Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Two builders’ associations, whose members are largely non-union construction contractors, challenged a federal procurement mandate issued by executive order in February 2022. The order, issued by the President, presumptively requires all contractors and subcontractors on federal construction projects valued at $35 million or more to enter into project labor agreements with unions. The order allows for three specific exceptions if a senior agency official provides a written explanation. The Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council issued regulations implementing the order, and the Office of Management and Budget provided guidance. The associations argued that the mandate unfairly deprived their members of contracting opportunities and brought a facial challenge under several statutory and constitutional grounds, seeking to enjoin the mandate’s enforcement.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied the associations’ motion for a preliminary injunction. It found that the associations were likely to succeed on their claim under the Competition in Contracting Act, since the government was not meaningfully applying the order’s exceptions, but concluded that the associations would not suffer irreparable harm because they could challenge individual procurements in the United States Court of Federal Claims. The district court did not consider irreparable harm as to the associations’ other claims.On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction, although for different reasons. The Eleventh Circuit held that the associations were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their facial challenge under the Competition in Contracting Act, the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, the First Amendment, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, and the National Labor Relations Act. The court emphasized that the existence of written exceptions in the executive order precluded a facial invalidity finding, and that the government acted within its statutory and proprietary authority. The court affirmed the district court’s order. View "Associated Builders and Contractors Florida First Coast Chapter v. General Services Administration" on Justia Law

During the Second World War, Chevron’s corporate predecessor operated oil fields in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, producing crude oil that was refined into aviation gasoline (avgas) for the United States military under federal contracts. Decades later, following the enactment of Louisiana’s State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978, which imposed permit requirements on certain uses of the coastal zone but exempted uses lawfully commenced before 1980, Plaquemines Parish and other parishes brought suit in state court. They alleged that Chevron and other oil companies had failed to obtain required permits and that some pre-1980 activities, including those during the war, were illegally commenced and not exempt.The parish’s expert report specifically challenged Chevron’s wartime crude-oil production methods, including its use of vertical drilling, canals, and earthen pits, as harmful to the environment and not in compliance with the Act. Chevron sought removal to federal court under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. §1442(a)(1), arguing that the suit was “for or relating to” acts under color of its duties as a federal contractor refining avgas. The United States District Court granted the parish’s motion to remand to state court. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, reasoning that although Chevron acted under a federal officer as a military contractor, the suit did not “relate to” those acts because the federal refining contract did not govern how Chevron obtained or produced crude oil.The Supreme Court of the United States held that Chevron plausibly alleged a close, not tenuous or remote, relationship between the challenged crude-oil production and its federal avgas refining duties. The Court concluded that the suit satisfied the “relating to” requirement for removal under §1442(a)(1), vacated the Fifth Circuit’s judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish" on Justia Law

A company that had previously operated a federal warehouse under contract with the government challenged the government’s decision to override an automatic statutory stay that halted performance of a newly awarded contract to a competitor. After the incumbent’s contract expired, the government solicited new bids and awarded the contract to another company. The incumbent protested this decision to the Government Accountability Office, which triggered an automatic stay under the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) that prevented the new contractor from beginning performance. A few weeks into the stay period, however, the government determined that urgent and compelling circumstances warranted overriding the stay, and it allowed the new contractor to begin work.The incumbent then filed suit in the United States Court of Federal Claims, contending that the government’s override was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The Court of Federal Claims ruled in favor of the incumbent, issuing a declaratory judgment that the override was arbitrary and capricious. The court found that in the context of a CICA stay, the protestor was not required to prove the traditional four equitable factors for injunctive relief, since Congress had provided for an automatic stay mechanism.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the government argued that the case was moot after the override was withdrawn, but the Federal Circuit found the dispute to be capable of repetition yet evading review. On the merits, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Court of Federal Claims, holding that a protestor seeking to set aside a CICA stay override need only show that the agency’s action was arbitrary and capricious, and is not required to satisfy the four-factor test for equitable relief. The judgment was affirmed and costs were awarded to the protestor. View "LIFE SCIENCE LOGISTICS, LLC v. US " on Justia Law

The case centers on a competitive bidding process conducted by the Maine Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) for a contract to provide medical nonemergency transportation (NET) brokerage services in one of the state’s transit regions. Waldo Community Action Partners (Waldo CAP), the incumbent provider in Region 5 since 2014, submitted a proposal in response to the Request for Proposals (RFP). The RFP required bidders to detail their qualifications and provide three examples of relevant projects. Waldo CAP only completed details for one project, leaving the remaining two project sections blank except for the notation “NA.” After scoring, Waldo CAP did not receive the highest overall score; ModivCare Solutions, LLC, a vendor with extensive experience in other regions, was awarded the contract.Waldo CAP appealed the contract award to the Department of Administrative and Financial Services (DAFS) appeal committee, arguing that the process violated procurement laws and that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The appeal committee affirmed DHHS’s decision, finding the point deduction for incomplete information justified and not arbitrary. Waldo CAP then sought judicial review in the Maine Superior Court, which also affirmed the committee’s decision.The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine reviewed the case, applying a deferential standard to the agency’s factual findings and statutory interpretations. The Court held that the “best-value bidder” under Maine law is determined strictly by the criteria and requirements set forth in the RFP, and that the agency acted within its discretion in scoring and did not act arbitrarily or capriciously. The Court affirmed the lower court’s judgment, upholding the award to ModivCare and lifting the stay on the contract award. View "Waldo Community Action Partners v. Department of Administrative and Financial Services" on Justia Law

