Source: http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=aaf7e722-1215-4b8d-89dc-b48030a5e2b8
Timestamp: 2017-05-26 17:44:29
Document Index: 769365487

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1491', '§ 1491', '§ 1491', '§ 1491', '§ 706', '§ 2491', '§ 1491', '§ 1491', '§ 1491', '§ 1491', '§ 2517', '§ 601', '§ 602', '§ 1491', '§ 1491', '§ 601', '§ 2491', '§ 2491', '§ 1491', '§ 2491', '§ 2491', '§ 2491', '§ 1491', '§ 1491', '§ 1491', '§ 602', '§ 1491', '§ 1491', '§ 1491', '§ 1491', '§ 1491', '§ 1491', '§ 1491', '§ 1491', '§ 1491', '§ 1491', '§ 1491', '§ 706', '§ 1491', '§ 1491', '§ 1491', '§ 1491', '§ 2517', '§ 2517', '§ 2517', '§ 1491', '§ 1491']

Plaintiff's Memorandum in Response to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction | Southern Foods, Inc. v. United States and U.S. Foodservice, Inc., Fed. Cl. No. 07-210C | Cyrus E. Phillips IV - JDSupra
Southern Foods, Inc. v. United States and U.S. Foodservice, Inc., Fed. Cl. No. 07-210CPlaintiff's Memorandum in Response to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
This case arose from a challenge, a Post-Award Procurement Protest, to the selection of a successor food service Contractor for Army Morale, Welfare and Recreation (MWR) programs at Fort Campbell and at Fort Knox. MWR programs are typically funded out of patron revenues, not appropriated funds. Except in very limited circumstances, the Federal Courts do not have jurisdiction over Claims arising out of activities conducted with nonapproriated funds. This memorandum argues for Federal jurisdiction.
Download PDF IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS Bid Protest Eric G. Bruggink INCORPORATED, Plaintiff, v. STATES, U.S. FOODSERVICE, INCORPORATED, PLAINTIFF’S BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION Phillips, IV Street, N.Washington, D.C. 20036-5112 Attorney of record for Plaintiff, Incorporated. AGREED-UPON REDACTED COPY— MAY BE MADE PUBLIC 11th, THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS Number 07-210C Judge Eric G. Bruggink SOUTHERN FOODS, INCORPORATED, V. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, and FOODSERVICE, INCORPORATED, Intervenor. PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF RESPONSE TO MOTION DISMISS LACK SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION Cyrus E. Phillips, W 1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 660 Southern Foods, Incorporated. AGREED-UPON REDACTED COPYMAY BE MADE PUBLIC April 11"', 2007 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=aaf7e722-1215-4b8d-89dc-b48030a5e2b8-i -TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii-iii QUESTIONS INVOLVED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 I. IS SOUTHERN FOODS’ CLAIM OF A BREACH OF THE IMPLIED-IN-FACT CONTRACT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING BARRED BY LACK OF TUCKER ACT, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(A)(1) JURISDICTION? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. SOUTHERN FOODS’ CLAIMS FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND MONEY DAMAGES PROPERLY BEFORE THIS COURT UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION ACT, U.S.C. §§ 1491(B)(1), 1491(B)(2)? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-13 ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13-20 I. SOUTHERN FOODS CLAIM OF A BREACH OF THE IMPLIED-IN-FACT CONTRACT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING IS NOT BARRED BY LACK OF TUCKER ACT, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(A)(1) JURISDICTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13-16 II. SOUTHERN FOODS’ CLAIMS FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, PERMANENT RELIEF, AND MONEY DAMAGES ARE PROPERLY BEFORE THIS COURT UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION 28 U.S.C. §§ 1491(B)(1), 1491(B)(2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17-20 CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-21 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 TABLE CONTENTS TABLE AUTHORITIES ... 11-111 QUESTIONS INVOLVED ... 1 I. IS SOUTHERN FOODS' CLAIM A BREACH OF THE IMPLIED-IN-FACT CONTRACT GOOD FAITH FAIR DEALING BARRED LACK OF TUCKER ACT, 28 U.S.C. 4 1491(A)(1) JURISDICTION? ... 1 II. ARE SOUTHERN FOODS' CLAIMS FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, MONEY DAMAGES PROPERLY BEFORE THIS COURT UNDER ADMINISTRATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION ACT, 28 U.S.C.44 149 1 (B)(1), 149 1 (B)(2)? ... STATEMENT CASE ... ARGUMENT ... 1 3-20 L SOUTHERN FOODS CLAIM A BREACH OF THE IMPLIED-IN-FACT CONTRACT GOOD FAITH FAIR DEALING NOT BARRED BY LACK OF TUCKER ACT, 28 U.S.C. 4 1491(A)(1) JURISDICTION ... 13-16 II. SOUTHERN FOODS' CLAIMS FORA DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND MONEY DAMAGES ARE PROPERLY BEFORE THIS COURT UNDER ADMINISTRATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION ACT, 28 U.S.C. 441491(B)(1),1491(B)(2) ... CONCLUSION ... 20-2 1 CERTIFICATE SERVICE ... 22 -1-Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=aaf7e722-1215-4b8d-89dc-b48030a5e2b8-ii -TABLE OF AUTHORITIES STATUTES U.C. § 706(2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 10 U.S.C. § 2491. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13, 14, 15 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 17, 18, 19 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1, 17, 18, 19, 20 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 28 U.S.C. § 2517. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19, 20 41 U.S.C. §§ 601-613. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 41 U.S.C. § 602(a). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 REGULATIONS Army Regulation 215-1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 14, 15 Army Regulation 215-4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 7, 15, 17, 18 DoD Instruction 1015.10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 10, 11, 14, 15 DoD Instruction 1015.14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11, 12, 14, 15 DoD Instruction 1015.15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11, 12, 13, 15 CASES AINS, Inc. v. United States,, 365 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14, 15 TABLE AUTHORITIES STATUTES 5 U.S.C. 4 706(2) ... 18 U.S.C.4 2491 ... 13,14, 41491(1) ... 1,13,15,16,17, C. 414910(1) ... 1,17,18,19 C. 414910(2) ... 1,17,18,19, 4 1491(b)(4) ... 18 4 2517 ... 19,20 44 601-613 ... C.4 602(a) ... REGULATIONS Regulation 1 ... 3,4,5,6,9,11, 14,15 Regulation 4 ... 6,7,15,17,18 1015.10 ... 10,11,14,15 1015.14 ... 11,12,14,15 1015.15 ... 11,12,13,15 Inc. v. States,, 1333 (Fed. Cir.2004) ... 14,15 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=aaf7e722-1215-4b8d-89dc-b48030a5e2b8-iii -v. United States, 27 Fed. Cl. 295 (1992). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15, 16, 20 Emery Worldwide Airlines, Inc. v. United States, 264 F. 3d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 2001). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17, 20 Gary Aaron v. United States, 51 Fed. Cl. 690 (2002). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2001). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17, 20 Lion Raisins, Inc. v. United States, 416 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2005). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17, 18 Sodexho Marriott Management, Inc. v. United States, 61 Fed. Cl. 229 (2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Laboratories, Inc. v. Shaffer, 424 F.2d 859 (D.C. Cir. 1970). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18, 19 Allen Aaron v. United States, C1.295 1992) ... 15,16,20 Inc. v. United States, 3d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ... 1177,,Gar), S5t1a tFeesd, . C1.690 2002) ... 