California Department of Water Resources v. United States
128 Fed. Cl. 603
| Fed. Cl. | 2016Background
- CDWR operates the California State Water Project (SWP) and, since 1998, acted as a CAISO-certified scheduling coordinator for the SWP and certain jointly used facilities, incurring CAISO "scheduling coordinator" fees. CDWR seeks $10,473,957 for fees it paid on behalf of federal entities (USBR/WAPA) from 1998–2004.
- The parties’ relationship is governed by three intergovernmental agreements: the 1961 Joint Use Agreement (San Luis Unit), the 1972 Supplemental Agreement, and the 1986 Coordinated Operation Agreement (COA). Those agreements allocate construction, operation, maintenance, and cost‑sharing responsibilities between California and the United States.
- CDWR submitted a certified CDA claim to USBR/WAPA; the contracting officer denied it, in part because the agreements cited are not subject to the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), the claim is time‑barred, and the charges are not covered.
- CDWR sued in the Court of Federal Claims under the CDA seeking reimbursement; the government moved to dismiss for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction (RCFC 12(b)(1)) and failure to state a claim (RCFC 12(b)(6)).
- The Court analyzed whether the three intergovernmental instruments are "contracts" within the CDA (i.e., procurement contracts for property, services, construction/repair/maintenance of real property) and whether applying CDA/procurement rules fits the agreements’ purpose and legislative history.
- The Court concluded the agreements are cooperative/statutory intergovernmental arrangements (statutorily prescribed, not competitively procured) and therefore do not fall within the CDA; it dismissed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Court have Tucker Act/CDA jurisdiction over CDWR's claim? | CDWR: Claim arises from express agreements with the U.S. obligating reimbursement; CDA is money‑mandating. | U.S.: Agreements are not CDA procurement contracts and thus CDA jurisdiction is lacking. | Held: No jurisdiction under the CDA; dismissal granted. |
| Are the Joint Use Agreement, COA, and Supplemental Agreement "procurement" contracts (property/services/construction/maintenance) under 41 U.S.C. § 7102? | CDWR: Agreements impose government obligations (including operation/coordinated use) that amount to procurement of services or construction/maintenance. | U.S.: Agreements are cooperative/statutory arrangements allocating shared operation/costs, not conventional government procurements. | Held: Agreements are not procurement contracts covered by the CDA. |
| Does the CDA legislative history/cost‑competition purpose support applying the CDA here? | CDWR: CDA should apply if agreements create obligations to reimburse for services. | U.S.: CDA aims to regulate competitive procurement; these statutorily mandated intergovernmental agreements lack competition/cost‑competition concerns and are ill‑suited for FAR/CDA rules. | Held: Legislative history and purpose weigh against applying the CDA to these agreements. |
| Can the Supplemental Agreement support CDWR's claim for scheduling charges on federal‑only facilities? | CDWR: Supplemental Agreement allocates operation duties and costs, so U.S. should reimburse scheduling costs tied to federal operations. | U.S.: Even if Supplemental Agreement covers operation of federal‑only facilities, CDWR did not pay scheduling charges for federal‑only facilities; the claimed charges relate to joint/state facilities. | Held: Claim does not rest on services provided at federal‑only facilities; Supplemental Agreement does not salvage CDA jurisdiction for the asserted charges. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (federal courts have only statutory/constitutional jurisdiction)
- United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (Tucker Act is jurisdictional, not substantive)
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (statute is money‑mandating if it fairly can be interpreted to mandate compensation)
- New Era Constr. Co. v. United States, 890 F.2d 1152 ("procurement" = acquisition for direct benefit or use of the federal government)
- Institut Pasteur v. United States, 814 F.2d 624 (look to CDA purpose and legislative history to determine applicability)
- Fl. Power & Light Co. v. United States, 307 F.3d 1364 (CDA applies to procurement by government, not government provision of services)
- Rick's Mushroom Serv., Inc. v. United States, 76 Fed. Cl. 250 (cooperative agreements typically fall outside CDA coverage)