Secre tary Salazar is automatically

substitut ed for

Dirk Ke mpthorne, pursua nt to Fede ral 1 Rule of Civil P roce dure 25( d). RE D L A K E B A

N D O F CH I PP E WA I ND I AN S, Plaintiff,
v. U. S. D EPA RTM EN T O F TH E I NT ERI OR , et al., De fe nd ants . UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

Civil Action No. 06-1826 ( CKK)

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION (Mar ch 19, 2009) Plaintiff Red L ake B and of Chippewa Indians (“Plaintiff” or the “ Tribe” ) filed the instant lawsuit ag ainst Defe ndants, the United States De partment of I nterior ( “De partment” ) and K en Salazar in his official c apac ity as Secr etar

y of the De partment (“Sec reta ry ,” collec tively

with the 1 De pa rtme nt, “ De fe nd ants ” ), a lle g ingthat D e fe nd ants br e a c he d p ro vis ion s o f t he pa rt ie s’ Compact of Self-G overna nce a nd acc ompanying a g ree ments entere d into pursuant to the Indian Self-De termination and Educ ation Assistance A ct, 25 U.S.C. § 450, et seq. (“I SDEAA” or the

“ Ac t” ). Spe c if

ic a lly , Pl a int if

f a lle g e s th a t D e fe nd ants fa ile d to ob ta in, a ssi st Pl a int if f i n obtaining, a

nd/or reque st funding f

or the Tr ibe’s new

juvenile cor

rec tion facility

in brea ch of the parties’ ag ree ment. In addition, Plainti ff c laims that Defe ndants failed to notify the Tribe of

the availability

of y ear -end f

unding in br eac h of the pa rties’ a g ree ment. Finally , Plaintiff alleg es that De fe nd ants fa ile d to tim e ly pr ov ide Pla int if

f w ithc e rt a in “ pa

y c os t” ana ly se s a

nd a lso fa ile d to2

provide the Tr ibe with the full amount of pay cost incre ases a s require d under the terms of the parties’ contra ct. Currently pendingbefor e the Court ar e Plaintiff’s [16] Motion for Summary J udg ment on Counts Iand

I I Iand fo r P art ia l Summa

ry Judg me nt a s to Count I Iand De fe nd ants ’ [1 7] Cr os sMo tio n f or Sum mary

Judg me nt a s to Counts I- IV. Af te r t ho ro ug hly

re vie wi nga ll o f t

he pa rt ie s’ submissi ons, including the attachme nts thereto, applica ble ca se law, statutory

authority , and the
re c or d o f t

he c a se a s a

wh ole , th e Court

sh a ll G RA

NT -I N- PAR T a

nd DENY -I N- PAR T Pla int if f’ s Mo tio n f

or Sum mary

Judg me nt a

nd sh a ll G RA

NT -I N- PAR T a

nd DENY -I N- PAR T Def endants’ Cross- Motion for Summary J udg ment. Specifica lly , the Court shall GRANT Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary J udg ment as to Count I I I , but shall DENY Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary as to Counts Iand I I , and shall GRANT D efe ndants’ Cross-Motion for Summary J udg ment as to Count I I , but shall DENY De fenda nts’ Cross-Motion for Summary J udg ment as to Counts I , I I I , and IV, for the rea sons that follow. I. BACKG ROUND A. The ISDEAA The purpose of the I SDEAA, 25 U.S.C. § 450 et seq. , is to “assure max imum participation by

Indian tribes in the planningand administration of fe dera l service s, prog rams and activities for Indian communities.” S. Rep. No. 100-274 at 1 (1988), re printed at 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N 2620, 2620. Accor dingly , the I SDEAA authorizes fe dera l ag encie s, such as the De pa rtme nt, to e nte r i nto c on tr a c ts w ithInd ian tr ibe s in wh ic h th e tr ibe s p ro mis e to s up ply fede rally funded se rvice s, for e x ample tribal lawenfor ceme nt service s, that a fe dera l ag ency would otherwise pr ovide. Che ro k e e Nat ion of Ok

lah om a v . Le av itt , 543 U.S. 631, 634 (2005).As a pr e lim ina

ry matte r, the Court

no te s th a t it

str ic tly a dh e re s to the te xt of

L oc a l Civ il 2 Rule 7(h)(1) (for

merly 56.1 when r esolving motions for summary judgme nt). See B urke v

. Go uld, 286 F.3d 513, 519 ( D.C. Cir. 2002) (district courts ne ed to invoke L ocal Civil Rule 56.1 be fo re a pp lyingit t o th e c a se ). Th e Court ha s r e pe a te dly

a dv ise d th e pa

rt ie s th a t it

str ic tly a dh e re s to Rul e 7( h) and

ha s st a te d th a t “ [a]t a ll p oints, pa rt ie s mu st f

ur nis h p re c ise c itatio ns to the portions of the re cord on which they rely .” See 4/25/07 Order, D ocket No. [10], at 4-5; 5/19/08 Order, D ocket No. [15], at 2. I n addition, the Court advised the pa rties that it “assumes that f a c ts i de nti fi e d b y

the mov ingpa

rt y in i ts s tate me nt o f m a te ri a l f a c ts a re a dmi tte d, un le ss such a f act is controve rted in the stateme nt of g enuine issues filed in opposition to the motion.” See 4/25/07 Order, D ocket No. [10], at 4-5; 5/19/08 Order, Doc ket No. [15] , at 2. The Court no te s, ho we ve r, that th e pa rt ie s d id n ot f

ull y c omp ly wi th t he loc a l r ule s, a s r e qu ir e d. F ir st, althoug h both Plainti ff a

nd Def endants filed a

statement of mate rial fa cts, Def endants’ Stateme nt contains seve ral fa ctual asse rtions for which D efe ndants did not provide any citation to the rec ord, as r equire d. The Court does not cr edit any such statements made in violation of the local rules. Second, Plaintiff f ailed to file a

response to Defe ndants’ Statement of Material F acts, a s require d. Acc ording ly , to the extent Defenda nts’ Statement is supported by the re cord, the Court shall treat De fenda

nts’ fac tual asser

tions as admitted. Nonetheless, whe re the parties have in fa ct complied with the local r

ules, the Court shall cite dire ctly to Plainti ff’ s Statement of Mater ial F a c ts ( “ Pl. ’s Stmt .” ) o r D e fe nd ant’ s State me nt o f M a te ri a l F a c ts ( “ De fs .’ Stmt .” ) u nle ss a statement is contra dicted by the opposing party . Where a party (her e, De fenda

nts, as Plaintiff fi le d n o r e sp on se ) o bje c ts t o r e le va nt a sp e c ts o f P la int if

f’ s p ro ff e re d mate ri a l f

a c t, t he Court sh a ll also cite to De fenda

nts’ Response to Pl.’s St mt. (“De fs.’ Resp. Stmt.”), as ne cessa ry . Finally , the Court shall cite direc tly

to evidence in the rec ord, whe re a ppropriate
. 3 “ Mo re sp e c if

ic a lly , und e r t

he [I DSE AA ], th e [Sec re tary] co nti nu e [s] to p ro vid e dir e c t se rv ic e s to
a tr ibe un til su c h ti me a s th e tr ibe c ho os e s to e nte r i nto a ‘s e lf -d e te rm inatio n c on tr a c t’ to o pe rate those servic es. At that point, the [S ecr etar y ] [ is] require d to transfe r re source s and control of those prog rams to the tribe.” Ramah Navajo Chapter v. Lujan , 112 F.3d 1455, 1456 ( 10th Cir. 1997). The A ct is thus intended, in part, to also “r emov[e] t he fina ncial burde n incurre d by

tribes and tribal org anizations when implementing f eder al programs under

self-de termination contra cts.” Id. at 1367. B. The Parties and their Contract Plaintiff is a fede rally

rec og nized I ndian tribe. Pl.’s Stmt . ¶ 1. Secre tary Salazar has 24

overa ll responsibilit y

for a dminist eringthe Depa rtment as we ll as overse eingits constituent ag encie s, including the Bur eau of Indian Aff

airs (“ BIA”) and mana g ing c erta in I ndian af fairs a nd appropr iations. Id. ¶ 2. The O ffice of Self-G overna nce ( “OSG”) is the office within the De pa rtme nt r e sp on sib le fo r a dmi nis te ri ngthe Se c re tary ’s tr iba l se lf -g ov e rn anc e pr og ra

m, including B I A prog rams. Id. ¶ 3. On or a bout J anuar

y 14, 1997, Plaintiff and the De partment e ntere d into a Compact of Self-Gove rnanc e (“ Compact”) pur suant to the I SDEAA. Id. ¶ 5; Def s.’ Stmt. ¶ 1. The Compact enable d the Tribe to “ plan, conduc t, and administer programs and se rvice s to the ext ent as provided in the a

nnual fundingag ree ment.” De fs.’ Stmt. ¶ 1. This goa l is reflec ted in the text of the Compact itself, which pr ovides that the Compact is intended to: [C ]ar ry out Self-Gover

nance as authorized by

[t he I SDEAA], which . . . transfe rs control to tribal g overnme nts, upon tribal reque st, over funding and decision making of F e de ral pr og ra

ms, se rv ic e s, fu

nc tio ns a nd a c tiv iti e s a s an e ff

e c tiv e wa y to implement the fede ral policy of g overnme nt-to-g ov ernme nt relations with Indian tr ibe s. Pl.’s Mot., Ex . A (Compact) , Art. I § 2(a)
. In addition, as is releva

nt here , the Compact includes a provision, entitled “funding
amou nt, ” wh ic h p ro vid e s th a t: Subject only

to the appropr iation of funds by the Cong ress of the United States . . ., the Secr etar

y or an a uthorized repre sentative shall provide to the Tribe the total amount specifie d in the Annual Agree ment incorporated by ref ere nce. . . . Id
. On

or a bo ut N ov e mbe r 1 5, 20 04 , p ur su ant t o th e Com pa c t, P la int if

f a nd De fe nd ants enter ed into a Multi-Yea

r F unding A g ree ment (“A g ree ment”) f or 2005-2010. Pl.’s Stmt. ¶ 10; Def s.’ Resp. ¶ 10. The Ag ree ment is amended a nnually by the par ties pursuant to a5

“ re pr og ra mmi ngre qu e st, ” and

pr ov ide s th a t “ [t]he Tr ibe a ssume s a ll o pe ra tio na l r e sp on sib ili ty for a ll prog rams, func tions, services, a nd activities as re flec ted in the REPROGRAMMI NG REQUEST . . . .” Pl.’s Stmt . ¶¶ 10- 11; Defs.’ Resp. ¶ 10-11; Pl.’s Mot., Ex . B ( Ag ree ment and 2005 Reprog rammingRequest). At issue a re the parties’ 2005 and 2006 re prog ramming reque sts, which are discussed below.

1. 20 05 Re pr og ra

mmi ngRe qu e st Count Iof Plaintiff’s Complaint involves the reprogrammingreque st for the year 2005, entitled the 2005 Annual F unding A g ree ment - ReprogrammingRequest (“ 2005 Reprog ramming Re qu e st” ), wh ic h is a tta c he d to the Agre e me nt. Pl. ’s Stmt . ¶ 10 ; D e fs .’ Re sp . ¶

10 ; Pl. ’s Mo t. Ex. B (A g re e me nt a

nd 20 05 Re pr og ra

mmi ngRe qu e st) ; see also Compl. ¶¶ 48-52. Subject to the terms of the Compac t and Ag ree ment, the 2005 ReprogrammingRequest g ener ally sets forth the funds to be provide d in 2005 by the United States to the Tribe for the pr ovision of the ag ree d upon service s. Pl.’s S tmt. ¶ 10; Defs.’ Resp. ¶ 10; Pl.’s Mot ., Ex . B ( Ag ree ment and 2005 Reprog rammingRequest). Spec ifically , the 2005 Reprog rammingRequest sets forth by line item and program title the par

ties’ ag ree ment as to the funds to be pr ovided. See Pl.’s St mt. ¶ 14; De fs .’ Re sp . ¶

14 ; see also Pl.’s Mot., Ex . B ( Ag ree ment and 2005 ReprogrammingRequest). The he art of Plaintiff’ s claims as to the 2005 ReprogrammingRequest is line item no. 177 of the 2005 Repr og rammingRequest, seeCom pl. ¶¶ 48 -5 2, wh ic h p ro vid e s a s f oll ow s:
Line # P ro gra m T i t l e C o st Code In fo