19 Garuf v. United States, 2001) ... 1177,,States, (Fed. Cir.2005) ... 17, Marriott Inc. v. States, C1.229 2004) ... 16 Scanwell Laboratories, Inc. v. S4h2a4 fFr,.2d 859 (D.C. Cir.1970) ... 18,19 Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=aaf7e722-1215-4b8d-89dc-b48030a5e2b8Protected Information Has Been Redacted -1 -PLAINTIFF’S BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION QUESTIONS INVOLVED I. Foods’ Claim Breach of the Implied-Fair Dealing Barred by Lack of Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) Jurisdiction? II. Are Southern Foods’ Claims for a Declaratory Judgment, Permanent Injunctive Relief, and Money Damages Properly Before This Court Under the Administrative Dispute Resolution 28 S.b)(b)(2)? STATEMENT OF THE CASE PARTIES Southern Foods, Incorporated, Bowling Green, Kentucky (Southern Foods) is a Kentucky corporation line food service distributor that until April 1st, 2007 satisfied the Joint Services Fort Campbell, Clarksville, Tennessee and at Fort Knox, Louisville, Kentucky. Administrative Record, at 667, 670-71. Under the Prime Vendor supported U.S. Army and Recreation (MWR) Programs at Fort Campbell (http://www.fortcampbellmwr.com/) and at Fort PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF IN RESPONSE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION QUESTIONS INVOLVED 1. Is Southern Foods' Claim of a Breach of the Implied-In-Fact Contract of Good Faith and 28 S.4 Are Southern Foods' Claims for a Declaratory Judgment, Permanent Relief, Properly Before This Court Under Act, 28 U. S.C. §§ 1491(b) (1), 1491(b) (2)? STATEMENT CASE PARTIES Incorporated, Kentucky and an independently-owned full-line food service distributor that until April 1St, 2007 satisfied the requirements of the Joint Services Prime Vendor Program at Fort Campbell, Clarksville, and at Fort Knox, Louisville, Record, Joint Services Prime Vendor Program Southern Foods has supported U.S. Army Morale, Welfare (MWR) at Fort Campbell (http://Knox (http://www.knoxmwr.com/). Has Been Redacted 1-Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=aaf7e722-1215-4b8d-89dc-b48030a5e2b8Protected Information Has Been Redacted -2 -These MWR Programs at Fort Campbell and at Fort Knox include the Blanchfield Army Community Hospital at Fort Campbell (http://www.campbell.amedd.mil/); Recreational Area located near Fort Knox (http://www.knoxmwr.com/Rec/campCarlson.asp); Destiny Parks and Pavilions at Fort Campbell (http://www.fortcampbellmwr.com/BusinessActivities/-the Fort Knox Development www.childDevelopment.Geographical Quarters (http://knoxmwr.com/Lodging/temporary.asp); the Fort Knox Transient Lodging (http://www.knoxmwr.-com/Lodging/transient.asp); Physical Fitness Centers at Fort Knox (http://www.knoxmwr.com/-Rec/fitnessCenters.asp); the Rocker II Nightclub at Fort Knox (http://www.knoxmwr.com/Rec/-asp); and the Turner Army Lodging/). Administrative Record, at 670. Southern Foods’ gross sales to these MWR activities at Fort Campbell in Fiscal Year 2005 were $1,997,000. Administrative Record, at 671. Southern Foods’ gross sales to these MWR activities at Fort Knox in Fiscal Year 2005 were $1,102,000. Administrative Record, at 671. Southern Foods has supported the Joint Services Prime Vendor Program at Fort Campbell and at Fort Knox for over ten years. Administrative Record, at 793 through 798. Indeed, Southern Foods’ gross sales to these MWR reported for Service Area 10 in Attachment “Prime Vendor Program Areas/Activities/Business Dollars,” Solicitation Number NAFBA1-06-R-0016. Administrative Record, at 600, 620. MWR at Fort Campbell and at Fort Knox include the Blanchfeld Army Hospital at Fort Campbell (http://www.campbel.amedd.army.mil/); Camp Carlson Army Area near Fort www.knoxmwr.com/Rec/campCarlson.asp); Parks Campbell (http://www.fortcampbellmwr.com/BusinessActivities/-DestinyParksAndPavillions/); the Fort Knox Child Development Center (http://www.knoxmwr.-com/Youth/childDevelopment.asp); the Fort Knox Geographical Bachelors Quarters (http://www.-the Fort Knox asp); Physical Fitness Centers at Fort Knox fitnessCenters.asp); the Rocker II Nightclub at Fort (http://www.knoxmwr.com/Rec/-rocker.asp); and the Turner Army Lodging at Fort Campbell (http://www.fortcampbellmwr.com/-Record, at Foods' to these MWR Fiscal Administrative Foods' to these MWR in Fiscal Year 2005 were $1,102,000. Record, at 671. Foods Prime Vendor Program at Fort Campbell and at Fort Knox Administrative Record, at 798. Southern Foods' gross to these MWR activities are all the gross sales reported for United States Service Area 10 in Attachment 1, "Joint Services Prime Vendor Program Participants for U.S. Service Areas/Activities/Volume of Business in Dollars," NAFBA1-06-R-0016. Administrative Record, at 600, 620. Has Been Redacted 2-Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=aaf7e722-1215-4b8d-89dc-b48030a5e2b8Protected Information Has Been Redacted -3 -business under the Joint Prime Vendor Program the Southeast Centralized Contracting Office. Record, through Regional Centralized Contracting Office with Defendant is the U.S. Army Community and Family Support Center (USACFC). USACFC was in 1984 to “provide and oversight for the Army programs.” There are some 50 U.S. Army MWR programs worldwide and these programs employ approximately 48,000 people. Administrative Record, at 542. Prime Vendor Program is one such U.S. Army MWR generation, U.S. Army MWR MWR activities. Currently over 900 installations participate in the Joint Services Prime Vendor Program. The Joint Services Prime Vendor Program is a series of Contracts between These to margin/Administrative Record, at 542. Prime Vendor Program under the authority 1-5., Army Regulation 215-1 (http://www.apd.army.mil/series_range_pubs.asp?range=215). The Joint Services Army MWR program that, per Section 3-1., Regulation Program 1, “Military morale, welfare and recreation funds.” There are Southern Foods conducts business under the Joint Services Prime Vendor Program at Fort Campbell with the Southeast Regional Centralized Contracting Offce. Administrative Record, at 670, 793 through 796. The Southeast Regional Centralized Contracting Offce at Fort Campbell is operated with appropriated funds. Army and Family Support Center (USACFC). USACFC was established in 1984 to "provide guidance and oversight for the Army Morale Welfare and Recreation programs." 50 U.S. Army and these Record, at The Joint Services Prime Vendor Program is one such U.S. Army MWR program, and this current, second-generation, U.S. Army MWR program provides for the supply of food and food-related products to DoD MWR activities. Currently over 900 installations participate in the Joint Services Program. The Joint Services Program is a series private-sector food service distributors and the U.S. Army. These private-sector food service distributors agree to sell food and food-related products at a set margin/mark-up above cost. Administrative The Joint Services Prime Vendor Program is created under the authority of Section 1-5., Army www.apd.army.mil/series_range_pubs.asp?Services Prime Vendor Program is a U.S. Army military MWR program that, per Section 3-1., Army Regulation 215-1 falls into Program Group 1, "Military morale, welfare and recreation funds." There are Has Been Redacted 3-Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=aaf7e722-1215-4b8d-89dc-b48030a5e2b8Protected Information Has Been Redacted -4 -three for U.Army MWR programs: Category Mission Sustaining Programs; Category B: Community Support Programs, and Category C: Revenue-Generating Programs. Figure 3-1, Army Regulation 215-1; Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, at 2. A Army programs have or no capacity generating income and thus are appropriated funds. Section Army 1. Category