## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JUL 27 2004 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Defendant-Appellee. No. 02-2214

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico (D.C. No. CIV-01-1266 LH/WWD)
Charles W. Kolberg (Robert M. White, City Attorney, with him on the briefs), Assistant City Attorney, Albuquerque, New Mexico, f or Plaintiff-Appellant. Hugo Teufel III (David C. Iglesias, United States Attorney, and Raymond Hamilton, Assistant United States Attorney, Albuque rque, New Mexico; and James Weiner, Department of the Interior, Washingto n, D.C., with him on the brief), Associate Solicitor, Department of the Inte rior, Washington, D.C., for Defendant-Appellee.

Before SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge, and ANDERSON and BRORBY , Senior Circuit Judges.

BRORBY , Circuit Judge.-2- BACKGROUND The City of Albuquerque (“the City”) appeals the di strict court’s order granting defendant the United States Department of the Interior’s (“Interior”) motion to dismiss. The district court dismissed th e complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), determining it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the City’s case challenging Interior’s procedu res used in selecting a site for new office space in Albuquerque, New Mexico. City of Albuquerque v. United States Dep’t of the Interior , 217 F. Supp. 2d 1194, 1197 (D. N.M. 2002). We disagree. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U .S.C. § 1291, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The heart of this dispute is a 2001 Solicitation fo r Offers issued by Interior for the provision of office space to house the Offi ce of the Special Trustee for American Indians. According to the City’s complaint, throughout the site selection process the City contacted Interior and r ecommended property within Albuquerque’s central business area. Notwithstandi ng the City’s encouragement, Interior ultimately selected a location outside Alb uquerque’s central business

area.

Upon learning of Interior’s selected site, the Cityfiled a complaint in the-3-

United States District Court for the District of Ne w Mexico. The complaint “challenges the procedures [Interior] used in reach ing a final agency decision with respect to the site selection.” Specifically, the City alleges Interior’s selection process violated Executive Order 12,072 and its accompanying regulations. See Exec. Order No. 12,072, 43 Fed. Reg. 36,869 (Aug. 16, 1978); 41 C.F.R. § 101-17.001 to 17.049 (2000).

Executive Order 12,072 provides “[e]xcept where suc h selection is otherwise prohibited, the process for meeting Feder al space needs in urban areas shall give first consideration to centralized commu nity business area and adjacent areas of similar character, including other specifi c areas which may be recommended by local officials.” Exec. Order No. 1 2,072 § 1-103. Similarly, the associated regulations instruct “[i]n meeting space needs in urban areas ... [f]irst consideration shall be given to a centralized busin ess area and adjacent areas of similar character.” 41 C.F.R. § 101-17.002(c)(1) ( 2000). The regulations further state “[s]pace needs shall be met outside the centr al business area only when one of [four] exceptions ... apply.” Id. at §§ 101.17.002(c)(1), (m)(4).

The City alleges Interior violated the Executive Or der and associated regulations through several actions during the sele ction process. First, the City-4-

alleges Interior “disqualified the only offer that involved construction within the Central Business Area of the City of Albuquerque .. . based on criteria not expressed in the Solicitation and not affecting the suitability of the site. [Interior] later announced that it was rescinding that disqual ification.” Second, the City alleges Interior “refused to consider available pro perty recommended by local officials.” Third, the City alleges the costs for a site within the centralized business area were comparable to the costs of the s ite Interior selected outside the area. Finally, the City criticizes Interior for “u s[ing] a lack of open space as a basis for rejecting a site [within the centralized business area]” thereby giving “preference to suburban locations over [centralized business area locations].” In sum, the City believes Interior preferred a site ou tside the centralized business area and impermissibly manipulated the selection pr ocess to select that site.

In response to the City’s complaint, Interior fileda motion to dismiss, arguing the district court lacked subject matter ju risdiction to hear the case. Interior asserted the City’s complaint amounted to nothing more than a bid protest which, under the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, must be brought in the United States Court of Federal Claims rather than f ederal district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b) note (2004) (Sunset Provision). I nterior also argued the City lacks standing and was untimely in bringing the sui t.-5-

After allowing the City to respond to Interior’s mo tion, the district court granted Interior’s motion to dismiss, determining i t did not have subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate bid protests under eithe r the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act or the Administrative Procedure Act. Albuquerque , 217 F. Supp. 2d at 1195-97. Because the district court conclude d it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the City’s claim, it did not address Int erior’s standing and timeliness arguments. See id . at 1195 n.1.

DISCUSSION On appeal, the City challenges the district court’s dismissal of the City’s claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The City argues its cause of action challenging improper agency action was properly bro ught in federal district court under the Administrative Procedure Act.

In response, Interior urges us to affirm the distri ct court’s decision to dismiss the complaint because the court lacks subje ct matter jurisdiction. Interior further asserts the City’s appeal must fail because the City has no standing under the Administrative Procedure Act. Lastly, Interiorargues the City’s action is
moot.-6-

For the reasons stated below, we agree with the City the district court erred in concluding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction in this case. We also conclude Interior’s standing arguments and mootness argument s are unpersuasive. Therefore, we reverse and remand for further procee dings consistent with this opinion.

