Document: 538 U.S. 803 NATIONAL PARK HOSPITALITY ASSOCIATIONv.DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ET AL. No. 02-196. Supreme Court of United States. Argued March 4, 2003. Decided May 27, The Contract Disputes Act 1978 (CDA) establishes rules governing disputes arising out certain Government contracts. After Congress enacted the National Parks Omnibus Management 1998, establishing a comprehensive concession management program for national parks, Park Service (NPS) issued implementing regulations including 36 CFR § 51.3, which purports to render CDA inapplicable Petitioner concessioners' association challenged 51.3's validity. District upheld regulation, concluding that is ambiguous on whether it applies contracts and finding NPS' interpretation reasonable under Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 837. Columbia Circuit affirmed, placing no reliance Chevron, but reading consistent with both 1998 Act. Held: controversy not yet ripe judicial resolution. Determining administrative action requires evaluation (1) issues' fitness decision (2) hardship parties withholding court consideration. Abbott Laboratories Gardner, 387 136, 149. Regarding inquiry, federal respondents concede that, because NPS has delegated rulemaking authority CDA, 51.3 legislative regulation force law. And their assertion an interpretative advising public agency's construction statutes administers incorrect, as empowered administer CDA. That task rests agency contracting officers boards contract appeals, well courts; any regarding boards' proper arrangement belongs Administrator Federal Procurement Policy. Consequently, nothing more than general policy statement designed inform views CDA's application. Thus, does create "adverse effects strictly legal kind," are required showing. Ohio Forestry Assn., Sierra Club, 523 726, 733. Moreover, affect concessioner's primary conduct, e. g., Toilet Goods 158, 164, leaves concessioner free conduct its business sees fit. in prevents concessioners from following procedures set forth once dispute over actually arises. This previously found challenges similar were lack See, id., at 161-162. Petitioner's contention delaying resolution issue will cause real harm applicability vel non factor taken into account by preparing bids unpersuasive. Mere uncertainty validity rule constitute purposes ripeness analysis. As here fit review, further factual development would "significantly advance [this Court's] ability deal issues presented," Duke Power Co. Carolina Environmental Study Group, 438 59, 82, even though question "purely legal" constitutes "final action" Administrative Procedure Act, Laboratories, supra, Judicial presented should await concrete about particular contract. Pp. 807-812. 282 F. 3d 818, vacated remanded. THOMAS, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C. SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, GINSBURG, JJ., joined. STEVENS, filed concurring judgment, post, p. 812. BREYER, dissenting opinion, O'CONNOR, joined, 817. CERTIORARI TO UNITED STATES COURT APPEALS FOR DISTRICT COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. Kenneth Geller argued petitioner. With him briefs Richard B. Katskee David M. Gossett. Robert R. Gasaway Ashley Parrish Xanterra & Resorts, LLC, respondent this Court's Rule 12.6, urging reversal. John P. Elwood respondents. Solicitor General Olson, Assistant Attorney McCallum, Deputy Clement, Barbara Biddle. JUSTICE THOMAS Court. 1 Petitioner, nonprofit trade represents doing (CDA), 92 Stat. 2383, 41 601 et seq., We conclude 2 * contracts.1 statute provides these first be submitted officer. 605. A contractor dissatisfied officer's may seek review either States Claims or board agency. See §§ 606, 607(d), 609(a). Either then appealed Appeals Circuit.2 28 1295; 607(g). 3 Since 1916 charged "promote regulate use areas known parks," "conserve scenery natural historic objects wild life therein," "provide [their] enjoyment [in way that] leave them unimpaired future generations." An To establish Service, 39 535, 16 1. make visits parks enjoyable public, authorized "grant privileges, leases, permits land accommodation visitors." 3, 535. Such "privileges, permits" have become embodied 4 specific changed time. In however, (1998 Act), Pub. L. 105-391, 112 3497 (codified exceptions 5951-5966), new parks. authorizes Secretary Interior enact Act's provisions, 5965. 5 NPS, her promptly began proceeding implement notice comment, final April 2000. 65 Fed. Reg. 20630 (2000) pt. 51). define term "concession contract" follows: 6 "A (or contract) means binding written agreement between Director . Concession within meaning seq. (the Act) service procurement statutes, policies apply only other types actions."3 (2002). 7 Through provision took position respect longstanding Department Interior's Board (IBCA). Beginning 1989, IBCA ruled subject see R Enterprises, 89-2 A., ¶ 21708, pp. 109145-109147 (1989), subsequent attempts convince otherwise proved unavailing, Concessions, 94-3 27104, 135096-135098 (1994). II 8 Columbia. Amfac Dept. Interior, 142 Supp. 2d 54, 80-82 (2001). applying deference principle 837 (1984). concluded reasonable. 