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

In 2015, Jones, a veteran, filed 16 appeals with the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), alleging that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA), 38 U.S.C. 4301–4333, when it did not select him for various job vacancies. An administrative judge consolidated the appeals and ultimately denied relief in an Initial Decision. That Decision became the Final Decision of the MSPB when Jones did not timely file a petition for review. The Federal Circuit affirmed, first holding that it had jurisdiction, rejecting an argument that there was no . final MSPB decision from which Jones could appeal. The AJ properly found that neither direct nor circumstantial evidence supported Jones’s USERRA claim and failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that his military service was a motivating factor in HHS’s decision not to hire him for the subject job vacancies. View "Jones v. Dept. of Health & Human Servs." on Justia Law

Zafer, an Ankara, Turkey, contractor, and the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) entered into a firm-fixed-price contract to construct the MILCON Support Facility at the Bagram Air Force Field in Afghanistan. Zafer was responsible for delivering materials to the site, and assumed the risk “for all costs and resulting loss or profit.” After issuing notice to proceed, USACE recognized that it could not make the project site available immediately and increased the contract price and set a new completion date. In November 2011, Pakistan closed its border from the seaport city of Karachi along the land routes into Afghanistan in response to a combat incident with the U.S. and NATO. The route remained closed for 219 days, Zafer notified USACE that the closure would greatly impact its delivery of materials and requested direction on how to proceed. USACE replied that the closure was “purely the act of Pakistan governmental authorities,” that the U.S. government was “not responsible” and denied further compensation. Zafer subsequently, repeatedly, asked for payment for additional costs. In 2013, Zafer submitted an unsuccessful request for an equitable adjustment. The contracting officer found no evidence supporting a constructive change claim. The Claims Court granted USACE summary judgment. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Zafer failed to designate specific facts to establish a constructive change claim based on either a constructive acceleration theory or on a government fault theory. View "Zafer Taahhut Insaat v. United States" on Justia Law

In 2003, the government awarded Laguna a contract for Worldwide Environmental Remediation and Construction (WERC). Under the contract, Laguna received 16 cost-reimbursable task orders to perform work in Iraq, and awarded subcontracts to several subcontractors. The physical work under the contract was completed by 2010. Laguna sought reimbursement of past costs, a portion of which the government refused to pay after an audit by the Defense Contract Audit Agency. Before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, the government alleged that it was not liable because Laguna had committed a prior material breach by accepting subcontractor kickbacks (18 U.S.C. 371, 41 U.S.C. 53), excusing the government’s nonperformance. Three of Laguna’s officers were ultimately indicted for kickbacks. The Board granted the government summary judgment on that ground, The Federal Circuit affirmed. Laguna committed the first material breach by violating the contract’s Allowable Cost and Payment clause because its vouchers were improperly inflated to include the payment, Federal Acquisition Regulation 52.216-7. View "Laguna Constr. Co. v. Carter" on Justia Law

The Department of Education contracts with private collection agencies for services related to resolving defaulted student loans through the General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule (FSS), which provides federal agencies with a simplified process for obtaining supplies and services. FSS contractors are pre-approved. Orders placed against GSA Schedule contracts are “considered to be issued using full and open competition.” In 2008, Education issued a Request for Quotations for debt collection services, seeking to issue Task Orders under an existing GSA Schedule contract. Pioneer, Enterprise, and others were awarded identical Task Orders, containing a base term and an Option permitting the government to unilaterally extend the term up to 24 months; the contractor could earn extensions beyond the base period and options, based upon the quality of performance during evaluation periods. In 2014, Education began secretly auditing the contractors, counting violations of consumer protection laws. Based on their error rates, Education decided not to issue Pioneer or Enterprise award-term Task Orders, although they scored “excellent or better” under the contract-based evaluation system. The companies filed suit, challenging Education’s proposed issuance of extensions to their competitors. The Claims Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. 1491(b)(1)). The Federal Circuit vacated, holding that issuance of a new Task Order constituted the award of a contract, an action over which that court has jurisdiction. There is no exception for new Task Orders arising from an award-term extension. View "Coast Prof'l, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

