Justia Government Contracts Opinion Summaries

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

Miller served on active duty, 2003-2007, and has a VA disability rating of 60 percent. Since 2008, Miller has been employed as an FDIC Economic Analyst. He was hired at the GS-9 level and has risen to the GS-12 level. In 2012 the FDIC posted vacancy announcements for a CG-13 Financial Economist position: one open to all citizens and another for status candidates. Miller applied under both procedures and was one of three finalists. Three FDIC employees participated in the interviews, rating each candidate’s answers to questions on bank failure prediction models as Outstanding, Good, or Inadequate. All of the candidates received some "inadequate" ratings. No candidate was selected; the vacancy was cancelled. Miller filed a Department of Labor complaint, stating that the cancellation was in bad faith to avoid hiring a veteran or having to request a “pass over” from the Office of Personnel Management. The Merit Systems Protection Board denied his petition under the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act, finding that the allegation of non-selection in violation of veterans’ rights was sufficient to confer jurisdiction, but that Miller had not established a violation because the FDIC “conducted a thorough, structured interview of each of the candidates” and “none of the interviewees possessed the requisite skills and knowledge for the position.” The Federal Circuit affirmed; substantial evidence indicated that cancellation was predicated on a lack of appropriately qualified candidates. View "Miller v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp." on Justia Law

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 authorized the Department of Energy (DOE) to contract with power utilities for a planned national nuclear waste disposal system, 42 U.S.C. 10222. Utilities were to pay into a Nuclear Waste Fund; the government was to dispose of their spent nuclear fuel beginning by January 31, 1998.. Under the Standard Contract, utilities must provide “preparation, packaging, required inspections, and loading activities necessary for the transportation … to the DOE facility.” DOE is responsible for “arrang[ing] for, and provid[ing], a cask(s) and all necessary transportation … to the DOE facility.” In 1983, System Fuels entered Standard Contracts concerning the Grand Gulf and Arkansas Nuclear One power stations. The government has yet to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel. System Fuels obtained damages for costs incurred through August 31, 2005 (Grand) and June 30, 2006 (Arkansas), including costs to construct Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations (ISFSIs) and later successfully sought damages for continued breach. The Claims Court denied costs incurred to load spent fuel into storage casks at the ISFSIs by first loading it into canisters, then loading those canisters into dry fuel storage casks and welding the casks closed. The Federal Circuit reversed, noting that under the Standard Contracts, DOE cannot accept any of the canistered fuel as is, so System Fuels will incur costs to unload the casks and canisters and to reload fuel into transportation casks if and when DOE performs. View "System Fuels, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

SUFI invested money to build and operate telephone systems at Air Force bases and was to earn returns for 15 years from per-call charges, to be shared with the Air Force. The Air Force breached the contract by allowing contractually prohibited diversions of calls from the SUFI phones. SUFI brought claims to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA), which awarded $2.8 million (plus interest) on one group of claims and $4.6 million (plus interest) on another. SUFI appealed the award on the second group of claims, invoking the standards of review set by the Wunderlich Act 41 U.S.C. 321 (repealed 2011). The Claims Court granted SUFI relief. The Federal Circuit remanded, holding that the Claims Court had not properly applied that standard. ASBCA conducted remand proceedings and awarded roughly $113 million (plus interest). SUFI promptly accepted the decision. The Claims Court declined the government’s request for review, stating, “[u]nder the Wunderlich Act, only the contractor has the right to appeal from a Board decision.” The Federal Circuit affirmed, stating: “The new decision is no less the position of the United States just because it is not the initial decision.” View "SUFI Network Servs., Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

Agent Parkinson, of the FBI’s Sacramento field office, was the leader of a special operations group, tasked with relocating a previously compromised undercover facility. In 2006, the FBI leased a facility from Rodda, who agreed to contribute $70,000 to “construction, construction documents, permits and fees. Parkinson negotiated the lease on behalf of the FBI, and managed the tenant improvement funds. In 2008, during the work, Parkinson made whistleblower-eligible disclosures, implicating two pilots involved with the group in misconduct. Parkinson’s supervisor issued Parkinson a low-performance rating, removed him as group leader, and reassigned him. Believing this to be retaliation, Parkinson sent a letter to Senator Grassley, who forwarded Parkinson’s allegations to the Department of Justice’s Office of the Investigator General (OIG) for investigation. The OIG sent the FBI its report. Ultimately, the Merit Systems Protection Board upheld Parkinson’s termination for lack of candor under oath and obstruction of process of the Office of Professional Responsibility. The Federal Circuit reversed in part and remanded. The court sustained the obstruction charge and dismissal of Parkinson’s affirmative defense of violations of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, but found the lack of candor charge unsupported by substantial evidence and that the Board improperly precluded Parkinson from raising an affirmative defense of whistleblower retaliation. View "Parkinson v. Dep't of Justice" on Justia Law