This case was a bid protest by Superior Optical Labs challenging the Department of Veterans Affairs' decision to transfer contracts for prescription eyeglasses and optical services in VISNs 2 and 7 from set-asides for veteran-owned small businesses back to the AbilityOne program. The court decided that the VA's action violated the Department of Veterans Affairs Contracting Preference Consistency Act of 2020 and granted the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the administrative record along with a permanent injunction barring the transfer absent required determinations. The core reasoning was that the Consistency Act amended the Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006 to mandate application of the Rule of Two for SDVOSB and VOSB set-asides before using other procurement sources like AbilityOne, and the VA had not complied with those statutory requirements.
The case concerned a breach of contract claim by JKB Solutions against the United States under an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract with the Army for instructor services on an operational contract support course. JKB alleged the Army was required to order and pay for the maximum of fourteen classes per one-year ordering period, but the Army ordered and paid for fewer in each of the three periods. The Court of Federal Claims granted the government's motion for summary judgment, ruling that the contract incorporated a termination for convenience clause that could be constructively invoked when the Army no longer needed the full number of classes. Because JKB neither alleged nor proved any recoverable termination costs, it was entitled to no damages, and judgment was entered for the United States.
Pacific Wind LLC sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims, claiming the Treasury Department underpaid it by over $8.4 million in cash grants under Section 1603 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for investing in a California wind farm. The government moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing Pacific Wind lacked Article III standing because of an indemnification agreement with a third party that would cover any shortfall. The court denied the motion, holding that the indemnification agreement does not affect the plaintiff's standing or the government's liability, as Pacific Wind suffered a direct injury from the underpayment that could be redressed by a favorable ruling.
Plaintiff, a retired U.S. Navy Reserve officer, sued for military disability retirement benefits and incapacitation (line-of-duty) benefits based on shoulder, back, and mental health injuries incurred during service. The Board for Correction of Naval Records had found him fit for duty and denied disability retirement, while the Navy had denied some incapacitation benefits for lack of documentation or other reasons. The court granted the government's motion for judgment on the administrative record as to the disability retirement claim, finding the Board's fit determination supported by the record, including medical clearances and performance issues. It remanded the incapacitation benefit claims to the Board for 180 days to reconsider documentation and claims for back and PTSD injuries, citing procedural problems with notice and timing, and dismissed related motions as moot.
In Fox Logistics and Construction Company v. United States, the plaintiff alleged it was a third-party beneficiary or had an implied-in-fact contract with the Department of the Air Force related to a subcontract on a construction project at Shindand Air Base in Afghanistan, and that the government breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing by failing to pay approximately $11.7 million. This opinion addressed Fox's motion to compel production of certain documents that the government had withheld or redacted on privilege grounds during limited jurisdictional discovery. The court denied the motion, holding that Fox waived its objections by filing more than four months after the written discovery deadline closed. Even on the merits, the court found that Fox offered only speculation rather than evidence sufficient to justify in camera review of the privileged materials, and that the government had already produced all non-privileged documents relevant to the narrow jurisdictional inquiry.