St. Bernard Parish Government v. United States
134 Fed. Cl. 730
| Fed. Cl. | 2017Background
- St. Bernard Parish entered a 2009 "Cooperative Agreement" with USDA NRCS under the Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) program to remove sediment in 16 watersheds after Hurricane Katrina; NRCS agreed to reimburse "100 percent of the actual costs."
- The Parish contracted with Omni Pinnacle, LLC to perform the Bayou Terre Aux Beoufs excavation; original estimates and final measured quantities diverged sharply (119,580 estimated cu yd vs. 49,888.69 as-built).
- NRCS calculated allowable reimbursable costs based on the as-built quantity and adjusted unit pricing, authorizing an earlier reimbursement of $1,758,548.94 and later approving $1,107,581.22 after review; Parish sought additional reimbursement (~$355,898.52 difference) and submitted a 2014 change order and payment request.
- NRCS requested further documentation supporting the change order and revised pricing; Parish declined to provide more and sued when NRCS denied full reimbursement.
- The Parish sued in the Court of Federal Claims alleging breach of contract; Government moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the agreement is a cooperative grant (not a procurement contract) and lacked consideration (no direct benefit to the U.S.).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the agreement is an enforceable contract subject to Tucker Act jurisdiction | The Cooperative Agreement is an express contract with NRCS that implies money-damages (Holmes presumption) | The instrument is a Cooperative Agreement under FGCAA/EWP regulations transferring value to the Parish, not acquiring services for the U.S.; thus no presumption of money damages | Court: Agreement is a Cooperative Agreement, not a procurement contract; no Tucker Act jurisdiction |
| Whether the agreement contemplates money damages (money-mandating) | The label "agreement" and NRCS reimbursement promise imply monetary remedy for breach | Cooperative agreements do not contemplate money damages absent a specific money-mandating provision; here none exists and agreement even contains an indemnity/hold-harmless clause | Court: No provision mandates money damages; presumption rebutted; no money-mandating source |
| Whether the Parish provided consideration (direct benefit) to the Government | Parish contends NRCS received benefit: restored watershed and reduced future emergency costs | Government argues benefits are incidental/generalized (typical of grants); no direct, tangible benefit to the U.S. comparable to procurement | Court: Benefit to government was incidental, not direct; fails to establish consideration required for an enforceable contract |
| Whether factual record supports jurisdictional relief (discovery/summary judgment needed) | Parish sought judgment on payments owed; argued factual disputes over pricing and change order | Government moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (threshold issue) | Court: Because it lacks jurisdiction, merits/summary judgment issues not reached; dismissal granted |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535 (U.S. 1980) (Tucker Act is jurisdictional and does not itself create money-mandating rights)
- Anchorage v. United States, 119 Fed. Cl. 709 (Fed. Cl. 2015) (distinguishing cooperative agreements from procurement contracts where government receives direct benefit)
- Rick’s Mushroom Serv. v. United States, 521 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (cooperative agreement analysis and limits on implying contract damages)
- Holmes v. United States, 657 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (presumption that express government contracts permit money damages unless rebutted)
- City of El Centro v. United States, 922 F.2d 816 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (elements required to form enforceable government contract)
- Metzger, Shadyac & Schwarz v. United States, 12 Cl. Ct. 602 (Ct. Cl. 1987) (consideration in government contracts must provide benefit to the government)