B U.S. Army military MWR programs provide “the community that make military temporary hometowns for a mobile military population.” These B U.S. Army programs have ability to generate revenues “substantial amounts of APF [support.” Section 3-8., Regulation C U.Army programs “offer desirable social opportunities” “expenses.” But Category C U.S. Army military programs “lack the ability to sustain themselves business activity” appropriated funds. Section 3-9., Army Regulation 215-1. USACFC provides executive control and essential command supervision (ECECS) for common support for the U.S. Army and in this role USACFC executes nonappropriated procurement. Section Regulation 215-USACFC operates appropriated financial all categories programs to 100 percent of costs for which authorized. Chapter 16 outlines DOD minimum stanthree funding categories for U.S. Army military MWR programs: Category A: Mission Sustaining Support Programs, and Category C: Revenue-Army Defendant's to Dismiss, Category A U.S. Army military MWR programs have little or no capacity for generating nonappropriated fund income and thus are supported almost entirely with appropriated funds. Section 3-7., Army Regulation 215-1. Category B U.S. Army military MWR programs provide "the community support systems that make military garrisons temporary hometowns for a mobile military population." These Category B U.S. Army military MWR programs have limited ability to generate revenues and thus they "receive substantial amounts of APF [appropriated funds] support." Section 3-8., Army Regulation 215-1. Category C U.S. Army military MWR programs "offer desirable social and recreational opportunities" and they generate "enough income to cover most of their operating expenses." But Category C U.S. Army military MWR programs "lack the ability to sustain themselves purely on their business activity" and thus they receive limited support from appropriated funds. Army command for MWR support for the U.S. Army and in this role USACFC executes U.S. Army nonappropriated fund procurement. Section 2-5.t., Army Regulation 215-1. USACFC operates with appropriated funds: The basic fnancial standard for all categories of MWR programs is to use APFs to fund of for which Chapter 16 outlines DOD stan-Has Been Redacted 4-Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=aaf7e722-1215-4b8d-89dc-b48030a5e2b8Protected Information Has Been Redacted -5 -additional Army annually instructions disseminated by USACFSC (CFSC–FM). Additionally, specific authorizations APF support to MWR are contained in appendixes D and E and elsewhere following to APF support provided . . . . MWR Common is part of the management whereby APF support is authorized to administration, operation of more than one MWR program or activity, and where such support is not or readily identifiable specific program to solely support and essential central accounting, civilian office, warehousing, central procurement, central marketing, and other such consolidated functions. APF is identified and reportable to USACFSC (see chapter 16). USACFSC will prorate categories. . . . . Section 5-1., Army Regulation 215-1. nonappropriated of the United States: is legally “of the United States.” “NAFI” includes entities at the garrison level, hereafter referred as garrison operating entities Funds in NAFI/entity accounts are Government funds, and NAF property, including property. However, NAFs are separate APFs the U.S. with APFs and are managed separately, supporting a common program. (1) Each NAFI/entity will operate under the authority of the U.S. Government in accordance and departmental NAFIs/entities operate under the authority privileges and immunities Government accorded by Federal law. directives regulations entity programs and facilities will be operated, maintained, and funded as integral part of the personnel and readiness program. dards and addresses additional Army supplemental standards issued annually in budget by (CFSC-FM). Additionally, specifc for APF support to MWR are contained in appendixes D and E and elsewhere in this chapter. The following also pertains to APF support provided to MWR programs: c. Common MWR support. Common MWR support is part of the management overhead, whereby APF support is authorized to fund the management, administration, and activity, and where easily or readily identifable to a specifc MWR program or to solely category C MWR programs. Such support includes functions of executive control and essential command supervision (ECECS), central accounting, civilian personnel offce, common warehousing, and other such consolidated functions. identifed and reportable to USACFSC (see wil the management support among the three MWR program categories. Army USACFC is a nonappropriated fund instrumentality of the United States: a. Every NAFI is legally constituted as an "instrumentality of the United States." The term "NAFI" includes entities at the garrison level, hereafter referred to as garrison MWR operating entities or simply entities (previously the installation MWR fund). entity accounts buildings, is Government property. However, NAFs are separate from APFs of the U.S. Treasury. They are not commingled with APFs and are managed separately, even when NAFI/operate of the U.S. with applicable Federal laws and departmental regulations. (2) Because NAFIs/entities operate under the authority of the Federal Government, they are entitled to the same sovereign privileges and immunities as the Federal Government (3) Applicable DOD directives and implementing Army regulations are binding on NAFIs. b. NAFI/entity programs and facilities will be operated, maintained, and funded as an the personnel Has Been Redacted 5-Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=aaf7e722-1215-4b8d-89dc-b48030a5e2b8Protected Information Has Been Redacted -6 -Section 4-1., Army Regulation 215-1. U.S. Army nonappropriated fund procurement in with Army Regulation 215-4. Section 4-2.f., Army Regulation 215-1. Army Regulation 215-4 establishes the Fund Procurement System. 1-1.Regulation 215-Section 2-7.b. of Army Regulation 215-4 sets out the considerations required for determinations responsibility. Chapter 4 of Army Regulation 215-4 set procedures for the Formal Acquisition Process. Contract Number NAFBA1-07-D-0022 and Request Proposal NAFBA1-06-proposed Contract, were competed and awarded by this Formal Acquisition Process. Foodservice, Incorporated (USFS) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Koninklijke Ahold, “Royal Ahold.” A significant number of class action lawsuits have been filed against Royal Ahold and USFS, Royal Ahold, and some of their current/officers or employees current investigations by the United States Department of Justice, by the United States Department and by various foreign jurisdictions. Administrative Record, at 1463. USFS’s Paducah Division operates from a warehouse in Paducah, Kentucky. Administrative Record, at 1241. Sales to Army programs are among USFS’s Division’s top Administrative Record, at 1242 through 1251. On January 24th, 2007 USFS was awarded Contract Number NAFBA1-07-D-0022 to provide broad line food distribution services for the Joint Services Prime Vendor Program in United States Army USACFC executes U.S. Army nonappropriated fund procurement in accordance with Army 4-2.f, Regulation 215-1. Army Regulation 215-4 establishes Nonappropriated Fund Procurement System. Section 1-l.a., Army Regulation 215-4. b. of Army out the considerations required for of Contractor responsibility. Chapter 4 of Army Regulation 215-4 set outs detailed requirements and Process. 