Lydia Kay Griggsby

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

civil rightsfederal powerprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

healthcareprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

In this case, VAS Realty, LLC, the incumbent lessor for a Department of Homeland Security facility in Rhode Island, brought a post-award bid protest in the Court of Federal Claims challenging the General Services Administration's award of a new 15-year lease to Cape Moraine, LLP. The government and the awardee moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that VAS lacked standing because its proposal did not comply with the request for lease proposals' requirements regarding usable office space square footage and authorization procedures. The court granted the motions to dismiss, holding that VAS was not an interested party eligible to protest because it had failed to follow the RLP's specified process for requesting deviations from the space requirements before submitting its final proposal. As a result, the court dismissed the complaint without reaching the merits of the bid protest claims or the cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record.

business & regulatoryprocedurefederal power

In this tax refund action, Andrew and Lindsey Mattson sought a refund of federal income taxes paid in 2016 based on the foreign earned income exclusion under I.R.C. § 911. The government moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under RCFC 12(b)(1), contending that the plaintiffs' amended tax return was invalid because it lacked the required taxpayer signatures or power of attorney under I.R.C. §§ 6061 and 6065. The Court of Federal Claims granted the motion and dismissed the amended complaint, holding that the signature verification requirement is statutory and cannot be waived, so the refund claim had not been duly filed as required by 26 U.S.C. § 7422.

taxesprocedure

The case involved plaintiffs Action Capital Properties, LLLP and EFL Holdings I, LLC asserting claims against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims concerning two land parcels. The government filed a notice that the plaintiffs had accepted its offer of judgment under RCFC 68(a). The court directed the clerk to enter judgment pursuant to RCFC 54(b), finding no just reason for delay, in the total amount of $618,700 allocated between the two parcels.

propertyprocedure

Xtec, Inc. brought a post-award bid protest in the Court of Federal Claims challenging the State Department's evaluation process and award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for identity and credential management products and services to Guidehouse, LLP. The government and Guidehouse moved to dismiss one claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act and RCFC 12(b)(1), and the parties filed cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record under RCFC 52.1. The court denied Xtec's motion to supplement the record, granted the partial motions to dismiss the task-order claim, denied Xtec's motion for judgment on the record along with its requests for injunctive relief, and granted the opposing cross-motions, concluding that the agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation. The complaint was dismissed in full.

business & regulatoryprocedurefederal power

The case was a post-award bid protest in which Golden IT, LLC challenged the USDA's award of a blanket purchase agreement for assistance implementing an Identify, Credential, and Access Management program to Easy Dynamics Corporation, as well as the agency's subsequent corrective action plan. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss the claims regarding the original award decision and any future award on grounds of mootness and ripeness. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the administrative record and granted the government's cross-motion, holding that the corrective action plan was rational and not arbitrary or contrary to law. The court also denied injunctive relief and dismissed the complaint.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this tax refund action, plaintiffs Sean G. Quattrini and Lady A. Chun Quattrini sought a refund of federal income taxes paid for tax years 2016 and 2017, relying on the foreign earned income exclusion under I.R.C. § 911 and the employer-provided lodging exclusion under I.R.C. § 119. The government moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under RCFC 12(b)(1), arguing that the plaintiffs had not duly filed their refund claims because their amended returns were signed by a representative of their tax firm without a valid power of attorney or the taxpayers' own signatures. The Court of Federal Claims granted the motion and dismissed the amended complaint, holding that the signature verification requirements in I.R.C. §§ 6061 and 6065 are statutory in nature and cannot be waived by the IRS, even if the agency investigates the merits of the claims. The court reasoned that without compliance with these requirements, the taxpayers had not satisfied the prerequisites for filing under 26 U.S.C. § 7422, depriving the court of jurisdiction.

taxesprocedure

In Sparks v. United States, a pro se plaintiff who is a U.S. Army veteran sued the government in the Court of Federal Claims seeking $5 million in damages after alleging he contracted a serious infection following a tooth-filling procedure at a VA dental clinic in Washington, DC. The government moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint, holding that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the claims sounded in tort and were therefore outside the court's limited jurisdiction; to the extent the claims sought veterans' benefits, they likewise belonged in other forums. The court separately granted the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

healthcaretorts & liabilityfederal powerprocedure

In Doyon v. United States, a former Navy service member challenged the Board for Correction of Naval Records' denial of his request to correct his military records to reflect medical retirement due to PTSD rather than discharge for unsuitability, seeking military disability retirement pay under the Military Pay Act and Military Disability Retirement Pay Act. The Court of Federal Claims granted in part the government's motion to dismiss, holding it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's Fifth Amendment due process claim. The court denied the plaintiff's motion to supplement the administrative record and granted the government's motion for judgment on the administrative record, finding the BCNR's decision reasonable and supported by substantial evidence that the plaintiff's personal convictions against the Vietnam War, rather than service-related trauma, formed the basis for his discharge. The court also denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for judgment on the administrative record.

