Vero Technical Support, Inc. v. United States Department of Defense
437 F. App'x 766
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- Vero Technical Support, Inc. provided weather support services at eleven Army bases under a contract overseen by the Air Force.
- Before contract expiration, VTS filed suit in the Southern District of Florida seeking to enjoin the DoD insourcing decision.
- District court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding the dispute fell within the Tucker Act and exclusive COFC jurisdiction.
- VTS then filed a bid protest in the COFC, which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction pending the district court appeal.
- VTS appeals, arguing the Tucker Act and CDA do not expressly or impliedly bar relief in district court for its APA-like challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Tucker Act grant exclusive COFC jurisdiction over VTS's challenge? | VTS contends its claim targets DoD procedures, not a statute violation requiring COFC. | Air Force/DOJ argues the insourcing decision implicates a procurement process and falls under COFC. | VTS's claim falls within Tucker Act/COFC exclusive jurisdiction. |
| Is VTS's claim within the CDA’s scope or precluded by Tucker Act exclusivity? | Allegations concern arbitrary insourcing, not a contractor dispute; CDA applicability unclear. | CDA claims could apply; district court should have determined CDA scope, but otherwise Tucker Act controls. | COFC jurisdiction affirmed; CDA issue not reached. |
| Does insourcing decision constitute a ‘procurement’ or ‘proposed procurement’ under §1491(b)(1)? | Insourcing involves determining a need for property/services and thus relates to procurement. | Insourcing may not involve procurement, but involves the process that triggers procurement considerations. | Insourcing decision is in connection with a procurement/proposed procurement; within §1491(b)(1). |
| Is VTS an ‘interested party’ under the Tucker Act? | VTS would have been eligible for options/award consideration and suffered direct economic injury. | Insourcing is not a contract award; ‘interested party’ status can extend to option/competition scenarios. | VTS qualifies as an ‘interested party’ for Tucker Act purposes. |
Key Cases Cited
- Distributed Solutions, Inc. v. United States, 539 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (definition of procurement includes all stages from need determination to contract closeout)
- RAMCOR Servs. Grp., Inc. v. United States, 185 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (broad interpretation of ‘in connection with a procurement’)
- Emery Worldwide Airlines, Inc. v. United States, 264 F.3d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (ADRA/ADRA sunset and exclusive jurisdiction implications)
- Tex. Health Choice, L.C. v. Office of Personnel Mgmt., 400 F.3d 895 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (COFC exclusive jurisdiction over government contract claims under CDA)
- American Federation of Government Employees v. United States, 258 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (definition of ‘interested party’ under Tucker Act context)