Opinion ID: 4032529
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Contracting Authority

Text: The federal government cannot enter into valid and binding contracts except through the actions of “a government representative having actual authority to bind the United States in contract.” Keehn v. United States, 110 Fed. Cl. 306, 326–27 (2013) (quoting Anderson v. United States, 344 F.3d 1343, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). Bellevue argues that the 1963 lease terminated in 1983 or 1993, because USPS did not provide “clear and convincing evidence” that Duncan and Logan had adequate contracting authority to validly exercise the various options in the lease. USPS could not produce a contracting warrant for either Duncan or Logan during the relevant time periods, which is unsurprising for documents of that age. However, none of the law cited by Bellevue indicates that the government must produce the actual warrant to show that an officer had sufficient authority to contract.7 USPS produced ample evidence that both Duncan and Logan were authorized to renew the lease. Each submitted a declaration stating that he had contracting authority, that he was in the habit of confirming the limits of his authority before signing contracts, and that he had no reason to believe he would have 7 Bellevue principally relies on U.S. Postal Service v. Sunshine Development Inc., 674 F. Supp. 2d 619 (M.D. Pa. 2009). In that case (which, of course, is not binding on this court), a postal service employee who undisputedly lacked authority signed a lease renewal. Id. at 623. After the time for exercising the lease option had lapsed, an officer with proper authority attempted to retroactively ratify the unauthorized transaction. Id. at 627. The court ruled that the lease was not validly renewed. Id at 628. Sunshine does not stand for the proposition that a government agency must produce an actual contract warrant in order to prove that an employee had the requisite authority to enter into a contract. USPS V. BELLEVUE POST OFFICE 19 acted in excess of his authority. Arthur Strange provided further testimony that, based on Logan’s contracting warrant from 2002, Logan would have had even higher authority while he worked in the Seattle Field office in the early nineties. USPS bore its initial burden on summary judgment to identify record evidence that “demonstrate[s] the absence of a genuine issue of material fact” on this issue. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 325 (1986) (quoting Fed R. Civ. P. 56(e)). Once USPS made this showing, Bellevue was required to “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). This required Bellevue to “do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). Bellevue has not met that burden. It simply speculates that Duncan or Logan might not have had the requisite authority, and notes that unauthorized transactions by federal employees do occur. That is not enough to defeat summary judgment where USPS has provided persuasive (albeit not conclusive) evidence that each had appropriate contracting authority. We agree with the district court that the 1963 lease remained valid. The owners continuously treated the lease, the various lease options, and the purchase option as valid and enforceable for fifty years, and reaped the benefit of their bargain. Now that the term of the lease has ended, and they are faced with losing a valuable piece of property at a price well below its current value, they wish to avoid its burdens. This they cannot do. 20 USPS V. BELLEVUE POST OFFICE