Opinion ID: 396596
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The merits of the claims under the APA.

Text: 22 Although evidence on the merits of the Foundation's claims was adduced in the context of a hearing on its motion for a preliminary injunction, the Service contends and the language of the district court's order suggests that the hearing was also intended as a final adjudication on the merits. The district court has the power to consolidate such hearings. Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(a)(2). Such action may be taken by stipulation, motion, or even sua sponte so long as the procedures do not result in prejudice to either party. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Generix Drug Sales, Inc., 460 F.2d 1096, 1106 (D.C.Cir.1972). Assuming the merits were reached, it is proper for us to review the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law. 23 On the basis of the present record, we find no merit in the Foundation's claims that the Service provided insufficient notice of its intent to seek proposals or insufficient time for those proposals to be prepared. The notice was published in the Federal Register and the time allowed was longer than the minimum required by the regulations. 24 However, on the present record we do find that the Service violated 36 C.F.R. § 51.4(c) when it negotiated with GPI after rejecting both proposals. 25 In oral argument, both the Service and GPI admitted that the letter sent to GPI was, in normal contract parlance, a rejection. They argued, however, that the letter sent to the company interested in buying GPI refuted this conclusion, and that it was within the Service's discretion to negotiate further because it had not finally rejected GPI's proposal. 26 Rejection is not defined in the regulations. Without a definition, we must assume it carries its normal meaning. It should not be left to the Service to decide arbitrarily when it has rejected a proposal. Again in accordance with normal contract law, a rejection of an offer should be effective when dissatisfaction with its material terms is communicated to the offeror, regardless what is said to a third party. Both proposals were rejected. The Service was required either to resolicit proposals or drop the solicitation. 36 C.F.R. § 51.4(c). 27