07-D-0022 and Request for Proposal Number NAFBA1-06-R-0016, the Solicitation which proposed this Contract, were Process. U.S. Foodservice, Incorporated (USFS) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Koninklijke Ahold, N.V., "Ahold." signifcant number of class action lawsuits have fled USFS. USFS, Royal Ahold, and some of their current/former offcers or employees are the subject of States Justice, States of Labor, and by various foreign jurisdictions. Administrative Record, at 1463. USFS's Paducah operates a warehouse Paducah, Record, at 1241. Sales U.S. Army MWR programs are not among USFS's Paducah Division's top ten accounts. Administrative 2007 USFS was awarded Contract Number NAFBA1-D-services the Joint Services United States Has Been Redacted 6-Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=aaf7e722-1215-4b8d-89dc-b48030a5e2b8Protected Information Has Been Redacted -7 -Service Area 10. Administrative Record, at 1696. Contract performance commenced on April 1st, 2007. Administrative Record, at 1698. Available options allow the period of performance of Contract Number NAFBA1-07-D-0022 to extend through April 1st, 2017. Administrative Record, at 1774. to USFS consideration USFS against the Excluded Parties List System (http://www.epls.gov), Administrative Record, at 1688, 1695, and thus this Award was made in violation of Section 2-7.b. of Army Regulation 215-4. to USFS was any independent assessments and was made on nothing other than a review of the Competitive submitted by Southern Foods and by USFS. Administrative Record, at 1475, 1488, 1499. THE ACQUISITION Request for Proposal Number NAFBA1-06-R-0016 was issued on February 24th, 2006 and this seeks Prime Vendor 18 Service Areas. Administrative 28, 34, 46. Only each States Area. An Offeror United States Area is required to all military programs in that United States Service Area. Administrative Record, at 34. USACFC is responsible for Contract administration. Administrative Record, at 71. funds are to be used related that are Administrative Record, at 72. The proposed Contract is not subject to the Contract Disputes Service Area 10. Administrative Record, at 1696. Contract performance commenced on April 1St Administrative Available options allow period NAFBA1-07-D-0022 to extend through April 111, Record, at 1774. This Award to USFS was made with no consideration as to responsibility other than vetting the List (gov), 1695, and thus this Award made in violation Regulation 215-This Award to USFS was made without any independent assessments of the past performances of Southern Foods and of USFS and was made on nothing other than a review of the Competitive Proposals Record, at 1475, 1488, THE ACQUISITION for 06-R-0016 was issued February 24th, Acquisition seeks Competitive Proposals for the Joint Services Prime Vendor Program in 18 designated United States Service Areas. Administrative Record, at 28, 34,46. Only one Award is to be made for each United States Service Area. An Offeror awarded a Contract for a particular United States Service Area is required to service all military MWR programs in that United States Service Area. for Contract Only nonappropriated funds are to be used to pay for food and food-related products that are accepted. Administrative Has Been Redacted 7-Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=aaf7e722-1215-4b8d-89dc-b48030a5e2b8Protected Information Has Been Redacted -8 -Act of 1978, 41 U.S.C. §§ 601-613. Administrative Record, at 79. The proposed Contract includes a which requires the submission of Contract Claims to the USACFC Contracting Officer on these Claims, of decisions by the USACFC Contracting Officer Services Board Services Appeals these final and not subject appeal. Record, at 95-96. for Proposal Number 0016 are to provided to USACFC in three separate volumes—Price, Technical, and Management Administrative Request for Proposal Number NAFBA1-promises that “conduct independent assessments Contractor’s past performance.” Administrative Record, at 120. Amendment 0004 to Request for Proposal Number NAFBA1-06-R-0016 sets out the evaluation Competitive Proposals are to be evaluated Price is “the primary of consideration.” Price is “significantly more important” “importance.” Price is to be evaluated margins, on private label rebates, and on a market basket. All these Price subfactors to be evaluated two equally-weighted subfactors: customer service Management be experience and past performance. Administrative Record, at 1723 through 1724. 1978, Administrative Disputes Clause which requires the submission of Contract Claims to the USACFC Contracting Officer, which provides for decisions by the USACFC Contracting Offcer on these Contract Claims, and which provides for appeals of decisions by the USACFC Contracting Offcer to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. Decisions of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals on these Contract Claims are fnal and not subject to further appeal. Administrative Record, at 95-96. Competitive Proposals submitted in response to Request for Proposal Number NAFBA1-06-R-to three separate volumes-Price, Technical, and Management Proposals. Administrative Record, at 117. Request for Proposal Number NAFBA1-06-R-0016 promises that USACFC "will conduct independent assessments of the Contractor's past performance." Record, at 0004 06-R-0016 sets factors for Award. Competitive Proposals are to be evaluated on three factors: Price, Technical, and Management. Price is "the primary area of consideration." Price is "signifcantly more important" than Technical and Technical and Management are "of equal importance." Price is to be evaluated on individual margins, on private label rebates, and on a market basket. All these Price subfactors are of equal weight. Technical is to be evaluated on two equally-weighted subfactors: customer service and reporting. Management is likewise to be evaluated on two equally-weighted subfactors: organizational performance. Administrative Record, Has Been Redacted 8-Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=aaf7e722-1215-4b8d-89dc-b48030a5e2b8Protected Information Has Been Redacted -9 -DOD INSTRUCTIONS ON MILITARY MWR PROGRAMS DoD Instruction 1015.10 implements policy, assigns responsibilities, and prescribes procedures for operating and managing military MWR programs. DoD Instruction 1015.10, subparagraph 1.1 (http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/). DoD Instruction 1015.10 implements the same funding categories for military MWR programs as does Army Regulation 215-1. DoD Instruction 1015.10, subparagraph Particular MWR programs are assigned categories 1015.10. Centers at Fort Knox to Category A, entirely by appropriated funds. DoD Instruction 1015.10, subparagraph 4.3.1 and Enclosure 4, paragraph E4.1.3. The Fort Knox Child Development Center is assigned to Category B, Basic Community Support Programs, and as sustained (in addition fund revenues) by appropriated funds. DoD Instruction 1015.10, subparagraph 4.3.2 and Enclosure 4, paragraph E4.2.1.1. Camp Carlson Recreational Area located near Fort Knox, Destiny Parks and Pavilions at Fort Campbell, the Fort Knox Geographical Bachelors Quarters; the Fort Knox Transient Lodging, the Rocker II Nightclub at Fort Knox, and the Turner Army Lodging at Fort Campbell are all Category such they generate nonappropriated funds their operating expenses they receive limited DoD Instruction 1015.10, subparagraph 4.3.3 and Enclosure 4, paragraphs E4.3.1.2.2. and E.4.3.1.3. DOD INSTRUCTIONS MILITARY MWR PROGRAMS Instruction 1015.10 implements policy, assigns responsibilities, and prescribes MWR programs. DoD Instruction 1015.10, subparagraph 1.1 whs/directives/). DoD Instruction 1015.10 implements the same categories MWR programs as does Regulation Instruction 1015.10, 4.3. Particular military MWR programs are assigned to funding categories in Enclosure 4 to DoD Instruction 1015.10. As an example, the Physical Fitness