A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction We begin by examining whether the district court ha s subject matter jurisdiction. We review the district court’s deter mination on this issue de novo. U S West Inc. v. Tristani , 182 F.3d 1202, 1206 (10th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1106 (2000). Motions to dismiss for lack of s ubject matter jurisdiction “generally take one of two forms: (1) a facial att ack on the sufficiency of the complaint’s allegations as to subject matter jurisd iction; or (2) a challenge to the actual facts upon which subject matter jurisdiction is based.” Ruiz v. McDonnell , 299 F.3d 1173, 1180 (10th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 999 (2003). Here, Interior’s motion was a facial attack on the City’s assertion of subject matter jurisdiction in the complaint. See Albuquerque , 217 F. Supp. 2d at 1195-96. “Accordingly, we presume all of the allegations con tained in the ... complaint [are] true.” Ruiz , 299 F.3d at 1180. With this standard in mind, we turn to the complaint’s assertion of jurisdiction.1 In its jurisdictional statement, the City claims “[p]ursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1357, the court below had jurisdiction to adjudic ate the federal question presented by the City’s request for review of the f inal action of a federal agency.” We conclude § 1357 is not applicable in this case b ecause it is limited to revenue -7- The City’s complaint alleges the district court “ha s jurisdiction over this cause of action under [the Administrative Procedure Act,] 5 U.S.C. § 704, to review final agency action for which there is no ot her adequate remedy in a court.” In this appeal, the City similarly argues “[t]he Administrative Procedure[] Act ... supplies district courts jurisdiction to he ar alleged violations of [the Executive Order at issue here].”

The Supreme Court, however, has instructed us “the [Administrative Procedure Act] is not to be interpreted as an impli ed grant of subject-matter jurisdiction to review agency actions.” Califano v. Sanders , 430 U.S. 99, 105 (1977). Because the Administrative Procedure Act d oes not confer subject matter jurisdiction, we must look elsewhere to determine w hether subject matter jurisdiction exists in this case. See Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc. v. United States , 901 F.2d 1530, 1532 (10th Cir. 1990); Alamo Navajo Sch. Bd., Inc. v. Andrus , 664 F.2d 229, 232 (10th Cir. 1981).

We begin with the general federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 1 Itcases and voting rights cases. See id. (“The district courts shall have original

jurisdiction of any civil action commenced by any p erson to recover damages for any injury to his person or property on account of any act done by him, under any Act of Congress, for the protection or collection o f any of the revenues, or to enforce the right of citizens of the United States to vote in any state.”)

-8- grants the district courts “original jurisdiction o f all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United State s.” Id. While this grant of authority is broad, § 1331 “does not waive the gove rnment’s sovereign immunity.” Eagle-Picher Indus. , 901 F.2d at 1532. District court jurisdiction in this case can be based on § 1331 only if there is s ome other statute waiving sovereign immunity. See New Mexico v. Regan , 745 F.2d 1318, 1321 (10th Cir. 1984).

In search of a waiver of sovereign immunity, we ret urn to the Administrative Procedure Act. It “contains a limit ed waiver of the United States’ sovereign immunity.” Id. The relevant section states:

A person suffering legal wrong because of agency ac tion ... is entitled to judicial review thereof. An action ... seeking relief other than money damages ... shall not be dismissed ... o n the ground that it is against the United States. 5 U.S.C. § 702. This waiver is limited because it does not “confer[] authority to grant relief if any other statute that grants conse nt to suit expressly or impliedly-9-

forbids the relief which is sought.” Id. Consequently, we must read § 702 “in conjunction with other jurisdictional statutes waiv ing sovereign immunity.” Regan , 745 F.2d at 1321-22.

According to Interior, the other waiver of sovereig n immunity at issue in this case is the Tucker Act, as amended by the Admi nistrative Dispute Resolution Act. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491. The Tucker Act waived the Unite d States’ sovereign immunity for some claims, provided the claims are b rought in the United States Court of Federal Claims. See Tucker Act of March 3, 1887, ch. 359, 24 Stat. 505 (codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. § 1491); United States v. Mitchell , 463 U.S. 206, 213-14 (1983). In 1996, the Administrative Di spute Resolution Act amended the Tucker Act giving federal district courts and t he Court of Federal Claims subject matter jurisdiction to “render judgment on an action by an interested party objecting to a solicitation by a Federal agency forbids or proposals for a proposed contract.” Administrative Dispute Resolut ion Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-320, 110 Stat. 3870, at 3874-75 (codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)). However, the Act contained a sunset provision stating “[t]he jurisdiction of the district courts of the United States over the actions descri bed in § 1491(b)(1) of title 28, United States Code ... shall terminate on January 1 , 2001.” Id . (codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b) note (2004) (Sunset Provision)). Congress did not act, and the-10-

sunset provision has since taken effect. See id

.

The thrust of Interior’s argument is “[i]n granting express, concurrent protest jurisdiction to the district courts, the [A dministrative Dispute Resolution Act] also took away the historical basis for distri ct court protest jurisdiction under [ Scanwell Laboratories, Inc. v. Shaffer ], 424 F.2d 859 (D.C. Cir. 1970).” “Thus,” Interior argues, “when the district courts lost bidprotest jurisdiction under [the sunset provision], they also lost the ability to in dependently review such actions under the [Administrative Procedure Act].” In eval uating Interior’s position, we will examine not only the language of the Administr ative Dispute Resolution Act, but also the historical context in which Congress e nacted it.

In the early twentieth century, parties upset with the federal government’s contract procurement process or award of a contracthad no judicial recourse. In Perkins v. Lukens Steel Co. , 310 U.S. 113 (1940), the Supreme Court held a disappointed bidder did not have standing to challe nge the government’s bid solicitation process. See id . at 126, 132. The Supreme Court opined the laws governing the government’s solicitation of bids wer e meant to protect the government rather than potential sellers. See id . at 126. Consequently, the disappointed bidder in Lukens Steelhad not acquired a legal right to any-11-

particular government action. See id

.

