s performance, however, did not improve. The Agency continued to provide assistance and issue warnings until Shapiro’s supervisor concluded that “despite the extraordinary efforts to assist him, to mentor him, [and] to train him,” Shapiro could not manage his docket to meet expectations. The Agency filed a complaint under 5 U.S.C. 7521, with the Merit System Protection Board seeking a finding of good cause to remove Shapiro based on “unacceptable performance” and “neglect of duty.” The Federal Circuit affirmed the finding of good cause, noting that Shapiro’s production was dramatically lower than similarly situated ALJs, and that this failure to manage his caseload constituted good cause for removal. View "Shapiro v. Soc. Sec. Admin." on Justia Law

The Defense Contract Management Agency within the Department of Defense (DOD) employed Vassallo as a computer engineer in 2012. That summer, it announced a vacancy for the position of Lead Interdisciplinary Engineer, stating that only certain individuals could apply: “[c]urrent [DCMA]” employees or “[c]urrent [DOD] [e]mployee[s] with the Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics . . . [w]orkforce who are outside of the Military Components.” Vassallo, a veteran, applied, but DCMA rejected his application. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) determined that DOD was not required to afford him veterans employment preferences under the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998 (VEOA), 112 Stat. 3182. OPM defines the word “agency” in 5 U.S.C. 3304(f)(1) to mean “Executive agency” as defined in 5 U.S.C. 105 and concluded that DCMA was not required to give Vassallo an opportunity to compete under 5 U.S.C. 3304(f)(1) because the DOD— the agency making the announcement—did not accept applications from outside its own workforce. Vassallo sought corrective action from the Merit Systems Protection Board, which concluded that OPM’s regulation permissibly fills a gap in the governing statute. The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the OPM regulation contradicts the plain terms of the statute and unreasonably undermines the purpose of the VEOA. View "Vassallo v. Dept. of Defense" on Justia Law

Bay County Utilities provides water and sewer services. The County Commissioners establish rates. In 1966, the U.S. Air Force contracted with the County for water services at Tyndall Air Force Base. The parties entered into a sewer services contract in 1985. Both required the parties to renegotiate any new rates. In 1994, Federal Acquisition Regulations were amended to require standardized clauses in utility service contracts. When the government is contracting with an unregulated utility or the utility is subject to non-independent oversight, the parties must negotiate new rates. If the utility is overseen by an independent regulatory body, no further negotiations are required. In 2007 and 2009, Bay County increased water rates. The Air Force ignored those increases, but, in 2009 and 2010, unilaterally modified the water contract, with new rates, lower than the rates set by Bay County. In 2009 Bay County increased sewer rates. The Air Force refused to pay those higher rates, and instituted a unilateral contract modification to moderately increase sewer rates. Bay County submitted unsuccessful Contract Disputes Act claims to recover the unpaid balance of approximately $850,000. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Court of Federal Claims, holding that Bay County is an independent regulatory body and may revise rates in utility contracts without resorting to negotiations with the Air Force. View "Bay Cnty., Fla. v. United States" on Justia Law

Ryan was employed by FEMA (Department of Homeland Security). Her position required top secret security clearance. The agency suspended Ryan’s access to classified information after learning she had been indicted on federal charges of conflict of interest, soliciting a gratuity, and making a false statement. FEMA indefinitely suspended her without pay pending final determination by FEMA's Chief Security Officer concernng future eligibility for access to classified information. Ryan appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). Although Ryan was acquitted, the MSPB found she was not entitled to immediate termination of the suspension because it “was based upon the suspension of her clearance and not the underlying reasons … (the indictment)” and MRPB cannot order reinstatement to a position requiring access to classified information while Ryan is without the required clearance. Ryan filed another appeal asserting unreasonable delay in adjudication of her security clearance. The MSPB affirmed dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In a third decision, the MSPB found the basis for her suspension was not constructively amended. The Federal Circuit affirmed, noting that “denial of a security clearance . . . is not subject to [MSPB] review.” It was Ryan’s inability to access classified information, not the underlying reasons for the inability, that caused her suspension. View "Ryan v. Dep't of Homeland Sec." on Justia Law

In the “NOVA” decision, the Federal Circuit approved a plan requiring the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to identify and rectify harms caused by wrongful application of former 38 C.F.R. 3.103. The Plan required that the VA notify every claimant who received a final Board decision during the specified period and did not receive full relief. If a claimant had a case outside of the Board’s jurisdiction, but mandate had not issued and the appellate court’s judgment was not final, the VA was obligated to offer to submit a joint motion for remand. If the mandate had issued, the VA was required to offer to submit a joint motion to recall mandate and a joint motion for remand. Smith served in the Army, 1963-1965. In 2000, Smith filed an unsuccessful claim for compensation for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). In 2008, Smith was awarded service connection for PTSD with a 100% disability rating and a 2006 effective date. Smith appealed to the Board, which, in 2011, denied entitlement to an earlier effective date. The Board did not apply the invalid Rule interpretation. The Veterans Court affirmed and, days before the NOVA decision, entered judgment. In 2013, the parties filed a joint motion to recall that judgment. The decision fit the search terms profile under the Plan and triggered the VA’s obligation to offer to submit a joint motion. Smith did not claim that VA failed to comply with 38 C.F.R. 3.103(c)(2) or any prejudice in the conduct of the Board hearing. The Federal Circuit affirmed denial of the motion, stating that neither its decisions nor the Plan preclude appropriate denial. View "Smith v. McDonald" on Justia Law

The Forest Service removed Bernard, a firefighter, from his position as supervisor. Bernard appealed. The agency and Bernard settled: the agency reinstated him in a non-supervisory role and provided back pay, promising that Bernard would not be restricted from applying for supervisory positions and would be given future fire assignments “the same as any other employee.” To receive assignments, an employee must have an Incident Qualification Card (red card), listing specific firefighting positions the employee is qualified to fill. A renewal card requires completion of annual training. Five months after his reinstatement, Bernard successfully completed the course. Other participants received renewal cards, but the agency did not issue a card to Bernard, indicating that an audit of his records found too few hard-copy documents supporting the entries. Bernard provided a copy of his 2010 card, signed by a certifying official, listing Bernard as qualified, until 2014, for 11 firefighting positions. After the agency requested additional documentation, Bernard notified it of a potential breach of the settlement, and received a card certifying him for seven positions. Bernard petitioned the Merit Systems Protection Board. An administrative judge found that Bernard had not established a breach, and— without acknowledging repeated requests for discovery—that Bernard “did not support his bare allegations with any evidence illustrating bad faith” and retaliation. The Federal Circuit vacated. The Board improperly denied discovery of potentially relevant evidence. View "Bernard v. Dep't of Agric." on Justia Law