Richard A. Hertling

In this bid protest case, West Pacific-CMCS JV challenged the U.S. Space Force's award of an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity construction contract known as the WOOKIE MACC, alleging arbitrary evaluation of its proposal, failure to refer it for a certificate of competency under the Small Business Act, and unequal clarifications with other bidders; the complaint sought termination of the awarded contracts and reevaluation of the plaintiff's proposal. One of the four contract awardees, JG Contracting, moved to intervene as of right under RCFC 24(a). The plaintiff opposed, arguing that the protest posed no risk to existing awardees because fewer than the maximum five contracts had been awarded and the challenge focused only on its own evaluation. The court granted the motion to intervene, reasoning that the plaintiff is master of its complaint, which explicitly requests termination of the existing contracts, creating a direct and immediate interest for the awardee that could be impaired by the litigation.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves plaintiffs who were subject to civil penalties by the SEC through administrative proceedings between 2006 and 2018, and who sought to recover those payments as illegal exactions after the Supreme Court's 2024 decision in SEC v. Jarkesy, which held that such penalties for securities fraud require a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment. The United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed the complaint, finding all claims barred by the Tucker Act's six-year statute of limitations. The court reasoned that Jarkesy did not constitute a change in law sufficient to suspend the accrual of the claims, which began when the SEC orders were issued and initial payments made, and that the continuing claims doctrine did not apply to extend the period for ongoing payments.

business & regulatoryprocedurefederal power

The case involved a pro se plaintiff who filed a complaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims against various New York state judges, court employees, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and law enforcement officers, without naming the United States as a defendant or alleging any conduct by the federal government. The court dismissed the complaint sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 12(h)(3), without first requiring payment of the filing fee or a request to proceed in forma pauperis. The core reasoning was that the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1), limits the court's jurisdiction to claims against the United States founded on the Constitution, federal statutes, regulations, contracts, or certain non-tort damages, and the complaint presented no such claim.

procedurefederal power

Siemens Government Technologies sued the United States, through the Army Corps of Engineers, in the Court of Federal Claims, alleging breach of an implied-in-fact contract and violations of Federal Acquisition Regulations after the Corps declined to issue an energy savings performance contract task order for projects at Army bases in Germany, leaving Siemens to absorb over $2 million in bid-preparation costs due to alleged internal coordination failures. The court first held that the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act’s bar on task-order protests did not apply, because the claims sought only reimbursement of bid costs rather than challenging the issuance or non-issuance of a task order itself. It then dismissed the complaint under RCFC 12(b)(6), concluding that the underlying IDIQ contract expressly permitted the Corps to determine a project infeasible and decline to proceed for any reason, that no facts showed dishonest or misleading conduct, and that the cited FAR provisions imposed no duty to coordinate internally or to award a task order. The opinion emphasized that the contract terms foreclosed recovery of the claimed costs and that Siemens had not alleged any breach of an enforceable obligation.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Nordbrock v. United States, the plaintiff, proceeding pro se, sued the IRS in the Court of Federal Claims seeking an order to process and approve claims for abatement of penalties and refunds of associated payments totaling $75,000 for tax years 1979, 1980, and 1981, alleging the assessments were untimely and backdated in violation of the statute of limitations. The defendant moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing the plaintiff had not duly filed timely administrative refund claims with the IRS. The court granted the motion and dismissed the case under RCFC 12(b)(6), holding that a taxpayer must show a timely administrative claim was filed prior to suit and that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any payments applied to the challenged penalties within the three-year limitations period under 26 U.S.C. § 6511(a) before filing his Form 843 claims in 2022. The court also denied leave to amend, noting the plaintiff had prior opportunities to address timeliness issues but provided no supporting evidence.

taxesprocedure

In this case, ASG Solutions Corporation challenged the Navy's termination for default of its task order contract for engineering and program-management services at Naval Air Station Jacksonville, alleging wrongful termination, breach of contract, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing under the Contract Disputes Act. The complaint largely repeated claims from an earlier lawsuit (Case No. 23-1029), but added allegations questioning the authenticity of a contracting officer's memorandum due to alleged noncompliance with Navy correspondence policies. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(6), holding that issue preclusion barred relitigation because the issues were identical to those already decided on summary judgment in the prior action, which the Federal Circuit had affirmed. The court reasoned that ASG had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the validity of the termination in the first proceeding, and any new fraud claims did not alter the preclusive effect of the final judgment on the merits.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, petitioner Richard Bieber sought damages for a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) after receiving a flu shot in November 2021. A special master determined he was entitled to compensation and awarded $52,500 for pain and suffering limited to the nine months following the vaccination, with no award for future pain and suffering. Bieber moved for review, arguing that the special master used an improper legal standard, made incorrect factual findings on the duration of his injury, and should have awarded damages beyond nine months. The Court of Federal Claims denied the motion, holding that the special master applied the correct legal standard, reasonably evaluated the evidence regarding the link between the vaccine and ongoing symptoms, and correctly placed the burden on the petitioner to prove causation for later pain.