Lukens Steel’s holding prevailed until 1970 when the District of Columbia Circuit employed the Administrative Procedure Act t o justify departing from Lukens Steel

. See Scanwell Labs. , 242 F.2d at 866. In its seminal Scanwellcase, the District of Columbia Circuit noted Lukens Steelwas decided “during the heyday of the legal right doctrine, and before the passage of the Administrative Procedure Act.” Id. The Administrative Procedure Act, according to Scanwell, departed from the Lukens Steelreasoning and instead embraced “the basic presumption of judicial review to one suffering leg al wrong because of agency action.” Id. (quoting Abbott Labs. v. Gardner , 387 U.S. 136, 140-41 (1967) (quotation marks omitted)). The opinion found “no evidence” Congress intended to preclude judicial review in government contracti ng disputes. Id . “If anything,” the Scanwellcourt opined “the legislative intent with respect to the field of government contracting in general seems to ... favo r [judicial] review.” Id . On this basis, Scanwellheld “one who has a prospective beneficial relatio nship has standing to challenge the illegal grant of a contra ct to another.” Id. at 870. Other circuits, including the Tenth Circuit, subsequentlyconfirmed that disappointed bidders had standing to challenge the government’s award of a contract. See, e.g., Integrity Mgmt. Int’l, Inc. v. Tombs & Sons, Inc. , 836 F.2d 485, 489 & n.7 (10th2Prior to 1992, the Court of Federal Claims was kn own as the United

States Claims Court. See Federal Courts Administration Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-572, § 902(a), 106 Stat. 4506, 4516. Throughout this opinion, for simplicity’s sake we refer to that court by its cur rent name.

-12- Cir. 1987). Although “[t]he vast majority of cases brought pursuant to Scanwell were brought by disappointed bidders,” American Federation of Government Employees Local 1482 v. United States , 258 F.3d 1294, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1113 (2002), some cases allowed non-bidd ers to exercise standing under the Administrative Procedure Act. See, e.g., Ballerina Pen Co. v. Kunzig , 433 F.2d 1204 (D.C. Cir. 1970); City of Reading, Pa. v. Austin , 816 F. Supp. 351 (E.D. Pa. 1993).

While some parties were pursuing relief in federal district court, many disappointed bidders sought recourse in the Court o f Federal Claims and its predecessor courts 2 under the Tucker Act. See, e.g., United States v. John C. Grimberg Co. , 702 F.2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (en banc). The Tuc ker Act required the claim be based on an express or implied contrac t. See Southfork Sys., Inc. v. United States , 141 F.3d 1124, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (discussing the historical application of the implied contract theory in bid p rotest cases brought in the Court of Federal Claims). Because of this requirement, s tanding in the Court of Federal Claims was limited to bidders or potential bidders. See id . Another key-13-

difference between the district courts and the Court of Federal Claims in government procurement cases involved the standard of review. Unlike the district courts’ review under the Administrative Pr ocedure Act, the Court of Federal Claims’ review was typically limited to mon etary relief. See Finley v. United States , 31 Fed. Cl. 704, 708 (1994) (overruled by statute ). In 1982, Congress gave the Court of Federal Claims jurisdict ion to grant declaratory and injunctive relief in “pre-award cases” – cases brou ght before the government had awarded the contract. See Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982, Pub. L. No

. 97-164, § 133(a), 96 Stat. 25, 40; John C. Grimberg Co. , 702 F.2d at 1372. The Court of Federal Claims, however, still did not hav e authority to grant declaratory relief in “post-award cases” – cases brought after the government had awarded the
contract. See John C. Grimberg Co. , 702 F.2d at 1374.

With this history as backdrop, Congress enacted the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act. See Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996, Pub . L. No. 104-320, 110 Stat. 3870, at 3874-75 (codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1491). As previously mentioned, this Act gave the Court of Fe deral Claims subject matter jurisdiction to “render judgment on an action by an interested party objecting to a solicitation by a Federal agency for bids or propos als for a proposed contract or to a proposed award or the award of a contract or any alleged violation of statute or3 See also Novell, Inc. v. United States , 109 F. Supp. 2d 22, 24 (D. D.C.

2000) (“[T]here no longer is ... an independent, [A dministrative Procedure Act]- based jurisdiction for the district courts in government bid protest cases; rather, Congress effectively subsumed [Administrative Proce dure Act] jurisdiction of the district courts into the more specific jurisdiction al language of [the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act].”).

-14- regulation in connection with a procurement or a pr oposed procurement.” Id. (codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)). The Act, howeve r, provided “[t]he jurisdiction of the district courts of the United States over th e actions described in § 1491(b)(1) of title 28, United States Code ... sh all terminate on January 1, 2001.” Id . (codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b) note (2004) (Sun set Provision)). Congress did not act, and the sunset provision has since taken effect. Id.

Because the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act d id not specifically mention the Scanwellcase in either the text of § 1491(b) or the sunsetprovision, the Act’s affect on the district courts’ jurisdicti on over cases brought by disappointed bidders is not immediately evident. T he Federal Circuit has opined “the Court of Federal Claims is the only judicial f orum to bring any governmental contract procurement protest.” Emery Worldwide Airlines, Inc. v. United States , 264 F.3d 1071, 1080 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 3 On the other hand, at least one court has, since the passage of the Administrative Dispute Res olution Act, allowed a disappointed bidder to bring suit in the district c ourt based on the Administrative4Iceland Steamship did not mention 28 U.S.C. § 1491 or the

Administrative Dispute Resolution Act. See Icelamd S.S. , 201 F.3d at 453. For a complete argument that the district courts retain j urisdiction over cases brought by disappointed bidders see Peter Verchinski, Note, Are District Courts Still a Viable Forum for Bid Protests? , 32 Pub. Cont. L. J. 393 (2003) (arguing the district court should remain a viable forum for bid protestors).