2d, 80-82. 9 albeit different grounds. 834-835 Recognizing "does [CDA], thus provisions," placed simply "agree[d]" 3d, 835. granted certiorari consider 537 1018 Because petitioner brought facial challenge litigating we asked provide supplemental briefing case action. Tr. Oral Arg. 62. III 10 Ripeness justiciability doctrine "to prevent courts, through avoidance premature adjudication, entangling themselves abstract disagreements policies, also protect agencies interference until been formalized felt challenging parties." 148-149 (1967); accord, 732-733 (1998). "drawn Article limitations power prudential reasons refusing exercise jurisdiction," Reno Catholic Social Services, 509 43, 57, n. 18 (1993) (citations omitted), but, raising concerns, considered court's own motion. Ibid. (citing Regional Rail Reorganization Cases, 419 102, 138 (1974)). 11 us evaluate "Absent [a statutory providing immediate review], ordinarily type `ripe' [Administrative (APA)] scope reduced manageable proportions, components fleshed out, some claimant's situation fashion harms threatens him. (The major exception, course, substantive practical matter plaintiff adjust his immediately....)" Lujan Wildlife Federation, 497 871, 891 (1990). Under facts now before us, ripe. 12 turn inquiry. portion cannot Brief Respondents 15, 6; Supplemental 6. They note, though, "agencies interpretive `to advise administers,'" (quoting Shalala Guernsey Memorial Hospital, 514 87, 99 (1995) (emphasis added)), characterize such rule. 13 disagree. Unlike where issuing guideline was responsible administering relevant regulations, Rather, Claims, Circuit, and, ultimately, 607(h) ("Pursuant conferred Office Policy [41 401 seq.], directed, necessary desirable carry provisions chapter, guidelines criteria establishment, functions, ."). "general statemen[t] policy" application 553(b)(3)(A). 14 Viewed light, showing hardship. S., Just like Forest plan Forestry, "do[es] command anyone do anything refrain anything; [it] do[es] grant, withhold, modify formal license, power, authority; civil criminal liability; [and it] create[s] rights obligations." conduct. 164 733-734. drug manufacturers change labels, advertisements, promotional materials they used marketing prescription drugs pain penalties, 152-153, Gardner 167, 171 (1967) (regulations conditions color additives foods, drugs, cosmetics "self-executing" had "an substantial impact upon respondents"). 15 example, Food Drug Administration (FDA) requiring producers FDA employees access all manufacturing facilities, processes, formulae. could "be said immediately those conducting day-to-day affairs" "no irremediabl[y] adverse consequences flow[ed] later challenge." Id., 164. Indeed, onerous failure comply resulted suspension producer's certification consequently, production. 165, 2. Here, contrast, suffer result 51.3. All announce take While informs view entitled advantage appears notwithstanding quite willing Watch Hill 01-1 31298, 154520-154521 (IBCA 2001) (concluding despite contrary language 51.3). contends one factors takes when bid 4-6. argument mere persuaded. If follow petitioner's logic, courts soon overwhelmed requests what essentially advisory opinions most transactions priced accurately if small existing uncertainties resolved.4 short, failed demonstrate deferring 17 next review. Although "a purely one" APA, 704, 149, nevertheless believe our 82 (1978); 736-737; 163. generally argue correct cover contracts, acknowledge might come broad 33-34. Similarly, while present rely characteristics support positions. 21-23, 36; Respondent 20, 22. light foregoing, 19 For stated above, vacate judgment insofar addressed remand instructions dismiss issue. 20 It so ordered. Notes: Title 602(a) provides: "Unless specifically provided herein, chapter express implied (including nonappropriated fund activities described sections 1346 1491 title 28) entered executive — "(1) property, property being; "(2) services; "(3) construction, alteration, repair maintenance property; or, "(4) disposal personal property." prevailing prejudgment interest. 611 ease reference, throughout refer second sentence quoted text notes complaint two prospectuses late argues, ripe, latter reviewable Tucker 1491(b)(1). 6-8. did issues; accordingly, decline them. 14.1(a);Yee Escondido, 503 519, 535-536 (1992). BREYER's show requirement 136 (1967), satisfied, 820-821 (dissenting opinion), misplaced. fact "congressional statute" "immediate relief [certain of] determinations," 820, says review" advisable against actions based statute. 21 judgment. 22 seeks straightforward Service. Though appropriate decide, my satisfied threshold alleging sufficient injury invoke federal-court jurisdiction. allegations present, raise concerns avoid. 23 significant protections private agencies. de novo contractor's disputed decision, payment interest resolved favor, expedited resolving minor disputes. 607-612. value contractors quantified case, unquestionably significant. 24 Ever since enactment 1978, insisted concessionaires who operate restaurants, lodges, gift shops Lodging view, involving goods services agrees pay for, licenses sell public. 5951-5966, restating position. There tentative inconclusive promulgation indicated determined clear useful potential bidding Service's nearly 600 131 fall outside 25 whose members periodically enter negotiations undisputedly interested knowing sure arise pursuant less favorable valid. 26 leading discussing "ripeness doctrine" explained "ripe" "twofold aspect, consideration." (1967). Both aspects inquiry involve rather black-letter 27 aspect important case. services, construction. 602(a). obligates receives, whereas authorize third park area visitors. hand, argues performance discharge duty concessionaires. Whichever better reflect intent perfectly "fit" today ever be. Even there few marginal cases depend unique facts, regulation's blanket exclusion incorrect fully briefed decision. important. reason clarify question, apt modified, strong justify prompt probably associated delayed minimal. On promulgate demonstrates, eliminating applicable benefit parties. alleged position, I favor discretion allegation absent, standing claim adjudicated. 29 controversy, litigant must he "standing." Whitmore Arkansas, 495 155 standing, "plaintiff allege fairly traceable defendant's allegedly unlawful likely redressed requested relief." Allen Wright, 468 737, 751 regulations. Club Morton, 405 727, 735 (1972). 30 merits important, existence caused members: "The lengthy duration, often require upfront financial commitments, terms unilateral alter many exempt itself great importance solicitation process." App. 31 At oral argument, counsel reiterated "important" "need know now, deciding contracts." 7-8. brief ripeness, arises fact, concessions procedural mechanisms contractual disputes," "the prices `compete business' directly affected." 1, omitted). fair infer record on, awarded, numerous without having definitive answer identified. 32 Neither nor identified incident concessionaire refuse contract, bid, injury. focused entirely doubt much possible transactions, necessarily suffered sort neither evidence identifies Accordingly, pursue claim. 33 reason, concur 34 whom O'CONNOR joins, dissenting. 35 Like majority, Hospitality Association claim, namely, But, unlike agree STEVENS lacks bring suit behalf members. ante, 815-816 page (opinion judgment). definition exclude (a complains, (2002)) causes "injury fact." Defenders Wildlife, 504 555, 560 (1992) (discussing requirements fact," causation, redressability); Hunt Washington State Apple Advertising Comm'n, 432 333, 343 (1977) (association's member). 37 thing, to, bidders (listing 590 parks). Those find disputes, reject entitlement advantages provides. 605-612; 813-814 (STEVENS, circumstances here, kind injury, one, occur. 38 another disagreements, declares, higher implementation costs. Given forced obtain, retain, worth. argues. 3a-4a. Certain underlying complaints e.g., 20-22, ¶¶ 35, 61-67; Complaint 1:00CV02838 (DC), 4-5, (available Clerk file); 31-33, 102-111. Cf. 830 (CADC 2002). several uncontested indicate prove true. First, makes clear, widespread membership, regularly cross-references embody interpretation. 69, 80; 14, 25. Standard Contract, 26052, 26063, 26065 (2000); Simplified Contracts, 44898, 44899-44900, 44910, 44912. Second, related solicitations similarly recurring, bidders. Third, after investigation, congressional committee "way disputes-resolving system influences how, whether, compete government business." Rep. 95-1118, (1978). Fourth, interest, procedures. 607(f), 608, 611. These inapplicability costly successful 2-4; 40 monetary harm, foreseeable future. satisfy Constitution's requirements. threatened injuries, injuries actual relationship, arguably protective scope—are "prudential" well. Election Comm'n Akins, 524 11, 19-20 (1998); Data Processing Organizations, Camp, 397 150, 153 (1970). Broadcasting System, States, 316 407, 421-422 (1942). threat (primarily form increased costs), explains Parts presents determination. demanding ordinary techniques. 814-815 action, i. e., "formalized," 148 comment delegation statutorily authority, 5965; 806-807. (Unlike label "interpretive rule," policy," 809 (internal quotation marks alteration majority ibid., owe conclusion deference.) definite conclusive, change; concedes, determination Ante, 812 42 open nature time can time, arises, 812, militates So too precedential concern: Will precedent leads interpretations formal, final, suited determination? 811-812. 43 But particularized (and totally reparable) during process offsets considerations. offset specifies prospective obtain determinations unlawfully threaten precisely harm. 1491(b)(1) (allowing bidder object, instance, "solicitation proposed permitting "any violation connection procurement"). Nash, Schooner, K. O'Brien, Contracts Reference Book 308, 423 (2d ed. 1998). complain bidder's unlawful, say, formally incorporates embodies specific, remedial requirement. 25, 114-116 (excerpts making just claim); 2a, 121-122 (same). being so, identical convincing withhold 44 sum, given policy, asserted petitioner, issue, good postpone affirm merits, primarily supplemented Government.

Category: 8