Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

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

AFSCME represents approximately 40,000 state employees working in executive agencies. In 2008, AFSCME and the state negotiated a collective bargaining agreement effective through June 2012, providing for a general wage increase on January 1, 2009, and thereafter on every July 1 and January 1. Individual increases varied, but totaled 15.25%. A 4% increase was scheduled for July 1, 2011. In 2010, facing declining state revenues and the potential layoff of 2,500 state employees, AFSCME and the state agreed to $300 million in cost savings, including deferring the July 2011 increase; a 2% increase would be implemented on July 1, 2011, with the remaining 2% to be implemented on February 1, 2012. After adoption of the fiscal 2012 budget, the Department of Central Management Services notified agencies and labor relations administrators that, due to insufficient appropriations, the wage increase could not be implemented in 14 agencies. In arbitration, the state argued that the Public Labor Relations Act mandates that executive branch expenditures under a CBA are contingent on corresponding appropriations by the General Assembly, that this provision restates the mandate of the Illinois Constitution appropriations clause, and that it was incorporated into the CBA by the statement that “the provisions of this contract cannot supersede law.” The arbitrator issued an award in favor of AFSCME. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the lower courts and vacated the award, holding that the arbitration award violates Illinois public policy, as reflected in the appropriations clause and the Public Labor Relations Act. View "Illinois v. Am. Fed'n of State, County & Mun. Employees, Council 31" on Justia Law

Relator brought a qui tam action (False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3730(b)), alleging KHN (network of hospitals, physicians, and healthcare facilities) falsely certified its compliance with the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH), 123 Stat. 226 (2009), to receive “meaningful use” incentive payments. HITECH was designed to encourage the adoption of sophisticated electronic health record technology and creates incentive payments for “meaningful use” of certified technology, 42 U.S.C. 1395. To receive incentive payments, providers must meet meaningful-use objectives and accompanying compliance measures. Stage 1 of Act implementation required a security risk analysis in accordance with 45 C.F.R. 164.308(a)(1); implementation of need security updates; and correction of identified security deficiencies. During Stage 2, providers are required to address[] the encryption/security of data stored in Certified EHR Technology in accordance with 45 C.F.R. 164.312(a)(2)(iv) and 164.306(d)(3). To receive incentive payments, providers must attest to meeting these standards. The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal, finding that Relator failed to plausibly allege that KHN’s attestation of HITECH compliance was false and failed to plead a specific claim for payment; and that Relator’s claims were precluded by a prior Ohio state judgment in a case involving similar claims filed by Relator against KHN. View "United States v. Kettering Health Network" on Justia Law

This case involved a second set of appeals arising from an action challenging the bidding process for the Idaho Education Network (“IEN”). Syringa Networks, LLC, sued Qwest Communications, LLC, ENA Services, LLC, and the Idaho Department of Administration (“DOA”) and certain DOA employees, alleging injury arising from contract awards and amendments that DOA issued to Qwest and ENA related to the IEN. The district court dismissed all of Syringa’s claims. On appeal the Idaho Supreme Court held that Syringa had standing to pursue Count Three, which alleged that DOA violated Idaho Code section 67-5718A. Count Three was remanded to the district court for further proceedings. On remand, the district court entered partial summary judgment for Syringa on Count Three, holding that the amendments and the underlying contracts were void for violating state procurement law. The district court denied Syringa’s motion to order DOA to demand repayment of money advanced under the void contracts. The district court also awarded Syringa attorney fees. Syringa, Qwest, ENA, and DOA each appealed: Syringa appealed the district court’s denial of its request to order DOA to demand repayment from Qwest and ENA; the other parties appealed the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment to Syringa, arguing that the district court’s conclusions were procedurally improper and substantively incorrect for a variety of reasons. DOA also challenges the district court’s award of attorney fees to Syringa. Finding no reversible error in the district court's judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Syringa Networks v. Dept of Administration" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Sweetwater Union High School District filed this action against defendants Gilbane Building Company, The Seville Group, Inc. (SGI), and Gilbane/SGI, a joint venture (the Joint Venture), seeking to void management contracts with all three entities, and to require that they disgorge all sums that Sweetwater paid them under the contracts. Sweetwater alleges that certain representatives of the defendant entities engaged in a "pay to play" scheme with several Sweetwater officials that involved paying for expensive dinners, tickets to entertainment and sporting events, and travel expenses, and making contributions to political campaigns and charities, in an effort to influence the officials to award defendants certain construction contracts. Gilbane and the Joint Venture brought a special motion to strike (or "anti-SLAPP motion"). The trial court denied the motion on the ground that the conduct underlying the complaint was illegal as a matter of law, and therefore, was not protected by the constitutional guarantees of free speech and petition. Defendants argued on appeal that the trial court erred in denying their anti-SLAPP motion. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in considering the evidence proffered by Sweetwater, including signed plea forms and transcripts from grand jury testimony in criminal cases against many of the individuals involved in the alleged "pay to play" contracting scheme. "Such evidence is, in all material respects, indistinguishable from evidence presented by way of a declaration. Based on the proffered evidence, we conclude that Sweetwater has sufficiently demonstrated a probability of prevailing on the merits. We therefore affirm the trial court's denial of defendants' anti-SLAPP motion." View "Sweetwater Union School Dist. v. Gilbane Building Co." on Justia Law

