Court Opinion

ID: 9925593
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-22 15:01:02.798008+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:09.055341
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-2202   Document: 33     Page: 1    Filed: 01/22/2024

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

      CARING HANDS HEALTH EQUIPMENT &
               SUPPLIES, LLC,
                  Appellant

                            v.

       SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
                    Appellee
             ______________________

                       2022-2202
                 ______________________

    Appeal from the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals in
 No. 6814, Administrative Judge Beverly M. Russell, Ad-
 ministrative Judge Kyle E. Chadwick, Administrative
 Judge Allan H. Goodman.
                 ______________________

                Decided: January 22, 2024
                 ______________________

    EDWARD J. TOLCHIN, Offit Kurman, Columbia, MD, ar-
 gued for appellant.

     GEOFFREY MARTIN LONG, Commercial Litigation
 Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
 tice, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also repre-
 sented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY,
 CORINNE ANNE NIOSI; NEIL DEOL, Office of General
Case: 22-2202    Document: 33     Page: 2    Filed: 01/22/2024

 2        CARING HANDS HEALTH EQUIPMENT & SUPPLIES, LLC v.
                           SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

 Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs,
 Decatur, GA.
                 ______________________

     Before MOORE, Chief Judge, CLEVENGER and STARK,
                     Circuit Judges.
 MOORE, Chief Judge.
     Caring Hands Health Equipment and Supplies, LLC
 (Caring Hands) appeals a decision of the Civilian Board of
 Contract Appeals (Board) granting the Department of Vet-
 erans Affairs’ (VA) motion for summary judgment on Car-
 ing Hands’ breach of contract claims. For the following
 reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
                        BACKGROUND
     Caring Hands and the VA entered into sixteen con-
 tracts for Caring Hands to deliver Government-owned
 home medical equipment (HME) from VA warehouses to
 beneficiaries of designated VA Medical Centers within a
 specific geographic area. The parties classify the contracts
 into two groups of eight contracts—the 2014 contracts and
 the 2015 contracts. The 2014 contracts have a performance
 period of August 2014 through July 2015. See, e.g., J.A.
 111. 1 The 2015 contracts have a performance period of

     1   The 2014 contracts are Contract Nos. VA247-14-D-
 0323, VA247-14-D-0324, VA247-14-D-0325, VA247-14-D-
 0327, VA247-14-D-0328, VA247-14-D-0329, VA247-14-D-
 0331, and VA247-14-D-0333. Because the contracts are
 substantially identical, we cite to Contract No. VA247-14-
 D-0323, J.A. 111–95, as representative unless otherwise in-
 dicated.
Case: 22-2202    Document: 33     Page: 3    Filed: 01/22/2024

 CARING HANDS HEALTH EQUIPMENT & SUPPLIES, LLC v.          3
 SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

 August 2015 to January 2017. See, e.g., J.A. 1027, 1062. 2
     The 2014 contracts are largely identical in relevant
 part. Each contract defines a geographic area within which
 Caring Hands was to “furnish all labor, transportation, ma-
 terials, tools, equipment, and supervision required to pro-
 vide [HME] services to beneficiaries of VA medical
 centers.” J.A. 129. Each contains the Federal Acquisition
 Regulation (FAR) Indefinite Quantity clause (FAR 52.216-
 22), J.A. 153, and Order Limitations clause (FAR 52.216-
 19), J.A. 152.
     The 2015 contracts are also largely identical. The 2015
 contracts do not contain the FAR Indefinite Quantity
 clause, Order Limitations clause, or Requirements clause
 (FAR 52.216-21). The contracts contain a “General Re-
 quirements” clause in the Statement of Work (SOW) which
 reads in relevant part, “The volumes or amounts shown . .
 . are estimates only and impose no obligation on the VA.
 The contract shall be for the actual requirements of the VA
 as ordered by the VA during the life of the contract.” J.A.
 1040.
     The VA ordered HME services from entities other than
 Caring Hands during the performance period of the 2014
 and 2015 contracts. In response, Caring Hands submitted
 a certified claim to the contracting officer alleging Caring
 Hands was the sole party from which the VA could order
 HME services for the contracted areas. Because the con-
 tracting officer did not respond, the claim was deemed de-
 nied. Caring Hands appealed to the Board.

    2    The 2015 contracts are Contract Nos. VA247-15-D-
 0257, VA247-15-D-0258, VA247-15-D-0259, VA247-15-D-
 0260, VA247-15-D-0261, VA247-15-D-0262, VA247-15-D-
 0263, and VA247-15-D-0264. Because the contracts are
 substantially identical, we cite to Contract No. VA247-15-
 D-0257, J.A. 1027–62, as representative unless otherwise
 indicated.
Case: 22-2202     Document: 33      Page: 4    Filed: 01/22/2024

 4        CARING HANDS HEALTH EQUIPMENT & SUPPLIES, LLC v.
                           SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