( T r i bal Shar e) O SG

Cu m. B ase O SG

S h o rtfa ll B ase O SG

S h o rtfa ll R eq ue st B IA

R eprogr am R eq ue st T ot al

AFA FN

17 7 Law E n fo rc e m e n t - NON TPA 37700 0 0 5, 283 0 4, 576, 753 4, 582, 036 25Reg ardingthe re fer ence to a “juvenile c orre ction fac ility ”in footnote 25, Plaintiff 3 ex p l ai n s th atth e T ri b e h adp re v i o u s l y u s edDe p art m en to f J u s t i ce an d BI A gr an tfu n d s t o d es i gn and construc t two corre ction fac iliti es comprisingparts of the Red L ake L aw Enf orce ment Complex : a Phase I

fac ility housing me dium and minimum secur ity adults and juveniles, and a Phase I I I fac ility housing minimum security juveniles in a re habilitative setting. Pl.’s Stmt. ¶¶ 8- 9. The re fer ence in footnote 25 is to the Phase I I Ifac ility . Although the parties dispute whe ther the fa cility

is appropriately

char acte rized as a “ detention fa cility ” or a s a “w ork ca mp,” see Pl.’s Stmt . ¶ 8; Def

s.’ Resp. ¶ 8, the Court ne ed not re solve this issue as neither pa rty ’s ar g uments now b e f o r e th e C o urtd e p e n d

u p o no r o th e r w i s e i mp l i c a t e th e p r o p e r c h ar a c t e r i z a t i o no f

th e P h a s e III fac ility . Acc ording ly , beca use the prope r cha

rac terization of the fa cility is not material to the iss ue s at ha

nd , th e Cou

rt sh a ll, fo r e a se of

c onve nie nc e , r e fe r t o th e fa c ili ty a s it is d e sc ri be d in the 2005 Reprog rammingRequest, i.e. , as a “ juvenile cor

rec tion facility ”—althoug h the Court expressly does not take a

position on whether the de scription is factua lly acc urate . 6 Pl. ’s Mo t., Ex. B (A g re e me nt a nd 20 05 Re pr og ra

mmi ngRe qu e st) , at 10 . A s in dic a te d in the la st column, line item no. 177 also contains a f ootnote, specific ally

footnote no. 25, which in turn provides, inte r a lia , th a t: The B I A ag ree s to assist the Tribe in obtaining $1,218,482 for operations fundingfor the Tr ibe s [ sic ] j uvenile cor rec tion facility in CY 2005, and to reque st this amount 3 in t he ne xt Pre sid e nts [ sic ] bud g e t. Pl.’s St mt. ¶ 16; Pl .’s Mot., Ex . B ( Ag ree ment and 2005 ReprogrammingRequest), at 14. Acc ordingto Plainti ff, line item no. 177, tog ether with footnote 25, obligated Def endants to do tw o th ing s: ( 1) to o bta in $ 1, 21 8, 48 2 in fu nd ingfo r t

he Tr ibe ’s juv e nil e c or

re c tio n c e nte r i n
ca l en d ar y ea r ( “C Y” ) 2 0 0 5 , o r, i nth e a l t ern at i v e, t o as s i s tth e T ri b e i no b t ai n i n g s u ch fu n d i n g; and (2) to reque st this s ame a mount of funding in the next P resident’ s budg et. Pl.’s Compl . ¶¶ 48-52. As to Plainti ff’ s first alleg ation, it is undi sputed that the Tribe did not rece ive $1,218,482 in CY 2005 operations fundingfor the juve nile corr ection ce nter. Pl.’s Stmt . ¶ 17. More over, BIA offic ials testified that BIA did not provide any assistance to the Tribe in obtainingthe7

specifie d funding . Specifica lly , the hea d of B I A’s Of fice of Jus tice Servic es, Christopher Chaney , testified that B IA did not provide any assistance to the Tribe in obtainingstaffingand prog ram ope rations fundingfor the juve nile corr ection fa cility in CY 2005. Id. ¶ 18. In addition, Patr ic k Ra g sd a le , th e Di re c tor of B I A, te sti fi e d th at he wa s n ot a wa re of any e ff or ts b y B I A t o obtain staffingand program ope rations fundingin CY 2005 for the fa cility in question. Id. ¶ 19. Finally , Kenne th Feinf

eld, the Ac ting Dir ector

of the OSG a

nd the per son who executed the 2005 Reprog rammingRequest on beha lf of the United States, te stified that he per sonally did not make any eff orts to obtain staffingand program ope rations fundingfor the T ribe’s juve nile corr ection fac ility in CY 2005. Id. ¶ 20. De fenda nts do not disput e this, see Def s.’ Resp. ¶¶ 18- 20, nor have D efe ndants offe red a ny evidenc e to the contr ary , se e ge ne ra lly Def s.’ Stmt. As conc erns the se cond alleg ation, there appea rs to be some dispute as to whe ther the langua g e statin g that B I A “ re qu e st this amou nt i n th e ne xt Pre sid e nts [ sic ] budget” ref ers to the President’s budg et for f

iscal y ear (“F Y”) 2006 or F Y 2007. See Pl.’s St mt. ¶ 21 (stating that, as th e 2 0 0 5 Re p r o g r amm in g Re qu e s t w a s n e g o ti a te d an d e xe c u te d in th e f a ll o f 2 0 0 4 , th e n e xt President’s budg et was f

or F Y 2006); De fs.’ Stmt. ¶ 21 (deny ing Pl.’s Stmt. ¶ 21 and sug g esting that the Ag ree ment was not ef fec tive until after the budg et had be en fina liz ed for FY 2006)
. Nonethele ss, it is undisputed that Defe ndants did not include a re quest for $1,218,482 f or the Tribe’ s juvenile corr ection fa cility in the President’s budg et for e ith e r FY 2006 or FY 2007. Pl.’s St mt. ¶¶ 22-23. In addition, Plainti ff ha s proffe red undisputed e vidence conce rningthe Depa rtment’s bu dg e t f or B I A Pu bli c Sa fe ty

and Justi c e law e nf

or c e me nt p ro g ra

ms— i.e. , the likely

source of any potential fundingfor the juve nile corr ection fa cility — duringthe y ear s in question. As8

Plaintiff emphasizes, Chaney , the hea d of B I A’s Of fice of Jus tice Servic es, testified at deposition that the Depa

rtment had e x perie nced “ signific ant fundingincre ases f or Indian country

corr ection fac iliti es for

staffingand oper ation” in FY2005 and F Y 2006. Pl.’ Stm t. ¶ 32; Defs.’ Resp. ¶ 32; Pl. ’s Mo t., Ex. E (C ha

ne y De p. ) at 47 :4- 15 , 4 8:1 2- 17 . M or e sp e c if ic a lly , th e pa

rt ie s a g re e that:

• In FY 2005, Cong ress a pp ro priated $180,063,000 f or B I A’s Public Safety

and J ustice law e nforc ement and c orre ction fac iliti es, which e qualed a n incre ase of $7,568,000 over what was a ppropriate d for the sa

me purposes in FY 2004. Pl.’s Stmt . ¶ 33.

• In F Y 2 00 6, the Pr e sid e nt’ s b ud g e t r e qu e ste d $ 1 9 2 , 2 6 5 , 00 0 f

or B I A Pu bli c Sa fe ty and Just ice law

enfor ceme nt prog rams, includingfundi n g for the ope ration of corr ection ser

vices, programs, and f

acilities. Id. ¶

3 4
. C o n g r e s s s ub se qu e ntl y incre ased this funding reque st by an additional $1.1 milli on, appropr iating a total of $193,377,000, an inc rea se of $13,314,000 ove r what was a ppropriate d for the same purpose s in FY 2005. Id. ¶ 35.

• In FY 2007, the Depa rtment reque sted a lump sum of $201,620,000 in the Pr e sid e nt’ s b ud g e t f

or B I A Pu bli c Sa fe ty and Justi c e law e nf or c e me nt p ro g ra

ms, inc lud ingfu

nd ingfo r o pe ratio n o f c or re c tio n se rv ic e s, pr og ra

ms, and fa c ili tie s. Id. ¶ 36. Cong ress a g ain incre ased the fundingov er an d ab o v e the r equeste d amount, appropr i at i n g a tot al of $204,454,00, a n incre ase of

$11,077,00 over what wa s appropr iated for the same pur

poses in FY 2006. Id. ¶ 37. 2. 20 06 Re pr og ra

mmi ngRe qu e st In Jan ua ry of 20 06 , th e Tr ibe and

De fe nd ants c omp le te d b ilate ra l ne g oti a tio ns on a F ourt h Amendment to the Multi-Yea r F unding A g ree ment for 2005- 2010 (“F ourth Amendment” ) and a n
a sso c iate d “ Se lf

Go ve rn anc e 20 06 Annu a l F un din g Agre e me nt - Re pr og ra mmi ngRe qu e st” (“ 20 06 Re pr og ra

mmi ngRe qu e st” ). Pl. ’s Stmt . ¶ 24 ; see also Pl. ’s Mo t., Ex. l (F ourt h Amendment and attached 2006 Re prog rammingRequest). Counts I Ithroug h I V of Plaintiff’s Com pla int fo c us on the F ourt h A me ndme nt a

nd the 20 06 Re pr og ra

mmi ngRe qu e st.There is a dispute betwee n the par ties as to the exact amount of the f unds distributed by 4 the B I A M idw e st R e g ion a l O ff ic e . A c c or din g to P la int if f, the of fi c e dis tr ibute d a

pp ro ximate ly $2 00 ,0 00 in F Y 2 00 6 y e ar- e nd fu nd s, Pl. ’s Stmt . ¶

43 , w hil e De fe nd ants a sse rt that th e of

fi c e in fac t distributed only

$85,000, Def

s.’ Resp. ¶ 43. F or the re asons discussed be low, the Court finds that this disput e is not material to the r esolution of the par ties’ motions for summary judgme nt. See infra at 34 n. 9. 9

i. Yea

r-e nd funding Count I Iof

Pla int if f’ s Co mpl a int

c e nte rs on

se c tio n 1 7 o f t

he Agre e me nt a

nd the F ourt h Amendment, which both c ontain the followingidentical languag e: Additional Funds - I f the Midwest Reg ion Office of th e BI A re ceive s notice of the availability

of any additional fundingin any

fiscal y ear for any purpose, including any unspent funds, that the Tr ibe is elig ible to a pply for or re ceive , then it must not ify the Tribe a s soon as possible about such funds so that the Tribe may acc ess or a

pply for those funds. The Midwest Reg ion Office commits to keeping the Tribe inf ormed of the exist ence of fundingimmediately upon lear ning of its ex istence. Pl. ’s Stmt . ¶

41 ; see also Pl. ’s Mo t, E x. B (A g re e me nt) a t 4 ( e mph a sis in o ri g ina l) ; id. , Ex . L (F ourth Amendment) a

t 4 (emphasis in orig inal). Plaintiff also direc ts the Court to Article I V, Se c tio n IV o f t

he Com pa c t, whic h s tate s th a t “ [t]he Tr ibe sh a ll b e e lig ibl e fo r n e w p ro g ra ms,
a c tiv iti e s, se rv ic e s and

fu nc tio ns on

the same ba sis a s o the r t

ri be s a nd the Se c re tary

or his authorized repr esentative shall advise the Tr ibe of the f unding a vailable f or such pr og rams.” Pl. ’s Stmt . ¶

42 ; see also Pl.’s Mot., Ex . A (Compact) at 12. In S ept emb er of

20 06 , t he BI A M id wes t R egion al O ffi ce recei vedanddi st ri bu tedFY 2006 y ear -end f

unds to five of the thirty -five I ndian tribes and tr ibal org anizations withi n the 4 BIA Midwest Reg ion. Pl.’s S tmt. ¶ 43; Defs.’ Resp. ¶ 43. The Tr ibe, howeve r, wa s not informed a

bout the availability

of these f unds until weeks af

ter they wer e distributed, and did not
rec eive a ny of these year -end f

unds. Pl.’s S tmt. ¶¶ 44-45. De fenda nts later explained that the10

BIA Central Of

fice had made a dec ision to di stribute the y ear -end f unds only to tribes having
c on tr a c ts und e r T itl e Iof

Pub lic L aw 9 3- 63 8 ( c od if ie d at 25 U. S.C. § 4 50 f) , a nd no t to tribes—like Plaintiff—havingcontra cts under T itle I V of Public L aw 93- 638 (codifie d at 25 U.S.C. § 458cc). Id. ¶ 46. B I A Dire ctor Rag sdale e x plained at his deposition that, althoug h the latte r s e lf -g ov e rn anc e tr ibe s, inc lud ingPla int if f, we re te c hn ic a lly

e lig ibl e fo r t

he y e ar- e nd

fu nd s, those tribes we re e x cluded f rom the y ear -end f

unds distributi on beca

use, as a prac tical matter, the OSGdid no t ha ve an a de qu a te pr oc e ss i n p la c e to d ist ri bute the fu

nd s to tho se tr ibe s: Se lf -g ov e rn anc e tr ibe s [su c h a s Pla int if f] w e re e lig ibl e fo r fund s, but my understandingis [ ] t hat the money had to be oblig ated within a ve ry short period of time and the B urea

u’s mecha

nism through the Offic e of Self-Gove rnanc e could not mecha nically do that. So the self-g overna nce tr ibes wer e excluded fr om that—from that potential allocation. Id. ¶ 48 (quotingPl.’s Mot., Ex . K (Rag sdale De p.) at 64:1-7) ). Count I Iof Plaintiff’s Complaint
asser ts that Defe ndants’ fa ilure to notify the Tribe of

these funds in a

timely matter wa s a bre ach of the pa rties’ a g ree ment as quoted a bove. Pl.’s Compl. ¶¶ 53-57. ii. Pay -c os t r e po rt s a nd a dju stm e nts Counts I I Iand IV of the Plaintiff’s Complaint cente r on the 2006 Repr og ramming Request and more specific ally , on languag e in footnote 15 to line item 103 addre ssing “ pay
c os ts, ” wh ic h p ro vid e s inte r a lia : Th e B I A w ill make e ve ry e ff or t to tr e a t Re d L ake Tr iba l e mpl oy e e s the same a s a ll other Tr ibal and F eder al employ ees f or purpose s of pay

cost adjustments in FY 2006 . . . . Fur ther , t h e BI A and OSG agree to provide to the Tribe by April 1, 2006, a detailed Pay

