Yurok Tribe v. Department of the Interior
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 7605
| Fed. Cir. | 2015Background
- The Yurok Tribe sent a 15-page letter (Oct 12, 2011) labeled a "Title I Request" under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDA) seeking funding for public safety and tribal court programs and attached a tribal resolution.
- The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) personnel exchanged emails with the Tribe seeking clarification and directing it to the Office of Justice Services; the BIA did not formally decline the proposal within 90 days nor did it award a contract.
- The Tribe asserted that the proposal was "deemed approved" under 25 U.S.C. § 450f(a)(2) and 25 C.F.R. § 900.18 and sought an order compelling the Bureau to award the Title I contract as proposed.
- The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (Board) dismissed the Tribe’s appeal for failure to state a claim, finding (1) the October letter was not a sufficiently clear Title I proposal to trigger the 90-day deadline and (2) self-determination contracts are limited to programs the Bureau was already providing.
- The Federal Circuit concluded the October letter was a Title I proposal and that Title I contracts are not limited to programs the Bureau currently provides; however, the court affirmed dismissal on the alternative ground that the dispute was a pre-award matter outside the Board’s jurisdiction and therefore properly dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the October 2011 letter constituted a Title I proposal that triggered the 90-day deemed-approval rule | The letter explicitly identified itself as a Title I proposal, attached a tribal resolution, and described requested funding; therefore it triggered the 90-day clock | The letter lacked required proposal details, was sent to the wrong office, and used ambiguous terms, so it did not trigger the deadline | Court held the letter was a Title I proposal and did trigger the 90-day deadline |
| Whether a deemed-approved proposal automatically creates an enforceable contract by operation of law | Deemed approval results in an award/contract and the Secretary must award the contract after the 90-day deadline | The agency’s inaction did not create an enforceable contract absent an actual award; approval and award are distinct steps | Court held approval and award are distinct; no award was made, so no enforceable contract yet |
| Whether Title I contracts are limited to programs the Bureau already provides to the requesting tribe | Tribe: ISDA authorizes contracts for programs the Secretary is authorized to administer, not only those currently provided; therefore requested programs may be included | Government: statutory terms and related provisions imply contracts are limited to programs the agency currently provides; funding floor and decline authorities counsel against awarding new programs | Court held Title I contracts are not limited to programs currently provided; statute permits programs the Secretary is authorized to administer |
| Whether the Board had jurisdiction to decide the dispute | Tribe: Board is proper forum for alleged contract enforcement because tribe claims a contract exists | Government: This is a pre-award dispute (no contract awarded), so IBIA is the proper forum for pre-award matters | Court held this is a pre-award dispute; the Board lacked authority to grant the pre-award relief sought, so dismissal for failure to state a claim was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Arctic Slope Native Ass’n, Ltd. v. Sebelius, 583 F.3d 785 (Fed. Cir.) (describes ISDA self-determination contract framework)
- Engage Learning, Inc. v. Salazar, 660 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir.) (Board jurisdiction limited where no contract awarded)
- AquaTex Indus., Inc. v. Techniche Solutions, 479 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir.) (affirmation of dismissal can be based on any ground supported by the record)
- Dehne v. United States, 970 F.2d 890 (Fed. Cir.) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal is de novo)
- Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla & Cupeño Indians v. Jewell, 729 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir.) (distinguishable Ninth Circuit decision addressing Secretary’s declination of a proposal)