Opinion ID: 499513
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Area of Federal Concern

Text: 24 Tombs argues persuasively that the states' interest in adjudicating actions between bidders on federal set-aside contracts is minimal. 25 The Small Business Act applies to and effects [sic] only those involved in federal procurement. It reaches, not the public generally, but those having very specific [relationships] with the federal government itself. The law and the regulations promulgated under it regulate the relationship between the federal government and others, not between citizens themselves.... 26 ... 27 It seems so painfully obvious that the body of federal law relating to procurements by the federal government is so far removed from the interests and power of the states, that actions such as this may even be beyond the jurisdiction of state courts. After all, the SBA and federal procurement statutes constitute a body of law in and of itself, which creates its own remedies for unsuccessful bidders.... 28 Brief of Defendant-Appellee at 14, 19. Indeed, the highest court of one state has concluded that there is absolutely no logic in interpreting the Small Business Act to allow a state cause of action. Tectonics, 496 So.2d at 706. 29 Furthermore, IMI's state law cause of action, if any, exists only because a federal statute has directed that certain contracts be set aside for entities determined by federal regulations, and in spite of normal privity of contract rules. See Icono, 622 F.2d at 1295-96. Tombs argues that the effect of allowing state common law actions is that fifty states [will] become involved in interpreting and applying the federal law and SBA regulations and that the effective uniform administration of the small business set-aside program will be lost. Brief of Defendant-Appellee at 14. The dissent agrees with these assertions. 30 Small business set-aside contracts are not merely one kind of government procurement contracts, however. They do more than provide the government with needed supplies and services; they embody a national policy of promoting free enterprise that the states have an interest in promoting as well. Moreover, unjust enrichment, intentional interference with securing a contract, and fraud are torts for which states have an interest in providing a remedy regardless of the means by which they are accomplished. Whether the kinds of misrepresentations Tombs has made in fact fall within the scope of a particular state's contract and fraud actions is not for this court to decide in the first instance. Nor do we believe that such actions would create the chaos Tombs predicts. IMI does not propose that the court below make its own determination of small business status. The federal Size Appeals Board has ruled that Tombs is not a small business. IMI merely urges the trial court to adopt this federal determination of small business status under the federal regulations as evidence of state law torts. See Tectonics, 496 So.2d at 706-08 (Adams, J., dissenting). It is precisely because federal regulations and determinations will provide the standard by which to measure culpability that the effective uniform administration of the set-aside program will not be disturbed.