514 F.Supp.3d 197
D.D.C.2020Background
- WMATA issued an RFP (Jan 30, 2020) for new escalator removal, manufacture, and installation across the Metro system; Schindler bid but was notified (Aug 5, 2020) that its technical proposal failed to conform and was disqualified.
- Schindler protested WMATA’s evaluation (August–September 2020), contending clerical errors and misapplication of RFP/PPM requirements; WMATA denied the protests and awarded the contract to KONE (Oct 14, 2020).
- Schindler sued and sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to halt the award/Task 1 to KONE; WMATA and KONE opposed.
- The court evaluated whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction: (1) via the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) treating WMATA as a federal agency, or (2) via an express or implied private right of action in the WMATA Compact waiving sovereign immunity.
- The court concluded WMATA is not an APA “agency” and that the Compact does not create an express or implied private cause of action for procurement protests; accordingly the court denied the preliminary injunction and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether WMATA is a federal "agency" under the APA allowing APA review | WMATA should be treated as an agency for procurement challenges; APA provides waiver of sovereign immunity | WMATA is an interstate compact instrumentality of states (and D.C.), not a federal agency; APA does not apply | WMATA is not an APA "agency"; APA does not supply jurisdiction |
| Whether the WMATA Compact or PPM expressly creates a private cause of action for procurement protests | Compact/PPM language and PPM jurisdiction clause permit judicial review of protest decisions | Jurisdictional grants alone do not create a cause of action; Section 80 limits waiver to contract and proprietary-tort claims | No express cause of action in the Compact; PPM cannot confer federal jurisdiction |
| Whether an implied private right of action exists under the WMATA Compact to challenge procurements | An implied cause should be recognized (citing Seal and legislative history) so bidders can enforce competitive-procurement rules | Supreme Court precedent restricts judicial creation of implied rights; Compact text and §73 impose obligations, not private rights; Congress omitted an express remedy | No implied cause of action; Sandoval and related D.C. Circuit precedent bar inferring such a remedy here |
| Whether a preliminary injunction is appropriate | Schindler asks injunctive relief to stop award and further action on solicitation | Court lacks jurisdiction to grant any relief against WMATA absent waiver | Motion denied; case dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Morris v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 781 F.2d 218 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (WMATA enjoys sovereign immunity as instrumentality of signatory jurisdictions)
- Banneker Ventures, LLC v. Graham, 798 F.3d 1119 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (district courts lack jurisdiction over WMATA absent waiver)
- Elcon Enter., Inc. v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 977 F.2d 1472 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (assumed APA review without deciding; noted question if APA applies)
- Armstrong v. Bush, 924 F.2d 282 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (statutory silence in APA definitions weighs against treating certain entities as agencies)
- Old Town Trolley Tours of Wash., Inc. v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Comm’n, 129 F.3d 201 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (interstate compact authority is not a federal agency)
- Seal & Co. v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 768 F. Supp. 1150 (E.D. Va. 1991) (court found a quasi-federal/implicit remedy for procurements — discussed and distinguished)
- Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington, 442 U.S. 560 (1979) (jurisdictional grant alone does not create a cause of action)
- Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001) (strict limits on implying private rights of action)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (plaintiff bears burden to establish federal jurisdiction)