Case law

Assad v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 16, 2023

Assad further alleges that 4 “[a]s a result of the Air Force’s breach of contract, [he] was denied employment of which he was otherwise qualified.” ECF No. 4 ¶ 66. … But the record clearly establishes that these statements did not come from the Air Force. The record is clear.

Raymond Express International, LLC v. United States

124 Fed. Cl. 79 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 18, 2015

DeCA, too, recognized that special efforts would be required to find contractors qualified to perform the FFV contracts. AR at 471. … See Dick Enterprises, 1995 WL 376679, at *3 (recommending that the agency “clearly establish[]” the offeror’s identity, as a first step, rather than recommending that the agency immediately terminate the contract award);

Kinney v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 4, 2024

to depression) had a less effective immune response. … Conclusion Petitioner has clearly suffered and for that she has my sympathy.

Bargsley v. United States

120 Fed. Cl. 619 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 17, 2015

Cir. 1988) (agreeing that the plaintiff bore “the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence”). … “The United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued.” United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 (1941). The waiver of immunity “cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed.”

Mississippi Department of Rehabilitation Services v. United States

61 Fed. Cl. 20 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 4, 2004

MDRS does not qualify as a section 8(a) entity. However, consistent with the DoD memorandum, the Government does not contend that it can exclude the coverage of the RSA simply by failing to cite it in an RFP. … Standing: In order to establish standing, MDRS must show that it is an “interested party” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (b)(1).

Kent v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 17, 2025

And it held that in the conveyances at issue in that case, “[t]he word ‘across,’ in conjunction with the words ‘as located,’ merely describes the location of the subject parcel and does not qualify or limit the property interest … And as “the language of the deed determines the nature of the estate conveyed,” the deed here clearly conveyed fee simple.

RhinoCorps Ltd. v. United States

87 Fed. Cl. 261 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 4, 2009

(FAR) § 52.219-06 (2006), setting aside acquisitions for qualifying small businesses. … In addition, plaintiff must *274 establish that the Air Force’s actions prejudiced it.

Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development v. United States

114 Fed. Cl. 519 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 6, 2014

Barr stating: “[Y]es, clearly we knew the steam was a loser and hoped that the electric would subsidize the steam. … Clearly, subparagraphs (a) and (b) of section 52.241-11 must be read as two independent provisions.

Hallmark-Phoenix 3, LLC v. United States

99 Fed. Cl. 65 · United States Court of Federal Claims · May 24, 2011

Several cases suggest that, in such an instance, plaintiff would qualify as an “interested par *68 ty” under section 1491(b)(1). See LABAT-Anderson, Inc. v. … AFGE rejected the APA’s standing definition because it was too expansive and clashed with "the principle that waivers of sovereign immunity ... are to be construed narrowly."

Srour v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 12, 2017

by failing to collect petitioner’s medical history and conduct an appropriate physical examination, and by administering medications, including the flu vaccine, which were contraindicated for a patient “with an abnormal immune … Indeed, in McCulloch, I decided to award higher rates to each paralegal who was a “well-qualified, carefully chosen college graduate” with “several years at the firm doing exclusively vaccine work.” McCulloch at *21.

Microdyne Outsourcing, Inc. v. United States

72 Fed. Cl. 694 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 8, 2006

The Administrative Record establishes that the awards to Datatrac and Aspen are grounded in reason. … Price reasonableness [wa]s established based on the existence of adequate competition.”

Ssi Technology, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · May 12, 2020

Fischer Panda is a qualified source who has a production contract with BAE in support of GCS-CRS M88A2 production program. … It’s clearly permissible. [FAR] 9.307 allows that.”). Accordingly, the Army reasonably concluded “Fischer Panda is the only approved source to have an approved FAT for this requirement.”

Information Sciences Corp. v. United States

80 Fed. Cl. 759 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 18, 2008

Symplicity claims that it more than qualified to perform this contract, as “a leading provider of information technology solutions in the education and government sectors ... … (citations omitted); SAI Indus., 60 Fed.Cl. at 747 (“The public’s interest is clearly served when suppliers engage in fair and robust competition for government contracts.”)

Abramson v. United States

40 Fed. Cl. 204 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 22, 1998

Plaintiffs characterize the canon applied by the GPO in its 1978 brief to the Committee, see supra p. 9, as the “last antecedent” rule, which provides that “‘[i]n construing statutes, qualifying phrases are generally applied … The entire GPO salary structure has been established in conjunction with the Committee.

Antoniades v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · May 29, 2026

Lancaster explained that Vernino et al. showed “very clearly and elegantly that if you have an autoimmune disease with a true, bona fide immune response to this receptor, that it can disrupt these signals,” resulting in severe … However, the medical record clearly indicates that Petitioner is suffering from some sort of condition.

Prestonback v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 30, 2018

At present, this Court will not deviate from that well established precedent B. … 'l`his Court has long held that a failure to maintain physical standards can qualify as a voluntary fail that can trigger a recoupment action.

Warrior Focused Solutions, LLC v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 17, 2025

Based on WFS’s unclear explanation of how the Colonel’s specific experience qualified him for this position under the PWS requirements, the Army’s evaluation was reasonable. … The Army directed bidders for this procurement to justify unique, cost-saving practices clearly and establish a direct link between proposed costs and technical proposal requirements.

DGS Contract Service, Inc. v. United States

43 Fed. Cl. 227 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 8, 1999

“Absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, a statute’s plain meaning must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive.” Astra v. … Indeed, a plaintiff must establish well-nigh irrefragable proof to induce the court to abandon the presumption of good faith dealing. Kalvar Corp. v.

Synetics, Inc. v. United States

45 Fed. Cl. 1 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 2, 1999

When the four factors comprising an evaluation element are all rated as “Good,” the proper rating for that evaluation element clearly is “Good.” … as “good” advantages, while only one is qualified as an “excellent” advantage.

Florida Power & Light Co. v. United States

49 Fed. Cl. 656 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 28, 2001

The mandate of the Atomic Energy Act clearly required prices set “on a basis of recovery of the Government’s costs over a reasonable period of time.” … Tucker was qualified as an expert in accounting, in the cost and pricing of government contracts, and in damages. Mr. Tucker was not qualified as an expert in the application of DOE’s pricing criteria. .