For many years, one company exclusively provided emergency medical services (EMS) in a California county. Seeking improvements, the county initiated a competitive bidding process, issuing a request for proposals (RFP) and identifying policy goals such as improved service, efficiency, and reinvestment. Two entities submitted proposals. After evaluation by a review committee, one received the highest cumulative score, while the other received higher scores from most individual evaluators. The county determined the scores were substantially equivalent and proceeded to negotiate with both parties, ultimately awarding the contract to the bidder that did not have the highest cumulative score.The company that lost the contract protested the decision, arguing the county was required to negotiate only with the highest-scoring proposer, as set forth in the RFP. After an unsuccessful protest, the losing bidder first sued in federal court, where its federal antitrust claims were dismissed under the Parker immunity doctrine, and the district court declined to address state law claims. The company then filed a new action in San Bernardino County Superior Court, seeking a writ of mandate and a preliminary injunction. The superior court found the county’s selection process was ministerial and that the RFP required negotiations only with the highest-scoring proposer. The court granted a preliminary injunction, halting the contract’s implementation.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. It held that neither the governing statute (the EMS Act) nor the RFP imposed a ministerial duty on the county to negotiate exclusively with the highest-scoring proposer. The court further concluded the county acted within its discretionary authority and did not abuse its discretion by considering both proposals. The appellate court reversed the preliminary injunction and remanded the case to the superior court, directing it to deny the motion for a preliminary injunction and reconsider the bond amount. View "American Medical Response of Inland Empire v. County of San Bernardino" on Justia Law

A commuter airline that had provided federally subsidized air service to a small community in West Virginia for several years sought to continue serving that community under the Essential Air Service (EAS) program. In 2024, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) solicited bids for a new three-year EAS contract. Four airlines, including the incumbent, submitted proposals. The DOT evaluated the applications based on five statutory factors: reliability, agreements with larger carriers, community preferences, marketing plans, and total compensation requested. After reviewing the proposals and soliciting input from the local community, which favored a different airline, the DOT selected a new carrier that offered larger aircraft, a codeshare agreement with a major airline, and a subsidy request within the competitive range.The incumbent airline challenged the DOT’s selection in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, arguing that the agency’s decision was arbitrary and capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, and exceeded its statutory authority. The petitioner contended that the DOT failed to meaningfully analyze the statutory factors and improperly chose a more expensive proposal.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that it had jurisdiction to review the DOT’s order under 49 U.S.C. § 46110(a). On the merits, the court found that the DOT’s findings regarding each statutory factor were supported by substantial evidence and that the agency’s reasoning was adequately explained. The court concluded that the DOT’s selection process was reasonable, not arbitrary or capricious, and that the agency did not exceed its statutory authority. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review and upheld the DOT’s selection of the new EAS carrier. View "Southern Airways Express, LLC v. DOT" on Justia Law

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress established the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) to help eligible small businesses maintain payroll through government-mandated shutdowns. The program, administered by the Small Business Administration (SBA), provided for government-guaranteed loans to qualifying businesses, with the possibility of loan forgiveness if certain conditions were met. Bruckner Truck Sales received a $10 million PPP loan, but the SBA later determined that Bruckner was not eligible for the loan. Despite conceding its ineligibility, Bruckner refused to return the funds and instead claimed entitlement to loan forgiveness under the CARES Act.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas reviewed the case after Bruckner challenged the SBA’s denial of forgiveness. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the government, holding that the CARES Act does not entitle ineligible borrowers to loan forgiveness. The court also denied Bruckner’s motion to alter or amend the judgment, finding that the SBA’s interpretation of the statute was correct and that the agency’s actions were not arbitrary or capricious.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Fifth Circuit held that the CARES Act limits loan forgiveness to borrowers who were eligible for the underlying PPP loan. The court rejected Bruckner’s arguments that the SBA’s rule was retroactive, that the agency violated the Chenery doctrine, and that the district court improperly deferred to the agency’s interpretation. The court concluded that neither the text nor the structure of the CARES Act supports forgiveness for ineligible borrowers, and affirmed the denial of loan forgiveness and the requirement to return the funds. View "Bruckner Truck Sales v. Guzman" on Justia Law

Crowley Government Services, Inc. ("Crowley") entered into a contract with the Department of Defense United States Transportation Command ("USTRANSCOM") in 2016 to provide transportation coordination services, which involved hiring motor carriers to transport freight. The General Services Administration ("GSA"), not a party to the contract, began auditing Crowley's bills under a provision of the Transportation Act of 1940, claiming Crowley overbilled USTRANSCOM by millions of dollars. GSA sought to recover these overcharges by garnishing future payments to Crowley.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed Crowley's Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") claims, holding that the claims were essentially contractual and fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims. The D.C. Circuit reversed, finding that Crowley's suit was not a contract claim and remanded the case. On remand, the District Court held that GSA could audit both carriers and non-carriers but agreed with Crowley that the USTRANSCOM Contracting Officer's interpretations governed any GSA audits. The court enjoined GSA from issuing Notices of Overcharge ("NOCs") contrary to the Contracting Officer's determinations.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and held that 31 U.S.C. § 3726(b) allows GSA to audit only bills presented by carriers and freight forwarders. The court found that Crowley is not a carrier because it does not physically transport freight nor is it contractually bound to help perform the movement of goods. Consequently, the court reversed the District Court's decision on the scope of § 3726(b) and remanded for further proceedings, permanently enjoining GSA from conducting postpayment audits of Crowley's bills. View "Crowley Government Services, Inc. v. General Services Administration" 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

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