-15- Procedure Act’s waiver of sovereign immunity as exp lained in Scanwell

. See Iceland S.S. Co.-Eimskip v. United States Dep’t of the Army , 201 F.3d 451, 453 (D.C. Cir.) (“Disappointed bidders may challenge a government contract award under the Administrative Procedure Act.” (citing 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) and Scanwell , 424 F.2d at 874)), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1112 (2000). 4

However, we need not determine today whether distri ct courts retain jurisdiction over bid protests brought by disappointed bidders under Scanwelland the Administrative Procedure Act, because the case before us is not brought by a disappointed bidder or potential bidder. Instead, we focus on the portion of 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b) granting jurisdiction under that s ection only if suit is brought by “an interested party.” The Federal Circuit has hel d “interested party” refers only to an “actual or prospective bidder or offeror whos e direct economic interest would be affected by the award of the contract or b y failure to award the contract.” Local 1482 , 258 F.3d at 1302 (quotation marks and citation om itted). If the Federal Circuit is correct, it seems the Tuc ker Act as amended by the-16-

Administrative Dispute Resolution Act has little to say about cases brought by a party who is not an actual or prospective bidder.

In deciding § 1491(b) only applies to actual or pro spective bidders, the Federal Circuit noted the text of the Administrativ e Dispute Resolution Act did not explicitly state whether the Act “intended to e xpand the class of parties who can bring bid protest actions in the Court of Feder al Claims.” Local 1482 , 258 F.3d at 1300. As previously explained, prior to th e Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, the Court of Federal Claims only he ard cases brought by disappointed bidders or prospective bidders because the court’s jurisdiction was based on an express or implied contract with the Un ited States. In contrast, the district courts heard claims from a wider variety o f plaintiffs. Citing three primary reasons, the Federal Circuit decided the Ad ministrative Dispute Resolution Act only waived sovereign immunity for s uits brought by actual or potential bidders. First, the Federal Circuit stat ed waivers of sovereign immunity should be narrowly construed. See id. at 1301; Hull ex. rel. Hull v. United States , 971 F.2d 1499, 1509 (10th Cir. 1992). Second, alth ough the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act specifically stated the Admi nistrative Procedure Act’s standard of review should apply, it did not state t he Administrative Procedure Act’s standing requirements should apply. See Local 1482 , 258 F.3d at 1302.-17-

Additionally, instead of using the expansive standi ng language in the Administrative Procedure Act, the Administrative Di spute Resolution Act used the more narrow term “interested party.” See id . Third, while legislative history for the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act in pl aces mentions a desire to give the Court of Federal Claims “ Scanwelljurisdiction,” the vast majority of district court cases applying Scanwell’s reasoning involved disappointed bidders. See id

. at 1301. Further, other portions of the legislativ e history stated the Act would allow “‘a contractor[to] challenge a Federal contract award.’” Id. at 1301-02 (quoting 142 Cong. Rec. S11848 (daily ed. Sept. 30, 1996) (statement of Sen. Cohen) (emphasis in original)). Based on this hist ory, the Federal Circuit concluded Congress only intended § 1491(b) to applyto suits brought by actual or prospective bidders.

Because of the Federal Circuit’s “exclusive role in [cases brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)], it makes sense for us to adopt that circuit’s interpretation of the term ‘interested party’” whether or not we woul d have adopted that interpretation in the first instance. See Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. United States , 290 F.3d 734, 737-38 (4th Cir. 2002) (deciding th e Administrative Dispute Resolution Act only waives the United States’ sover eign immunity for suits brought by an actual or prospective bidder in a cas e brought prior to the sunset-18-

provision’s effective date). Therefore, we conclud e the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act only waives sovereign immunity for asuit in the Federal Court of Claims when the suit is brought by an actual or pro spective bidder. Because the City in this case is not an actual or prospective b idder, its case does not fall within the ambit of the Administrative Dispute Reso lution Act or the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims.

We take the Federal Circuit’s reasoning one step fu rther and conclude the Federal Dispute Resolution Act did not affect the d istrict courts’ jurisdiction to hear cases that are not brought by an actual or pot ential bidder. Prior to the Act, the district court heard cases brought by non-bidde rs under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the waiver of sovereign immunity in the Administrat ive Procedure Act. The Administrative Dispute Resolution Act does not dire ctly address these types of cases. Section 1491(b) itself only addresses cases brought by an “interested party,” which we have explained means only an actua l or prospective bidder. Likewise, the sunset provision only affects “action s described in section 1481(b)(1) of title 28” namely cases brought by actual or prospective bidders. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b) note (Sunset Provision). Thus , nothing on the face of the statute suggests it was meant to apply to or affectcases not brought by an “interested party.”-19-

Furthermore, the legislative history of the Adminis trative Dispute Resolution Act does not lead to the conclusion Cong ress intended to leave parties who were not actual or prospective bidders without a remedy. Interior has not provided, nor have we found, any piece of legislati ve history suggesting parties who had some avenue available to seek redress befor e the passage of the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act would be leftwithout an avenue for relief after the Act became effective. In fact, the only portions of the legislative history that arguably address non-bidders refer only genera lly to “ Scanwelljurisdiction.” See Local 1482 , 258 F.3d at 1301. While it may have been possibl e to read these portions of the history as evidence Congress intend ed to eliminate all district court jurisdiction except for the jurisdiction expl icitly granted in the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, this reading would be inconsistent with the reading the Federal Circuit employed in determi ning “interested party” refers only to disappointed bidders or prospective bidders . The Federal Circuit concluded the legislative history’s references to “ Scanwelljurisdiction” most likely referred only to the majority of Scanwell-based cases that involved disappointed bidders or prospective bidders. We ch oose to adopt the Federal Circuit’s reasoning.

