Eric G Bruggink

This consolidated case involves post-award bid protests filed in the Court of Federal Claims by International Business Sales & Services Corporation (IBSS) and Fish and Lynker Ocean Alliance Team Partners LLC (FLOAT) challenging NOAA's award of multiple-award IDIQ contracts under two ProTech 2.0 solicitations for oceans and fisheries services to the 1stMission joint venture. The protests arose after the termination of a mentor-protégé agreement between IBSS and @Orchard (the small business partner), which had formed 1stMission, and after NOAA later novated the contracts to @Orchard. The court granted the government's and @Orchard's motions to dismiss, holding that neither plaintiff qualified as an "interested party" with statutory standing under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b) because IBSS had not submitted its own proposal and FLOAT had received an award under the solicitation it protested. The court further ruled that it lacked jurisdiction over claims challenging the novations because those involved routine contract administration matters outside the scope of bid protest review.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a petition under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act by Tasha Loyd, on behalf of her minor child C.L., seeking compensation for immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) allegedly caused by vaccines including Prevnar, DTaP, and others administered in 2013. The Special Master denied the claim, finding that the petitioner failed to prove by preponderant evidence that the vaccines caused the injury, particularly under the Althen prong requiring a reliable theory of causation. The Court of Federal Claims denied the motion for review, holding that the Special Master's determination was not arbitrary or capricious because the evidence did not establish a causal link between the Prevnar vaccine and ITP, despite references to molecular mimicry and other vaccines. The court noted that plausibility alone does not meet the required evidentiary standard, and no epidemiological studies or specific homology evidence supported the connection. The petition was dismissed, with judgment entered for the respondent.

healthcaretorts & liability

This case in the Court of Federal Claims involves former and current members of Congress suing the United States for backpay stemming from automatic cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) to congressional salaries that Congress blocked through annual legislation since the ratification of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment. Plaintiffs argued that such COLA-blocking laws violate the Amendment by varying compensation without an intervening election of Representatives. The court addressed four threshold issues and held that plaintiffs are not estopped from bringing their claims, that the Twenty-Seventh Amendment applies to laws decreasing compensation, that COLA-blocking legislation varies congressional compensation, and that noncompliant laws are ineffective to the extent they attempt to change pay before an election intervenes. The decision rests on the plain text of the Ascertainment Clause and the Twenty-Seventh Amendment, along with the mechanics of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, while deferring other questions such as the continuing claims doctrine and specific retroactive application for further briefing.

federal powerelections

The case involved SI Wireless, LLC, a small telecommunications provider that removed Huawei equipment from its network in Tennessee and Kentucky under the Secured Network Act reimbursement program administered by the FCC, seeking payment either through an alleged contract with the agency or directly under the statute via a Tucker Act claim in the Court of Federal Claims. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). It held that the SNA incorporates the Communications Act and thus the Hobbs Act, which vests exclusive jurisdiction over such agency reimbursement decisions in the federal circuit courts and displaces Tucker Act jurisdiction here. Separately, the suit was also barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1500 because SI had an earlier-filed mandamus petition pending in the D.C. Circuit that arose from the same operative facts concerning the FCC's suspension of payments.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a bid protest by Sheela Inc., a small New Jersey business, challenging the U.S. Air Force's decision not to award it one of six contracts under a solicitation for indefinite quantity, indefinite delivery construction services at Joint Base McGuire Dix Lakehurst. The solicitation, set aside for small businesses, required proposals in separate volumes including past performance information with customer surveys submitted directly by references, and awards were to be made based on best value with past performance significantly more important than price. The court denied the protest after reviewing the administrative record, holding that Sheela failed to demonstrate the agency's past performance evaluations or confidence ratings were illegal or irrational, and that any minor issues in other offerors' price proposals caused no prejudice since past performance was the deciding factor and Sheela did not qualify for a substantial confidence rating.

business & regulatory

The case involved consolidated bid protests by Fire Creek Company and Aleut Management Services, LLC, challenging the General Services Administration's award decisions under a solicitation for the OASIS+ program, specifically the 8(a) small business set-aside master contracts across multiple domains. Plaintiffs contended that they could satisfy minimum qualifying project requirements using projects performed by entities that were not currently 8(a)-certified at the time of the offer, relying on related solicitation provisions allowing such projects. The court granted the government's motion for judgment on the administrative record and denied the plaintiffs' motions, holding that the agency's interpretation was reasonable, the plaintiffs' reading was unreasonable, and any ambiguity in the solicitation was patent such that offerors had a duty to inquire before submitting proposals.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case involves a dispute between NSTAR Electric Company, the former owner of the Pilgrim nuclear power plant, and the United States over damages from the Department of Energy's failure to collect spent nuclear fuel as promised, specifically costs for post-decommissioning storage paid from the plant's decommissioning trust fund. After selling the plant to Holtec Pilgrim, LLC, NSTAR claimed it retained the right to sue for those storage costs under the sale agreement, while Holtec and the government argued that NSTAR had not retained any such claims because they had not accrued at the time of sale. The court granted summary judgment to the government and Holtec, ruling that NSTAR did not retain the asserted claims under the sale agreement's terms requiring accrued claims and considering intervening legal precedents on partial breach. The decision rests on the contract language limiting retained claims and the fact that post-sale expenditures from the fund did not give NSTAR a viable cause of action.

business & regulatoryfederal powerenvironment

This case involved a petitioner's appeal from a Special Master's denial of compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program for a Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA) allegedly caused by a flu vaccine. The petitioner claimed the regulatory requirements for establishing a Table Injury were invalid as conflicting with the Vaccine Act's burden-shifting framework and that the Special Master misapplied the Althen standards for proving actual causation. The Court of Federal Claims held that the regulatory challenge was waived because it was not raised before the Special Master and found no error in the application of Althen, as the medical theory did not adequately link the vaccine to the petitioner's preexisting osteoarthritis given an intact rotator cuff and other evidence. Accordingly, the court denied the motion for review and affirmed the Special Master's decision denying compensation.

healthcareprocedurefederal power

This case in the Court of Federal Claims concerns post-trial motions over attorney fees and costs sought by the prevailing plaintiff in a long-running patent infringement action against the United States under 28 U.S.C. § 1498. The government moved for discovery into the plaintiff's billing records, retention agreements, and consultant payments to verify whether the claimed amounts were actually paid or owed, while the plaintiff sought a protective order barring disclosure of its records to a government expert. The court granted the government's motion only in part, allowing production of retention agreements with counsel and limited written discovery regarding payments to one consultant, but denied all other discovery; it granted the protective order in full. The reasoning centered on the statutory requirement that recoverable fees and costs must have been incurred to prevent unjust windfalls, while emphasizing that fee disputes should not become a second round of major litigation and that the court itself could assess reasonableness without an expert.

procedureproperty

This case in the Court of Federal Claims involves plaintiff Larry Golden's claims that the United States, through the Department of Homeland Security, infringed his patents related to multi-sensor detection systems for chemical, radiological, and biological hazards by causing cell phone manufacturers to produce infringing devices, and that this constituted a Fifth Amendment taking of his intellectual property without just compensation. The court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, finding both that patent infringement claims cannot be recharacterized as takings under the Tucker Act and that the claims were untimely under the six-year statute of limitations since the referenced conduct occurred between 2003 and 2017. Alternatively, the court dismissed for failure to state a claim on grounds of claim preclusion, as the same claims involving the same patents, products, and government actions had been fully litigated and dismissed in four prior cases by the plaintiff. The court also denied the plaintiff's motion for recusal and directed the clerk not to accept further filings in the case except for a notice of appeal.

propertyprocedurefederal power

In Murillo v. United States, the plaintiff brought claims in the Court of Federal Claims seeking tax refunds for the 2023 and 2024 tax years along with a breach-of-contract claim alleging that the government failed to properly apply an education tax credit under a prior settlement agreement resolving her 2018 and 2020 refund suits. The court granted the government's partial motion to dismiss, dismissing the breach-of-contract claim with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6) and the 2024 refund claim without prejudice under Rule 12(b)(1). It reasoned that the settlement agreement had been fully performed with no breach shown, that the plaintiff had not filed a valid 2024 tax return as required, and that the 2024 claim was also premature under the jurisdictional timing rules of 26 U.S.C. § 6532(a)(1). The 2023 refund claim was not addressed in the motion and remains pending.

taxesprocedure

This case involves a patent infringement claim brought by SecurityPoint Holdings against the United States under 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a) for the Transportation Security Administration's use of a tray-recycling method at airport security checkpoints covered by U.S. Patent No. 6,888,460. After prior trials on validity and infringement at larger airports, the court held a third trial focused on Category II airports and found that TSA infringed the patent at nearly all such locations starting no later than January 2008 and continuing until the patent expired in 2023, with limited exceptions for certain lanes and periods. The court awarded damages based on a royalty rate of two cents per passenger applied to a royalty base of 512,580,058 passengers after subtracting consented or non-infringing throughput, resulting in $10,251,601.16 in base damages plus delay compensation to be calculated later. The reasoning rested on evidence of TSA's widespread adoption of the patented method as its standard procedure, combined with passenger throughput data to quantify the unauthorized use.

business & regulatoryproperty

Platinum Services, Inc. brought a breach of contract action against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims, alleging it was owed payment for transporting 45 shipments of military household goods, including line-haul and accessorial services, totaling over $17 million. The court found that the parties had agreed on rates for line-haul freight services but not for accessorial services, so Platinum was entitled to contract damages only for the former. For the accessorial services that were performed and accepted by the government, the court awarded quantum meruit damages. After trial, the court awarded Platinum a total of $801,424.90 in damages.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

This case involves Siemens Government Technologies, Inc. suing the United States to recover approximately $3 million in costs incurred while bidding on an energy savings performance contract project at Spangdahlem Air Force Base under a program established by the National Energy Conservation Policy Act. Siemens brought claims under the Contract Disputes Act and the court's bid protest jurisdiction, alleging that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers acted arbitrarily by failing to determine the applicability of certain regulations, withholding necessary information, and requiring multiple duplicative audits, which prevented Siemens from receiving an award despite its eligibility under an umbrella contract. The government moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The Court of Federal Claims denied the motion, finding that Siemens had plausibly alleged a breach of the government's implied duty to consider bids fairly and honestly, which supports recovery of bid preparation costs even in the presence of an express contract.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a dispute over a government contract for renovating a visitor center at Fort Donelson National Battlefield, where the National Park Service terminated AAECON General Contracting's contract for default, leading AAECON to sue the United States for damages and conversion to a termination for convenience. United Casualty and Surety Insurance Company, the surety that issued the performance bond, intervened seeking declaratory relief that the government breached the contract and monetary reimbursement through subrogation. The Court of Federal Claims granted the government's motion to dismiss the intervenor's complaint without prejudice, holding that United lacked privity with the government and did not meet the requirements for equitable subrogation since it neither entered a takeover agreement nor financed the contract's completion, and thus had no basis for a monetary claim under the Tucker Act to support its declaratory request.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Timothy Moore, a male employee at the Securities and Exchange Commission, sued the United States under the Equal Pay Act of 1963. He alleged that the SEC paid two female employees more than him because those women had applied to a voluntary 2014 pay transition program that adjusted compensation based on experience, while he had not applied. After discovery, the court granted the government's motion for summary judgment. The court held that the pay difference stemmed from Moore's choice not to participate in the program, a sex-neutral factor that constituted a valid affirmative defense under the Act, with no evidence of pretextual discrimination.

labor & employment

The case involved a pro se plaintiff serving a federal sentence for conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud who sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims, alleging wrongful imprisonment, an unconstitutional taking of her body, forced servitude, and violations of the Thirteenth Amendment and international law on the theory that she is a sovereign entity whose consent was required for government authority. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss the complaint. It held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims and that they were frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) because they were based on sovereign citizen legal theories that courts have uniformly rejected. The court also denied the plaintiff's motions to proceed in forma pauperis, finding her subject to the three-strikes bar and that her allegations did not demonstrate imminent danger of serious physical injury.

criminal lawprocedure

This case arose under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program when petitioner Michael Ray Williams filed a petition in 2019 alleging injury from an influenza vaccine. After the special master dismissed the petition, Williams moved for review but failed to submit the required supporting memorandum of objections within the thirty-day deadline, instead filing only a motion for permission to submit an overlength brief. The court granted the respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal for noncompliance with Vaccine Rule 24(a), which requires that a motion for review be accompanied by the memorandum. On reconsideration, the court rejected arguments that timely filing the motion alone preserved jurisdiction or excused the defect, holding that the rule mandates contemporaneous filing and that no extension had been requested. The motion for reconsideration was denied, resulting in dismissal of the appeal and entry of judgment upholding the special master's decision.

healthcareprocedure

This case is a consolidated bid protest in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims challenging the U.S. Air Force's exclusion of two companies from a competition for a contract to train drone pilots, which was set aside for women-owned small businesses. The solicitation required offerors to submit SAM certifications verifying their WOSB status and to maintain continuous registration in SAM. The court upheld the Air Force's decisions to exclude ASTI for failing to include its SAM certifications in its proposal and SOFIS for allowing its SAM registration to lapse, finding these actions consistent with the solicitation's requirements and applicable regulations, including that FAR amendments do not apply retroactively. The court denied the plaintiffs' motions for judgment on the administrative record, denied the government's motion to dismiss, and granted the defendants' cross-motions.

business & regulatory

This case is a consolidated post-award bid protest in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims challenging the U.S. Army's award of a contract for armed security services at installations in Germany to incumbent contractor Pond Security Services GmbH. Plaintiffs Centerra Security Services GmbH and Continuity Global Solutions, LLC alleged improper evaluation of proposals, particularly under the past performance factor, and sought to enjoin performance and require reevaluation. The court granted CGS's motion for judgment on the administrative record, finding that the agency had arbitrarily applied unstated evaluation criteria when downgrading CGS and favoring Pond, which prejudiced CGS. It denied Centerra's motion, finding no other evaluation errors, and accordingly vacated the award to Pond while ordering the agency to reevaluate the past performance submissions of CGS and Pond before making a new award decision.

business & regulatoryprocedure