healthcaretorts & liability

In Hollie v. United States, a pro se plaintiff filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims challenging unspecified actions by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration within the Department of Transportation and sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The court had previously denied the IFP application due to the plaintiff's history of frivolous filings and ordered payment of the filing fee by May 1, 2026; after the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal instead, the court retained jurisdiction because the appeal was facially defective in the absence of a final order. The court dismissed the complaint under RCFC 41(b) for failure to pay the fee and also under RCFC 12(b)(1) and 12(h)(3) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, reasoning that the cited statutes in titles 5, 18, and 28 do not provide a money-mandating source of law as required by the Tucker Act.

procedurefederal power

The case involves a bid protest by ASRC Federal Infrastructure Support, LLC against the Department of Homeland Security's award of two contracts for student support and facilities operations at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center to Dawson MCG, LLC. The plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the transition of services from its affiliate to the new contractor. The court denied the motion, finding that while the plaintiff might succeed on some claims regarding arbitrary evaluations of the winning proposals, it did not demonstrate irreparable harm that could not be addressed through reevaluation of the proposals. The court reasoned that the public interest favored allowing the procurement process to proceed without delay absent clear evidence of bias or error that would require immediate intervention.

business & regulatory

The case involves a pro se plaintiff who filed an incomplete motion to proceed in forma pauperis in a lawsuit against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims. The court denied the motion, citing the plaintiff's history of frivolous filings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, where he had been denied in forma pauperis status multiple times in the past year and warned about potential sanctions. The complaint in this matter was described as largely unintelligible, frivolous, and outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the full $405 filing fee by May 1, 2026, or face dismissal of the complaint under Rule 41(b).

procedure

The case concerned an Ohio business that sought an Employee Retention Credit refund under the CARES Act for wages paid in the third quarter of 2021. The plaintiff filed its claim in May 2024, after Congress enacted the OBBBA in July 2025, which imposed a retroactive deadline requiring all ERC claims to be filed by January 31, 2024. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(6), ruling that the plaintiff failed to state a claim because the retroactive time bar was valid. The core reasoning was that the deadline was supported by a legitimate legislative purpose of curbing tax fraud and was rationally related to that purpose, satisfying due process standards for retroactive tax legislation, with no protected reliance interest arising from the plaintiff's delayed filing.

taxesfederal power

The Gateway Development Commission, an entity formed by New Jersey and New York to manage rail modernization projects including the Hudson Tunnel Project, entered into six grant and loan agreements with the Department of Transportation valued at approximately $14.7 billion. DOT withheld over $205 million in monthly disbursements while reviewing GDC's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program for compliance with equal protection principles, federal nondiscrimination rules, and an executive order, prompting GDC to file suit in the Court of Federal Claims alleging breaches of the agreements. A parallel district court action led to a temporary restraining order under which DOT released the full withheld amount to GDC. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss the first six counts, finding the claims moot because no further relief could be provided after payment and that full payment constituted an affirmative defense to breach even if the claims were not moot, while denying GDC's motion for partial summary judgment.

business & regulatoryfederal powercivil rights

In this military pay case, Salvador Diaz, a Navy veteran convicted by court-martial in 2000 of rape and indecent acts and dishonorably discharged in 2007, sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims in 2025 seeking reinstatement and back pay, alleging due process violations and arbitrary action by the Navy. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1), holding that it lacked jurisdiction because the claim was untimely. The six-year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2501 began to run no later than April 2007, when the Supreme Court denied certiorari on the conviction, and was not tolled or restarted by subsequent appeals to military courts, the BCNR, or federal district courts. The court also denied the plaintiff's request to transfer the case, finding it would not be in the interest of justice.