In sum, we conclude the Administrative Dispute Reso lution Act did not5 We again emphasize this opinion expresses no viewas to whether a

bidder may bring a contract procurement-type suit i n district court under Scanwell and the Administrative Procedure Act.

-20- affect the district court’s ability to hear cases c hallenging the government’s contract procurement process so long as the case is brought by someone other than an actual or potential bidder. 5 The district court retains subject matter jurisdiction over cases brought by non-bidders unde r 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the waiver of sovereign immunity in the Administrative Procedure Act. Thus, the district court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the City’s complaint.

B. Standing We next turn to Interior’s argument that the City l acks standing to bring this case. Although the district court did not add ress the question of the City’s standing, see Albuquerque , 217 F. Supp. 2d at 1195 n.1, standing is a “thres hold issue” we can address “regardless of whether the di strict court expressly addressed [it].” Bd. of County Comm’rs of Sweetwater County v. Geringer , 297 F.3d 1108, 1111 (10th Cir. 2002) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “The standing inquiry requires us to consider both const itutional limits on federal-court jurisdiction and prudential limitations on its exer cise.” Id . (quotation marks and citations omitted).-21-

1. Constitutional Standing We look first to the constitutional standing requir ements. Constitutional standing has three elements. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife , 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). “First, the plaintiff must have suffer ed an ‘injury in fact’” – an injury both “concrete and particularized” and “actual or i mminent.” Id. (citations omitted). “Second, there must be a causal connecti on between the injury and the conduct complained of.” Id. “Third, it must be ‘likely’ ... the injury will b e redressed by a favorable decision.” Id. at 561 (quotation marks and citation omitted).

On appeal, Interior argues the City has not suffere d “the requisite concrete, particularized harm for which the court can provide a remedy.” To the extent the City’s complaint alleges only harm caused by an inappropriate selection process rather than harm caused by Interior’s failure to se lect a specific location, Interior argues the City’s injury is only conjectural ratherthan concrete and particularized. The City argues this case is distinguishable from o ther cases brought by cities based on Executive Order 12,072, because in those c ases the federal agency “moved existing offices within the [central busines s area] to suburbs outside of the city limits.” See City of Reading , Jane D. v. Social Security Admin. , Civ. A. No. 87-1867, 1987 WL 25625 (E.D. La. Nov. 30, 1987) (unpublished decision).-22-

In the case before us, Interior asserts it chose a site within the City, so, Interior reasons, the City’s tax revenues will not be affect ed. To the extent the City alleges harm suffered because Interior failed to se lect the only offer within the central business area, Interior asserts the City cannot establish it has suffered any harm because, it alleges, other government offices have since occupied that site. Interior also argues “[t]he City cannot point to a single other site within the [central business area] that would have been suitab le for Interior’s needs” and asserts “no other known site exists.” Thus, Interi or urges us to conclude the City lacks standing to bring this case.

We conclude the City’s complaint has alleged suffic ient facts to establish constitutional standing. “At the pleading stage, g eneral factual allegation of injury resulting from the defendant’s conduct may s uffice, for on a motion to dismiss we presume that general allegations embrace those specific facts that are necessary to support the claim.” Defenders of Wildlife , 504 U.S. at 561 (quotation marks, alterations and citations omitted ). Here, the City’s complaint alleged that by locating its offices outside the ce ntral business area, Interior was “weakening the City of Albuquerque and discouraging development and redevelopment of the [central business area].” Alt hough Interior argues this alleged injury is too conjectural, it is the type o f injury Executive Order 12,072-23-

contemplates. See Exec. Order. 12,072 § 1-101. The Executive Order provides “Federal facilities and Federal use of space in urb an areas shall serve to strengthen the Nation’s cities and to make them att ractive places to live and work. Such Federal space shall conserve existing urban re sources and encourage the development and redevelopment of cities.” Id. In this type of case, the City’s complaint need not allege economic injury or lost t ax revenue – “standing may be predicated on noneconomic injury.” Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc. , 454 U.S. 464, 486 (1982). Here the City has alleged a concrete interest in the development of its central business area and that it will be harmed should Interior locate its o ffices outside the central business area. This is sufficient to establish a constituti onal “injury in fact” in a case brought under Executive Order 12,072. See City of Reading , 816 F. Supp. at 358 (noting that a plaintiff need not suffer economic i njury to meet the constitutional standing requirements in cases brought under Execut ive Order 12,072).

We also reject Interior’s suggestion the City lacks standing because once other federal agencies filled the one central busin ess area location that offered space to Interior, any harm to the City disappeared . The City’s alleged injury is not caused by Interior’s failure to select a specific site in the central business area. Rather it is based on Interior’s failure to select any site in the central-24-

business area. Although Interior faults the City’s complaint for not identifying other specific locations, the City’s complaint did allege “[t]he Department of Interior despite extensive contact from the City of Albuquerque refused to consider available property recommended by local of ficials within the [central business area].” The natural inference from this a llegation is that available property exists within the City of Albuquerque’s ce ntral business area. Because the case is before us with only a complaint, we mus t presume that the allegations in the complaint are correct and the City will be a ble to prove specific facts to support the claim. See Defenders of Wildlife , 504 U.S. at 561. Consequently, we conclude Interior’s argument that the City does notmeet the constitutional standing requirements is without merit.

