Rollock Company v. United States
115 Fed. Cl. 317
Fed. Cl.2014Background
- Rollock Company and two individual owners entered a Relocation Agreement with NPS tied to NPS’s purchase of Rollock’s land for the Flight 93 National Memorial; the Agreement purchased Rollock’s stockpiled scrap and provided for a self-move of "embedded" materials and reimbursement for monitoring costs.
- The Agreement specified reimbursement for monitoring at a pre‑agreed rate (later confirmed at $60/hr) but required "actual documented rate paid" for monitoring personnel; initial Rollock claims were submitted on affidavits and later accompanied by cancelled checks and payroll documents showing the monitor was actually paid $40/hr.
- NPS paid portions of Rollock’s monitoring claims but reduced amounts based on actual wages and later denied monitoring after a certain date, advising Rollock of a 60‑day administrative appeal right to the Department of the Interior’s Office of Hearings and Appeals; Rollock did not pursue that appeal.
- For embedded materials relocation, NPS used a contractor bid to set a $635,000 reimbursable amount, but NPS reduced payment after Rollock sold a portion of the stockpile to a third party (Kinsley) and after Rollock hired a mover (MRES); NPS paid the reduced total in installments and repeatedly notified Rollock of the right to appeal; no appeals were filed.
- Rollock filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims alleging breach of the Agreement and seeking money damages, invoking both the Contract Disputes Act (CDA) and the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (Relocation Act).
- The court heard competing jurisdictional and exhaustion arguments and ultimately denied the government’s motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, divided the statutory framework by claim, and remanded to NPS for further administrative action for six months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the CDA governs Rollock’s monitoring‑cost claims | Rollock: CDA applies because agreement includes procurement of personal property and monitoring services; CDA permits suit in this court | Govt: Agreement arose in land acquisition context and Relocation Act governs; CDA doesn’t apply to real‑property acquisitions | Court: Split the claims — monitoring tied to sale of scrap (procurement) is governed by the CDA; monitoring tied to embedded‑material removal and relocation payments governed by the Relocation Act |
| Whether Relocation Act claims required exhaustion of administrative appeals before suit | Rollock: No statutory or mandatory exhaustion required; agency appeals were permissive and Rollock was not properly informed | Govt: DOT regulations and legislative history show Congress intended administrative process as alternative to litigation; exhaustion required | Court: No statutory exhaustion; DOT/Relocation regulations are permissive; court declines to impose prudential exhaustion here |
| Whether Rollock satisfied CDA claim prerequisites (submission to contracting officer; certification) | Rollock: Claims were submitted to NPS personnel and received responses/payments; certifications on NPS forms sufficient; none of the individual claims exceeded $100,000 | Govt: Rollock failed to present claims to the contracting officer and did not properly certify | Court: Submission to NPS officials who processed and responded was adequate; certifications met requirements (and none of the individual monitoring claims exceeded $100,000) |
| Whether remand to the agency is appropriate | Rollock: Agency decisions were incomplete or inconsistent; additional agency development needed | Govt: Not prevailing on dismissal; did not oppose administrative development | Held: Court remanded to NPS for six months to develop the record and render definitive decisions; stayed litigation pending remand |
Key Cases Cited
- McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178 (1936) (jurisdictional facts must be proved by preponderance when challenged)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden allocation)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for genuine dispute of material fact)
- Northrup Grumman Computing Sys., Inc. v. United States, 709 F.3d 1107 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (CDA claim presentation requirements and contracting officer final decision rule)
- Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (distinguishing mandatory vs. permissive administrative remedies under Tucker Act jurisdiction)
- Zoeller v. United States, 65 Fed. Cl. 449 (2005) (analyzing interplay of CDA and Relocation Act; limits of Recovery under Relocation Act policy provisions)
- United States v. Bormes, 133 S. Ct. 12 (2012) (displacement doctrine: detailed remedial schemes can displace Tucker Act jurisdiction)