procedurecivil rights

In this post-award bid protest, plaintiff Brighton Cromwell, an unsuccessful offeror, challenged the Defense Logistics Agency's evaluation process and awards of multiple IDIQ contracts for Level 2 Disposable Isolation Gowns under a solicitation for personal protective equipment to support HHS during the coronavirus pandemic. The plaintiff alleged that the agency improperly used unstated evaluation criteria, failed to seek clarifications on its proposal, and subjected it to disparate treatment, all in violation of various FAR provisions. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, concluding that the plaintiff had not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of any of its claims. The decision emphasized the public interest in allowing the government to promptly obtain the needed gowns.

business & regulatoryprocedure

ProSecure, LLC brought a post-award bid protest in the Court of Federal Claims challenging the Department of Homeland Security's award of a contract for protective security officer services in Alaska to CDA Inc. dba MaxSent. The RFP was a small-business set-aside evaluated under past performance and management approach factors on a best-value basis. ProSecure alleged errors in the agency's technical evaluation and disparate treatment. The court held that the agency's evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the RFP terms, that ProSecure had waived one claim by failing to raise it before award, and that ProSecure was not entitled to injunctive relief. It therefore denied ProSecure's motion for judgment on the administrative record, granted the cross-motions by the government and MaxSent, and dismissed the complaint.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Sloan v. United States, plaintiff Kerry L. Sloan alleged that the United States Marshals Service conducted an illegal search and seizure at his residence in violation of the Fourth Amendment and sought $5,000 in damages under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1495 and 2513 for an unjust conviction. The United States Court of Federal Claims granted the government's motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under RCFC 12(b)(1). The court reasoned that it lacks jurisdiction over Fourth Amendment claims and tort claims generally, and the plaintiff failed to meet the statutory requirements for an unjust conviction claim by not demonstrating that his conviction had been reversed, set aside, or that he was pardoned.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

In this case under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, petitioner Dr. Gerald Temes sought compensation after alleging that influenza and pneumococcal vaccines he received in 2015 caused his cryoglobulinemia, a blood disorder leading to vasculitis. The special master denied the claim, finding insufficient evidence that the vaccines could or did cause the condition and that the onset of symptoms did not align with a medically acceptable timeframe. On review, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims denied the petitioner's motion, holding that the special master's decision was supported by substantial evidence, including expert testimony on antibody development timelines, and did not involve legal error or abuse of discretion. The court sustained the denial of compensation without substituting its own judgment on the evidence.

healthcare

This case involves a Fifth Amendment takings claim by property owners adjacent to a former railroad line in Illinois against the United States, alleging that the Surface Transportation Board's issuance of a Notice of Interim Trail Use under the National Trails System Act prevented their reversionary interests from vesting upon abandonment of the rail line. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment regarding title and liability for 14 parcels. The Court of Federal Claims granted in part and denied in part both motions, finding that the railroad held only an easement over two parcels (supporting a potential taking claim), held fee simple title to eleven parcels (defeating the claim), and that plaintiffs failed to establish ownership of two parcels. The decisions turned on the language of the original conveyances to the railroad and applicable Illinois property law determining whether the railroad acquired fee or easement interests.

propertyfederal powerprocedure

This case is a post-award bid protest brought by Glocoms, Inc. against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims, challenging the Customs and Border Protection's award of a contract for monitor and caregiver services to Coastal Clinical & Management Services, Inc. Glocoms argued that the agency violated the Competition in Contracting Act by allowing the awardee to adjust its quote with knowledge of competitors' prices, failed to respond to questions about wage codes, and that the winning quote was technically unacceptable. The court denied Glocoms' motion for judgment on the administrative record, granted the government's cross-motion, and dismissed the complaint, finding that the agency's evaluation process and award decision were reasonable and consistent with the request for quotations, and that Glocoms failed to demonstrate any technical unacceptability.

business & regulatoryprocedure