Cost analy sis for t h e y ea rs 2003-2006, showing what the Tribe wa s elig ible to rec eive e ach y ear based upon Pay Cost data the Tribe pr ovided, the ac tual amount rec eived, a

nd the shortfall or unfunded amount. This analy sis will i nclude L aw Enforce ment. The analy sis will separately show the total amounts rec eived e ach y ear for Self- Gover

nance tribes, contra cting tribes, and B I A prog rams, as w ell as the tot a l amou

nts the B I A wa s e lig ibl e to re c e ive fo r the se pr og ra ms ba se d up on

data it11

compiled. The a

bove information has been reque sted by the Tribe to ve rify whether Red L ake, other S elf Governanc e tribes, contrac ting tribe s, and B I A prog rams we re treated the same way

with reg ard to the distribution of Pay Costs for the y ear s 2003- 2006. Id. ¶ 49 (quotingPl.’s Mot., Ex . L(2006 ReprogrammingRequest) at 3 n. 15). I t is undisput ed that B I A and OSG f ailed to provide a

pay cost ana ly sis to the Tribe by April 1, 2006. Id. ¶ 50. Indeed, D efe ndants did not provide the pay cost ana ly sis until they

filed the ir Cr os s- Mo tio n a

nd Op po sit ion

in t his c a se , at w hic h ti me De fe nd ants a tta c he d a pa y c os t repor t to their pleading
. See Def s.’ Cross-Mot./Opp’n, Ex. A (Pay Cost R eport). Plaintiffs nonetheless a lleg e that De fenda nts have not provided a

n adequate pay

cost ana ly sis in viol ation of the pa rties’ a g ree ment. Pl.’s Com pl. ¶¶ 58-66. C. Pr oc e du ra l H

istor y Pur su ant t o th e I SDE AAand the Contr a c t D isp ute s A c t, P la int if f f ile d it s Co mpl a int

in the ins tant a c tio n in

fe de ra l c ourt

a lle g ingthat D e fe nd ants ha d b re a c he d th e pa rt ie s’ a g re e me nt,
a s se t f or th i n th e Com

pa c t, A g re e me nt a

nd the 20 05 and

20 06 Re pr og ra

mmi ng Re qu e sts (collec tively , the “Contrac t”). See Compl., Docket No. [1] . Specifica lly , Count Iof Plaintiff’s Com pla int a lle g e s th a t D e fe nd ants : ( a ) f a ile d to ob ta in a

nd /or make its be st e ff

or ts t o o bta in $1 ,2 18 ,4 82 in o pe ratio ns fu nd ingfo r t

he juv e nil e c or

re c tio n f a c ili ty in C Y 2 00 5 a s a g re e d to in th e par ti es’ Co nt ract ; an d (b ) fai ledto requ est th at s ame amo un t i n t he P res id ent ’s b ud get fo r FY 2006 as agree d to in the parties’ Contra ct. Compl. ¶¶ 48-52. Plaintiff there fore seek $1,218,482 in damag es for

CY 2005 and an a dditional $1,218,482 in damag es for FY 2006, plus intere st. Id. ¶ 51. Count I Iof

Pla int if f’ s Co mpl a int

a lle g e s th a t D e fe nd ants fa ile d to no tif y the Tr ibe that it12

wa s e lig ibl e fo r F Y 2 00 6 y e ar- e nd fu nd s th a t w e re re c e ive d a

nd dis tr ibute d b y

the B I A M idw e st Reg ional Offic e in bre ach of the par ties’ ag ree ment that the offic e would inform the T ribe a s soon as possible of any

additional fundingin any fiscal year

for a ny purpose that the T ribe wa s elig ible to rec eive. Id. ¶¶ 53- 57. Plaintiff seeks monetar y damag es, plus interest, for Def endant’ s alleg ed bre ach a s to Count I I
. Id. ¶ 56. Counts I I Iof

Pla int if f’ s Co mpl a int

a sse rt s th a t D e fe nd ants fa ile d to pr ov ide a pa y c os t
ana ly sis to t

he Tr ibe fo r t

he y e ars 20 03 -2 00 6 b y

Ap ri l 1, 20 06 a s a g re e d to in t he pa rt ie s’ Contract. Id. ¶¶

58 - 6 2. Pla int if

f s e e ks an o rd e r d ir e c tin g the Se c re tary to p ro vid e the Tr ibe wi th a deta iled pay

cost ana ly sis in compliance with the par ties’ Contract. Id. ¶ 61. Finally , Count I V of Plaintiff’s Complaint alleg es that De fenda nts underpaid Plaintiff’s pa y c os ts i n v iol a tio n o f D e fe nd ants ’ a g re e me nt t o tr e a t th e Tr ibe ’s e mpl oy e e s th e same a s a ll other Tr ibal and F eder al employ ees, a nd seeks moneta

ry damag es equa l to the differ ence betwee n th e am ou ntth e Tri be re cei vedandth e am ou ntth e Tri be s ho ul d h ave r ecei vedfor pay cos ts in FY 2006. Id. ¶¶ 63- 66. Plaintiff subsequently

moved for summar

y judgme nt as to Counts I and I I Iand for partial summary judgme nt as to Count I I
. See Pl.’s Mot., Docket No. [16] . Def endants ther eaf

ter filed the ir Cr os s- Mo tio n f

or Sum mary

Judg me nt a s to a ll Co un ts ( i.e. , Counts I- IV), a nd Opposition to Plainti ff’ s Motion. See De fs .’ Cr os s- Mo t./ Op p’ n, Do c ke t N o. [16]. B ri e fi ngon the pa rt ie s’ motions i s now complete a nd the ca se is ripe for

adjudication. The Court theref ore turns to the merits of the pa

rties’ a rguments. II. LEGAL STANDARDS In th is c a se the Court

is p re se nte d w ithc ro ss m oti on s f or summa ry jud g me nt. A p art

y is13

entitled to summary

judgme nt if the pleading s, depositions, and aff idavits demonstrate that ther e is no ge nuine issue of mate rial fa ct in dispute and that the movingparty is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. SeeF ED . R. C IV . P. 56(c) ; Tao v. Freeh , 27 F.3d 635, 638 ( D.C. Cir. 1994). Under the summary

judgme nt standard, the movingparty “bea rs the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of ‘the pleading s, depositions, answers to interr og atories, a nd admissions on file, toge ther with the aff idavits, if any ’ which it believe s demonstrate the absenc e of a g enuine issue of

materia l fac t.” Ce lote xCor p. v . Ca tre tt , 4 7 7 U. S
. 3 1 7 , 3 2 3 (1 9 8 6 ). Inre s p o n s e, th e o p p o s i n g p arty mu s t“go be y on d th e ple a din g s and by [its] o wn a ff ida vit s, or by the ‘d e po sit ion s, ans we rs to interrog atories, a

nd admissions on file,’ desig nate ‘ specific fac ts showing that ther e is a g enuine issue for tria l.’” Id. at 324. Although a

court should dra

w all infer ence s from the supportingrec ords submitted by the nonmoving pa

rty , the mere exis tence of a f actua l dispute, by

itself, is not sufficient to bar summary judgme nt. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, I nc. , 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). To be materia l, the fac tual asser tion must be ca

pable of aff ectingthe substantive outcome of the lit ig a tio n; t o b e g e nu ine , th e iss ue mus t be su pp or te d b y su ff ic ie nt a dmi ssi ble e vid e nc e that a
rea sonable trier -of- fac t could find for the nonmoving pa rty . Laningham v. U.S. Navy , 813 F.2d 12 36 , 1 24 2- 43 (D .C. Cir . 1 98 7) ; Liberty Lobby , 477 U.S. at 251-52 (the c ourt must determine “whe ther the e vidence prese nts a sufficie nt disag ree ment to require submissi on to a jury or wh e the r i t is so on e -s ide d th a t on e pa rt y mus t pr e va il a s a

matte r o f l aw” ). “ I f t

he e vid e nc e is
mere ly colora ble, or is not sufficie ntly

probative, summar

y judgme nt may

be g rante d.” Lib e rty Lobby , 477 U.S. at 249-50 (inter nal citations omitted). “Mer e alleg ations or denials of the14

adver se par

ty ’s pleadingare not enoug h to preve nt the issuance of summary judgme nt.” W illiams v. Call aghan , 938 F. Supp. 46, 49 (D.D .C. 1996). The a dverse party “must do more than simply

show that there is some metaphy sical doubt as to the mater ial fac ts.” Ma tsu sh ita El e c . I nd us . Co . v . Ze nit

h R ad io C or p ., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). Instead, while the movant bear s the initial responsibilit y of identifying those portions of the re cord that demonstrate the absenc e of a

g enuine issue of

materia l fac t, the burden shifts to the non-mova nt to “come f

orwa rd wi th ‘ sp e c if

ic fa c ts s ho wi ngthat th e re is a genuine issue for trial .’” Id. at5 8 7 (c i t i n g F ED . R. C IV . P. 56(e) ) (e mphasis in origina l). III . D ISC USS ION As an initial matter, g iven that Plaintiff’s Complaint raises questions of g ener al contra ct law and a lleg es var ious claims for bre ach of contra ct, the Court must first identify the law to be applied and the prec ise eleme nts that Pl aintiff must show to succe ed on a br eac h of contra ct
c la im. Ac c or din g ly , b e fo re tur nin g to t he me ri ts o f t

he pa rt ie s’ argume nts , th e Court br ie fl y pauses to delineate the contr olling law a pplicable to Plaintiff’s bre ach of contra ct claims—an issue that, unfortunate ly , neither pa rty has addr essed. First, as to the que stion of controlling la w, the Supreme Court has held “that obligations to and rig hts of the United States under its contracts a

re g overne d exclusively

by fede ral law .” Boyle v . United Tech. Corp. , 487 U.S. 500, 504 (1988). Courts must therefor e apply the fe dera l common law of c ontrac ts to the interpretation of contrac ts with the feder al g overnme nt. W right v. Foreign Se rv. Griev ance B d. , 5 0 3 F. S u p p . 2 d 1 6 3 , 1 8 0 (D
. D. C
. 2 0 0 7 ) ( qu o t i n g N. Side Lumber v. Block

, 7 53 F .3 d 1 48 2, 14 84 (9 th C ir . 1 98 5) ); see also United States v . Kearns , 595 F.2d 729, 732 ( D.C. Cir. 1978) (“it is by now ac cepte d that fede ral c ommon law providesIn addition, the Court notes that Plainti ff’ s Complaint i nvokes this Court’s jurisdiction 5 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides that “ district courts shall have orig inal jurisdiction of a ll c ivi l a c tio ns ari sin g un de r t he Con sti tut ion , la

ws , o r t re a tie s o f t

he Un ite d St a te s. ” Com

pl. ¶ 3 . “ Al tho ug h c ho ic e of law p ro vis ion s ma

y be re le va nt i n a div e rs ity a c tio n, we are re qu ir e d to apply fede ral c ommon law when de ciding fede ral que stions.” Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Doe , 140 F.3d 785, 791 ( 8th Cir. 1998). The par ties appea r to ag ree that fede ral c ommon law (as op po se d to e ith e r s tate or Tr iba l la w) c on tr ols the int e rp re tatio n o f t he pa rt ie s’ Contr a c t, a s b oth parties c ite exclusively

to fede ral c ase la

w in their brief

ing. 15 reme dies in many

situations” including “ [g]overnment contra cts”) ( citations omitt ed). 5 Se c on d, a s to the e le me nts of a br e a c h o f c on tr a c t c la im und e r f e de ra l la w, “ a pa rt y mus t alleg e and e stablish: (1) a valid contr act be tween the parties; (2) an oblig ation or duty arisingout of the c ontrac t; (3) a br eac h of that duty ; and (4) da mag es ca used by the bre ach.” Pryor v. U

nited States , 8 5 Fe d
. C l
. 9 7 , 1 0 4 (F ed
. C l
. 2 0 0 8 ) ( qu o t i n g San Carlos Irrigat ion and Drainage Dist. v. United States , 8 77 F .2 d 9 57 , 9 59 (F e d. Cir . 1 98 9) ); see also Mauras v . United States , 8 2 F e d. Cl. 29 5, 29 9 ( F e d. Cl. 20 08 ) ( same ); Spectrum Sc ience s v. United States , 84 Fe d. Cl. 716, 735 (Fed. Cl. 2008) (same) . Thus, as is particula rly rele vant her e, a pla intiff must establish that he or she suffe red a loss or injury