Under the South Pacific Tuna Treaty (SPTT), a limited number of licenses to fish the waters of the Pacific Island nations are available to vessels under the control and command of U.S. citizens. Moore, a law firm, filed suit under the False Claims Act against Korean nationals and LLCs, alleging that the LLCs acquired two SPTT licenses by fraudulently certifying to the U.S. government that they were controlled by U.S. citizens and that their fishing vessels were commanded by U.S. captains. Moore first learned of this alleged fraud through discovery in a wrongful death action that it litigated in federal court against two of the defendants. The district court dismissed, citing the FCA’s public disclosure bar and its “original source” exception, particularly the 2010 amendments to those provisions. The Third Circuit reversed, finding that the alleged fraud was disclosed through any of the qualifying public disclosure sources, but that Moore has materially added to those public disclosures by contributing details of the alleged fraud that it independently uncovered through discovery in the wrongful death action in federal court. The court noted that the public disclosure bar is no longer jurisdictional. View "Moore & Co., P A v. Majestic Blue Fisheries LLC" on Justia Law

GA entered into a blanket purchase agreement (BPA 218), with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in June 2011, to furnish trained service dogs for disabled veterans. A year later, the contracting officer sent an email questioning GA's performance. On August 31, 2012, the officer sent notice terminating BPA 218 for default and suspending open orders, informing GA that it had the right to appeal under the disputes clause of the contract. On December 21, 2012, GA sent a letter to the VA’s Rehabilitation Research & Development Service, arguing that it had fulfilled its duties and that the default termination should be converted to a termination for the convenience of the government. On February 28, 2013, GA sent the contracting officer a “formal demand.” On March 21, the officer sent a letter stating that she had received the claim but needed supporting documentation. GA began compiling documentation, but on May 3, the officer sent another letter, stating that she would not reconsider her decision, but that GA could appeal under 41 U.S.C. 7104(b). On January 7, 2014, GA filed suit. The Court of Federal Claims dismissed, finding the claim time-barred because, while the February 2013 letter qualified as a request for reconsideration, the officer did not reconsider, so the statute of limitations never tolled. The Federal Circuit reversed. The 12-month statutory appeal period did not begin to run until the officer rejected the request for reconsideration on May 3. View "Guardian Angels Med. Serv. Dogs, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

The California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) and Papich Construction Company, Inc. appealed a trial court’s issuance of a writ of mandate to vacate the award of a public works contract to Papich. DeSilva Gates Construction submitted the second-lowest bid (the first bidder was disqualified for a non-responsive bid), and included the names and description of work by all subcontractors slated to perform work exceeding one-half of one percent of the bid amount. DeSilva later sent a letter to CalTrans noting DeSilva had inadvertently supplied CalTrans with additional information on the subcontractor list "above and beyond what was required." DeSilva explained it had not listed "All Steel Fence" as a subcontractor in its bid because the value of the bid items it would perform was less than one-half of one percent of the bid and the information for All Steel Fence (submitted within 24 hours of the bid) was additional information that was not required. Papich challenged DeSilva’s bid as having changed the subcontractor list. CalTrans rejected DeSilva’s bid as nonresponsive. DeSilva protested CalTrans’s determination that its bid was nonresponsive and protested Papich’s bid. The trial court granted the writ on grounds CalTrans erroneously rejected DeSilva's bid, and erred by awarding the contract to Papich despite Papich’s failure to comply with a material requirement of the information for bids. On appeal, CalTrans and Papich argued DeSilva’s bid was nonresponsive. Appellants also argued CalTrans had discretion to waive Papich’s mistake in failing to acknowledge the addendum to the information for bids. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded the trial court did not err. DeSilva’s disclosure of a subcontractor performing work amounting to only one-tenth of one percent of the total value of the contract was not required by the Public Contract Code or CalTrans’s information for bids. The additional information was accurate, albeit unnecessary, and did not render DeSilva’s bid nonresponsive. By contrast, CalTrans initially declared Papich’s bid to be nonresponsive and then waived Papich’s mistake and determined the bid to be responsive. The Court concluded CalTrans abused its discretion by awarding Papich the contract. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court’s issuance of the writ of mandate. View "DeSilva Gates Construction, LP v. Dept. of Transportation" on Justia Law

The County Assessor for Eddy County sought to use money in a county property valuation fund (as established by the Legislature in 1986) to contract with a private company for technical assistance in locating and valuing oil and gas property. The County Commission for Eddy County refused to approve the proposed plan because it believed that a contract to pay private, independent contractors to assist the County Assessor in the performance of the Assessor’s statutory duties exceeded the Commission’s lawful authority. The Supreme Court was persuaded that the County Commission did have such authority under law, and that the contract under consideration here would not have exceed that authority or be otherwise ultra vires. The district court having previously issued a declaratory judgment to that same effect, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Robinson v. Bd. of Comm'rs of the Cty. of Eddy" on Justia Law

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