Case law

Securiforce International America, LLC v. United States

125 Fed. Cl. 749 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 21, 2016

He further stated that Amendment 003 “clearly states the U.S. Government is responsible for the escort, not the contractor.” Mr. … Finally, plaintiff argues that DLA Energy’s improper termination for cause “qualifies as a bad faith termination.”

Rx Joint Venture, LLC v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Oct 2, 2019

The Evaluation Process The Solicitation established a staged evaluation process. Id. at 650. … To qualify as “acceptable” under the Technical Experience Acceptability Factor, an offeror was required to receive a minimum technical acceptability score of at least 4200 points. Id. at 652.

Goodings v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 19, 2016

However, the undersigned has not yet determined what qualifies as the first symptom or manifestation of premature ovarian failure. … Ex. 2. 5 Menarche is “the establishment or beginning of menstruation.”

M.A. Mortenson Co. v. United States

39 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,555 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 13, 1993

United States: It is not sufficient to look to the title of the certifying official alone to determine whether he or she is qualified to execute the certification. … Clearly, the observed failures at the short service lives were associated with the deep LOF defects.

Reske v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 6, 2021

The Secretary maintained that the Reskes did not qualify under the Vaccine Injury Table because the Table associates intussusception with only the first two doses of a rotavirus vaccine. … Sferra’s theory as one in which the vaccine induces an acute immune response that leads to hyperplasia of the lymph nodes near the bowel or Peyer’s patches of the bowel wall.

Agile-Bot II, LLC v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 30, 2021

Cir. 2012) (explaining that the Tucker Act expressly waives sovereign immunity for claims against the United States in bid protests). … This should lower the time it takes to hire qualified personnel.”

Pae-Parsons Global Logistics Services, LLC v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 11, 2020

Accordingly, the courts have interpreted FASA to mean that “once the task or delivery order contract itself has been obtained through full and open competition, orders made pursuant to that contract are immune from [the Competition … As this Court has previously held, “[a]n offeror’s mere disagreement with the agency’s judgment concerning the adequacy of the proposal is not sufficient to establish that the agency acted unreasonably.” Am.

Dynacs Engineering Co. v. United States

48 Fed. Cl. 614 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 21, 2001

Defendant states: The administrative record clearly demonstrates that while the agency had serious concerns about FDC’s proposal, at no time did those concerns equate to a determination that FDC was technically unacceptable … Thus, defendant argues, Dynacs has failed to establish that it had a substantial chance, as contemplated by the Federal Circuit’s decision in Alfa Laval Separation, Inc. v.

Resource Investments, Inc. v. United States

93 Fed. Cl. 373 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jun 4, 2010

Therefore, the court concludes that these regulations, which are clearly in conflict with the court’s authority as set forth in the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Rules of the Court, can have no force or effect. … Finally, plaintiffs are unlikely to find a similarly qualified expert, if one exists, this close to trial. See United States v.

McBane v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · May 10, 2024

This immune cross reactivity, causes a reaction of the immune system against the pathogenic antigens that may harm the similar human proteins, essentially causing autoimmune disease.” Id. at 8. … Conclusion It is not without difficulty that I have come to the conclusion discussed above, as R.M. clearly has a permanent, disabling condition.

DAVIS v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 4, 2025

DISCUSSION The United States, as a sovereign, is immune from suit unless it has waived its immunity. Ins. Co. of the W. v. United States, 243 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2001). … The “quantum” that plaintiffs seek to obtain is furnished by the basic pay legislation, which clearly dictates a COLA.

Cohen v. United States

100 Fed. Cl. 461 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 3, 2011

Evidence of lost customers is used to determine whether the plaintiff established the requisite causation to recover actual damages. … Cohen’s works "implies many other lost customers,” but failing to provide evidence regarding these alleged lost customers); Pl.’s Resp. 28 (stating that "Krieger’s decision not to rerun the work clearly shows that the public

Gray Owl Services Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 14, 2014

The burden of establishing the Court's subject matter jurisdiction rests with the plaintiff, who must establish jurisdiction. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992); McNutt v. Gen. … "To incorporate material by reference, the host document must identify with detailed particularity what specific material it incorporates and clearly indicate where that material is found in the various documents." Id.

Blendu v. United States

79 Fed. Cl. 500 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 30, 2007

On one hand “right of way” can serve “to qualify or limit the interest granted in a deed to the right to pass over a tract of land (an easement).” … “more clearly indicates an easement was granted than [D.C. Transit, where the term right-of-way appeared in only the habendum clause].” Id. In discussing D.C.

Systems Implementers, Inc. v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 15, 2022

For its part, OM Group notes that the Solicitation “did not define what experience would qualify as ‘Management of a Data Center.’” (Int.-Def.’s xMJAR at 21). … This clearly demonstrates OM Group’s current experience, not lack thereof. OM Group also argues that its proposal used the present tense when discussing ITIL.

Allmart v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 25, 2019

When the Vaccine Program was established, Congress decided to have the claims adjudicated within the federal court system, indicating an intent that the traditional policy of public disclosure of judicial decisions should … The question thus becomes: what constitutes a "clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy"?

Whiteford v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 10, 2020

The ability of the Court of Federal Claims to entertain suits against the United States is limited, and the waiver of immunity “may not be inferred, but must be ‘unequivocally expressed.’” United States v. … Plaintiffs’ Fraud and Criminal Claims Plaintiffs further argue I.R.C. § 7433 “plainly and clearly authorizes a civil action against the United States where employees of the [IRS] recklessly or intentionally disregard

Virgin Islands Paving, Inc. v. United States

103 Fed. Cl. 292 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 31, 2012

Based on the available information, and in accordance with FAR 9.104-1, [VIP] is considered responsible and qualified to perform the contract.” AR 561. … Therefore, the GAO affords a CO the discretion to reject a low bid, but the rejected bid must be “far out of line” or clearly mistaken. 18 Furthermore, agencies must take good-faith measures to verify whether the bid was

United States Surety Co. v. United States

83 Fed. Cl. 306 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 28, 2008

On January 11, 2007, plaintiffs filed a claim with the Contracting Officer (“CO”) for $32,000.00, stating that “the $32,000.00 ... assessed as [liquidated [djamages ... qualifies under the exclusion set forth in Paragraph … Having established that the government held a superior right to liquidated damages against the surety prior to the takeover agreement, we must now consider whether the takeover agreement itself forfeited that right.

Renda Marine, Inc. v. United States

65 Fed. Cl. 152 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 19, 2005

A party must establish both jurisdictional prerequisites to proceed in this court. E.g., Alliant Techsystems, Inc. v. … United States, 178 F.3d 1260, 1264 (Fed.Cir. 1999) (“[T]he CDA grants jurisdiction to the Court of Federal Claims ... over a contractor’s request for relief only when the appeal or action is based on a qualifying claim filed