Centers at Fort Knox which have been supported by Southern Foods are assigned to Category A, Mission Sustaining Programs, and as such are supported almost funds. DoD Instruction 1015.10, subparagraph 4.3.1 and Enclosure The Fort Development Center is assigned Support Programs, and as such is sustained (in addition to nonappropriated fund revenues) DoD Instruction 1015.10, subparagraph 4.3.2 and Enclosure paragraph Camp Carlson Recreational Area located near Fort Knox, Geographical II Army Lodging at Fort Campbell are C, Revenue Generating Programs, and as such they generate nonappropriated funds to cover most of their operating expenses but nonetheless they receive limited appropriated funds support. Instruction 1015.10, subparagraph 4.3.3 and Enclosure 4, paragraphs E4.3.1.2.2. and E.4.3.1.3. Has Been Redacted 9-Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=aaf7e722-1215-4b8d-89dc-b48030a5e2b8Protected Information Has Been Redacted -10 -by USACFC is “common support” to a military Common That management, and operation of more than one MWR program or category and that is not easily identifiable to a specific MWR program. Examples of common support are office civilian personnel office functions, ECECS, DoD Instruction 1015.10, Enclosure 2. the Joint Services Prime Vendor Program is here receiving common support are authorized to support this military MWR programs should receive at the same other MWR programs shall be resourced from either APF or NAF or a combination expenditures purposes 4.5.1. Funding Sources. The Department of Defense is responsible for oversight of selected individual program growth, and new market-oriented MWR Specific for elements of resource enclosure The standards for APF support are shown in enclosure 7. The DoD Components shall on the status meeting the standards. 4.5.2. Common Support. A support function that serves more than one MWR program does not constitute authorization for APF support. The authorization for APF on definitions, 2.) Reporting in reference . . . . DoD Instruction 1015.10 (Emphasis added). The Acquisition here that is being conducted by USACFC is "common support" to a military MWR program: E2.1.6. Common Support. That direct support used to fund the management, administration, program or category and that is not easily or readily identifable to a specifc MWR program. Examples of common support are central accounting offce functions, civilian personnel offce functions, ECECS, common warehousing functions, and central procurement functions. 1015.10, Enclosure Because the Joint Services Prime Vendor Program is here receiving common support from USACFC, appropriated funds are authorized to support this military MWR program: 4.5. Funding. MWR programs should receive funding at the same level as other supportprograms. programs from either APF or NAF of both. NAF expenditures for valid MWR purposes are not an augmentation of appropriations. The Department is for the total APF and NAF resourcing of MWR programs, including major force structure changes, selected individual program growth, and new market-oriented MWR programs. Specifc APF authorizations for elements of resource are shown in enclosure 6. for report annually on the status of meeting the standards. Common A serves more MWR not support depends on the nature of the program being supported. (See defnitions, enclosure 2.) Reporting of common support is outlined in reference (e). 1015.10 (Emphasis Has Been Redacted 10-Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=aaf7e722-1215-4b8d-89dc-b48030a5e2b8Protected Information Has Been Redacted -11 -DOD INSTRUCTIONS ON NONAPPROPRIATED FUND INSTRUMENTALITIES AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT OF SUPPORTING RESOURCES DoD Instruction 1015.14 places military MWR programs such as this Joint Services Prime Vendor Program into four Program Groups and military MWR programs are in Program Group I. DoD 1015.14, 4.3.1. Within this Program Group further classified into Categories, and these again are the same as the Categories in Army Regulation 215-1 and in DoD Instruction 1015.10. DoD Instruction 1015.14 explicitly authorizes the use of appropriated funds together with nonappropriated funds, and this authorization is again by Category: administered in efficient, and business-DoD Components shall ensure that programs and resources planned, programmed, and budgeted using the proper funding source and the suitable combination nonappropriated funds], Within Program Group, activities are further classified three categories. are the basis of the APF and NAF authorizations identified in reference (g) [DoD Instruction 1015.15]. Private resources in support of NAFI programs according to DoD (p)). 4.4.1. Category A: Mission Sustaining Activities. Category A activities have virtually generating revenues APFs. of to specific instances prohibited is essential Category B: Basic Community Support B activities are financed combination of NAF and APF resources. Because NAF revenue-generating is these be supported APFs. Generating Category generate revenues only support. activities are authorized limited direct APF support. Military MWR Arm-DOD INSTRUCTIONS ON NONAPPROPRIATED FUND INSTRUMENTALITIES FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT OF SUPPORTING RESOURCES 1015.14 places MWR programs such as this Joint Services Group Instruction 1015.14, subparagraph 4.3.1. Within this Program Group I activities are further classifed Categories, are the as the Categories in Army 1 Instruction 1015.10. Instruction 1015.14 explicitly authorizes appropriated funds, and authorization is again 4.4. NAFI resources shall be administered in an economical, effcient, and business-like manner. The DoD Components shall ensure that programs and resources are planned, of APFs, NAFs [non appropriated funds], and other approved funding resources. Within each Program Group, activities are further classifed into one of three funding categories. The funding categories are the basis of the APF and NAF authorizations identifed 1015.15]. in support of NAFI shall be administered according to DoD Instruction 1015.13 (reference Donations shall be administered under the provisions of reference (f). Category A: A virtually no capacity for generating NAF revenues and are supported almost entirely with APFs. The use of NAFs is limited to specifc instances where APFs are prohibited by law or when NAF support is essential for the operation. 4.4.2. Category B: Basic Community Support Activities. Category B activities are fnanced with a combination of NAF and APF resources. Because their NAF revenue-generating capability is limited, these activities will be substantially supported with APFs. 4.4.3. Category C: Revenue-Generating Activities. Category C activities have the highest capability to generate NAF revenues and generally receive only indirect APF support. Overseas activities are authorized limited direct APF support. Military MWR and Arm-Has Been Redacted 11-Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=aaf7e722-1215-4b8d-89dc-b48030a5e2b8Protected Information Has Been Redacted -12 -Exchange activities at designated remote and isolated locations authorized funding under Category B rules according to the provisions of references (j) and (n). 