Springfield Parcel C, LLC v. United States
124 Fed. Cl. 163
| Fed. Cl. | 2015Background
- GSA issued an RLP seeking a TSA headquarters with a maximum of 625,000 rentable square feet (RSF) and a minimum of 550,000 ABOA (usable) square feet; the prospectus and congressional committee resolutions adopted the 625,000 RSF cap.
- Eisenhower (Victory Center) and Springfield submitted competing offers; Eisenhower’s final proposal included an annex and a provision of up to 24,207 ABOA "free" space, resulting in total premises exceeding 625,000 RSF per GSA internal analyses.
- GSA conducted NEPA review (EA/FONSI) and a present-value price evaluation and awarded the lease to Eisenhower on August 11, 2015; the lease incorporated the 24,207 ABOA free space clause.
- Springfield filed GAO and then court protests, arguing GSA violated the RLP’s material terms (the 625,000 RSF cap), the Public Buildings Act (40 U.S.C. § 3307), and procurement regulations; it sought injunction and declaratory relief.
- The court found Springfield had standing, concluded GSA contravened solicitation material terms and 48 C.F.R. procurement rules by accepting Eisenhower’s excess space, and held that congressional approval under § 3307 limited appropriations to 625,000 RSF so the lease violated the Anti‑Deficiency Act and was void.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GSA could accept an offer that results in >625,000 RSF contrary to the RLP | Eisenhower’s offer exceeded the solicitation cap; accepting it violated material terms and procurement regs | GSA/Intervenor: excess space was "free" and permissible under agency Pricing Desk Guide; agency followed internal guidance and consulted central office | Court: RLP cap was a material term; GSA violated 48 C.F.R. §§ 570.303‑4 and 570.306(a) and E.W. Bliss principle by accepting nonconforming offer; Pricing Desk Guide lacks force to override regs |
| Whether congressional prospectus/resolutions under 40 U.S.C. § 3307 bound GSA to 625,000 RSF | Springfield: congressional approval limited appropriations to leases up to 625,000 RSF; exceeding that limit means no appropriation available | Govt: committee language nonbinding on appropriations/lump‑sum funding; signing statements and practice permit flexibility | Court: § 3307 committee resolutions impose binding conditions on availability of appropriations; GSA exceeded congressionally approved scope |
| Whether the lease violated the Anti‑Deficiency Act and is void | Springfield: absence of appropriation for >625,000 RSF triggers Anti‑Deficiency Act; lease void ab initio | Govt: statutory authority (e.g., 40 U.S.C. § 585) permits multi‑year leases and obligations; no ADA violation | Court: because no appropriation was available for the larger space under § 3307, ADA applies; lease is void ab initio |
| Whether other procurement errors (NEPA, price eval, zoning, accessibility) required relief | Springfield: EA/FONSI failed to account for annex; price scoring and other matters flawed | Govt/Eisenhower: EA and FONSI reasonably considered annex; present value and other evaluations complied with RLP; zoning/accessibility satisfied | Court: these subsidiary challenges rejected—EA/FONSI, price evaluation, zoning, accessibility and retail approvals were not arbitrary or prejudicial; main defects were RLP contravention and § 3307/ADA violations |
Key Cases Cited
- Alfa Laval Separation, Inc. v. United States, 175 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (agency must award based only on solicitation factors; material deviations require amendment)
- E.W. Bliss Co. v. United States, 77 F.3d 445 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (proposal failing to conform to material solicitation terms is unacceptable)
- Centech Grp., Inc. v. United States, 554 F.3d 1029 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (APA standard governs procurement review; heavy burden for protestor challenging award rationality)
- Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (two bases for setting aside procurement: lack of rational basis or violation of statute/regulation)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (agency action arbitrary and capricious when it fails to consider important aspects or offers implausible explanations)
- Per Aarsleff A/S v. United States, 121 Fed. Cl. 603 (2015) (material solicitation provisions and prejudice requirement in procurement protests)
- PGBA, LLC v. United States, 389 F.3d 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (standards for injunctive relief in bid protests)
- Maiatico v. United States, 302 F.2d 880 (D.C. Cir. 1962) (prospectus requirement under Public Buildings Act is prerequisite to appropriation)
- Leiter v. United States, 271 U.S. 204 (1926) (effect of Anti‑Deficiency Act on multi‑year obligations prior to statutory fixes)
- Hercules, Inc. v. United States, 516 U.S. 417 (1996) (contracts for future payments in excess of appropriations are void)