ALLIED TELECOM GROUP, LLC v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
1:22-cv-00653
| D.D.C. | Feb 3, 2025Background
- Allied Telecom Group (Allied) provided telecommunications services to District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) until 2015, when DCPS shifted to procuring services from the District's Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO), a sister agency, under intra-agency Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs).
- The case involves the federal E-Rate program, which subsidizes internet and telecom services for schools and libraries, requiring a fair and open competitive bidding process per FCC regulations.
- Allied alleges that DCPS used a D.C. Code provision (§ 1-301.01(k)) to circumvent competitive bidding rules, repeatedly awarding contracts to OCTO even when Allied’s bids were lower.
- Allied sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that federal law preempts the District’s contracting practice under § 1-301.01(k) for E-Rate purchases.
- The District moved to dismiss for lack of standing and mootness, but the court denied dismissal; the parties then cross-moved for summary judgment.
- The core claim is that the District’s application of § 1-301.01(k) conflicts with and is preempted by federal competitive bidding requirements under the E-Rate program.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness and standing | Allied has ongoing interest; process excludes fair bids | Case is moot; Allied not harmed by expired contracts | Allied has standing and a live dispute |
| Conflict preemption of § 1-301.01(k) | District used § 1-301.01(k) to evade federal bidding rules | § 1-301.01(k) allows, but does not require, conduct; can comply with both local and federal rules | No preemption; district law not an obstacle |
| Compliance with E-Rate competitive bidding | DCPS’s conduct (favoring OCTO, scant details, not lowest bid) violated federal law | Any alleged bidding violations not because of § 1-301.01(k) | Allied failed to tie federal violation to § 1-301.01(k) |
| Proper remedy for alleged federal violations | District court can enjoin/prevent use of § 1-301.01(k) | Challenge should proceed through administrative review (FCC/USAC) | Proper channel is FCC review, not preemption suit |
Key Cases Cited
- Los Angeles Cnty. v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625 (standard for mootness applied to continuing legal interest in the case)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (standard for summary judgment, scintilla of evidence)
- Chamber of Com. of U.S. v. Whiting, 563 U.S. 582 (high threshold for finding conflict preemption)