4.5. Use of APFs shall be consistent with the provisions of Section 1301 of title 31, United Code (reference (q)) which that be the purposes for which they were appropriated. Alternate procedures to expend appropriations to support operations of Program Groups I, II, and V (Stars and Stripes only) under a memorandum of agreement specified reference DoD Instruction 1015.14 (Emphasis added). DoD Instruction 1015.15 sets out in Enclosure 3 a Table which explains general funding authorizations (through use of appropriated and/or nonappropriated funds) for activities of nonappropriated Particularly Section N. “Other Operating Expenses” this Table that costs not otherwise provided for are authorized to be paid from appropriated funds for Category MWR programs if these are “related to ECECS.” DoD Instruction 1015.15 sets out in Enclosure 6 a procedure for making appropriated funds available to military MWR programs. DoD Instruction 1015.15 subparagraph 5.2.2. implements the by 10 2491 making appropriated funds available to military MWR This is that statutory authority: for Uniform Funding and Management.— Under regulations prescribed and for morale, welfare, and recreation programs may be treated as nonappropriated funds and expended accordance laws applicable the expenditures made morale, welfare, recreation programs funds for all purposes and shall remain available until expended. ed Service Exchange activities at designated remote and isolated locations are authorized shall be consistent with the of 1301 of title States Code (reference (q)) which requires that funds shall be used only for the purposes for which they and V (Stars of agreement are specifed in reference (g). 1015.14 (Emphasis 1015.15 sets which general funding authorizations of and/or fund instrumentalities. Particularly Section N. "Other Operating Expenses" of this Table explains not provided authorized paid from A, B, or C military MWR programs if these are "costs incurred incident to the performance of functions ECECS." Instruction 1015.15 Enclosure to programs. DoD Instruction 1015.15 subparagraph 5.2.2. authority provided by 10 U.S.C. § 2491 making appropriated funds available to military MWR programs. that statutory (a) Authority for Uniform Funding and Management.-Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, funds appropriated to the Department of Defense and available recreation programs be treated as funds and expended in accordance with laws applicable to the expenditures of nonappropriated funds. When made available for morale, welfare, and recreation programs under such regulations, appropriated funds shall be considered to be nonappropriated expended. Has Been Redacted 12-Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=aaf7e722-1215-4b8d-89dc-b48030a5e2b8Protected Information Has Been Redacted -13 -(b) Conditions on Availability.— Funds appropriated to the Department of Defense to or program only is to receive. . . . . C. § 2491 (ARGUMENT I. Foods’ Claim of of the Implied-Dealing is Not Barred by Lack of Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) Jurisdiction. overstates challenge when it argues that the Joint Services Program and the USACFC which is here the Joint Services Court’s jurisdiction. The problem is Defendant’s reliance on AINS, Inc. v. United States, four-instrumentality a nonappropriated (1) such not receive a Federal instrumentality must derive its income from there is no appropriated monies this Federal instrumentality; and (4) there is a clear expression by Congress on Availability.-Funds appropriated to the Department of Defense may be made available to support a morale, welfare, or recreation program only if the program is authorized to receive appropriated fund support and only in the amounts the program is authorized to receive. 10 U.S.C. § 2491 (Emphasis added). ARGUMENT 1. Southern Foods' Claim of a Breach of the Implied-In-Fact Contract of Good Faith and Fair by Act, 28 U.S.a) (1) Jurisdiction. Defendant woefully overstates its jurisdictional challenge when it argues that the Joint Services Prime Vendor Program and the USACFC which is here acting to implement the Joint Services Prime Vendor Program at Fort Campbell and at Fort Knox are nonappropriated fund instrumentalities beyond this Court's jurisdiction. The problem is Defendant's reliance on AINS, Inc. v. United States, 365 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2004). AINS announces a four-factor test which a Federal instrumentality must meet in order to be considered a nonappropriated fund instrumentality: (1) such a Federal instrumentality must not receive appropriated monies; (2) such a Federal instrumentality must derive its income from nonappropriated funds; (3) absent a statutory amendment there is no situation in which appropriated monies could be used to fund this Federal instrumentality; and (4) there is a clear expression by Congress Has Been Redacted 13-Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=aaf7e722-1215-4b8d-89dc-b48030a5e2b8Protected Information Has Been Redacted -14 -is to be separated from general Federal revenues. 365 1342-43. In this Civil Action USACFC operates with appropriated funds, Section 5-1, Army Regulation this Acquisition military program and are authorized to support this military MWR program, DoD Instruction 1015.10, subparagraph 4.5; MWR programs which are supported by the Joint Services Prime at Fort Campbell and at Fort Knox are Program Group I activities classified into one of three Categories levels funds support are authorized for each of these Categories. DoD Instruction 1015.14, subparagraph 4.4. this is not a Civil Action where there is a clear expression by Congress military MWR programs are to be separated from general Federal revenues. U.S.C. § 2491, and this statute and implementing DoD Instructions clearly and unequivocally authorize MWR programs which receive substantial from But even though USACFC, the Joint Services Prime Vendor Program, and the military MWR meet factor AINS test to be fund instrumentalities, Southern Foods will here concede that these nonappropriated fund instrumentalities, at in of Army that this Federal instrumentality is to be separated from general Federal revenues. AINS, 365 F.3d, at Civil Action USACFC operates with appropriated funds, Section Regulation 215-1; this Acquisition is common support to a military MWR program and thus appropriated funds MWR program, DoD Instruction 1015.10, subparagraph 4.5; and the military MWR programs which are supported by the Joint Services Prime Vendor Program activities classifed one of three (A, B, or C) and varying levels of appropriated funds support are authorized for each of these DoD 1015.14, subparagraph And this is not a Civil Action where there is a clear expression by Congress that USACFC and these military MWR programs are to be separated from general Federal revenues. Instead there is 10 C. § and this statute and implementing appropriated funds support even to military MWR programs which receive substantial revenues from nonappropriated funds. Prime Vendor Program, and the military MWR programs at Fort Campbell and at Fort Knox do not meet the four-factor AINS test to be considered nonappropriated fund instrumentalities, Southern Foods will here concede that these Federal instrumentalities are nonetheless nonappropriated fund instrumentalities, at least in the sense of Army Has Been Redacted 14-Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=aaf7e722-1215-4b8d-89dc-b48030a5e2b8Protected Information Has Been Redacted -15 -Regulation 215-1, Army Regulation 215-4, DoD Instruction 1015.10, DoD Instruction 1015.14, DoD Instruction 1015.15, and 10 U.S.C. § 2491. how this concession work? Simply, we must look at the particulars of the Civil Action It is clear from Allen Aaron v. United States, 27 Fed. Cl. 295 (1992) that this Court can properly jurisdiction U.S. Army MWR civilian employees filed claims to recover licensing or vehicle registration fees the Federal Germany and Berlin, licensing fees were program for the United States Army Europe and Seventh Id., at 296. Regulation 215-1 and the same sorts of Program Groups and Categories as in here, the Allen Aaron Court this Army program received that nonappropriated fund was not beyond this Court’s Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) jurisdiction. Id., at 