(often phr ased a s “dama g es”) as par t of a c laim for a br eac h of contra ct. See M alissa Co., Inc. v . United States , 18 Cl. Ct . 672, 674 (Cl. Ct. 1989) (“This court ha s long he ld t hat in c on tr a c t c a se s, wh e re pla int if f h a s a lle g e d a

br e a c h o f c on tr a c t, t

he pla int if

f m us t shoulder the bur den of e stablishing the f undamental f

acts of liability , causation, and resultant inj ur y .” ) ( int e rn a l qu otatio n ma rk s and c itatio ns omi tte d) ; see also Roseburg Lumbe r Co. v. Madigan , 978 F.2d 660, 667 ( Fe d. Cir. 1992) (“A bsent tang ible proof of

damag es, appe llant may
no t r e c ov e r f

or an a lle g e d in

jur y ” un de r c on tr a c t la

w. ); New Valley Corp. v. United States , 67 Fe d. Cl. 277, 284 (Fed. Cl. 2005) ( “bre ach must be shown to be the proxim ate c ause of the al l ege d i n j ury ”) (q u o t i n g Rec ord Club of Am., Inc. v. United A rtists Rec ords, Inc. , 890 F.2d 1264,16

1275 (2d Cir. 1989)). Although the parties, in their r espec tive pleading s, have c onfused the issue, the Court
e mph a size s th a t Pla int if

f “ be ars the burd e n o f p ro vin g the fa c t of los s w ithc e rt a int

y ” in proce edingwith its breach of contra ct claim for

money damag es. W

illems Indust. Inc. v . United States , 295 F.2d 822, 831 ( Cl. Ct . 1962). Only once Plaintiff ha s proven that it in fac t suffer ed a los s ( i.e. , suffe red da

mag es), suc h that Def

endants a re liable for a

brea ch of c ontrac t claim, does the Court move to the next st ag e— i.e , the damag es dete rmination stag e. See id. “Stated anothe r way , the measur e of da

mag es to be a

pplied in the particula

r ca se is irrele vant until the claimant has established the fac t of losses that wer e the natural and pr ox imate re sult of the brea ch of contra ct.” Id. ; see also Roseburg Lumbe r , 9 78 F .2 d at 66 7- 68 (p la int if f m us t pr ov e thr e sh old iss ue of wh e the r d ama g e s h ave a c tua lly be e n s us ta ine d) . T he Court no te s th a t th is b ur de n is g e ne ra lly no t a burd e ns ome on e , a s a

pla int if f n e e d o nly

sh owthat “ re sp on sib ili ty fo r d ama g e s is clea r,” not that “ the amount there of be a scer tainable with absolute e x actne ss or mathematica l prec ision.” Roseburg Lumber , 9 78 F .2 d at 66 8; see also Mauras , 8 2 F e d
. Cl
. a t 2 9 9 ( “ I f [a pla int if f] e ve ntu a lly

pr ov e s a ‘f a c t of dama g e ,’ an a

pp ro pr iate mon e tary

amou nt t o r e me dy

thi s ha rm ne e d n ot b e c a lc ulate d w itha bs olute c e rt a int

y .” ); Pryor , 85 Fe d. Cl. at 104-05 (g ranting summary judgme nt in favor of

defe ndant on bre ach of

contra ct claims whe re pla intiff did not show any injury or har m resulting f

rom alleg ed bre ache s). Nonethe less, the ca se law makes cle ar that a plaintiff must show the fa ct of a n injury or loss as par

t of a bre ach of

contra ct claim for money damag es. With t hat established, the Court sha ll now proce ed to the mer its of Plainti ff’ s
c la ims
.17

A. Count I of Plaint iff’s Complai nt Alleging that Defendants Failed to Assist and/or Reque st Funding for t he Tribe’s Juv enile Correction Center in CY 2005 and FY 2006 As stated pre viously , both Plainti ff a nd Def endants have moved f

or summary

judgme nt as to Count I of Plaintiff’s Complaint, which focuse s on funding for the T ribe’s juve nile corr ection cente r in CY 2005 and F Y 2006. The Court shall examine ea ch ar g ument in turn.

1. Pla int if

f’ s A lle g a tio ns that D e fe nd ants F a ile d to Ob ta in, or Al te rn a tiv e ly

to Make the ir Be st Efforts to Obtain, F unding in CY 2005 Plaintiff argues that De fenda nts breac hed the pa

rties’ Contrac t by

failingto obtain, or alternatively , by

failingto make their be st effor ts to obtain, funding in CY 2005 for the Tribe’ s juvenile cor

rec tion center . Plaintiff makes two alter native ar g uments. First, Plaintiff argues that Def endants we re oblig ated by the par ties’ Contract to obtain $1,218,482 in fundingfor the juv e nil e c or

re c tio n c e nte r i n CY20 05 . Pl a int if f d ir e c ts the Court

to S e c tio n 5 of

the Agre e me nt, which provide s that “the Sec reta ry shall make available to the Tr ibe the total amounts of funds neg otiated as they

are identified in the attac hed REPROGRAMMI NG REQUEST for

Calendar Ye ar 2 0 0 5
. ” P l
. ’s M o t . at1 2 (q u o t i n g id. , Ex . B ( Ag ree ment) § 5). The 2005 Reprog ramming Request in turn specif

ies in line item no. 177 that Defe ndants shall provide the Tr ibe with a total of $4,582,086 for

law enf orce ment in CY 2005, which Plaintiff contends includes the $1,218,482 in funding for the juve nile corr ection fa cility ref err ed to in footnote 25. Pl.’ Mot. at 12-13; Pl.’s Opp’n/Reply

at 2-3. Plaintiff there fore claims that Def endants a g ree d to actually provide the Tribe with $1,218,482 in CY 2005 fundingfor the juve nile corr ection fa cility . Pl.’ Mot. at 12- 13; Pl.’s Opp’n/Reply

at 2-3. Plaintiff fur

ther a rgues that the languag e in footnote 25 statingthat “[t] he B I A ag ree s to assist the Tribe in obtaining $1,218,482 f or oper ations funding for the18

Tr ibe s [ sic ] j uvenile cor

rec tion facility

in CY 2005” should not be rea d to qualify or neg ate the De fe nd ants ’ a g re e me nt i n li ne ite m no . 1 77 to i n f a c t pr ov ide the Tr ibe wi th $ 4, 58 2, 08 6 in funding , including the $1,218,482 in funding for the juve nile corr ection fa cility . Pl.’s Mot. 12- 13; Pl.’s Opp’n/Reply

at 2-4. In other wor ds, Plainti ff ur g es that the 2005 Repr og ramming R e qu e s ts h o u l d

b e r e a d a s ana g r e e m e n tth a tD e f e n d an t s w o u l d

a c tu a l l y ob tai n the CY 2005 funding , not just an ag ree ment that Def endants would as sis t

the Tribe in obtainingsuch funding
. Be cause it is undi sputed that the Tribe did not rece ive the spec ified funding , Pl.’s St mt. ¶ 17, Plaintiff argues that De fenda nts breac hed the pa

rties’ Contrac t and Plaintiff is entitled to recove r $1,218,482 in damag es. Pl.’s Opp’n/Reply at 9. Second, Plaintiff ar g ues in the alter native that eve n if footnote 25 is construe d to qualify Def endants’ a g ree ment in line item no. 177, Defe ndants wer e—at a minimum—require d to make their best ef

forts to obtain the spec ified fundingfor the T ribe. Pl.’s Mot. at 13- 14; Pl.’s Opp’n/Reply

at 4-5. B eca

use De fenda

nts conce de that they

made no eff

orts to obtain the fu nd ing , Pl .’ s Stm t. ¶

¶ 1 8- 20 , Pl a int if

f c on te nd s th a t D e fe nd a

nts c le arl y

br e a c he d th e pa

rt ie s’ Contr a c t. P l.’ s Mo t. at 13 -1 4; R e ply a t 4- 5. Ac c or din g ly , Pl a int if f a sse rt s th e Tr ibe is e nti tle d to
rec over its “e x pectation damag es”—de fined a s the amount Plaintiff “re asonably anticipated that de fe nd ant’ s [ sic ] best efforts would have produce d.” Pl.’s Mot. at 14. Plainti ff a rgues that the Tribe r easona

bly anticipated that Defe ndants’ best e ffor ts would result in obtaining the pr omised fundingand thus, the prope r amount of damag es is $1,218,482. Id. De fe nd ant c ounte rs that th e pla in l angua g e of fo otn ote 25 de mon str a te s th a t D e fe nd ants did no t pr omi se to o bta in f

un din g fo r C Y 2 00 5, but r a the r a g re e d o nly to “ a ssi st” the Tr ibe in ob ta ini ngsu c h f

un din g . D e fs .’ Cr os s- Mo t./ Op p’ n at 8- 9. Ac c or din g ly , D e fe nd ants ’ f a ilure to19

actua lly pay the Tribe the specifie d fundingis not a brea ch of the parties’ Contract. Id. at 8. Moreove r, De fenda

nts contend that footnote 25 should be r ead a s a non-bindingstatement of i n t en t i o nth atDe fe n d an t s wo u l d s u p p o rt o r a i d

th e T ri b e’ s o wn ef

fo rt s t o o b t ai nfu n d i n g— i.e., that Def endants a g ree d only

that, if the Tribe made its own ef forts to obtain the fundingfor the juvenile cor

rec tion center , Def

endants would a ssist t he Tribe in doing so. Id. at 8- 9. De fe nd ants argue that bec ause Plaintiff ha s provided no evide nce that it made any eff ort to obtain CY 2005 funding , Def

endants ther efor e did not brea ch their a g ree ment to assist the Tribe. Id. at 9. Finally , Def

endants a rgue that Plaintiff has not demonstrated that it incurre d any injury or dama g e s a s a

re su lt o f D e fe nd ants ’ a c tio n ( or ina c tio n, a s th e c a se may be ). De fs .’ Cr os sMot./Opp’n at 14-15; De fs.’ Reply at 7-8. Ac cordingto Defe ndants, bec ause the Contract does not contain an a ctual promise to pay the spec ified funds, Plaintiff could not have possessed any
rea sonable e x pectation of rec eiving any particula r amount, or indee d, any

amount at all. Def

s.’ Cross-Mot./Opp’n at 14-15; De fs.’ Reply at 7-8. The pa rties’ a rguments thus raise thre e issues: (1) what is the proper interpre tation of the pa rt ie s’ Contr a c t—s pe c if

ic a lly lin e ite m no . 1 77 and

the a c c omp anyingfo otn ote no . 2 5; ( 2) did De fe nd ants br e a c h th e pa rt ie s’ Contr a c t; a

nd (3 ) h a s Pla int if

f p ro du c e d e vid e nc e su ff

ic ie nt t o show that it suffer ed a loss or injury as a r esult of any

alleg ed bre ach. i. Interpre tation of the par ties’ Contract “Contrac t interpretation is a question of law and thus pre sents an appr opriate que stion for resolution on summary

judgme nt.” Hallwood Plaza, Inc. v. United States , 84 Fe d. Cl. 804, 811 (F ed. Cl. 2008). “Unde r g ener al contra ct law, the pla in and unambiguous meaningof an i n s tru m en ti s co n tro l l i n g, an d th e C o urt d et erm i n es th e i n t en t i o no f t h e p art i es fr o mth e l an gu age20

used by the par ties to ex press their a g ree ment.” W ashington Metro. Area Transit Auth. v. Merge ntime Corp. , 6 2 6 F
. 2 d 9 5 9 , 9 6 0
- 6 1 ( D
. C
. C i r . 1 9 8 0 ) ( i n t e r n a l c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d )
. “ In pe rf or min g thi s ta sk , th e Court

sh ou ld c on str

ue the c on tr a c t a s a

wh ole so a s to g ive me anin g to all of the e x press ter

ms.” Id. Whe re the c on tr a c t is un ambi guo us , a s e vid e nc e d b y the pla in languag e of the contra ct, the cour t’s inquiry

is at an end, a

nd the plain languag e of the contra ct controls. Ha llwo od

Plaz a , 8 4 F e d. Cl. a t 81 1. “ A c on tr a c t is un ambi g uo us wh e n th e re is o nly
one re asonable interpre tation.” Id. Her e, the languag e in footnote 25 e x plicitly states that “[t] he B I A agree s to assist the Tr ibe in o bta ini ng$1 ,2 18 ,4 82 fo r o pe ratio ns fu nd ingfo r t

he Tr ibe s [ sic ] j uvenile cor rec tion fac ility in CY 2005. . . .” Pl.’s Mot., Ex . B ( Ag ree ment and 2005 ReprogrammingRequest), at 14 . T his is the on ly

langua g e in t

he 20 05 Re pr og ra

mmi ngRe qu e st t

hat di re c tly

a dd re sse s CY 2005 fundingfor the juve nile corr ection fa cility
. Se e ge ne ra lly id. Th e Court fi nd s th a t th is languag e is plain and unambiguous, a nd provides only

that the Gover

nment shall “assist the Tribe in obtaining ” the spe cified f unds in CY 2005. Accor dingly , the Court conclude s that Def endants ha d a duty

to assist under the plain languag e of the parties’ Contract. P l a i n t i f f ’ s ar g u m e n tth a tth i s l an g u a g e s h o u l d b e r e a d t o i mp o s e ana c tu a l d

u ty t o p ay, rathe r than a

duty to assist, is wit hout merit. First, althoug h Plaintiff is corre ct that the Contrac t must be liberally

construed f

or the be nefit of the tr ibe, see Pl.’s Mot. at 12 (citing 25 U.S.C. § 450l(c)) , that does not mean that the Contract’s plain languag e may be ig nored. See M

ergentime Corp. , 6 26 F .2 d at 96 0- 61 (“ the pla in a nd un ambi g uo us me anin g of an in str ume nt i s controlling ”). Second, the Court does not a g ree with Plainti ff that the te x t of line item no. 177 should be21