2. Prudential Standing In addition to its constitutional standing argument s, Interior contends the City does not meet the prudential standing requirem ents because it “is not within the ‘zone of interests’ of a statute supporting standing under the [Administrative Procedure Act].” In making this argument, Interiorasserts neither the executive order nor the Federal Property and Administrative S ervices Act of 1949 (which the Executive Order was based on) evidences congres sional intent to provide nonbidders a private right of action under the executi ve order.-25-

We agree Executive Order 12,072 does not specifical ly create a cause of action or mention judicial review. However, “undercertain circumstances, Executive Orders ... are treated as agency action a nd reviewed under the Administrative Procedure Act.” City of Carmel-by-the-Sea v. United States Dep’t of Transp. , 123 F.3d 1142, 1166 (9th Cir. 1997). To be enfor ceable under the Administrative Procedure Act the executive order mu st meet three specific requirements. First, the executive order must have a “specific statutory foundation.” Id . If an executive order has a specific statutory f oundation it is given the effect of a congressional statute. See Farkas v. Texas Instrument, Inc. , 375 F.2d 629, 632 & n.1 (5th Cir. 1967); Farmer v. Philadelphia Elec. Co. , 329 F.2d 3, 7 (3d Cir. 1964). Second, neither the stat utory foundation nor the executive order must preclude judicial review. See 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(1). Third, there must be “law to apply” – that is, there must be an objective standard by which a court can judge the agency’s actions. See 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2); Heckler v. Chaney , 470 U.S. 821, 830 (1985). If the executive ordermeets these requirements it can be enforced through judicial ac tion. See City of Carmel-bythe-Sea , 123 F.3d at 1166.

a. Statutory Foundation We begin with the requirement that the executive or der be based on a6This portion of the Act has recently been amended . Its current version,

located in 40 U.S.C. § 121 (2004), states: “The Pr esident may prescribe policies and directives that the President considers necessary to carry out this subtitle.” The change in wording was intended to conform the l anguage of the statute to contemporary usage rather than to substantively change the law. See H.R. Rep. No. 107-479 (2002), reprinted in 2002 U.S.C.C.A.N. 827, 827-28.

-26- specific statutory foundation. Executive Order 12, 072 was issued under the “authority vested in [the] President of the United States of America by Section 205(a) of the Federal Property and Administrative S ervices Act of 1949, as amended (40 U.S.C. 486(a)).” This Act gave the Pre sident power to “prescribe such policies and directives, not inconsistent withthe provisions of this Act, as he shall deem necessary to effectuate the provisions o f said Act, which policies and directive shall govern the Administrator and execut ive agencies in carrying out their respective functions.” 40 U.S.C. § 486(a) (2 000). 6 As a House of Representatives Report explains, “[b]y reason of th e impact of this legislation upon all agencies in the executive establishment, t his subsection authorizes the President, if he deems it advisable, to prescribe o ver-all policies and directives which shall govern the Administrator of General Services and executive agencies in operations under this act.” H.R. Rep. No. 81-670 (1949), reprinted in 1949 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1475, 1491.

Interior suggests the Executive Order lacks suffici ent statutory foundation7The current version is codified at 40 U.S.C. § 10 1 (2004).

-27- because there is nothing in the language of the Fed eral Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 that indicates a congressional intention to create enforceable rights in non-bidders. Further, Interior suggests the statutory foundation is insufficient because the Act does notcontain “any directive addressing location of federal office space within the [central business area].”

Our review of the Federal Property and Administrati ve Services Act of 1949 convinces us the Act provides a sufficient statutory foundation for Executive Order 12,072. It is well established that Congress may delegate responsibility to the executive branch so long as C ongress provides an “intelligible principle” to guide the exercise of t he power. See J.W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States , 276 U.S. 394, 409 (1928). Congress chose to util ize a relatively broad delegation of authority in the Fed eral Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949. However, Cong ress did instruct the President’s exercise of authority should establish “an economical and efficient system for ... the procurement and supply” of prope rty. See 40 U.S.C. § 471 (2000). 7We think Executive Order 12,072’s directions conc erning the consideration of locations within the central busin ess area are sufficiently related8Indeed, Interior does not argue Executive Order 1 2,072 goes beyond the

scope of authority Congress delegated.

-28- to the Act to be a valid exercise of the Act’s dele gated authority. 8 Thus, Executive Order 12,072 must “be accorded the force and effect given to a statute enacted by Congress.” See Farkas , 375 F.2d at 632. Since we give the Executive Order the force and effect of a statute, it can pro vide the basis for standing under the Administrative Procedure Act. It simply does n ot matter that the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 do es not specifically mention either central business areas or each party that ha s standing under the Act.

Interior suggests standing under the Administrative Procedure Act can only be provided through a statute itself rather than an executive order. In support of its position, Interior cites several cases holding federal employees did not have standing to sue under Office of Management and Budg et Circular A-76. See, e.g., Courtney v. Smith , 297 F.3d 455 (6th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 64 (2003); United States Dep’t of Health & Human Servs. v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth. , 844 F.2d 1087, 1096 (4th Cir. 1988). We think Interior’s reading of the Administrative Procedure Act is too restrictive. T he Administrative Procedure Act allows standing for “[a] person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agenc y action within the meaning of9The Federal Labor Relations Authority case furthe r explained: “A

Presidential order may have the force and effect of law when it is issued pursuant to statutory mandate or a delegation from Congress of lawmaking authority ..., but Circular A-76 was issued pursuant to no such author ity.” Fed. Labor Relations Auth. , 844 F.2d at 1096. But see Nat’l Fed’n of Fed. Employees v. Cheney, 883 F.2d 1038, 1043 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (stating “althoughpromulgated pursuant to congressional authority, the Circular itself cannotgrant standing”). -29- a relevant statute.” 5 U.S.C. § 702. Interior’s p osition seems to ignore the portion of the Act granting standing to “[a] personsuffering legal wrong because of agency action.” Id . When this portion is read in conjunction with th e rest of the Administrative Procedure Act, we think it clear ly allows standing for those plaintiffs “within the ‘zone of interests’ protecte d by the statute, executive order, or regulation which the agency is alleged to have v iolated” provided, of course, that the executive order or regulation is within in the scope of authority delegated by Congress. Buffalo Cent. Terminal v. United States , 886 F. Supp. 1031, 1044 (W.D. N.Y. 1995). See also H & F Enters., Ltd. v. United States, 973 F. Supp. 170, 174 (D. D.C. 1996). Similarly, Interior’s rel iance on the cases involving Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 is mi splaced. The Circular explicitly instructed it should “not be construed t o create any substantive or procedural basis for anyone to challenge any agencyaction or inaction.” See Courtney , 297 F.3d at 462; Fed. Labor Relations Auth. , 844 F.2d at 1095. 9 If anything, these cases support our conclusion becaus e they looked beyond the foundational statute in determining whether the pla intiffs had standing. Cf. Lee v.-30-

United States Air Force , 354 F.3d 1229, 1245-46 (10th Cir. 2004) (consulti ng an administrative regulation in determining whether pl aintiff met the prudential zone of interests test). Consequently, we conclude the executive order has sufficient statutory authority and must be accorded the force of a congressional statute.

b. Availability of Judicial Review We next consider whether the Federal Property and A dministrative Services Act of 1949 or Executive Order 12,072 preclude judi cial review. Standing under the Administrative Procedure Act is not available i f a statute precludes judicial review of the agency action. See 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(1). In this case, neither the Act nor the Executive Order explicitly denies stand ing or a private right of action to any plaintiffs.

In Part A of this opinion, we discussed the evoluti on of judicial review of the government procurement process. As we explaine d, the Administrative Procedure Act opened the door by granting plaintiff standing to challenge the government procurement process. See Scanwell Labs. , 242 F.2d at 866. In Scanwell , the District of Columbia Circuit states there was “no evidence” Congress intended to preclude judicial review in go vernment contracting disputes.-31-

Id . “If anything, the legislative intent with respec t to the field of government contracting in general seems to ... favor ... revie w.” Id . We find nothing causing us to believe Congress intended to preclude review in cases like the one before

us.

Interior argues it is “the City’s burden to show th at Executive Order 12,072 or any relevant statute ‘suggests a congressional i ntent to permit the plaintiff’s suit.’” This argument misses the mark. The Suprem e Court has clearly stated that under a prudential “zone of interests” inquiry, “th ere need be no indication of congressional purpose to benefit the would-be plaintiff.” Clarke v. Sec. Indus. Ass’n , 479 U.S. 388, 399-400 (1987). There is a presump tion favoring review unless “the congressional intent to preclude judici al review is fairly discernable in the statutory scheme.” Id. at 399 (quotation marks and citations omitted).

Here, Interior argues we should infer a congression al intent to preclude review from language in Executive Order 13,006. Ex ecutive Order 13,006 was issued pursuant to the President’s authority under “the laws of the United States of America, including the National Historic Preserv ation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and the Public Buildings Cooperative Use Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2505), and in furtherance of and consistent with Executive Ord er No. 12072.” Unlike-32-

Executive Order 12,072, Executive Order 13,006 spec ifically states it “is not intended to create, nor does it create, any right o r benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against t he United States, its agencies or instrumentalities, its officers or employees, or any other person.” We do not think the fact one executive order specifically states itdoes not create a private right of action leads to the conclusion another executive or der lacking a similar provision also does not create a private right of action. Rather the fact some executive orders explicitly provide they do not create a priv ate right of action suggests other executive orders may create a right of action.

In short, Interior has not cited, nor have we found , any persuasive evidence indicating executive orders issued under the Federa l Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 are unenforceable.

c. Law to Apply Lastly, we consider whether there is any meaningful law to apply. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, judicial review i s unavailable where “agency action is committed to agency discretion by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2). As the Supreme Court has explained, the scope of this prov ision is “narrow;” it is only applicable when there is “no law to apply” or where there is “no meaningful-33-

standard against which to judge the agency’s exerci se of discretion.” Heckler , 470 U.S. at 830. We have previously held “law to apply” can refer to administrative regulations as well as statutes. See McAlpine v. United States , 112 F.3d 1429, 1433 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 984 (1997). Likewise, the “law to apply” may be supplied by an executive orde r. See City of Carmel-by-theSea , 123 F.3d at 1166 (concluding there was law to app ly when an executive order “set objective standards”).

Interior argues “[t]he Executive Order and regulati ons provide[] no fixed standard.” We disagree. The Executive Order provi des that “[e]xcept where such selection is otherwise prohibited, the process for meeting Federal space needs in urban areas shall give first consideration to a cen tralized community business area and adjacent areas of similar character, including other specific areas which may be recommended by local officials.” Exec. Order No . 12,072 § 1-103. The Order instructs the Administrator of General Services to “develop programs to implement the policies of this Order” and to “[i]ss ue regulations, standards, and criteria for the selection, acquisition, and manage ment of Federally owned and leased space.” Id . at § 1-201(b). In following this directive, the Administrator issued a plethora of regulations. Among other thin gs, the regulations in effect at the time of the procurement process in this case re quired:-34-

In meeting space needs in urban areas First consideration shall be given to a centralized business area and adjacent areas of similar character in the central city ..., including other specific areas of a city recommended by the e lected chief executive officer of the local government or a desi gnee, except where this type of consider is otherwise prohibited. Spa ce needs will be met outside the central business area of a central city ... only when one of the following circumstances exist:

