Heart 6 Ranch, LLC v. Zinke
285 F. Supp. 3d 135
| D.C. Cir. | 2018Background
- In 2013 NPS awarded OSV (oversnow vehicle) transportation-event allocations by competitive procurement; Plaintiff bid on ten south-entrance contracts but won none.
- One awarded contract (to Four Seasons) was cancelled in October 2014; its two daily transportation events went unused for two seasons.
- In October 2016 NPS reallocated those two events on an experimental basis to existing concession contracts via a lottery; one event was added to a south-entrance concession and one to a west-entrance concession.
- Plaintiff sued under the Administrative Procedure Act alleging the reallocation was unlawful (should have been publicly solicited or otherwise awarded to Plaintiff) and sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) to obtain the cancelled contract's events.
- Defendants argued reallocations were permissible contract amendments or minor adjustments under NPS regulations and statutes; the Court found the record insufficient to show Plaintiff was likely to succeed or to suffer irreparable harm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NPS action is judicially reviewable | Plaintiff: allocation of events is final agency action and reviewable under APA | Defs: lack standing, no final action, Director discretion precludes review | Court: Plaintiff showed substantial likelihood of standing and a reviewable final action for TRO purposes |
| Whether reallocation required a new public solicitation (material change) | Plaintiff: reallocating events (new use to shuttle to Old Faithful; one moved entrance) was a material change requiring public procurement | Defs: reallocation was a minor adjustment/amendment permitted by regulations and Centennial Act | Court: Not convinced Plaintiff showed likelihood of success; on current record reallocation may be allowable as amendment / minor adjustment |
| Whether Plaintiff is entitled to the cancelled contract/events as relief | Plaintiff: seeks direct award or participation in a new selection process | Defs: even if unlawful, automatic award is not warranted; many unsuccessful bidders existed; Plaintiff was not "next in line" and was deemed non-responsive | Court: Plaintiff offered no persuasive basis to be automatically awarded events; relief presumptively would be a new, lawful process, not automatic assignment |
| Whether Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm absent TRO | Plaintiff: loss of revenue and incumbent status, deprivation of opportunity to compete | Defs: harms are economic/speculative and remediable; Plaintiff delayed seeking emergency relief | Held: Plaintiff failed to show certain, great, and nonremediable harm; delay undermines irreparable-harm claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Sherley v. Sebelius, 644 F.3d 388 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (preliminary-injunction standard; extraordinary remedy)
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (likelihood of success and irreparable harm requirements for injunctions)
- Aamer v. Obama, 742 F.3d 1023 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (four-factor injunction test citation)
- Food & Water Watch, Inc. v. Vilsack, 808 F.3d 905 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (standing standard for preliminary injunctions)
- Nat'l Mall Tours of Washington, Inc. v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 862 F.3d 35 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (bidder's injury to right to fair procurement is redressable)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary-and-capricious standard of review)
- Ethyl Corp. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 541 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (presumption that agency action is valid)