criminal lawcivil rightsfederal powerprocedure

Michelle Lynn Adams, a former federal employee convicted of bribery in 2010, sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims alleging that the government's seizure of approximately $775,000 through asset forfeiture was an illegal exaction because her indictment lacked necessary allegations and forfeiture was not authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 201. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1), ruling that the claim was untimely under the six-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2501, which cannot be tolled or suspended due to alleged concealment of legal issues, as the plaintiff knew the facts of her conviction and forfeiture at the time. The court further held that even if timely, it lacked jurisdiction because the claim would require reviewing orders from another federal court, and the plaintiff was already pursuing relief via a coram nobis petition in the Eastern District of Virginia.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a pro se plaintiff who, after losing a child-custody dispute in Kansas state court and failing to remove it to federal district court or obtain relief from the Tenth Circuit, filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims alleging that the Tenth Circuit's inaction constituted a Fifth Amendment taking of her property interests, including access to a federal forum and parental liberty rights. The court first addressed its own jurisdiction as a threshold issue and liberally construed the complaint but found no basis for Tucker Act jurisdiction. It held that the Court of Federal Claims lacks authority to review decisions or inaction by other federal appellate courts and cannot entertain claims based on actions of state actors. The court therefore dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and declined to transfer it.

civil rightsfederal powerprocedurefamily law

The case involved a plaintiff, a soldier convicted of sexual assault and serving a military sentence, who sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims. He claimed that bonds he unilaterally tendered through a trust he created formed a contract with the government, entitling him to release from incarceration, an accounting, and other relief including placing officials on probation. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) and 12(h)(3) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The core reasoning was that the complaint failed to allege facts supporting a valid contract or monetary damages redressable by the court, and the Court of Federal Claims has no jurisdiction to review criminal convictions, grant post-conviction relief, or order release from custody.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

The case involved a pro se plaintiff suing the United States in the Court of Federal Claims, alleging that the IRS failed to process remittances totaling over $58 million for tax years 2023 and 2025 and seeking an order compelling the IRS to apply the funds and return any excess. The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice under RCFC 41(b) for failure to respond to an order to show cause and also under RCFC 12(b)(1) and 12(h)(3) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The core reasoning was that jurisdiction is a threshold issue that must be resolved before the merits, and the plaintiff failed to establish compliance with the Internal Revenue Code prerequisites for a tax refund suit, including fully paying any tax deficiencies, duly filing an administrative refund claim within the required time limits, and waiting at least six months after filing the claim before suing. The plaintiff, proceeding in forma pauperis, did not meet his burden to demonstrate jurisdiction despite liberal construction of pro se pleadings.

taxesprocedure

This case is a post-award bid protest in which Aery Aviation, LLC challenged the U.S. Navy's award of a Contracted Air Services Electronic Warfare contract to Phoenix Air Group, Inc. as the successor to a prior joint-venture contract that Aery had performed. Aery alleged that the Navy's technical evaluation improperly assigned a deficiency regarding aircraft modifications for carrying the ALQ-164 pod, that the Navy engaged in disparate treatment compared to Phoenix's proposal, and that the past-performance evaluation failed to adequately consider Aery's role and recent improvements under the predecessor contract; Aery also sought to supplement the record with additional performance data. The Court of Federal Claims held that the Navy's technical and past-performance evaluations were reasonable and supported by the record, that no disparate treatment occurred because the proposals differed materially, and that the existing record was sufficient for review. The court therefore denied Aery's motion for judgment on the administrative record and its motion to supplement, while granting the government's cross-motion.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Diansky Rouzard filing a pro se complaint in the Court of Federal Claims seeking refunds of alleged federal income tax overpayments for tax years 2019 and 2022. The United States moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing that the plaintiff had not duly filed the required administrative refund claims with the IRS. The court granted dismissal under RCFC 12(b)(6), holding that the plaintiff failed to show compliance with the statutory and regulatory requirements for filing administrative claims, including providing necessary documentation to substantiate overpayments or withholdings, and that the submitted forms and exhibits did not meet the standards for a valid claim under 26 C.F.R. § 301.6402–2(b)(1).

taxes

In Carter v. United States, a pro se plaintiff filed a tax refund suit in the Court of Federal Claims and sought to proceed in forma pauperis. The court granted the in forma pauperis motion but issued an order to show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, noting that the complaint did not allege compliance with prerequisites such as filing an administrative refund claim with the IRS. The plaintiff then moved to stay the response deadline pending resolution of a related writ petition in the Federal Circuit. The court denied the stay motion, explaining that jurisdiction under the Tucker Act and 26 U.S.C. § 7422 requires a taxpayer to first duly file a specific administrative claim meeting regulatory requirements before suing for a refund, and that this threshold issue must be resolved before addressing the merits.

taxesprocedure