298-99. it have made Allen Aaron were based S. program? Unfortunately for Southern Foods’ averment fact Contract of good faith and fair dealing may be grounded on 28 U.S.1491(a)(1), Post-Award Procurement Protest Complaint, at 2, the answer is that it does make a difference. Army 4, DoD DoD 1015.15, and 10 U.S.C. So how does this concession work? Simply, we must look at the particulars of the Civil Action that is before the Court. Allen Aaron v. United States, Cl. (1992) that this Court exercise jurisdiction over money claims against U.S. Army MWR programs. There it was civilian and military employees and their dependents who had fled claims to recover licensing or vehicle registration fees paid in the Federal Republic of Germany and Berlin, licensing fees that were deposited into the MWR program for the United States Army Europe and Seventh Army. Id., at 296. Relying on Army Regulation 215-1 and the same sorts of Program Groups and Categories as those in issue here, the Allen Aaron Court held that since this U.S. Army MWR program received both appropriated and nonappropriated funds support, that nonappropriated fund instrumentality Court's 28 S.Id., at Would it have made a difference if the money claims in Allen Aaron were based on a Contract with that U.S. Army MWR program? Unfortunately for Southern Foods' averment that its Claim of a breach of the implied-in-fact Contract of good faith and fair dealing may be grounded on 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (at Has Been Redacted 15-Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=aaf7e722-1215-4b8d-89dc-b48030a5e2b8Protected Information Has Been Redacted -16 -In Sodexho Marriott Management, Inc. v. United States, 61 Fed. Cl. 229 (2004) this Court binding Circuit barring nonappropriated either under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1), Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. § 602(a). Id., at 235. This is the end of Southern Foods’ averment that a breach the implied-in-fact Contract of good faith and fair dealing may be grounded on this Court’s Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) jurisdiction, and thus this averment Foods’ Post-Award Foods’ Fourth Relief, resulting from Defendant’s breach of the implied-and fair dealing that is the subject of the defective averment at page Southern Foods’ Post-Award Procurement Protest Complaint. Sodexho Management, States, Cl. reads binding Federal Circuit precedent as barring any Contract claims against a nonappropriated fund instrumentality, either under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. 4 1491(a)(1), or under the Contract C. 4 602(a). Id., at 235. This is the end of Southern Foods' averment its Claim of a breach of the implied-in-fact Contract of good faith and fair dealing may be Court's Act, 28 S.must be stricken from Southern Foods' Post-Award Procurement Complaint. This is, however, not the end of Southern Foods' Fourth Claim for Relief, this the same Claim for money damages resulting from Defendant's breach of the implied-in-fact Contract of good faith and fair dealing that is the subject of the defective averment at page 2 of Southern Foods' Has Been Redacted 16-Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=aaf7e722-1215-4b8d-89dc-b48030a5e2b8Protected Information Has Been Redacted -17 -Southern Foods’ Claims for a Declaratory Judgment, Damages Are Properly Before This Court Under the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, 28 §§ As is made clear in Southern Foods’ Post-Award Procurement Protest Complaint: (1) Southern Foods is an appropriate “interested party” under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1) because Southern Foods is an actual Offeror whose revised Competitive Proposal is in the competitive range a position to receive of the Contract proposed by Request NAFBA1-06-R-0016, Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324, (Cir. (2) this Civil Action is timely filed on March 30th, 2007 three days after Southern Foods received the decision of USACFC on Southern Foods’ Agency Protest filed with USACFC in accordance with paragraph 4-21.d. of Army Regulation 215-4; and (3) USACFC is an appropriate “Federal agency” under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1) because USACFC, a nonappropriated fund instrumentality, is nonetheless an agent of the United States, an “arm of the government,” and a Federal agency. Lion Raisins, Inc. v. United States, 416 F.3d 1356, 1363, 1363 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2005). regard Action, just how is this Court’s Dispute Resolution 28 U.S.C. §§ 1491(b)(1), 1491(b)(2) jurisdiction different from this Court’s Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) jurisdiction? II. Southern Foods' Claims for a Declaratory Judgment, Permanent Injunctive Relief, and Money Are Properly Before This Court Under the Administrative U.S.C. 44 1491(b)(1), 1491(b)(2). clear in Southern Foods' Post-Award Procurement Complaint: "interested party" under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1) because actual Offeror Competitive and is in a position to receive Award of the Contract proposed by Request for Proposal Number 06-R-0016, Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garuuf v. United States, 238 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2001); and Action is timely fled on March 30th, 2007 three days after Southern Foods Foods' Agency Protest fled is an appropriate "Federal agency" under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(1) because instrumentality, is nonetheless an States, "government," and a Federal agency. Lion Raisins, Inc. v. United States, 416 F.1356, With regard to this Civil Action, just how is this Court's Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, C. §§ 1491(b)(1), 1491(b)(2) jurisdiction different Court's Tucker Act, 28 U.S.4 1491 (a) (1) jurisdiction? Has Been Redacted 17-Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=aaf7e722-1215-4b8d-89dc-b48030a5e2b8Protected Information Has Been Redacted -18 -Southern Foods USACFC is a nonappropriated fund this Court’s Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1491(b)(1), 1491(b)(2) jurisdiction to “protest cases.” Emery Worldwide Airlines, 264 F.3d 1071, 1083 (Fed. Cir. And we know now from Lion Raisins that USACFC is the “government.” But is Request for Proposal R-0016 a “procurement” within Court’s Dispute Resolution Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1491(b)(1), 1491(b)(2) jurisdiction? This Court’s Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1491(b)(1), 1491(b)(2) jurisdiction comes the line of cases Scanwell Inc. v. Shaffer, 424 F.2d 859 (D.C. Cir. 1970), and Scanwell adopts Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) review, just as Dispute Resolution 28 1491(b)(4) provides. Under this Administrative aside if it a rational or if of regulation or procedure. Impreza, 238 Scanwell propelled United States District Courts the government procurement process these judicial bodies jurisdiction for Proposal Number NAFBA1-is proceeding under the Nonappropriated Fund Procurement System, Army Regulation 215-4, and Army Regulation 215-4 is a regulation for nonappropriated Fortunately for Southern Foods because USACFC is a nonappropriated fund instrumentality, Court's Dispute Resolution Act, 28 U.S.b)(1491(b)(2) jurisdiction extends to all "government procurement protest cases." Emery Worldwide Airlines, Inc. v. United States, 264 F.3d 1071, 1083 (Fed. Cir. 2001). from Lion Raisins that USACFC is "government." But is Request Number NAFBA1-06-R-0016 a "procurement" within this Court's Administrative Dispute § 1491(b)(1), 1491(b)(2) jurisdiction? Court's Dispute Resolution Act, 28 U.S.44 comes from the line