In 2001, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) awarded Northrop an order for network monitoring software produced by Oakley for one base year and three option years. A subsequent modification required ICE to use best efforts to secure funding for the option years. Without notifying ICE, Northrop entered into a private agreement with ESCgov, an IT services company, assigning all payments under the order to ESCgov. ESCgov paid more than $3,000,000. The agreement absolved Northrop from liability for failure of ICE to exercise a renewal option if Northrop “use[d] its best efforts to obtain the maximum recovery.” ESCgov assigned its rights to Citizens, a financial institution. None of the parties provided notice, as required by the Anti-Assignment Act, 31 U.S.C. 3727(a)(2). ICE paid Northrop $900,000 for the base year, which it delivered to ESCgov. ICE did not use the software in any investigations, and sent Northrop notification of its decision not to exercise the first option year. ICE did not exercise any option year. A contracting officer declined a claim that ICE breached the contract by failing to use its best efforts. The Claims Court dismissed a lawsuit on grounds that it lacked jurisdiction because Northrop failed to provide “adequate notice” of its claim by failing to disclose the assignments. The Federal Circuit affirmed a second dismissal, following remand, agreeing that Northrop “is unable to identify any way that it, as opposed to ESCgov or Citizens, was harmed.” View "Northrop Grumman Computing Sys., Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

KBR, an Army contractor, subcontracted with KCPC/Morris to implement work release orders for construction of dining facilities and provision of food services in Iraq. KBR terminated the subcontract based on performance. KCPC/Morris disputed the termination and continued performance until transition to a new subcontractor in September 2003. In January 2005, the parties signed an agreement, converting the default termination into a termination for convenience. A $17,400,000 settlement was paid, but the parties disputed costs. In August 2006, KCPC/Morris submitted a certified claim, which KBR forwarded to the Army, stating that it would not certify validity and lacked supporting documentation. The Army responded in May 2007, that it was KBR’s responsibility to negotiate with its subcontractors, and refused to consider the submission. In October 2007, KBR “sponsored” the claim, followed by certification dated January 2008. In September 2010, KBR withdrew the claim. In August 2011, KCPC/Morris filed suit, which was withdrawn after the parties entered reached agreement dated February 2012. In May 2012, KBR filed a certified claim for the agreed amount. The contracting officer did not act, placing the claim in “deemed denied” status. The Board of Contract Appeals dismissed KBR’s appeal, holding that the limitations period had run before May 2012. The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that the KBR claim had not accrued, for limitation purposes, before May 2006. The Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. 7103(a)(4)(A), does not require the filing of protective claims related to subcontractors while those claims are being resolved between the prime and sub. View "Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc. v. Murphy" on Justia Law

Lal was appointed as a distinguished consultant at the Centers for Disease Control, a component of the Department of Health and Human Services, in the excepted service under 42 U.S.C. 209(f), which provides that consultants “may be appointed without regard to the civil-service laws.” The agency understood this to mean that Lal was not subject to the statutory due process requirements of the civil-service laws under title 5 of the United States Code, and terminated her employment without providing notice of the termination or a right to respond, as would ordinarily be required by the civil-service laws. The Merit Systems Protection Board concluded that section 209(f) deprived it of jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit reversed. While section 209(f) placed Lal into the excepted service, it did not exempt her from the Civil Service Due Process Amendments of 1990, which provide appeal rights to certain excepted service employees, 5 U.S.C. 7511(a)(1)(C). View "Lal v. Merit Sys. Protection Bd." on Justia Law

