This case is a post-award bid protest in which plaintiff APT Research, Inc., an unsuccessful offeror and incumbent, challenged the Missile Defense Agency's evaluation of proposals and award of a safety engineering services contract to ARES Technical Services Corporation under Request for Proposals No. HQ0858-20-R-0003. APT alleged errors in the agency's technical evaluation, including under the Mission Capability factor and its Human Capital Management subfactor, and sought judgment on the administrative record. The court denied APT's motion, granted the cross-motions of the United States and ARES, and dismissed the complaint, holding that the agency's best-value determination was reasonable and consistent with the RFP because APT received an unacceptable rating under one subfactor while ARES did not, and ARES offered a lower price. The court further found no prejudice to APT from any alleged evaluation flaws and denied injunctive relief.
In this case, Consuelo E. Kelly-Leppert, the widow of a deceased Vietnam War veteran, sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims alleging that the Department of Veterans Affairs failed to provide her husband with a comprehensive Agent Orange medical exam, including a lung biopsy and access to medical records. She sought $138 million in damages for claims including breach of an implied contract, loss of consortium, medical malpractice, violation of civil and constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, and breach of fiduciary duty. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, holding that the Tucker Act does not confer jurisdiction over these claims because veterans benefits determinations are exclusively assigned to other forums, the Fourteenth Amendment does not mandate money damages, and the alleged contract and other claims fall outside the court's limited authority. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis but denied her other motions as moot and dismissed the amended complaint.
This case is a post-award bid protest in which VAS Realty, LLC challenged the General Services Administration's award of a lease for a Department of Homeland Security facility in Rhode Island to Cape Moraine LLP. The court had previously dismissed the protest for lack of standing, finding that VAS's proposal exceeded the maximum square footage specified in the solicitation and thus VAS had no direct economic interest. VAS then moved under RCFC 62(d) for a stay and injunction pending appeal to prevent performance of the lease. The court denied the motion, holding that VAS failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits given the standing ruling, that any harm was comparable to that suffered by any unsuccessful bidder, and that the balance of harms and public interest weighed against relief due to costs and delay to the government and intervenor. The decision rests on the established requirements for extraordinary injunctive relief and the administrative record showing VAS's proposal was noncompliant.
This case involves a claim under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act where petitioner E.S. alleged that HPV, Hepatitis A, and influenza vaccines significantly aggravated her pre-existing type 1 diabetes and caused additional conditions including headaches, narcolepsy, chronic fatigue syndrome, POTS, and small fiber neuropathy. The special master denied compensation, finding insufficient evidence that the vaccines caused or aggravated these conditions. The Court of Federal Claims denied the petitioner's motion for review, sustaining the special master's decision because it was supported by substantial evidence and consistent with the requirements of the Vaccine Act for proving causation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Geospatial Technology Associates sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims, alleging that government agencies and systems infringed its U.S. Patent No. 8,897,489 (covering automated image processing and target detection) and a related software copyright. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment under RCFC 56 focused on the patent's priority date and validity. The court denied GTA's motion and granted the government's cross-motion in part, holding that the patent is invalid for lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. § 102 because the earlier ARCHER system anticipates every claim by disclosing an object-based spectral identification score, masking, and unmixing limitations. The ruling rests on undisputed facts establishing the ARCHER system's priority and full anticipation, without reaching obviousness or indefiniteness issues.
In Lawson v. United States, a pro se plaintiff who has been civilly committed in Texas since 2007 following a state criminal conviction sued the United States for $100 million in damages, alleging that Texas officials and unnamed federal actors violated his constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment through discrimination, denial of rights to contract and travel, negligence, and unlawful banishment tied to his designation as a sexually violent predator. The United States Court of Federal Claims granted the government's motion to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), while also granting the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the claims were not properly brought against the United States, did not arise under a money-mandating source of law, and failed to meet the statutory prerequisites for an unjust conviction claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1495 and 2513, as the conviction had not been reversed or set aside.
