Engage Learning, Inc. v. Salazar
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20179
| Fed. Cir. | 2011Background
- Engage provides training and related services to BIA-run FACE program schools, funded via direct BIA contracts or NCLB Act funds.
- PO 20259, awarded August 2002, covered a five-day teacher training and site visits; total $66,480.
- Amendments to requisition K00E20-2-27 expanded scope and funding prior to CO signing; some amendments lacked CO signatures.
- Engage seeks $118,054 in 2002 invoices, with $80,485 unpaid due to alleged unauthorized government commitment.
- In 2004, Engage billed $11,500 for Cottonwood Day School site visits; claimed NCLB-based contracting authority.
- Board dismissed Engage’s CDA claim for lack of contract and authority; Engage appealed to the Federal Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board had jurisdiction under the CDA to hear Engage’s appeal | Engage asserted Board jurisdiction under CDA as an appeal from a CO decision relative to a contract. | Government argued no express or implied contract existed; Board lacked jurisdiction. | Board jurisdiction exists; jurisdiction proper under CDA relative to a contract. |
| Whether 2002 site-visit claims arise from an express or implied contract with the BIA | PO 20259 and amendments (KOOE20-2-27) created an express or modified contract extending site visits. | Amendments were requisitions, not CO-signed contracts; no express contract covered the disputed services. | Jurisdiction proper; merits determine if contract existed; not a jurisdictional bar. |
| Whether Engage’s implied-in-fact contract claim is supported by actual government authority | Shaughnessy had authority to bind the Government for site visits; King allegedly authorized work. | No corroboration that Shaughnessy had actual authority; disputed facts preclude implied contract. | Board erred in treating lack of actual authority as jurisdictional; merits to resolve factual questions. |
| Whether the NCLB Act claim for Cottonwood Day School is contract-based under CDA | NCLB‑based authority allowed noncompetitive contracting up to set limits; documentation supported a contract. | Documentation failed to meet five required conditions for NCLB contracting authority. | Dismissal affirmed on alternative ground for failure to state a claim; NCLB claim not viable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (U.S. 1946) (jurisdictional defects do not bar merits; claims may be decided on the merits)
- Gould, Inc. v. United States, 67 F.3d 925 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (alleging a government contract suffices to invoke Tucker Act jurisdiction; merits/government contract disputes follow)
- Lewis v. United States, 70 F.3d 597 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (nonfrivolous contract allegations trigger Tucker Act jurisdiction; dismissal for failure to state a claim when contract not proven)
- Do-Well Mach. Shop, Inc. v. United States, 870 F.2d 637 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (distinction between lack of jurisdiction and merits; successful defense may be merits-based)
- Spruill v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 978 F.2d 679 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (failure to prove all elements of a cause of action is a merits issue, not lack of jurisdiction)
- Moden v. United States, 404 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (jurisdictional analysis aligned with whether the claim is money-mandating on the merits)