Rothe Development, Inc. v. United States Department of Defense
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 25944
| 5th Cir. | 2011Background
- Rothe Development, Inc. contracted with DoD in 1987 to provide IT services at the Minneapolis-St. Paul Air Reserve Station.
- In March 2010 the DoD informed Rothe it would insource the services by hiring federal employees.
- The insourcing was scheduled for September 2010, at contract expiration.
- Rothe sued under 5 U.S.C. § 702 (APA) alleging DoD violated insourcing procedures.
- The district court dismissed the suit as a Tucker Act bid protest within exclusive Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court, holding Tucker Act exclusive jurisdiction in CFC and the APA does not waive sovereign immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over Rothe’s challenge. | Rothe is an interested party seeking to re-compete; APA waiver applies. | The action concerns a procurement decision and falls within exclusive CFC jurisdiction under the Tucker Act. | Yes; CFC has exclusive jurisdiction and APA waiver does not apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- RAMCOR Servs. Group, Inc. v. United States, 185 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (defines 'in connection with' procurement scope)
- Distrib. Solutions, Inc. v. United States, 539 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (procurement includes need determination and in-house decisions)
- Dresser v. Meba Med. & Benefits Plan, 628 F.3d 705 (5th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of jurisdiction and statutes)
- Danos v. Jones, 652 F.3d 577 (5th Cir. 2011) (sovereign immunity and jurisdiction principles)