rea d as a pr omise by

Def endants to paythe Tribe the specifie d fundingat issue, re g ardle ss of the qualifying la

ng uag e in footnote 25. See Pl.’s Mot. at 12-14; Pl .’s Opp’n/Reply at 2-5. Upon
re vie w o f t

he pa rt ie s’ Contr a c t, i t is e vid e nt t hat th e 20 05 Re pr og ra

mmi ngRe qu e st i s inte nd e d to g ener ally set forth the f

unds the United States shall provide to the Tr ibe for the provision of the ag ree d service s. See Pl.’s Mot., Ex . A (Compact) , Art. I I§ 3 (“Subjec t only to the appropr iation of funds by

the Cong ress of the United States . . . , the Secr etar y or an a uthorized repre sentative shall provide to the Tribe the total amount specifie d in the Annual Ag ree ment incorporated by
re fe re nc e . . . . ” ). I t is , h ow e ve r, e qu a lly c le ar f ro m th e 20 05 Re pr og ra

mmi ngRe qu e st, take n a s a whole, that the dollar

fig ures se t forth in the line items therein do not nec essar ily constitute the final agree d-upon amount that De fenda nts shall provide, as Plaintiff would urg e. Rather , a substantial number of the f unding line items in the 2005 Repr og rammingRequest ar e
acc ompanied by

footnotes, which in many case s appea

r to qualify

the total dollar amount noted in the line item. See Pl.’s Mot., Ex . B ( 2005 Reprog rammingRequest). For example, line item no. 102, entitled “TPA Gene ral Incre ase,” provides in the text of the line item for a

total of $227,030 in funding , but the acc ompanying f ootnote, no. 14, explains that “[t] his amount is to be determined by Congr essional appr opriation.” See id. As an a nother example, line item no. 116 provides in the text of the line item for a total of $244,000 in funding for “ Tribal Mana g ement and D evelopment,” but the acc ompanying f ootnote, no. 18, qualifies that statement with “[t] his line item includes an estimate of $70,000” and that the “ actua l amount . . . will be based on a

n exis ting, c ompetitive proce ss. . . .” See id. Simi larly , line item no. 121 pr ov ide s in

the te xt of

the lin e ite m f

or a tot a l of $4 95 ,0 00 in f

un din g fo r “ F or e str

y ” pr og ra ms, but f oo tno te no . 2 0 p ro vid e s th a t “ [t]his amou nt i s a n e sti mate ” and

that “ [t]he a c tua l amou

nt w illPlaintiff’s relianc e on Segar v. M ukasey , 508 F.3d 16, 24 ( D.C. Cir. 2007) is mispl ace d. 6 Pl.’s Mot. at 13; P l.’s Opp’n/Reply at 3. In Segar , th e D. C. C ir c uit he ld t hat a fo otn ote sh ou ld no t be re a d to e ff

e c tiv e ly de le te se ve n s ub sta

nti ve pa g e s o f t e xt. 50 8 F .3 d at 24 . Cl e arl y , th a t is not the case at hand. 22 be ba se d o n s pe c if

ic fo re str y de ve lop me nt p ro

je c ts, fo re st a c re s, and

ne e d f or the F or e st Deve lopment portion, and on the appr oved sche duled projec t amount for F orest Inventories/Plans portion in CY 2005.” See id. The e x amples g o on, but the point is clear. Contrar y to Plainti ff’ s arguments, the text of the line items—spec ifically , the final dollar a mount lis ted in eac h line item—does not, in all cases, r epre sent the final de terminative amount of funding to be provided to the Tribe. Rathe r, consider ation of the 2005 Repr og rammingRequest as a whole demonstrates that the line items and the dollar a mounts provided there in may be qualifie d by

the text of the rele vant footnote, a s is the case with the languag e at issue he re. A ccor dingly , the $4,582,036 fi g ur e amou

nt i n li ne ite m no . 1 77 c ann ot b e re a d in iso latio n f

ro m f oo tno te 25 a s a c tua lly obligating the G overnme nt to paythe Tr ibe the sp e c if ie d f un din g ($ 1, 21 8, 48 2) fo r t

he juv e nil e
corr ection ce nter, whe n the spec ific languag e in the footnote pla inly provides that the Gover nment shall only

“assist the Tribe in obtaining” the funds. The Court there fore finds that 6 the pla in a

nd un ambi g uo us langua g e of the Contr a c t im

po se s u po n D e fe nd ants a

duty to a ssi st the Tribe in obtainingthe spec ified funding
. In so finding, the Court also rejec ts Defe ndants’ asse rtion that footnote 25 is “a me re
s t at em en to f i n t en t i o n ” a n d i s “n o tb i n d i n g. ” D ef

s . ’ C ro s s -M o t . / Op p ’n at9 (c i t i n g Cut le rHamme r, Inc. v . United States , 194 Ct. Cl . 788, 794 (1971)) . Def endants’ r eliance on Cut le rHa mm e r is mispl ace d. At issue in that case was the que stion of whether a re g ulation promulg ated by

the Depa rtment of Tre asury

was c ontrac tual in nature suc h that it constitut ed a23

bin din g of

fe r b y the Un ite d St a te s to se ll s ilv e r a t a state d p ri c e pa

y to a nyon e wh o c omp lie d w ith the terms of the regulation. Cutler-Hamme r , 441 F.2d at 1180. The cour t answer ed in the neg ative, findingthat the re g ulation did not bind t he Gove rnment and obse rvingthat “the obligation of the Gover

nment, if it is to be held liable, must be stated in the form of an undertaking, not a s a mere predic tion or statement of opinion or intention.” Id. at 1182. As the court c ould “find nothing in the languag e of the Reg ulation . . . which could be c onstrued as contra ctual in nature ,” the c ourt held that the g overnme nt was not bound by the terms of the regulation. Id. B y

c on tr a st, the ins tant c a se inv olv e s— no t a re g ulatio n—

but a bin din g va lid contra ct enter ed into betwee n the United States and the Tribe pur suant to the I SDEAA, a point that Def endants do not dispute. In addition, the languag e at issue he re e x plicitly provides that BIA “a g ree s to assist the Tribe to obtain funding ”—unlike the r egulation at issue in Cut le rHamme r , th e Court

fi nd s n oth ingin t

his langua g e to i nd ic a te that e ith e r p art y vie we d th is
c omm itm e nt m e re ly

a s a “ pr e dic tio n” or

“ state me nt o f o pin ion .” Th e Court the re fo re re

je c ts Def endants’ a

rgument that the 2005 ReprogrammingRequest should be viewe d only as “a mere statement of intention.” In addition, the Court cannot agree with Defe ndants that BIA’s agree ment “to assist” wa s not impli cate d unless and until the Tribe initiated its own independe nt effor t to obtain funding. See De fs .’ Cr os s- Mo t./ Op p’ n at 9; De fs .’ Re ply a t 4. De fe nd ants argue that th e Court sh ou ld interpre t the word “ assist” to mean “ to give support or aid, indicating a seconda ry role of
a ssi sta nc e in c oo pe ratio n w iththe pr ima ry a c tor .” De fs .’ Re ply

a t 4. Ac c or din g to D e fe nd ants , beca use the Tr ibe does not cla im to have made a ny independe nt effor

t to obtain the funding at issue, Def endants’ oblig ation to assist was never trig g ere d. See id. Suc h a n a rgume nt i s24

disinge nuous, g iven that self- deter mination contrac ts are intende d to transfe r control a nd
re so ur c e s ( i.e. , funding ) for fede rally funded se rvice s and programs fr om the federal gove rnment to the Tribe. Se e Ra ma h Na v ajo , 1 12 F .3 d at 14 56 ; se e als o Samish Indian Nation , 419 F.3d at 1367 (I SDEAA is intended to “r emov[e] t he fina ncial burde n incurre d by

tribes and triba l
o r g an i z a t i o n s w h e ni mp l e m e n t i n g f e d e r a l p r o g r am s un d e r

s e l f

- d e t e r m i n a t i o nc o n tr a c t s . ” )
. In addition, as Plaintiff notes, “[c]ondit ions prece dent ar e disfavor ed and w ill not be read into a contra ct unless re quired by plain, unambig uous lang uag e.” RT Computer Graphics v. United States , 4 4 Fe d
. C l
. 7 4 7 , 7 5 6 (F ed
. C l
. 1 9 9 9 ) ( qu o t i n g Effects Assoc., Inc . v. Cohen , 908 F.2d 555, 55 9 n .7 (9 th C ir . 1 99 0) ); see also Marsa v . Metrobank F in. Group , 8 2 5 F
. S u

p p 6 5 8 , 6 6 4 ( D
. N
. J. 1993) (c ollecting case s). In this case, nothingin the Contract indicate s that the Tribe w as require d to make any

further eff orts to obtain the funding . Rather, g iven the purpose of the Contr a c t— i.e., to transfe r the c ontrol of federal prog rams to the Tribe and to ensure that the Tr ibe re c e ive s su ff

ic ie nt fe de ra l funding

—the only

rea sonable interpr etation of B I A’s agree ment to “assist” the Tr ibe to obtain fundingis that BIA would itself make e ffor ts to obtain feder al fundingon behalf

of the Tr ibe for its juvenile c orre ction cente r. ii. Br eac h Havingdeter

mined that Def

endants ha d an af

firmative duty

to assist, the Court now turns to t he qu e sti on

of wh e the r D e fe nd ants br e a c he d th a t duty . T he Court ne e d n ot d

we ll l on g on

thi s question as B I A offic ials conce ded at de position t hat B I A did not provide any assistance to the Tribe in obtainingprog ram ope rations fundingfor the juve nile corr ection fa cility in CY 2005. S p e c i f i c a l l y , th e h e a d

o f B IA ’ s O f f i c e o f J u s t i c e S e r

v i c e s , C h r i s t o p h e r

C h an e y , t e s t i f

i e d th a tB IA did not provide any

assistance to the Tribe in obtainingstaffingand program ope rations funding25

for the f acility in CY 2005. Id. ¶ 18. In addition, Patrick Rag sdale, the D irec tor of B I A, testified that he wa s not awar e of a ny eff orts by BIA to obtain staffingand program ope rations fundingfor the fa cility

in CY 2005 Id. ¶ 19. F inally , Kenne th Feinf eld, the Ac ting Dir ector

of the OSG a

nd the pe rs on

wh o e xec ute d th e 20 05 Re pr og ra mmi ngRe qu e st o n b e ha lf of the Un ite d St a te s, testified that he pe rsonally did not make any

eff orts to obtain staffingand program ope rations fundingfor the juve nile corr ection fa cility for CY 2005. Id. ¶ 2 0. De fe nd ants do no t di sp ute this, see Def

s.’ Resp. ¶¶ 18- 20, nor have they offe red a ny evidenc e to the contr ary , se e ge ne ra lly De fs .’ Stmt . A c c or din g ly , a lth ou g h th e Court wo uld no rm a lly ne e d to fi rs t de te rm ine the sp e c if ic contours of D efe ndants’ duty to assist before deter

mining whe ther the duty

was bre ache d, g iven Def endants’ c oncession that B I A made no eff ort to assist, it i s clea

r that De fenda

nts breac hed the pa rt ie s’ Contr a c t un de r a

ny re a so na ble de fi nit ion

of De fe nd ants ’ d

uty to a ssi st. iii
. Inju

ry or L os s The Court next turns to whether Plaintiff has a dequate ly demonstrated that it suffere d a loss or injury