Nguyen, a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Supervisory Examiner, received a Notice of Proposed Reduction in Grade to Patent Examiner, alleging that she had violated rules prohibiting nepotism in attempting to prevent her son, a probationary examiner, from being fired. Nguyen received her yearly performance review, which reflected a reduced rating. Nguyen discussed with her supervisor, Banks, the possibility of resigning. Believing that Nguyen had resigned, Banks ordered that technicians collect Nguyen’s government-supplied laptop. Nguyen objected and sent an email to Banks, stating that she felt “forced . . . to resign.” Banks and another supervisor stopped by Nguyen’s office and assured her that “[a]s we stated multiple times today, the decision of whether to resign or stay is completely up to you.” Banks ordered that Nguyen’s access to computer supervisory functions be revoked, pending her grade reduction. Nguyen went to human resources to pick up retirement papers and sent Wallace emails offering to drop all appeal rights in exchange for a suspension instead of the grade reduction. Wallace was out of the office until the following Monday, one day after the reduction would be effective. Nguyen filed retirement papers that Friday, effective the next day, one day before her reduction would have gone into effect.. The Federal Circuit affirmed dismissal by the Merit Systems Protection Board. Nguyen failed to articulate a nonfrivolous argument that her retirement was involuntary. View "Nguyen v. Merit Sys. Protection Bd." on Justia Law

The Navy's Diego Garcia facility, a 10.5-square-acre Indian Ocean atoll, 1,800 miles east of Africa and 1,200 miles south of India, had no commercial or civilian infrastructure. In 2005, the Navy sought bids on a firm fixed-price contract for Diego Garcia support services, ranging from information technology to refuse collection. For contractor vehicles and equipment, “contractor-furnished fuel,” was to be provided by the Navy at the prevailing Department of Defense rate. DG21 submitted a bid and, for contractor-furnished fuel, arrived at “a significantly lower number of gallons than” reflected in the solicitation. DG21 indicated that if fuel rates varied from historical rates by 10% or more, it would request an equitable adjustment. The Navy clarified that the solicitation was fixed-price, “DG21 assumes the full risk of consumption and/or rate changes. Please price ... accordingly.” The Navy questioned the lack of an escalation clause. DG21 did not change its estimate or pricing, but removed the equitable adjustment reference. DG21’s $455,292,490 proposal was accepted. During the contract term, fuel prices rose dramatically, reaching a maximum of more than double the historical rate indicated in the solicitation. In 2011, DG21 requested an equitable adjustment, characterizing the fuel cost as a $1,171,475.90 contract “change” under FAR 52.243-4. The contracting officer and the Board of Contract Appeals rejected the request. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The cost increase was not a change to the contract triggering FAR 52.243-4; the contract allocated that risk to DG21. View "DG21, LLC v. Mabus" on Justia Law

Under the 1887 General Allotment Act and the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act, the U.S. is the trustee of Indian allotment land. A 1996 class action, filed on behalf of 300,000 Native Americans, alleged that the government had mismanaged their Individual Indian Money accounts by failing to account for billions of dollars from leases for oil extractions and logging. The litigation’s 2011 settlement provided for “historical accounting claims,” tied to that mismanagement, and “land administration claims” for individuals that held, on September 30, 2009, an ownership interest in land held in trust or restricted status, claiming breach of trust and fiduciary mismanagement of land, oil, natural gas, mineral, timber, grazing, water and other resources. Members of the land administration class who failed to opt out were deemed to have waived any claims within the scope of the settlement. The Claims Resolution Act of 2010 ratified the settlement and funded it with $3.4 billion, The court provided notice, including of the opt-out right. Challenges to the opt-out and notice provisions were rejected. Indian allotees with interests in the North Dakota Fort Berthold Reservation, located on the Bakken Oil Shale (contiguous deposits of oil and natural gas), cannot lease their oil-and-gas interests unless the Secretary approves the lease as “in the best interest of the Indian owners,” 122 Stat. 620 (1998). In 2013, allotees sued, alleging that, in 2006-2009, a company obtained Fort Berthold allotment leases at below-market rates, then resold them for a profit of $900 million. The Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the government, holding that the allotees had forfeited their claims by failing to opt out of the earlier settlement. View "Two Shields v. United States" on Justia Law