169 F. Supp. 3d 69
D.D.C.2016Background
- DOE awarded a prime environmental remediation contract to UCOR in 2011; UCOR solicited a small-business set-aside subcontract for data validation in 2012.
- Validata (a competitor) bid on the subcontract but lost to Portage; Validata alleged Portage did not meet the small-business size standard and raised multiple procedural objections (NAICS code, size determination, alleged DOE involvement).
- Validata attempted internal and SBA size/NAICS challenges (including an SBA-OHA NAICS appeal); SBA-OHA dismissed the NAICS appeal as moot and untimely.
- Validata sued DOE and SBA in district court under the APA and the Fifth Amendment, seeking relief for alleged procurement-law violations and due-process deprivations.
- Defendants moved to dismiss; the jurisdictional question was whether 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1) (ADRA) vests exclusive jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims for these claims.
- The district court concluded the dispute alleged agency action "in connection with a procurement," ADRA applies, and therefore transferred the case to the Court of Federal Claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1631; the court also held it lacked jurisdiction for money damages absent Tucker Act waiver.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1491(b)(1) (ADRA) bars district-court jurisdiction | Validata argued subcontractor is not an "interested party" under ADRA, so district court may retain jurisdiction | Govt initially argued ADRA ousts district court but later agreed Validata was right; nonetheless court independently assesses jurisdiction | Court held ADRA covers the claims and exclusive jurisdiction lies with Court of Federal Claims; transferred the case |
| Whether a subcontractor qualifies as an "interested party" under ADRA | Validata: third-prong ADRA standing should follow APA §702 zone-of-interests (not CICA) so subcontractor qualifies | Gov: AFGE and CICA-style "disappointed bidder" test limits "interested party" to prime-bidder-type parties | Court held Validata is an "interested party" for ADRA purposes (third prong), rejecting a categorical exclusion of subcontractors |
| Whether claims are "in connection with a procurement" | Validata: subcontract small-business set-aside derived from the prime contract, so SBA/DOE actions were connected to federal procurement | Govt: the subcontract was a private-party transaction and not a federal "procurement" | Court held the challenged agency actions (size/NAICS/adjudication/consent) were agency action "in connection with" the DOE prime procurement and thus within ADRA |
| Whether district court has jurisdiction over monetary damages | Validata invoked federal jurisdiction and suggested Little Tucker Act relief | Govt: sovereign immunity bars money damages absent Tucker Act waiver; ADRA/Court of Federal Claims is the exclusive forum for procurement damages | Court held no waiver supporting district-court money-damages jurisdiction; Little Tucker Act does not apply here in a way that defeats ADRA exclusivity, so district court lacks jurisdiction for damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Perkins v. Lukens Steel Co., 310 U.S. 113 (1940) (early rule treating procurement laws as protecting public interest, limiting private judicial relief)
- Scanwell Laboratories, Inc. v. Shaffer, 424 F.2d 859 (D.C. Cir. 1970) (established that disappointed bidders may obtain APA review of procurement actions)
- AFGE v. United States, 258 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (interpreting "interested party" narrowly in ADRA context for bid-award challenges)
- Emery Worldwide Airlines, Inc. v. United States, 264 F.3d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (discussing ADRA’s grant and consolidation of procurement jurisdiction)
- RAMCOR Services Group, Inc. v. United States, 185 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (ADRA’s third prong covers violations "in connection with a procurement")
- United States v. John C. Grimberg Co., 702 F.2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (allocation of pre-award vs. post-award procurement jurisdiction)
- Fisher-Cal Industries, Inc. v. United States, 747 F.3d 899 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (ADRA exclusivity and forum questions in procurement disputes)