Case law

North Star Steel Co. v. United States

68 Fed. Cl. 672 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 30, 2005

The court’s jurisdiction, however, is not so easily resolved in this case, because a determinative issue is whether the explicit waiver of sovereign immunity and grant of jurisdiction under the Tucker Act of 1887 was trumped … Congress recently amended PURPA to eliminate the requirement that a utility enter into a new contract to purchase energy from a "qualifying cogeneration facility or a qualifying small power production facility" under certain

Hashi v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 20, 2016

The fee applicant (whether a plaintiff or a defendant) must, of course, submit appropriate documentation to meet “the burden of establishing entitlement to an award.” … Clearly, there was no “reasonable basis” to pursue this aggravation claim to a ruling.

FFTF Restoration Co. v. United States

86 Fed. Cl. 226 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 2, 2009

“A party seeking the exercise of jurisdiction in its favor has the burden of establishing that such jurisdiction exists,” id., and that party must establish subject matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. … Having established that the court has jurisdiction over the plaintiffs claims, the court finally turns to the merits of those claims.

Persyn v. United States

34 Fed. Cl. 187 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 27, 1995

Defendant objected to the identification of Gholson as an expert witness, but the court reserved ruling on whether Gholson was qualified. After observing Mr. … Further, based on a pretrial site visit 8 on June 11, 1995, the court finds that the properties involved in this lawsuit are clearly and unquestionably located in an uncongested area.

Partner 4 Recovery v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 30, 2018

This will help ensure that [P4R] will maintain a pool of qualified and trained staff[. … Therefore, P4R did not establish prejudice as to disparate ratings.

Gba Associates Limited Partnership v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 19, 2025

Pellegrino associated with events in 2010, though no remark clearly indicates that the event was considered for the 2010 review year. … Aikin qualified his remarks about his general practices, the Court has even greater reason to doubt that Mr.

Cheung v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Dec 6, 2021

The agreement clearly does not require any DO to complete a jail pick up during their off duty hours. … By contrast, if plaintiffs are arguing that they may qualify as being in standby under the FLSA even though they do not—or perhaps even because they do not—qualify as a being in standby for purposes of

Muller v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · May 30, 2017

The notation “PROVIDER MTL NURSE FLU,” dated December 1, 2011, likewise fails to establish that any vaccination occurred. … Thus, in light of A.M.’s prior immunization history, it would not have been medically necessary or expected for A.M.’s 2011 influenza vaccination to have included a second dose following her clearly documented November 1,

Akerstrom v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Jan 9, 2017

masters will be made available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly … The Vaccine Act established a federal “compensation program” under which awards are to be “made to vaccine-injured persons quickly, easily, and with certainty and generosity.”

Blue & Gold Fleet, LP v. United States

70 Fed. Cl. 487 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 22, 2006

“To establish prejudice, the claimant must show that there was a ‘substantial chance it would have received the contract award but for that error.’ ” Galen Med. Assoc., Inc. v. … The statement that [* * *] AR 9, might have been a false statement if the entire proposal had not been qualified by Hornblower’s statement that [* * *] AR 738.

Saladino v. United States

62 Fed. Cl. 782 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 2, 2004

United States, 58 Fed.Cl. 707 , 714 n. 7 (2003) (stating that “[sjince dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction carries no preclusive effect, the clearly frivolous claim may be brought many times”). … argument: Plaintiff files another complaint on his own behalf, or that of another taxpayer; the Government establishes that the claimed basis for standing lacks any semblance of merit and that plaintiff cannot establish jurisdiction

Alisud - Gesac Handling - Servisair 2 Scarl v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 8, 2022

The Government argues (1) that Algese was fundamentally ineligible for award of the Rota RFP because it failed to qualify for or complete the steps to obtain a facility security clearance (“FCL”) and (2) that because Algese … The Implementation subfactor required Offerors to demonstrate their capacity to establish full operations by the designated performance start date. Id.

Hyperion, Inc. v. United States

115 Fed. Cl. 541 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Apr 17, 2014

Section 52.219-6 defines a small business concern as “a concern, including its affiliates, that is independently owned and operated, not dominant in the field of operation in which it is bidding on [g]overnment contracts, and qualified … The “technical” factor focused on whether the proposal “clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.” Id.

Federal Acquisition Services Team, LLC v. United States

124 Fed. Cl. 690 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Feb 16, 2016

See AR at 640 (showing proposal was sent at 11:56 am on the day proposals were due).17 It is not disputed that the two qualifying conditions for the application of an exception to the “late is late” rule are met. … The record contains “acceptable evidence to establish that” the proposal was timely received. Id.

Williams v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 30, 2022

“[W]hen a correction board fails to correct an injustice clearly presented in the record before it, it is acting in violation of its mandate.” Roth v. United States, 378 F.3d 1371, 1381 (Fed. … Williams’ suggestion, there is no “usual practice” of permitting officers who are recommended for involuntary separation to remain on active duty until they qualify for full retirement benefits. ECF No. 33 at 1.

Dzsp 21, LLC v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 29, 2018

Each technical proposal had to be “precise, detailed, and complete as to clearly and fully demonstrate a thorough knowledge and understanding of the [solicitation] requirements[, and a]t a minimum, [provide] . . . sufficient … DZSP never contested that Fluor could provide qualified personnel, only that it was not deserving of a strength in retaining incumbents. The court concurs.

Bes design/build, LLC v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 30, 2021

The contract established the framework pursuant to which task orders would be issued to plaintiff. … The survey shall establish at least two temporary benchmarks for horizontal and vertical control for construction[.]

Purvis v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Sep 12, 2017

She was alert, lucid, and well-qualified to deal with the issues in the case. She is board-certified in infectious diseases. Tr. at 113. She sees patients, teaches, and does research. Tr. at 114. … It is not a specific attack of a component of the disc, but the presence of bacteria and immune cells fighting the bacteria that appears as discitis. Id.

Stiegler v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

United States Court of Federal Claims · Nov 5, 2024

furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly … In attempting to establish entitlement to a Vaccine Program award of compensation for a Non-Table claim, a petitioner must satisfy all three of the elements established by the Federal Circuit in Althen v.

Cedge Software Consultants, LLC v. United States

117 Fed. Cl. 419 · United States Court of Federal Claims · Aug 11, 2014

Using established strategic vision documentation, the Contractor will provide architecture and data management support. . . . … She also notified CEdge that discussions had concluded and that because its proposal was “no longer amongst the most highly qualified,” it was “removed from the competitive range.” Id. at 4443.