     Before the Board, Caring Hands and the VA filed cross-
 motions for summary judgment as to entitlement. The
 Board granted the VA’s motion and denied Caring Hands’
 motion. The Board first held the 2014 contracts are IDIQ
 contracts. Because the VA properly ordered and paid for
 Caring Hands’ HME services under the 2014 contracts, the
 contracts do not entitle Caring Hands to additional recov-
 ery. The Board also held the 2015 contracts are illusory
 because they are neither requirements contracts nor en-
 forceable IDIQ contracts. Caring Hands appeals. We have
 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(10).
                          DISCUSSION
     We review the Board’s grant of summary judgment de
 novo. 41 U.S.C. § 7107(b)(1); Rex Sys., Inc. v. Cohen, 224
 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Contract interpretation
 is a question of law we review de novo. Rockies Express
 Pipeline LLC v. Salazar, 730 F.3d 1330, 1335–36 (Fed. Cir.
 2013). Caring Hands challenges the Board’s grant of sum-
 mary judgment for both sets of contracts.
                     I.     2015 CONTRACTS
     Caring Hands challenges the Board’s conclusion that
 the 2015 contracts are not requirements contracts. The
 Board reasoned they are not requirements contracts be-
 cause they do not contain the FAR Requirements clause “or
 any other provision or language containing ‘words of exclu-
 sivity’ that require all work to be assigned to the contrac-
 tor.” J.A. 10–11. The Board held that the General
 Requirements clause interpreted as a whole creates no or-
 dering duty for the VA. We do not agree.
     The language of the 2015 contracts unambiguously es-
 tablishes an intent to create requirements contracts. “A
 requirements contract is formed when the seller has the
 exclusive right and legal obligation to fill all of the buyer’s
 needs for the goods or services described in the contract. . .
 . [A]n essential element of a requirements contract is the
 promise by the buyer to purchase the subject matter of the
Case: 22-2202     Document: 33     Page: 5    Filed: 01/22/2024

 CARING HANDS HEALTH EQUIPMENT & SUPPLIES, LLC v.            5
 SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

 contract exclusively from the seller.” Mod. Sys. Tech. Corp.
 v. United States, 979 F.2d 200, 205 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (cita-
 tions omitted). Where, as here, the FAR Requirements
 clause is not present in the contract it is “more difficult to
 find the required exclusivity.” Coyle’s Pest Control, Inc. v.
 Cuomo, 154 F.3d 1302, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The plain
 language of the 2015 contracts establishes the requisite ex-
 clusivity. The General Requirements clause states, “The
 contract shall be for the actual requirements of the VA as
 ordered by the VA during the life of the contract.” J.A. 1040
 (emphasis added). The words “actual requirements of the
 VA” obligated the VA to order all required HME services
 from Caring Hands.
     The VA argues this clause does not obligate the VA to
 order HME services exclusively from Caring Hands be-
 cause the prior sentence provides “[t]he volumes or
 amounts shown . . . are estimates only and impose no obli-
 gation on the VA.” J.A. 1040 (emphasis added). This inter-
 pretation gives no effect to the words “actual requirements
 of the VA.” See Abraham v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 326 F.3d
 1242, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (a contract interpretation
 which gives reasonable effect to all terms is preferred over
 one which renders a term superfluous). To be sure, the VA
 was under no obligation to order any specific amount of
 HME services. It was only committed to have Caring
 Hands fulfill “the actual requirements of the VA.” We hold
 the 2015 contracts are requirements contracts and there-
 fore reverse the Board’s grant of summary judgment with
 respect to the 2015 contracts.
                    II.   2014 CONTRACTS
     The only issue on appeal regarding the 2014 contracts
 is whether they are requirements contracts. 3 We conclude

     3See Oral Arg. at 29:36–30:10, https://oralargu-
 ments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=22-2202_1207202
 3.mp3.
Case: 22-2202    Document: 33      Page: 6   Filed: 01/22/2024

 6        CARING HANDS HEALTH EQUIPMENT & SUPPLIES, LLC v.
                           SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

 the 2014 contracts are not requirements contracts as a
 matter of law because they do not contain the FAR Require-
 ments clause or any other words of exclusivity. Coyle’s Pest
 Control, 154 F.3d at 1305. Caring Hands argues there are
 genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judg-
 ment, including variance in Order Limitations clauses, al-
 legedly ambiguous language in the General Requirements
 clause, and missing SOWs. Appellant’s Opening Br. at 25–
 27. In particular, Caring Hands alleges without support
 that the SOWs missing from the 2014 contracts would have
 contained the operative requirements language in the
 SOWs attached to the 2015 contracts. Caring Hands
 Health Equip. & Supplies, LLC v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs.,
 CBCA 6814, 22-1 BCA ¶ 38,182 n.1. These arguments do
 not establish a material factual dispute regarding whether
 the 2014 contracts are requirements contracts because
 none of the evidence Caring Hands cites could establish the
 necessary exclusivity. We therefore affirm the Board’s
 grant of summary judgment with respect to the 2014 con-
 tracts.
                        CONCLUSION
     We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments
 and find them unpersuasive. For the reasons given, we re-
 verse the Board’s grant of summary judgment with respect
 to the 2015 contracts and remand for further proceedings
 consistent with this opinion. We affirm the Board’s grant
 of summary judgment with respect to the 2014 contracts.
     AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND
                   REMANDED
                           COSTS
 No costs.