Diaz v. United States
127 Fed. Cl. 664
Fed. Cl.2016Background
- Pro se plaintiff Kevin Diaz (appearing to represent a small business called MERAD) submitted an unsolicited proposal to Navy IHEODTD in Sept. 2015 for a "Hybrid UGV/USV Breaching Module System" addressing shockwave/fragmentation protection.
- Contracting officer rejected the proposal in writing (Nov. 2, 2015), finding it failed FAR 15.603(c) criteria (lack of innovation, insufficient detail, unclear independent origination); a second letter (Nov. 19, 2015) reaffirmed the rejection after additional review.
- Diaz filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims (Jan. 28, 2016) alleging violations of FAR Subpart 15.6 and related DoD policy and seeking monetary relief and various equitable remedies; a substantially similar ASBCA protest was dismissed for lack of contract jurisdiction earlier.
- Government moved to dismiss for lack of Tucker Act jurisdiction (no money-mandating provision, no implied-in-fact contract) and for failure to state a claim; Diaz sought summary judgment.
- The court considered (1) whether Diaz improperly sought to represent MERAD (a business entity) pro se and (2) whether Diaz (or MERAD) had standing as an "interested party" with a substantial chance of award.
- Court found the record shows MERAD, not Diaz personally, was the offeror; pro se Diaz cannot represent a business entity in this court under RCFC 83.1(a)(3); alternatively Diaz failed to plead or prove he had a substantial chance of receiving a contract award; dismissal granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper party / representation | Diaz argued he could pursue claims arising from the unsolicited proposal (he was listed as technical contact/project manager) | Government argued MERAD is the offeror and a business entity cannot be represented pro se; Diaz is not admitted counsel | Court held Diaz cannot represent MERAD pro se; complaint dismissed under RCFC 83.1(a)(3) |
| Subject-matter jurisdiction under Tucker Act (violation of FAR Subpart 15.6) | Diaz alleged FAR 15.6/15.603 violations in connection with a proposed procurement, invoking 28 U.S.C. §1491(b)(1) | Government argued FAR provisions cited do not create a money-mandating right and Diaz failed to identify a Tucker Act source of money damages | Court found even construing pro se pleadings liberally, Diaz failed to show he was an interested party with a substantial chance of award; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction/standing |
| Adequacy of agency review / arbitrary action claim | Diaz argued the contracting officer unreasonably omitted the proposal’s "fragmentation protection" feature and manipulated FAR criteria to exclude him | Government showed the contracting officer provided specific, reasoned letters explaining the proposal’s deficiencies under FAR 15.603(c) | Court held agency review was entitled to presumption of regularity; Diaz did not rebut that presumption or show arbitrary caprice |
| Request for equitable and contract remedies (partnerships, prototyping contracts, assignment of patents) | Diaz sought various equitable remedies and contract opportunities as relief for the alleged wrong | Government argued no jurisdiction to order these remedies absent an appropriate Tucker Act claim or proper party | Court dismissed these requests as unsupported after dismissing the complaint; summary judgment moot |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (court of federal claims suits for relief against non-U.S. parties must be ignored)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (same—lenient standard for pro se complaints)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 516 U.S. 500 (subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised sua sponte at any time)
- Rizzo v. Shinseki, 580 F.3d 1288 (presumption of regularity in government proceedings)
- Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324 (agency decisions entitled to presumption of regularity)