(her e, whe ther it suffe red mone tary damag es) a s a re sult of Defe ndants’ bre ach. Def endants a rgue that Plaintiff ca

nnot establish that it suffere d any injury or loss as a r esult of Def endants’ f ailure to a ssist t he Tribe to obtain the CY 2005 funds. Def s.’ Cross-Mot./Opp’n at 14-15. Plaintiff responds that the T ribe re asonably anticipated that it would have re ceive d $1,218,482 in CY 2005 funding f or the juvenile c orre ction cente r if De fenda nts had not brea ched the Contract, a

nd that it is t here fore entitled to rec over da mag es base d on its ex pectation interest. Pl.’s Mot. at 14. As an initial matter, the Court notes that the pa rties have , to some ext ent, conf lated the thr e sh old qu e sti on of wh e the r P la int if

f h a s p ro ve n it

su ff e re d a inj ur y or los s— i.e. , established26

liability —with the subsequent question of the ty pe and a mount of damag es Plaintiff should be
awa rd e d f or any su c h lo ss. No ne the le ss, the Court un de rs tand s th a t th e pa

rt ie s’ pr inc ipa l di sp ute at this stage is whether Plaintiff ha s shown it suffere d a loss or injury as a r esult of the bre ach. As stated above , to rec over f or bre ach of

contra ct, a pa

rty must establish, inte r a lia , that they suffe red a loss caused by

the bre ach. W

ill e ms In du st. , 295 F.2d at 831 (plaintiff “be ars the burden of provingthe fa ct of loss with cer tainty ” in proc eedingwith a bre ach of contra ct claim); see also Roseburg Lumbe r , 978 F.2d at 667-68 (plaintiff must prove thr eshold issue of whe ther damag es have actua lly

been sustaine d). That is, “the complaining party must demonstrate that the bre ach c aused him injury .” New Valley Corp., 67 Fe d. Cl. at 284. Bec ause the Court finds that there are materia l issues of disputed fac t as to whether Plaintiff has shown that it suffer ed an injury as a r esult of Def

endants’ br eac h, the Court conclude s that summary judgme nt is not appropr iate. Plaintiff argues that the De partment ha d sufficie nt CY 2005 funding, suc h that the fundingin question would have be en ava ilable and pr ovided to the Tribe if Def endants ha d made any eff ort to assist the Tribe as pr omised. See Pl.’s Opp’n/Reply at 9. Specific ally , Plaintiff provides evide nce that the Depa rtment had e x perie nced “ signific ant fundingincre ases f or Indian country corr ection fa cilities for staff ing a nd operation” in FY 2005, Pl.’s Mot., Ex . E (Chane y De p. ) at 47 :4- 15 , 4 8:1 2- 17 , a nd that Co ng re ss h a d a

pp ro pr iate d $ 18 0, 06 3, 00 0 f or B I A’ s Pu bli c Safety and Just ice law

enfor ceme nt and cor

rec tion facilities, an incr ease of $7,568,000 over what
was a ppropriate d for the sa

me purposes in F Y 2004, see Pl.’s St mt. ¶ 33. Defe ndants counter that Plaintiff’s alleg ed injury is too speculative and hy pothetical, and that the Depa rtment in fac tAlthough unc lear from the br iefing , the Court understands D efe ndants’ ar g ument that the 7 De pa rtme nt l a c ke d s uf

fi c ie nt f un din g , s uc h th at pa

y me nt t o th e Tr ibe wo uld

have re su lte d in decr easingmonies directe d to other tribes, a s addre ssing the issue of causation. See Def

s.’ Cross-Mot./Opp’n at 12-14; De fs.’ Reply at 6-7. That is, that P laintiff would not have r ece ived fundingeven if

the Depa rtment had made eff

orts to assist the Tribe bec ause f unding w as insufficient, such that providing Plaintiff with the spec ified CY 2005 fundingwould have require d the Depa

rtment to decr ease fundingfor other tribes. 27 d i d n o th av e s u ff

i ci en tfu n d i n g. See Def

s.’ Cross-Mot./Opp’n at 12-15; De fs.’ Reply at 7-9. 7 The Court under stands the key dispute to be one of c ausation—in other wor ds, whether Plaintiff would have r ece ived the spec ified amount of CY 2005 fundingbut for De fenda nts’ brea ch. Although the question is a close one , the Court finds that Plaintiff has prese nted suffic ient evidenc e to cr eate a disputed issue of mate rial fa ct as to whe ther De fenda nts’ brea ch ca

used the Tribe a n injury , here , loss of CY 2005 funding
. 2. Plaintiff’s Alleg ations that Defe ndants Fa iled to Request Fundingin the Next P resident’ s Budg et Plaintiff next argues that De fenda nts failed to re quest $1,218,482 for ope rations funding for the T ribe’s juve nile corr ection fa cility in FY 2006, a s ag ree d to in the parties’ c ontrac t. F oo tno te 25 in t

he 20 05 Re pr og ra

mmi ngRe qu e st s tate s th at “ [t]he B I A a g re e s to . . . r e qu e st this
amou nt [$ 1, 21 8, 48 2] in

the ne xt Pre sid e nts [ sic ] budget.” Pl.’s Mot., Ex . B ( Agree ment and 20 05 Re pr og ra

mmi ngRe qu e st) , at 14 . A s me nti on e d a bo ve , a lth ou g h th e re is s ome de bate a s to whether the “ne x t President’s budg et” r efe rs to FY 2006 or FY 2007, se e su

pra 7, it i s
un dis pute d th a t D e fe nd ants did no t su bmi t a re qu e st f or $1 ,2 18 ,4 82 fo r t

he Tr ibe ’s juv e nil e
corr ection fa cility

in the President’s budg et for e ith e r FY 2006 or FY 2007. Pl.’s Stmt. ¶¶ 22-23. Ac c or din g ly , Pl a int if

f a rgue s th a t D e fe nd ants br e a c he d th e pa rt ie s’ Contr a c t, a

nd Pla int if f i s entitled to rec over $1,218,482 in damag es. Pl.’s Mot. at 14-15.28

Def endants re spond with two principal ar guments: (1) that the De partment doe s not possess the authority

to insert a re quest into the President’s budg et and the a g ree ment is theref ore unenfor cea

ble; and (2) the Tribe ha s not demonstrated a ny damag es or injury
. See De fs .’ Cr os sMot./Opp’n at 10-15. The Court shall ex amine ea ch ar g ument in turn.

i. Def

endants’ a

uthority to enter into an a g ree ment to reque st funding in the President’s budg et D e f e n d an t s ar g u e th a tth e a g r e e m e n ta t i s s u e i s un e n f

o r c e a b l e b e c a u s e “ [ n ] o o n e a tB IA or at the O SG possessed the author ity to insert a budg et re quest into the President’s budg et.” Def s.’ Mot. at 11. Acc ordingto Defe ndants, “only the President possesses the authority to insert a budg et re quest into the President’s budg et,” a nd there fore any

promise by

Def endants to insert a budg et re quest into the next President’s budg et is unenfor cea ble. Id. The Court, howe ver, doe s not ag ree . Def endants a re c orre ct that contra cts enter ed into by g overnme nt personnel who la ck authority to bind the Governme nt are unenfor cea ble. See City of El Centro v. United States , 922 F.2d 816, 820- 21 (F ed. Cir. 1990) (f inding that a

border ag ent did not have a

uthority to bind Un ite d St a te s in

c on tr a c t f

or me dic a l c os ts) . D e fe nd ants , h ow e ve r, a pp e ar t o c on te nd

that a g overnme nt employ ee must have e x pr ess a uth or ity a s to e a c h te rm

of a c on tr a c t in

or de r t o contra ctually

bind the Gover

nment, see Def

s.’ Cross-Mot./Opp’n at 10-11, thus ig noringthat “[a]ctual authority

can be either e x press or implied in fa ct.” First Federal Lincoln Bank v. United States , 5 4 F e d. Cl. 44 6, 45 2 ( Ct. Cl. 20 02 ). As c on c e rn s th e latte r, a c tua l a uth or ity is implied “when suc h authority is an integ ral pa

rt of the duties a ssigne d to a [g]overnment employ ee.” Id. (interna l quotation marks omitted).29

Turningto the ag ree ment at issue, the Court first notes that De fenda nts have mischara cter ized the nature of the ag ree ment at issue. As shown by the plain languag e of the parties’ Contract, B I A did not ag ree to “insert” a budg et re quest into the President’s budg et, but rathe r only

to “re quest” this amount in the next P resident’ s budg et. See Pl.’s Mot., Ex . B (A g re e me nt a

nd 20 05 Re pr og ra

mmi ngRe qu e st) , at 14 (“ Th e B I A a g re e s . . . to r e qu e st t his
amou nt i n th e ne xt Pre sid e nts [ sic ] budget.” ). Even D efe ndants ac knowledg e that the Sec reta ry has authority

to “pre pare and submit to the President eac h appropr iation reque st for the a g ency .” See Def s.’ Cross-Mot./Opp’n at 11 (c iting 31 U.S.C. § 1108(a) ). Admittedly , the President and/or Cong ress may

reje ct or other

wise modify

the re quest, but it is not disputed that the Secre tary is authorized, on behalf of the Depa rtment, to submit requests for c onsideration in the President’s budg et. Second, the Court is persua ded that the Dir ector of OSG, who e x ecute d the 2005 Reprog rammingRequest on beha lf of the United States, ha d authority to promise that the De pa rtme nt w ou ld r e qu e st the sp e c if ie d f un din g in t

he ne xt Pre sid e nt’ s b ud g e t. T he Di re c tor is head of the OSG, which is the off ice within the De partment re sponsible for administeringthe Secre tary ’s tribal self- g overna nce pr og ram, includingBIA prog rams. See Pl.’s Mot., Ex . B ( 2005 Reprog rammingRequest); Pl.’s Stm t. ¶ 3. The Court is hard pr essed to find that the D irec tor la c ke d th e a

uth or ity to e nte r i nto thi s a g re e me nt— i.e. , an agree ment g overningfundingfor pr og ra ms tra ns fe rr e d to the Tr ibe purs ua nt t o a se lf -d e te rm inatio n a g re e me nt— a s d oin g so is quite clea rly “an integral pa

rt of the duties a ssigne d” to the Dire ctor of the OSG. Se e Fi rst Fede ral Li ncoln Bank, 54 Fe d. Cl. at 452. I ndeed, a s Plainti ff points out, there is no que stion that the Dire ctor c ould have simply committed the Depa

rtment to pay

the Tribe $1,218,482 f

or30

operating the juve nile corr ection fa cility in FY 2006. De fenda

nts’ argument that the Dire ctor
c ou ld n ot m ake the le sse r c omm itm e nt o n b e ha lf of the De pa rtme nt t o me re ly

re qu e st this amount be submitted in the budg et is thus without m erit. Finally , the Court is persuade d by the Fe dera l Circuit’s rea soning in LDG Timber Enterprises, Inc. v . Glickman , 1 14 F .3 d 1 14 0 ( F e d. Cir . 1 99 7) . In th a t c a se , th e F e de ra l Cir c uit
re je c te d th e g ov e rnme nt’ s argume nt t hat th e c on tr a c tin g of

fi c e r e xce e de d h is a

uth or ity in
a g re e ingto c e rt a in t e rm s in a tim be r c on tr a c t, s ta

tin g that: When the contra ctingoffice r administers a contra ct wit h which the officer is charg ed, the promises and repr esentations made by the officer, when within the scope of the su bj e c t matte r o f t

he c on tr a c t c an n ot [ sic ] b e av o id e d b y s im p ly d is c la im ing the contra cting office r’s a

uthority when the c ontrac t rea ches litig ation. Id. at 1143. Acc ording ly , when, a s here , the ac tions of the g overnme nt official at issue are “within the authority

that perta ins to the subject matter of the contra ct, and no statute or
re g ulatio n li mit s th a t a

uth or ity ,” the g ov e rnme nt s ho uld be ar t he burd e n o f c omi ngfo rw ard wi th specific evidenc e that the c ontrac ting of fice r lac ked author ity

for the a ctions at issue. Id. Havingdeter

mined that Def

endants have fa iled to do so, the Court concludes that B I A’s promise to reque st the specifie d fundingin the next P resident’ s budg et is enfor cea ble. Be cause Def

endants c oncede that they did not, in fact, submit a reque st for $1,218,482 for the T ribe’s juve nile fac ility in the President’s budg et for e ith e r FY 2006 or FY 2007, Pl.’s Stmt . ¶¶ 22- 23, it is clear that De fenda nts breac hed the pa

rties’ a g ree ment to do so. The Court the re fo re tur

ns dir e c tly

to t he iss ue of

dama g e s. ii. Inju

ry or L os s Def endants’ a lso argue that Plaintiff did not suffer any injury or loss as a r esult of31

Def endants’ br eac h. Plaintiff responds that the Tr ibe re asonably anticipated that it would have
rec eived $1,218,482 in F Y 2006 fundingfor the juve nile corr ection ce nter if De fenda nts had not brea ched the Contract, and it is there fore entitled to rec over da mag es base d on its ex pectation int e re st. Pl. ’s Mo t. at 14 -1 5. De fe nd ants c ounte r t hat be c a us e B I A a g re e d o nly

to r e qu e st— i.e. , not to pay —the spec ified amount, and be cause the President or Cong ress may have modifie d or reje cted the r equest, Plaintiff could not have rea sonably expected to re ceive the FY2006 funding
. See Def

s.’ Cross-Mot./Opp’n at 11, 14-15. Once ag ain, the par

ties have c onflated the threshold question of whe ther Plaintiff has pr ov e n it su ff e re d a inj ur y or los s— i.e. , established liability —with the question of the ty pe and amount of dama g es Plaintiff should be awa rded f or any such loss. The Court, howeve r, understands that the parties’ principal dispute to foc us on the question of whe ther Plaintiff has shown it suffer ed a loss or injury as a r esult of the bre ach. A s previously explained, to recove r for br eac h of contra ct, a pa rty must establish, inte r a lia , that they suffe red a

loss caused by

the brea ch. W

ill e ms In du st. , 2 95 F .2 d at 83 1; see also Roseburg Lumbe r . Be cause the Court finds that there are materia l issues of disputed fac t as to whether Plaintiff has shown that it suffer ed an injury as a r esult of Def

endants’ br eac h, the Court conclude s that summary judgme nt is not appropr iate. Pla int if f c on te nd s th a t Co ng re ss w ou ld h ave a pp ro pr iate d th e sp e c if

ie d f un din g if reque sted bec ause Cong ress not only appropr iated all re quested funds f or B I A Public Safety

and J ustice law e nforc ement programs in FY2006 and F Y 2007, but in fac t appropriated additional funds over

and above the amounts reque sted. For example, the President’s budg et for F Y 2006 reque sted $192,265,000 for B I A Public Safety and Just ice law

enfor ceme nt prog rams, including32

fundingfor the ope ration of c orre ction service s, prog rams, and f acilities. Pl.’s St mt.¶ 34. Congr ess subsequently