of cases following Scanwell Laboratories, Inc. v. Shafr, 424 F.2d 859 Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 4 as the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(4) provides. Under this Administrative Procedure Act standard a procurement decision can be set aside if it lacks a rational basis or if the procurement procedure involved a violation of regulation or procedure. Impreza, 238 F.3d, at 1332. Scanwell propelled United States District Courts into the government procurement process and gave these judicial bodies jurisdiction to review procurement protests. Here, Request for Proposal Number NAFBA1-06-R-0016 is proceeding under the Nonappropriated Army that provides procedures for nonappropriated fund procurements. Has Been Redacted 18-Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=aaf7e722-1215-4b8d-89dc-b48030a5e2b8Protected Information Has Been Redacted -19 -District under Scanwell decide or if particular violation Request Number 0016 is a “procurement” over which this Court has Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1491(b)(1), 1491(b)(2) jurisdiction. this is the “normal understanding” of the bare of Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, 28 U.S.b)(2) and this normal Defendant offers nothing that this clear language. this is a Post-Award Procurement Protest under the Administrative C. § b)(2), Southern Foods’ Claim for resulting from Defendant’s of the implied-fact of good faith and fair dealing is a nonappropriated fund instrumentality Circuit Instead, this is Post-Award Procurement Protest. this Court were to award Southern Foods money damages a Post-“any appropriation” as by 28 S.Does the nonappropriated nonetheless to this Post-Award Procurement Protest? Gary Aaron v. United States, 51 Fed. Cl. 690, 691 The United States District Courts had jurisdiction under Scanwell to decide whether a procurement decision had a rational basis or if a particular procurement procedure was a violation of regulation, and this being so, then it must also follow that Request for Proposal Number NAFBA1-06-R-a "procurement" Dispute Resolution Act, 28 U.S.44 1491 (b) (1), 1491(b) (2) jurisdiction. Just this is the "normal understanding" of the bare language of the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1491(b)(1), 1491(b)(2) and this normal understanding is entitled to prevail here because Defendant offers nothing persuasive that could modify this clear language. Emery, 264 F.3d, at 1083. Because this is a Post-Award Procurement Protest under the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, 28 U.S.C. 4 1491(b)(2), Southern Foods' Claim for money damages resulting from Defendant's breach of the implied-in-fact Contract of good faith and fair dealing is not a Contract claim against a nonappropriated fund instrumentality which is barred by binding Federal Circuit precedent. this If this Court were to award Southern Foods money damages on this Claim under a Post-Award Procurement Protest, could such a final judgment be paid out of "any general appropriation" as is required by 28 U.S.C. § 2517? Does the nonappropriated fund doctrine nonetheless apply this Post-Award Procurement Protest? Gary Aaron v. United States, 51 Fed. Cl. 690, 691 (2002). Has Been Redacted 19-Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=aaf7e722-1215-4b8d-89dc-b48030a5e2b8Protected Information Has Been Redacted -20 -provides the answer to this question because holds that since U.S. MWR programs may receive Court’s over these fund instrumentalities is not barred by the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2517. Id., 27 Circuit the question whether the implied-supports (limited and proposal costs) in Pre-and Post-Award Procurement Protests lives on. Impresa, 238 F.3d, at 1332 n.6; Emery, 264 F.3d, at 1081 n.9. As to nonappropriated fund instrumentalities, this answer is “yes,” but this under the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, 28 U.S.C. § CONCLUSION set forth in Brief in Plaintiff’s Brief in Response to to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Jurisdiction, Southern Foods that the Court Defendant’s Motion. submitted, /s/Cyrus E. Phillips, IV Cyrus E. Phillips, IV District of Columbia Bar Number 456500, Virginia State Bar Number 03135 Allen Aaron provides the answer to this question because Allen Aaron holds that since U.S. Army MWR programs may receive appropriated funds, this Court's jurisdiction over these nonappropriated instrumentalities is not barred by the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2517. Fed. Cl., at 299. The Federal Circuit has twice now posed the question whether the implied-in-fact Contract theory which supports awards of money damages (limited to bid preparation and proposal costs) Pre-and Post-Award Procurement Protests lives on. Impresa, 238 F.3d, at 1332 n.6; Emery, 3d, at 1081 n.9. As to nonappropriated fund "yes," is only under the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(2), and not under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). CONCLUSION For all of the reasons set forth in the foregoing Brief in Support of Plaintiffs Brief in Response to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Southern Foods respectfully requests that the Court deny Defendant's Motion. Respectfully submitted, Phillips, IV Phillips, IV of Bar Number 456500, State Has Been Redacted 20-Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=aaf7e722-1215-4b8d-89dc-b48030a5e2b8Protected Information Has Been Redacted -21 -April 11th, 2007 N.D.C. 20036-Facsimile: (202) 466-7009 Electronic Mail: lawyer@procurement-lawyer.com Southern Foods, Incorporated. 11th, 1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 660 Washington, D.C. 20036-5112 Telephone: (202) 466-7008 Mail:lawyer@procurement-lawyer.Attorney of record for Plaintiff, Has Been Redacted 21-Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=aaf7e722-1215-4b8d-89dc-b48030a5e2b8Protected Information Has Been Redacted -22 -CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE perjury, that on Wednesday, April 11th, of Plaintiff’s Brief in Response to to Dismiss filed electronically Court’s Filing through which notice of this filing will be sent Joan Margaret Stentiford-Ulmer, Esq. Stentiford-U.S. Army Community and Family Support Center. I also certify, under penalty of perjury, that on Wednesday, April 11th, 2007 a true and complete Plaintiff’s Brief in Response Dismiss filed electronically Court’s Filing System, through which notice of this filing will be sent John J. Pavlick, Jr., Esq. Attorney of record for Intervenor, Incorporated. /s/Cyrus E. Phillips, IV Cyrus E. Phillips, IV CERTIFICATE SERVICE I hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, that on Wednesday, April 11th, 2007 a true and complete copy of this Plaintiffs Brief in Response to Motion to Dismiss was fled electronically via the Court's Electronic Case Filing System, through which notice of this fling will be sent to: Margaret Esq. Electronic Mail: Joan.Stentiford-Ulmer@usdoj.gov Attorney of record for Defendant, Army and perjury, that on Wednesday, April 11th, copy of this Plaintiffs Brief in Response to Motion to Dismiss was fled electronically via the Court's Electronic Case Filing System, through which notice of this fling will be sent to: Electronic Mail: jpavlick@venable.com U.S. Foodservice, Incorporated. Phillips, IV Phillips, IV Has Been Redacted 22-Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=aaf7e722-1215-4b8d-89dc-b48030a5e2b8
Reference Info: Legal Memoranda: Pre-Trial Motions | Federal, Federal Circuit, Claims Court | United States Send
© Cyrus E. Phillips IV, Cyrus E. Phillips IV, Attorney-at-Law | Attorney Advertising Refine your interests »
more less Cyrus E. Phillips IV, Attorney-at-Law on: