Opinion ID: 774858
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: APA Review of USPS Procurement Protests

Text: 49 Section 410(a) of title 39 of the United States Code provides that except as explicitly provided for or insofar as federal laws remain in force as USPS rules or regulations, no federal law, including chapters 5 and 7 of title 5 of the United States Code, applies to the USPS. Judicial review under the APA is specifically described in chapter 7 of title 5. 5 U.S.C. 702-706. Therefore, 39 U.S.C. 410(a) indicates that APA review does not apply to the USPS. 50 Conversely, the ADRA explicitly imports APA standards of review into the Court of Federal Claims's review of government contract procurement protests. 28 U.S.C.A. 1491(b)(4) (Supp. V 1999) (In any action under this subsection, the courts shall review the agency's decision pursuant to the standards set forth in section 706 of title 5.). The legislative history of the ADRA makes clear that the Court of Federal Claims applies the Administrative Procedure Act standard of review previously applied by the district courts (5 U.S.C. 706) to all procurement protest cases. . . . Impresa, 238 F.3d at 1332 (emphasis added) (quoting H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-841, at 10 (1996)). 51 There is a conflict in the law. The trial court in this case failed to address this issue, as did the litigants-all assumed that if the Court of Federal Claims had jurisdiction, APA review applies. 52 In 1991, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to address whether Congress precluded APA review of USPS action by its enactment of 39 U.S.C. 410(a). Air Courier Conference of Am. v. Am. Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO, 498 U.S. 517, 522-23 (1991). The Supreme Court, however, declined to decide this issue because the USPS raised it for the first time in its brief in opposition to the petition for writ of certiorari and it was not argued to or considered by either the federal district court or District of Columbia Circuit below. Id. at 522. In a footnote, the majority noted that this issue could be waived by the parties because it is not jurisdictional. Id. at 523 n.3. The Air Courier Court then proceeded to decide the case based on standing to sue under the APA. 53 Similar to the Supreme Court in Air Courier, we decline to address the breadth of 410(a). Each party before the trial court, in its briefs to this court, and at oral argument contended that if we found jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, APA review applies. Because the judicial review provisions of the APA are not jurisdictional, Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 107 (1977), and because the Court of Federal Claims possessed Tucker Act jurisdiction over this suit, both parties waived any arguments concerning the effect of 410(a) on APA review. Consequently, we will apply the APA's review strictures in this case. 13