incre ased this fundingreque st by an additional $1.1 million, appropr iating a

total of $193,377,000. Id. ¶ 35. Simil arly , as to FY2007, the Depa rtment reque sted a lump sum of $201,620,000 in the President’s budg et for B I A Public Safety and Justi c e law e nf

or c e me nt p ro g ra

ms, inc lud ingfu

nd ingfo r o pe ratio n o f c or re c tio n s e rv ic e s, prog rams, and f

acilities. Id. ¶ 36. Cong ress a g ain incre ased the fundingover a nd above the reque sted amount, appropr iating a total of $204,454,00 for F Y 2007, an incr ease of $11,077,00
over what was a

ppropriate d for the sa

me purposes in F Y 2006. Id. ¶ 37. De fenda nts contend that Plaintiff’s alleg ed expectanc y damag es ar e too spec ulative and hy pothetical. See Def

s.’ Cross-Mot./Opp’n at 14-15; De fs.’ Reply at 7-9. Ac cording ly , as pre sented by the par ties, the key issue, once a g ain, is one of c ausation— i.e. , whether Plaintiff would have r ece ived the sp e c if ie d amou nt o f f un din g but f

or De fe nd ants ’ b re a c h. Al tho ug h th e qu e sti on re ma ins a

c los e one, the Court finds that Plaintiff has pre sented suff icient evidenc e to cr eate a disputed issue of mat eri al f actas t o wh eth er t he D efen dan ts ’ br each c aus ed t he T ri be i nj ury , t hatis , a l os s o f FY 2006 or F Y 2007 funding . Summary judgme nt on this i ssue is theref ore not a ppropriate
. Acc ording ly , the Court shall deny both Plainti ff’ s Motion for Summary J udg ment and De fe nd ants ’ M oti on

fo r S umm ary

Judg me nt a s to Count I

of Pla int if f’ s Co mpl a int
. B. Count II of Plaintif f’s Complaint All eging that Defendants Failed to Notify the Tribe of the Availabilit

y of End-of-Year Funds Plaintiff next alleg es that De fenda nts failed to notify

the Tribe of

the ava ilability

of y ear e nd fu nd s a s p ro mis e d in

the pa rt ie s’ Contr a c t. S e c tio n 1 7 o f t he Agre e me nt a

nd the F ourt h Amendment both provide:33

Additional Funds - I f t he Mi dwest R eg ion Offic e of the BI A receive s notice of the availability

of any additional funding in a ny fiscal y ear for any purpose, including a ny un sp e nt

f un d s , th a tth e T r i b e i s e l i g i b l e t o a p p l y f o r o r r e c e i v e , th e ni tmus t no tif y the Tr ibe a s so on a s po ssi ble a bo ut su c h fu

nd s so that the Tr ibe may a c c e ss or apply for those funds. The Midwest Reg ion Offic e commit s to keeping the Tribe informed of

the exist ence of fundingimmediately upon lear ning of its ex istence. Pl. ’s Mo t, E x. B (A g re e me nt) a t 4 ( e mph a sis in o ri g ina l) ; id. , E x. L(F ourt h A me ndme nt) a t 4 (empha sis in original). I

n September of

2006, the B I A Midwest Reg ional Offic e re ceive d and distributed FY 2006 year -end f unds to five of the thirty -five I ndian tribes and tr ibal org anizations withi n the B I A Midwest Reg ion, but did not i nform the Tr ibe about the availability

of these f unds until weeks af

ter they wer e distributed. Pl.’s Stm t. ¶¶ 43-45. Plaintiff there fore contends that De fenda nts breac hed the Contrac t and that Plaintiff is entitled to partial summary judgme nt as to liabilit y

with respec t to the brea ch, re servingdeter mination as to the amount of dama g es. Pl.’s Mot. at 15. As explained above, how ever , proof of injury or loss (her e, monetar

y damag es, as alleg ed by

Plaintiff) is an eleme nt of Plaintiff’s brea ch of c ontrac t claim, and, in orde r to survive
summa ry jud g me nt, Pla int if

f m us t pr od uc e su ff ic ie nt e vid e nc e fr om whic h a tr ie r o f f a c t c ou ld conclude that Plaintiff suffer ed a loss as a result of De fenda

nts’ brea ch. See Pryor , 8 5 F e d. Cl.
a t 10 4 ( dama g e s are an e le me nt o f a br e a c h o f c on tr a c t c la im) ; New Valley Corp. , 67 Fe d. Cl. at 284 (“the complaining party must demonstrate that the bre ach c aused him injury”) ( quoting Rec ord Club of Am. , 890 F.2d at 1275). In th is i ns tanc e , Pl a int if

f h a s n ot p ro ff

e re d a ny e vid e nc e that it

su ff e re d a los s a s a re su lt of De fenda

nts’ failure to notify

it of the y ear -end f

unds. To the contra

ry , the unre butted evidenc e in the re cord shows that, although the Tribe wa s technica lly elig ible to rec eive the34

y ear -end f

unds, the Tribe w ould not have, as a prac tical matter, r ece ived any y ear -end f

unds beca use it did not have a c ontrac t under Title I of Public L aw 93- 638. As Def endants e x plained, in l ig ht o f t ime c on str a int s atta c he d to the fu nd ing , th e B I A C e ntr a l O ff ic e ha d d e c ide d to distribute the y ear -end f

unds only to tribes havingcontra cts under T itle Iof Public L aw 93- 638 ( c o d i f i e d a t2 5 U
. S
. C
. § 4 5 0 f

) , an d n o tt o tr i b e s
— l i k e P l a i n t i f f

— h av i n g c o n tr a c t s un d e r

T i t l e IV of Public L aw 93- 638 (codifie d at 25 U.S.C. § 458cc). Pl.’s Stmt.¶ 46. As BIA Dire ctor Rag sdale e x plained at de position: Se lf -g ov e rn anc e tr ibe s [su c h a s Pla int if f] w e re e lig ibl e fo r fund s, but my understandingis [ ] t hat the money had to be obligated within a very short period of time and the B urea

u’s m echa

nism through the O ffice of Self-G overna nce c ould not mecha nically do that. So the self-g overna nce tribes wer e excluded fr om that—from that potential allocation. Id. ¶ 4 8 ( qu oti ngPl. ’s Mo t., Ex. K (R a g sd a le De p. ) a

t 64 :1- 7) ). Pla int if

f o ff e rs no e vid e nc e to dispute this contention or to otherwise sug g est that it would have re ceive d any portion of the y ear -end f

unds even if D efe ndants had a lerted the Tribe to the f unding. N or does Plaintiff off er any evidenc e as to what actions the Tribe would have taken, eve n if timely notified, to apply

for the funds—funds whic h the B I A Central Of fice had alr eady

decide d Plaintiff would not rece ive. In o rd e r t o s ur

viv e summa

ry jud g me nt o n it s b re a c h o f c on tr a c t c la im, the Tr ibe mus t proff er some e vidence that it suffere d a loss cause d by Def endants’ br eac h. Se e Ma lis sa , 1 8 Cl
. Ct. at 674 (“This cour

t has long held that in contra ct ca ses, wher e plaintiff ha s alleg ed a br eac h of contra ct, the plaintiff must shoulder the bur den of e stablishing the f undamental f

acts of lia bil ity , c a us a tio n, and

re su lta nt i nju ry .” ) ( int e rn a l qu otatio n ma rk s a nd c itatio ns omi tte d) ; see als o W ill e ms In du st. 29 5 F .2 d at 83 1 ( pla int if f “ be ars the burd e n o f p ro vin g the fa c t of los s w ith
cer tainty ” in proc eedingwith its breach of contra ct claim for

money damag es). Plaintiff,Be cause the Court deter mines that Plainti ff ha s not proffe red e vidence that it suffere d a 8 los s a s a re su lt o f D e fe nd ants ’ f

a ilure to n oti fy

the Tr ibe of

the y e ar- e nd

fu nd s, the pa

rt ie s’ dispute as to whether

those funds totaled $200,000 or only $85,000 is imm ater ial. See Pl. ’s Stmt
. ¶ 43; Def s.’ Resp. ¶ 43. 35 howeve r, has f

ailed to do so. Acc ording ly , as there are no materia l fac ts in disput e and a s Plaintiff has not proffe red e vidence from which a trier of fac t could conclude that Plaintiff has met all the eleme nts of its breac h of contra ct claim, the Court shall deny Plaintiff’s motion for pa rt ia l summa

ry jud g me nt a

nd sh a ll g ra nt D e fe nd ant’ s mo tio n f

or summa ry jud g me nt a s to Count I Iof

Pla int if f’ s Co mpl a int
. 8 C. Cou nt I

II of P lai nti ff’ s Co mp lai nt A lle

ging th at D e

fe nd an ts F aile d to Tim e ly Provide a Pay

Cost Report as Cont ractually Required Plaintiff next alleg es that De fenda nts failed to provide the Tribe with a c omplete and adequate pay

cost repor

t as requir ed by

the par ties’ Contract. As e x plained above , footnote 15 to l ine ite m no . 1 03 in t

he 20 06 Re pr og ra

mmi ngRe qu e st p ro vid e s inte r a lia : [T] he B I A and OSG a g ree to provide to the Tribe by April 1, 2006, a deta iled Pay Cos t ana ly sis fo r t

he y e ars 20 03 -20 06 , s ho wi ngwh a t th e Tr ibe wa s e lig ibl e to rec eive eac h y ear

based upon Pay

Cost data the Tribe pr ovided, the ac tual amount re ce i v ed , and the shortf

all or unfunde d amount. This analy sis will i nclude L aw Enforc ement. The analy sis will s epar ate l y show the total amounts rec eived e ach y ear for Self-Gove rnanc e tribes, contra cting tribes, and B I A prog rams, as w ell as the tot a l amou

nts the B I A w a s e lig ibl e to r e c e ive fo r t he se pr og ram s base d u

po n d a ta it compiled. The above information has be en re q u es t ed by the Tribe to ve rify w h e th e r R e d Lak e , o th e r

S e l f G o v e r n an c e tr i b e s , c o n tr a c t i n g t r i b e s , an d B IA prog rams we re tre ated the same way with r eg ard to the distribution of Pay Costs for the y ear s 2003-2006. Pl. ’s Stmt

. ¶ 49 (quotingPl.’s Mot., Ex . L(2006 ReprogrammingRequest) at 3 n. 15). I t is undisput ed that B I A and OSG f ailed to provide a

detailed pa

y cost ana ly sis to the Tribe by April 1, 2006. Id. ¶ 50. Howe ver, a s discussed above , Def endants have now pr ovidedThe Court empha siz es that it was lar g ely unaided by

Def endants’ br iefingin rea ching 9 this conclusion. Defe ndants provided a bare pag e of discussion addr essing this novel question of statutory interpre tation, citing only two case s for leg al support. See Def s.’ Cross-Mot./Opp’n at 16 -1 7. Mo re ov e r, on e of

tho se c itatio ns is i nc or

re c t a s, c on tr ary

to D e fe nd ants ’ r e pr e se ntatio ns , the opinion in Designer Dire ct, Inc . v. De Forest Dev . Auth. , 313 F.3d 1036 ( 7th Cir. 2002) does no t me nti on

the te rm “ sp e c if ic pe rf or manc e ” no r c on ta in t

he qu otatio n r e fe re nc e d in De fe nd ants ’ briefing . Rather, it appe ars that the quotation at issue is corre ctly attributed to the dec ision in Lee v. Blume nthal , 588 F.2d 1281, 1282 ( 9th Cir. 1979). 36 Plaintiff with a pay

cost repor

t, attachingthe Report to Def endants’ Cross- Motion and Opposition in t his case. See Def s.’ Cross-Mot./Opp’n, Ex. A (Pay Cost R eport). Plaintiff
no ne the le ss r e sp on ds that D e fe nd ants re ma in i n b re a c h b e c a us e the pa y c os t r e po rt

ult imate ly provided by

Def endants is incomplete a

nd fails to satisfy

the Depa rtment’s oblig ation under the pa rt ie s’ Contr a c t. P l.’ s O pp ’n /Re ply a t 12 . Sp e c if

ic a lly , Pl a int if

f a sse rt s th a t th e ana ly sis omi ts (1 ) t he tot a l pa

y c os t a mou nts that B I A r e c e ive d e a c h y e ar f or its pr og ra

ms a nd (2 ) t he amou nts BIA was e ligible to re ceive
. Id. Notably , Def endants do not dispute the inade quacy of the pa y cost repor t provided to Plaintiff, but rather contend only

that the Court does not have jurisdiction to award spe cific pe rfor mance of a g overnme nt contrac t. Defs.’ Reply at 10. Ul tim a te ly , h ow e ve r, the Court fi nd s th a t D e fe nd ants have no t di re c te d th e Court ’s a tte nti on to
any le g a l a uth or ity su pp or tin g the ir c la im that th e I SDE AAdo e s n ot p ro vid e thi s Co ur t w ith jurisdiction to order spec ific per formanc e of a contra ct enter ed into pursuant to that statute, and, the re fo re , b a se d o n th e argume nts a sse rt e d in the pa rt ie s’ br ie fi ng , th e Cou

rt c on c lud e s th a t it
may c omp e l D e fe nd ants to p ro vid e Pla int if f w ithan a de qu a te pa

