Baldwin v. United States
95 Fed. Cl. 238
Fed. Cl.2010Background
- Plaintiff Malinda Baldwin, a minority businesswoman, held temporary concessions with AAFES at Fort Benning to sell cellular accessories and clothing.
- Plaintiff bid for a custom military jewelry concession; the award was denied and her bid protest was denied.
- Plaintiff did not pursue further bid protests or file suit within 12 months as required.
- After the bid protest denial, plaintiff alleges harassment by AAFES personnel affecting her concession performance.
- Plaintiff claims AAFES actions breached her concession contracts and, alternatively, caused tortious interference with an implied exclusivity contract.
- Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of CDA jurisdiction; resolution of this issue was stayed and later briefed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff satisfied CDA claim prerequisites | Baldwin asserted she intended to submit a final claim to AAFES contracting officer. | No written claim, no sum certain, and no contracting officer decision; defectives under CDA | Jurisdiction lacking; no valid written claim or sum certain submitted to contracting officer |
| Whether extrinsic evidence can cure CDA pleading defects | Intention to submit a claim should suffice, supported by an unsworn affidavit | CDA requires explicit written claim with specific details; intent alone insufficient | Extrinsic evidence cannot cure missing CDA elements; jurisdiction rejected |
| Whether tortious interference theory saves Tucker Act jurisdiction | Even if breach is tortious, Tucker Act claims against AAFES fall within CDA | There must be a contractual connection; no such connection shown between alleged misconduct and contractual obligation | No valid contract-based claim shown; jurisdiction not established under Tucker Act |
Key Cases Cited
- Maropakis Carpentry, Inc. v. United States, 609 F.3d 1323 (Fed.Cir.2010) (three elements for a valid CDA claim; written demand, demand as a matter of right, sum certain)
- Ellett Constr. Co., Inc. v. United States, 93 F.3d 1537 (Fed.Cir.1996) (CDA requires valid claim and contracting officer's final decision)
- Contract Cleaning Maint., Inc. v. United States, 811 F.2d 586 (Fed.Cir.1987) (claim must be clear and unequivocal to give notice of basis and amount)
- McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178 (Supreme Court 1936) (jurisdictional facts must be supported by competent proof)
- Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167 (Fed.Cir.2005) (Tucker Act waiver must be narrowly construed)
- Radioshack Corp. v. United States, 566 F.3d 1358 (Fed.Cir.2009) (sovereign immunity waivers construed narrowly)
- Pacrim Pizza Co. v. Pirie, 304 F.3d 1291 (Fed.Cir.2002) (recognizing express statutory coverage for AAFES contracts)
- El-Sheikh v. United States, 177 F.3d 1321 (Fed.Cir.1999) (special legislation allows nonappropriated fund claims under Tucker Act)