Justia Government Contracts Opinion Summaries

The prior owner of the 300-acre STEW Farm in Pickaway County contracted with Watershed Management for construction of waterways and received a subsidy from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), a USDA agency, 7 U.S.C. 6962. Kohli, an employee of the Pickaway County Soil and Water Conservation District supervised by NRCS, designed the waterways, and, after certified that they were designed and constructed properly. NRCS also certified the waterways, which allowed the owner to receive the federal reimbursement. The owner failed to pay Watershed, claiming that there was a ridge at the edge of the grass waterways that prevented proper draining. In 2009, Watershed sued for breach of contract; the owner counterclaimed for breach of contract and breach of warranty. A state court granted summary judgment against the owner for failure to prove damages. The new owner then filed a federal suit. The district court dismissed, reasoning, as to NRCS, that STEW Farm had not identified a separate source of federal substantive law and failed to establish a waiver of sovereign immunity because there are no “clear guidelines” which show that the NRCS actions were not committed to agency discretion. As to Watershed, the court concluded that there was no federal cause of action nor did the state claims implicate significant federal issues. As to PCSWCD, STEW Farm alleged only state-law claims that did not implicate significant federal issues. As to PCSWCD and Kohli, the claims were time barred under Ohio’s two-year statute of limitations. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Stew Farm, Ltd. v. Natural Res. Conservation Serv." on Justia Law

The respondents, two developers and an architectural firm, Stevens & Wilkinson of South Carolina, Inc. (S&W), entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the City of Columbia as part of a larger project team to develop a publicly-funded hotel for the Columbia Metropolitan Convention Center. The City eventually abandoned its plan under the MOU, and the respondents brought suit on several causes of action including breach of contract and equitable relief. The City moved for summary judgment arguing the MOU was not a contract and therefore the contract claims failed. The circuit court agreed and, rejecting the equitable claims as well, granted summary judgment in favor of the City. The respondents appealed and the court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Supreme Court reversed. Because the MOU was comprised of agreements to execute further agreements, there was no meeting of the minds on numerous material terms which had not yet been defined. Accordingly, the court of appeals was reversed with respect to that portion of the court's judgment; the Supreme Court held the MOU was unenforceable as a matter of law. The Supreme Court agreed with the circuit court and reinstated its judgment in favor of the City. View "Stevens & Wilkinson of South Carolina, Inc. v. City of Columbia" on Justia Law

In April 2003, the City of Columbia entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Stevens & Wilkinson of South Carolina, Inc. (S&W) and several other parties, to develop a publicly-funded hotel adjacent to the Columbia Metropolitan Convention Center. As architect, S&W was to complete sufficient preliminary design work to determine a guaranteed maximum price for the project, which would be used by the City to obtain municipal bond funding to cover the cost of the hotel. Pursuant to the MOU, the construction company was to pay S&W directly. On June 26, 2003, the City received a letter stating S&W would complete its preliminary design on July 10, 2003, and would then stop working until the bond financing for the hotel was finalized. Realizing this could delay the start of construction, S&W offered to continue working the remaining ninety days until the anticipated bond closing date of October 13, 2003, but required assurance it would be compensated for the work it performed during this time frame. It provided an estimate requiring $650,000 and $75,000 per week after that. On July 30, the City approved "$650,000 for interim architectural design services for a period of 90 days prior to bond closing." The bond closing did not occur as scheduled, but S&W nevertheless continued to work. S&W submitted an invoice to the City for $697,084.79 for work that took place from July 10 to December 15, 2003. By letter dated December 17, 2003, S&W informed the construction company that the City had voted that day "to advance [$705,000.000] to the design team for design services and expenses. Because under the MOU the construction company was to pay S&W, not the City, the construction company agreed to reimburse the City for the funds paid to S&W after the bond closing. The City paid S&W's invoice. S&W continued to work on the project, but in March 2004, the City abandoned its plans under the MOU and ended its relationship with S&W. S&W received no further compensation and sued the City for breach of contract under the MOU and the July 2003 agreement. The City argued there was no separate agreement and the payment of interim fees was merely an advance on fees under the MOU and furthermore, the MOU provided that S&W was to be paid by the construction company, not the City. The trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of S&W, finding a contract existed between it and the City. On certiorari, the City conceded a contract exists, but argued the contract terms have been satisfied. The Supreme Court found the City's arguments were unpreserved and affirmed as modified. View "Stevens & Wilkinson of South Carolina, Inc. v. City of Columbia" on Justia Law

To compensate teaching hospitals for the extra financial burden of providing training, the Medicare program provides additional reimbursement for expenses beyond the immediate costs of patient care, including for “indirect medical education” (IME) costs to account for the time medical interns and residents spend in ways that enhance their ability to provide patient care but that are not connected to the treatment of any particular patient, 42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(5)(B)(ii). The district court held that time spent by interns and residents in research activities wholly unrelated to the diagnosis or treatment of patients could be counted as part of this indirect-education time and that Rush University Medical Center, was entitled to Medicare reimbursements for these activities between the years 1983 and 2001. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded, noting that the Secretary of Health and Human Services has interpreted the Medicare Act consistently since 1983 to exclude pure research activities from compensable IME costs. Congress codified this exclusion for Fiscal Years 2001 onward in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, but explicitly declined to lay down a rule for the years 1983 to 2001. The Secretary has now promulgated a regulation excluding pure research from the IME cost calculation for all years since 1983. View "Rush Univ. Med. Ctr v. Sebelius" on Justia Law

Defendants-Appellants David Banks, Kendrick Barnes, Demetrius Harper, Clinton Stewart, Gary Walker, and David Zirpolo were convicted following a jury trial on multiple counts of mail fraud and wire fraud, and conspiracy to commit mail fraud and wire fraud. Defendants contacted numerous staffing agencies to “assist in providing temporary services. Witnesses from multiple staffing companies testified that a Defendant (or someone acting as Defendants’ agent) approached them and expressed the desire for "payrolling" services. The staffing-company witnesses testified that they were induced into believing that Defendants’ companies were either doing business with major law-enforcement agencies or were on the verge of selling a specialized software to these agencies. These witnesses testified that Defendants (or Defendants’ agents) assured them that this alleged law-enforcement business would enable Defendants’ companies to pay the staffing companies’ invoices, and, critically, that they relied on these representations in choosing to do business with Defendants. Trial testimony from representatives of the law-enforcement agencies with whom Defendants claimed to be doing business revealed the falsity of Defendants’ representations to the staffing companies. When questioned about their failure to pay the staffing companies’ invoices, Defendants gave false assurances that payment would be forthcoming, and they continued to imply that they were doing business with large government law enforcement agencies. In the end, forty-two different staffing companies were left with outstanding invoices totaling in excess of $5,000,000, which could not be submitted to the government agencies, which had no business relationship with Defendants’ companies. Defendants were sentenced to terms of imprisonment ranging from 87 to 135 months. Defendants argued on appeal to the Tenth Circuit: (1) their right to a speedy trial was violated when the district court granted multiple continuances of the trial date (at Defendants’ request); (2) the district court compelled co-Defendant Barnes to testify in violation of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and failed to give a proper curative instruction; (3) the district court abused its discretion in excluding the testimony of two witnesses Defendants sought to call at trial; and (4) the cumulative effect of the district court’s otherwise harmless errors prejudiced them and required reversal. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Banks" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging First and Fourteenth Amendment violations concerning the rescission of a bid award for a potential, but unexecuted, insurance brokerage contract with the Puerto Rico government. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process claim where he had no constitutionally protected property interest in the initial bid award; reversed the grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's First Amendment claim for political discrimination where there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff's political affiliation was a substantial or motivating factor for the adverse action; and remanded for further proceedings. View "Garcia-Gonzalez v. Puig-Morales" on Justia Law

In 1983, Central entered into a contract with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for an appropriation of water from the New Melones Reservoir in California’s San Joaquin Valley. Upon enactment of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) in 1992, Reclamation made statements indicating that it would not be able to meet the quantity commitments in its contracts because of other demands for the water. In 1993, Central sued for breach of contract. After holding that breaches had occurred in certain years, the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded for determination of damages. The district court, on remand, awarded Central $149,950.00 in cost of cover damages, but denied any expectancy damages. The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded. The trial court erred by not properly considering the effect of Reclamation’s announced breaches on the amount of water that Central may have expected to need to meet demand. This caused the trial court to discount Central’s arguments regarding what would have happened in the non-breach world. View "Stockton E. Water Dist. v. United States" on Justia Law

OSSC provided nonemergency services to a participant of a health plan covered by CalPERS and CalPERS paid OSSC a small portion of the amount charged for services. OSSC claims that it is entitled to receive its higher customary and usual rate. The trial court sustained CalPERS's demurrer without leave to amend. The court concluded that an oral promise cannot be enforced against a government agency like CalPERS. Accordingly, the demurrer was properly sustained without leave to amend and the court affirmed the judgment of dismissal. View "Orthopedic Specialists v. CalPERS" on Justia Law

The Educational Rate Program, a subsidy program authorized by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, is implemented by the FCC, which established USAC, a private non-profit corporation, to administer the Program. USAC provides subsidies to eligible school districts for the cost of telecommunication services. FCC regulations require that providers offer schools the “lowest corresponding price” (LCP) for their services: the “lowest price that a service provider charges to non-residential customers who are similarly situated to a particular school, library, or library consortium for similar services.” Heath operates a business that audits telecommunications bills and was retained by Wisconsin school districts. Heath found that certain schools paid much higher rates than others for the same services. As a result, many districts did not receive the benefit of LCP and the government paid subsidies greater than they should have been. Heath informed Wisconsin Bell of the discrepancy, but it refused to provide the more favorable pricing. Heath also learned of an even lower price charged to the Wisconsin Department of Administration (DOA). Heath filed a qui tam lawsuit. The government declined to intervene. The district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the public disclosure bar applied and that Heath was not saved by the original source exception, because the DOA pricing was on its website. The Seventh Circuit reversed, stating that the claim was not based on the DOA website information and that Heath was not an opportunist plaintiff who did not contribute significant information. View "Heath v. WI Bell, Inc." on Justia Law

The Department of Administration, Division of General Services accepted a 15-page response to a request for proposals for renovations to the Governor's House. The request stated that responses should not exceed 10 pages. Competing bidder Silver Bow Construction Construction argued this variance from the request obligated the Division to reject the 15-page response. Because the Division reasonably concluded that this variance did not give the 15-page response any substantial advantage, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s decision to uphold the Division’s decision to accept this response.View "Silver Bow Construction v. Alaska Dept. of Administration" on Justia Law