y c os t r e po rt . 9 As an initial matter, neither party has direc ted the Court’s attention to any decision direc tly addre ssing whe ther the I SDEAA provides a district court with jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s cla im for spec ific per formanc e of a self-g overna

nce c ontrac t nor is the Court awar e of37

any such opinion. The question now be fore the Court thus appea rs to be one of

first impression. “As in all statutory

construction ca ses, we be g in with the languag e of the statute.” Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., Inc. , 534 U.S. 438, 450 (2002). “T he first step ‘ is to determine whe ther the langua g e a t is su e ha s a

pla in a nd un ambi g uo us me anin g wi th r e g ard to t he pa rt ic ula r d isp ute in the ca se.’” Id. (q u o t i n g Robinson v. Shell Oil Co. , 519 U.S. 337, 340 (1997). “T he inquiry
cea ses ‘if the statutory

languag e is unambiguous and ‘the statutory scheme is cohere nt and consistent.’” Id. (q u o t i n g Robinson , 519 U.S. at 340). In addition, the statute’s “le g islative history can a ssist t he cour

t in identify ing le g islative intent where the statute is unclea r, and, on
ra re oc c a sio ns , it

may su ff ic e to o ve rc ome a

re su lt o f t

he pla in l angua g e of

the statut e that is ‘demonstra

bly at odds with the intentions of its drafter s.’” Bu llc re e k v . Nu c le ar

Re gu lator y Comm’n , 3 5 9 F. 3 d

5 3 6 , 5 4 1 -4 2 (D
. C
. C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) ( ci t i n g Blum v. Stenson , 465 U.S. 886, 896 (1 9 8 4 ) a n d

qu o t i n g United States v. Ron Pair Enterp., I nc., 489 U.S. 235, 242 (1989)). The Court there fore turns first to the plain languag e of the rele vant sec tion of the I SDE AA , w hic h p ro vid e s: The United States district cour ts shall have orig inal jurisdiction over any civil action or cla im ag ainst the appropr iate Secr etar y arisingunder this [Act] and, subjec t to the provisions of subsection (d) of this section an d co ncurr ent with the United States Court of Claims, over any civil acti o n o r cla im ag ainst the Secre tary for money damag es ar ising unde r contracts authoriz ed by this [Act]
. In an ac tion broug ht under this parag raph, the district courts may orderappropr iate re lief includingmoney damag es, inj un c tiv e re lie

f ag ainst any ac t i o n b y

an off icer of the United States or any ag ency there of contra

ry to th i s s u b chapte r or r egulations promulgated there under, or ma nd

am us to c om

pe l an office r or employ ee of the United States, or any ag ency there of, to perf

orm a duty provided under t his subchapte r or regulations promulg ated he reunde r ( i n cludi ng immediate injunctive re lief to reve rse a declination findingunder se ction 450f(a )(2) of this title or to compel the Secr etar y to awar d and fund a

n approve d self-de termination contra ct). 25 U. S.C. § 4 50 m- 1( a ) ( e mph a sis a dd e d) . T hu s, the pla in s tatut or y langua g e pr ov ide s th a t th is38

Court has “orig inal jurisdiction over any civil action or c laim ag ainst the appropr iate Secr etar y arisingunder” the I SDEAA and this [Act] and “may order appropr iate re lief including
. . . injunctive relief

ag ainst any

action by an off icer of the United States or

any ag ency there of . . . .,
or mand amus to c omp e l an o ff ic e r o r e mpl oy e e of

the Un ite d St a te s, or

any a g e nc y the re of , to perf orm a duty

provided unde r this [ Act] or regulations promulgated her eunder .” Id. Moreove r, as Plaintiff emphasizes, the leg islative history of sec tion 450m-1 states expl icitly that the I SDEAA, as amended, “ aff ords self- deter

mination contrac tors the opportunity to secure injunctive relief

. . . for violations of the Self- Deter mination Act (or the te rms of contra cts under the Act) .” S. Rep. No. 100-274 at 34 (1988), re pr inte d a t 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2620, 2653. Significa ntly , Def endants fa il to make any

specific argument, with citations to relevant
case law or le g al authority , that the plain languag e of the I SDEAA should be re ad to the contra ry . Rather, De fenda

nts make only

a conc lusory

and unsupported a ssertion that “the express lang uag e of the statute . . . does not provide the Court with authority to gr ant the specific perf

ormanc e Red L ake r equests.” See Def s.’ Reply at 11. Such a state ment, made without further e x planation, is puzz ling to say the least, g iven the languag e quoted a bove. Def endants only

other a rgument in support of their position is the assertion that, as a g ener al matter, c ourts do not possess jurisdiction to award spec ific per formanc e of a contra ct ag ainst the g ov e rnme nt, a s su c h a

n a c tio n is an a c tio n a g a ins t th e so ve re ig n a nd is n ot m a int a ina

ble un le ss consente d to. See Def

s.’ Cross-Mot./Opp’n at 16-17; De fs.’ Reply at 10-11. It would appea r, ho we ve r, fr om t

he pla in l angua g e of

the Ac t, t hat th e g ov e rnme nt h a s, in f a c t, c on se nte d to actions for

specific perf

ormanc e for

brea ch of se lf-g overna

nce c ontrac ts under the I SDE AA —a nd De fe nd ants of

fe r n o r e a so n w hy

the g e ne ra l pr inc ipl e of

so ve re ig n immun ity39

should trump the specific, pla in lang uag e of the statute at hand. Mor eover , even if the Court
we re to g ive De fe nd ants the be ne fi t of the do ub t and

fi nd that th e statut or

y langua g e is ambig uous, Defe ndants do not rec oncile their position with the well-e stablished cannon of statut or y int e rp re tatio n th a t “ statut e s are to b e c on str ue d li be ra lly

in f avo r o f t he Ind ians , w ith ambig uous provisions interpreted to their benef it.” Montana v. Black

feet Tribe of Indians , 471 U. S. 7 59 , 7 66 (1 98 5) ; see also One ida County v. Oneida Indian Nation , 470 U.S. 226, 247 (1985). Ac cording ly , as both the plain languag e of the I SDEAA and its leg islative history favor a findingthat this Court has jurisdiction t o order specific perf

ormanc e of the parties’ Contract enter ed into pursuant to the I SDEAA, and a s Defe ndants have not provided any persua sive
argume nt t o th e c on tr ary , th e Court c on c lud e s th a t it

ha s juri sd ic tio n to awa

rd Pla int if f s pe c if ic perf ormanc e of its g overnme nt contrac t. F ina lly , a s D e fe nd ants do no t c on te st t hat th e pa y c os t r e po rt

a tta c he d to the ir

Cr os sMotion/Opposit ion is inadequate, the Court shall deny Def endants’ motion for summar y judgme nt and shall g rant Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgme nt as to Count I I Iof Plaintiff’s Complaint. Defenda

nts shall therefor e be r equire d, by no later tha

n April 30, 2009, to provide Plaintiff with a pay

cost ana ly sis for the y ear s 2003-2006 that fully complies with the terms of the par ties’ Contract a

nd that shows: (1) “what the Tribe was e ligible to re ceive eac h y ear based upon Pay Cost data the Tribe pr ovided, the ac tual amount rec eived, a nd the shortfa ll or
un fu nd e d amou

nt; ” and (2 ) “ the tot a l amou

nts re c e ive d e a c h y e ar f

or Se lf -G ov e rn anc e tr ibe s,
c on tr a c tin g tr ibe s, and

B I A p ro g ra

ms, a s w e ll a s th e tot a l amou nts the B I A w a s e lig ibl e to
re c e ive fo r t

he se pr og ra

ms b a se d u

po n d a ta it c omp ile d. ” Pl. ’s Stmt

. ¶ 49 (quotingPl.’s Mot., Ex . L(2006 ReprogrammingRequest) at 3 n. 15).40

D. Count IV of Plainti ff’s Complaint

Alleging that Defendants Did Not T reat Tribe Em plo y e es th e Sa meas Ot

he r E mp loy e es fo r P ur

po se s o f P ay Cos t A dju stm e nts in FY 2006 Count IV o f P la int if

f’ s Co mpl a int

a sse rt s th a t, a lth ou g h a ll o f B I A’ s f ixed c os ts, including pa

y costs, wer e funde d in FY 2006, B I A did not fully fund the Tr ibe’s pay

costs and the re fo re br e a c he d it s p ro mis e in t he pa rt ie s’ Contr a c t th a t: The B I A will make eve ry eff ort to treat Red L ake T ribal employ ees the same a s a ll o the r T ri ba l and

F e de ra l e mpl oy e e s f

or purp os e s o f p ay

c os t a dju stm e nts in FY 2006. Pl.’s Mot., Ex . L(2006 ReprogrammingRequest) at 3 n. 15. Al tho ug h Pl a int if

f h a s n ot m ov e d f

or summa ry jud g me nt o n Co un t IV, De fe nd ants appea r to claim that summary

judgme nt in their favor

is appropriate on this claim. See Def s.’ Cross-Mot./Opp’n at 17. The Court notes only that it “appea

rs” De fenda

nts have so moved beca use, despite De fenda

nts’ asser tion that summ ary

judgme nt on Count I V is appropr iate, Def endants have fa iled to include any fac tual or leg al support for that conclusion. Indeed, Def endants’ e ntire discussion of this issue is releg ated to a sing le sentenc e at the c lose of Def endants’ br iefing , providing—without citation to any leg al authority

or re fer ence to the fac tual matter in this case —that: “any claim [P laintiff] may

raise c oncer

ning pa y ment of pay costs is not contractua l, but if any thing, statutory , subject to revie w pursuant to the Administrative Procedur es Ac t, under whic h money damag es ar e not ava ilable.” Id. Plaintiff counter s that its claim is appropriately char acte rized as a br eac h of contra ct claim, as the Tribe
a lle g e s th a t D e fe nd ants br e a c he d th e pa rt ie s’ a g re e me nt t

hat B I A w ou ld m ake e ve ry e ff or t to treat the Tribe’ s employ ees the same a s Fe dera l employ ees vis-a -vis pay cost adjustments. The Court , h ow e ve r, ne e d n ot r e so lve thi s is su e a t th is j un c tur e , in lig ht o f D e fe nd ants ’ f

a ilure toAlthough D efe ndants have not raised the issue, the Court notes that it is not clea r fr om 10 the re cord be fore it that Pl aintiff has e x hausted its administrative re medies as to Count I V of Plaintiff’s Complaint. I t appea rs that exhaustion of administrative reme dies under the Contract Disputes Act is a jurisdictional pre requisite to the Court’s conside ration of br eac h of contra ct claims pursuant to the I SDEAA. See Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of L a. v. United States , 577 F. Supp. 2d 382, 407-08 (D.D .C. 2008). Howeve r, g iven the disposition of Defe ndants’ motion for summary judgme nt as to Count I V and that ne ither par ty has ra ised this issue, the Court need not re solve the issue sua sponte at this point. 41 proff er a ny fac tual or leg al authority in support of its moti on for summary judgme nt as to Count I V, in violation of local rules. See L CvR 7(a) (“ Eac h motion shall i nclude or be ac companied by a stateme nt of the spec ific points of law a nd authority

that support the motion.”). Acc ording ly , the Court shall deny Def endants’ motion for summar y judgme nt as to Count I V. 10 IV . C ON CL USI ON F or the re a so ns se t f

or th a bo ve , th e Court

sh a ll G RA

NT -I N- PAR T a

nd DENY -I N- PAR T Pla int if f’ s Mo tio n f

or Sum mary

Judg me nt a

nd sh a ll G RA

NT -I N- PAR T a

nd DENY -I N- PAR T De fe nd ants ’ C ro ss- Mo tio n f or Sum mary

Judg me nt. Spe c if

ic a lly , a s to Count I

(j uv e nil e
c or re c tio n f a c ili ty fu nd ing ), the Court

fi nd s th a t th e re are g e nu ine iss ue s o f m a te ri a l f a c t in dis pute that pr e c lud e summa ry jud g me nt, and

the re fo re DENI ES the pa rt ie s’ c ro ss- mot ion s w ith respe ct to Count I . As to Count I I(F Y 2006 y ear -end f unds), the Court finds in favor of Def endant, a nd there fore GRANTS Def endants’ Cross- Motion for Summary J udg ment and D E N IE S P l a i n t i f

f ’ s M o t i o nf

o r S u m m ar y J u d g m e n tw i thr e s p e c tt o C o un tII. A s t o C o un tIII (spec ific per formanc e for Pay Cost analy sis), the Court finds in favor of Plaintiff, and there fore GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary J udg ment and DEN I ES Defe ndants’ Cross-Motion fo r S umm ary

Judg me nt w ithre sp e c t to Count I I I . Sp e c if ic a lly , th e Court

he re by re qu ir e s th a t, by no later tha

n April 30, 2009, Def

endants shall provide Plaintiff with a pay cost ana ly sis for42

the y ear s 2003-2006 that fully complies with the terms of the pa rties’ Contrac t, as discussed
a bo ve . F ina lly , th e Court

DENI ES D e fe nd ants ’ C ro ss- Mo tio n f or Summary

Judg me nt a s to Count I V (unde rpaid pa

y costs). Date: Marc h 19, 2009 /s/ C O LLE E N K O LLA R
- K O T E LLY Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge