Todd Construction, L.P. v. United States
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 17980
| Fed. Cir. | 2011Background
- Todd Construction, L.P. sued the United States Army Corps of Engineers under the Tucker Act and the CDA alleging unfair and inaccurate performance evaluations.
- Two task orders for roof repairs, Building 2121 and Building 3611, extended completion to June 25, 2004 and July 30, 2004, but ultimate completion occurred September–October 2005.
- FAR 36.201 and ER 415-1-17 required contractor performance evaluations, notice of evaluation elements, pre-final evaluation conference, periodic reevaluation, and final evaluation within 60 days of substantial completion, with contractor comments and an appeal right.
- Final evaluations in 2006 rated Todd unsatisfactory in overall and multiple subcategories, including timeliness and subcontractor coordination, with explicit adverse comments.
- Claims Court initially held CDA jurisdiction, then dismissed for lack of standing on procedural claims and for failure to state a claim on the substantive challenge; Todd timely appealed to the Federal Circuit.
- Todd appeals on whether the CDA covers performance-evaluation claims and whether the procedural and substantive claims were properly pleaded and adjudicated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the CDA covers Todd’s challenge to the performance evaluations. | Todd argues evaluations relate to the contract and thus fall within CDA jurisdiction. | Government argues the challenge may not be a CDA claim if not based on a contractual theory. | Yes, CDA jurisdiction exists; evaluations relate to performance under the contract. |
| Whether Todd has standing to pursue procedural violations and the substantive challenge. | Todd contends procedural rights were violated; asserts standing for the overall unfair evaluation. | Procedural violations do not automatically confer standing absent a redressable injury; standing exists for substantial substantive claims. | Procedural standing lacking; Todd has standing to challenge substantive ratings, but the claim fails under Rule 12(b)(6) for lack of plausible abuse of discretion. |
| Whether the complaint plausibly alleges abuse of discretion in the ratings. | Todd alleges delays were caused by events beyond its control; ratings were arbitrary and capricious. | Pleadings do not show all substantial delays were excusable; Todd is responsible for subcontractor delays. | Dismissal affirmed; Todd failed to plead facts showing the ratings were arbitrary and capricious. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alliant Techsystems, Inc. v. United States, 178 F.3d 1260 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (broad CDA jurisdiction and nonmonetary disputes related to contracts)
- H.L. Smith, Inc. v. Dalton, 49 F.3d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (definition of 'claim' under the FAR governs CDA jurisdiction)
- Paragon Energy Corp. v. United States, 645 F.2d 966 (Ct. Cl. 1981) (CDA covers valid contractual claims; broader scope upheld for related disputes)
- Applied Cos. v. United States, 144 F.3d 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (claim must have some relationship to contract terms or performance)
- Tyco Healthcare Group LP v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, 587 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ('related to' contract phrase interpreted broadly)