Crewzers Fire Crew Transport, Inc. v. United States
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2237
Fed. Cir.2014Background
- Crewzers had two BPAs with the Forest Service in 2011 to provide crew carrier buses and flame retardant tents.
- BPAs created dispatch priority lists; orders materialized into contracts only when the Government issued an order and the contractor accepted.
- Forest Service could deviate from dispatch lists as needed to respond to conditions; deviations not a violation of the BPAs.
- Forest Service terminated both BPAs in 2011; Crewzers challenged terminations in the Court of Federal Claims seeking damages or reinstatement.
- The trial court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, holding the BPAs were not binding contracts due to lack of mutuality of obligation; Crewzers appealed.
- The Federal Circuit affirms, holding the BPAs are illusory and do not impose enforceable obligations on either party, thus not giving rise to Tucker Act jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do the BPAs bind the Government and Crewzers as enforceable contracts? | Crewzers argues BPAs create binding commitments with mutual obligations. | Government contends BPAs are framework agreements with no binding order obligation. | No; BPAs are illusory promises lacking mutuality. |
| Does government discretion to deviate from dispatch lists prevent binding obligations? | Crewzers posits that deviations do not negate contract formation. | Forest Service’s discretion to deviate means no fixed procurement obligation. | Deviations render the agreements non-binding contracts. |
| Does Ace-Federal Reporters support that these BPAs are binding contracts? | Crewzers relies on Ace-Federal to argue binding contract formation. | Ace-Federal is distinguishable and not controlling here. | Ace-Federal does not make BPAs binding; they remain non-binding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ridge Runner Forestry v. Veneman, 287 F.3d 1058 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (tender-like agreements lacked mutuality of obligation)
- Modern Sys. Tech. Corp. v. United States, 979 F.2d 200 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (basic pricing agreements not binding contracts; government not obligated to order)
- Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. v. Barram, 226 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (contractual disputes hinges on valid/enforceable contract; not binding here)