Metropolitan Van & Storage, Inc. v. United States
101 Fed. Cl. 173
Fed. Cl.2011Background
- Metropolitan moved for costs under RCFC 54(d) and EAJA, seeking fees and expenses after court vacated Guardian’s West Coast contract.
- Court previously held Guardian’s revised proposal was arbitrary and capricious; second award vacated; initial award moot.
- SOLICITATION required Guardian to provide warehouse space for up to 15 million pounds for the contract term; Guardian offered less space and a shorter lease.
- GAO protests and corrective actions occurred; SDDC amended the solicitation and allowed revisions; Guardian’s revised proposal was deemed unacceptable by the court.
- Metropolitan claimed eligibility under EAJA, sought COLA-based fee rates, and sought costs for litigation and EAJA preparation.
- Court awards total EAJA fees and costs after reducing rates for COLA and excluding GAO-only time, concluding Metropolitan prevailed and government position was not substantially justified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prevailing party standard under EAJA | Metropolitan prevailed by vacating Guardian’s contract. | Metropolitan’s success was limited to some claims. | Metropolitan is prevailing party; vacatur constitutes relief on the merits. |
| Substantial justification of government position | SDDC’s evaluations and actions were not substantially justified. | SDDC actions were substantially justified despite some rationales. | Government position not substantially justified; EAJA award granted. |
| Special circumstances denying award | No extraordinary circumstances to deny EAJA. | Not alleged; no special circumstances present. | No special circumstances to defeat the EAJA award. |
| Filing requirements and timeliness of EAJA claim | EAJA claim timely and properly documented. | N/A specifics not raised; timing satisfied. | EAJA filing timely and properly supported. |
| Eligibility under EAJA net worth and employee limits | Metropolitan met net worth and employee thresholds. | N/A challenge to eligibility not raised. | Metropolitan satisfied EAJA eligibility requirements. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (degree of success governs fee reductions; extensive guidance on reasonableness)
- Scarborough v. Principi, 541 U.S. 401 (U.S. 2004) (EAJA fee requests and substantial justification considerations)
- Gavette v. Office of Personnel Mgmt., 808 F.2d 1456 (Fed.Cir. 1986) (EAJA statutory waiver of sovereign immunity; substantial justification framework)
- Davis v. Nicholson, 475 F.3d 1360 (Fed.Cir. 2007) (prevailing party status under EAJA includes relief on merits)
- Wagner v. Shinseki, 640 F.3d 1259 (Fed.Cir. 2011) (supplemental EAJA fees may be awarded proportionally to initial success)
- Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324 (Fed.Cir. 2001) (heavy burden on disappointed bidder to show rational basis for award)
- United Partition Sys., Inc. v. United States, 95 F.3d 42 (Fed.Cl. 2010) (EAJA success factors and fee award considerations in posture contexts)