(i) The service area of an activity is limited to a clearly defined sector of a city or a suburban or rural com munity, as is the case with satellite or branch offices; or where onsite activities are involved, such as inspection and/or maintenance operations at border stations, airports, seaports, or other similar activities; (ii) Immediate compliance is not possible due to existing leasing commitments in areas outside the c entral business area ... In these cases, plans for the fu ture compliance shall be made; i.e. , the activity shall be relocated to the central business area upon expiration of the lease; (iii) The proposed facility or the activity’s use of a facility is not in compliance with local land use o r zoning ordinances; or (iv) The elected chief executive officer of the lo cal government or a designee advises the agency that an activity or facility should be located in an area of the centra l city other than the [central business area]. 41 C.F.R. § 101-17.002(c)(1) (2000). The regulatio ns additionally require the agency collect a variety of data to be used in “rea ch[ing] a final decision on a proposed relocation into a central business area.” 41 C.F.R. § 101-17.002(d)(4) (2000). We think it would be redundant to cite further from these lengthy10To the extent Haltermann v. Johnson , 988 F. Supp. 1477 (S.D. Ga.

1996), reached a different conclusion, we think it was decided incorrectly.

11 Because the scope and effect of the current regul ations are not before us, we make no attempt to ascertain the precise effect of these new regulations.

-35- regulations. Suffice it to say, the portions quote d above illustrate the regulations’ specific nature. We conclude the regulations are s ufficiently specific to allow a court to determine whether Interior abused its disc retion in its site selection
process. 10

Interior argues new regulations “have replaced and give even greater discretion to agencies than the regulations” in eff ect at the time of the procurement process at issue here. See General Services Administration Real Property Policies, 66 Fed. Reg. 5358 (Jan. 18, 2001 ); General Services Administration Real Property Policies Update, 67 Fe d. Reg. 76820 (Dec. 13, 2002). Even assuming Interior’s characterization o f the “new” regulations is correct, 11 it is of little consequence in the case before us. We must consider this case “only on the basis of the regulations in effec t at the times material.” Foster v. Udall , 335 F.2d 828, 830 (10th Cir. 1964). To do otherw ise would impermissibly give retroactive effect to the new re gulations. See Greene v. United States , 376 U.S. 149, 160 (1964) (holding regulations aff ecting antecedent12Interior also urges us to affirm the district cou rt’s ruling on the basis the

“uncontroverted record” shows Interior followed the new regulations. Suffice it to say the facts on this matter are not uncontroverted.

-36- rights are not to be given retroactive effect absen t an “unequivocal” manifestation the regulations were meant to be applied retroactiv ely). The fact that current regulations might leave much to an agency’s discret ion does not mean prior regulations necessarily afforded the agency the sam e amount of discretion because an agency is free to change its method of meeting i ts statutory obligations. See KVK P’ship v. Hotel , 759 F.2d 814, 816 n.2 (10th Cir. 1985). 12 Consequently, we reaffirm our conclusion there is sufficient law forthe court to apply in this case.

For the foregoing reasons, we think Executive Order12,072 may be enforced under the Administrative Procedure Act. H aving determined the Executive Order is enforceable in the courts, it is easy to conclude the City is within the zone of interests protected by the Execu tive Order. The Order itself explains: “Federal facilities and Federal use of s pace in urban areas shall serve to strengthen the Nation’s cities and to make them att ractive places to live and work. Such Federal space shall conserve existing urban re sources and encourage the development and redevelopment of cities.” Executiv e Order No. 12,072 § 1-101. The mandate of Executive Order 12,072 clearly encompasses the City’s challenge-37-

to Interior’s selection process and the purported i njury resulting therefrom. As the City’s complaint states, the removal of Interio r offices from Albuquerque’s central business area will injure the City “by weak ening the City ... and discouraging development and redevelopment of the [ central business area].” Because this injury is exactly the type of injury P resident Carter hoped to address with Executive Order 12,072, we conclude the City h as standing to challenge Interior’s actions. See H & F Enters. , 973 F. Supp. at 176; City of Reading , 816 F. Supp. at 358.

C. Mootness Finally, we address Interior’s argument the City’s complaint must be dismissed because the City no longer has a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. Interior argues the City’s claim is moot because two other federal agencies have since filled “the only [central busin ess area] site that the City identified as available for selection.” Interior a sserts that since “the site the City really wanted Interior to build upon ... is no long er available and no other known site exists,” any alleged harm the City suffered ca n no longer be redressed.

The Supreme Court has held, under the “case or cont roversy” requirement in Article III of the Constitution, “federal courts are without power to decide-38-

questions that cannot affect the rights of litigant s in the case before them.” North Carolina v. Rice , 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971). “A case is moot when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” City of Erie v. Pap’s A.M. , 529 U.S. 277, 287 (2000) (quotation marks and citations omitted). The crucial question is whether “granting a present determination of the issues offered ... will have s ome effect in the real world.” Kennecott Utah Copper Corp. v. Becker , 186 F.3d 1261, 1266 (10th Cir. 1999) (quotation marks and citations omitted).

We conclude the City’s claim is not moot. In this case, the parties disagree as to whether there is any available property withi n the central business area. As we explained in Part B of this opinion, Interior as serts there are no appropriate sites within the central business area, while the C ity’s complaint can reasonably be read as alleging there are several sites availab le. Accepting the City’s allegations as correct, if Interior issued a new so licitation of offers for its new space and followed the applicable executive order a nd regulations, it may very well select a site within the central business area . Thus, the City’s asserted injury related to the development and revitalization of th is area could be remedied. We, therefore, conclude the City’s challenge is not moo t.-39- CONCLUSION Based on the preceding analysis we REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.