This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a government contract case involving veteran-owned small businesses. The court also issued six nonprecedential opinions in various cases: one dismissing an appeal from the Court of Federal Claims, two in government contracts cases, two in veterans cases, and one in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Veterans4You, Inc. v. United States (Precedential)
This is an appeal from the final judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Court of Federal Claims”) on a bid protest action. The Court of Federal Claims ruled in favor of the United States, Veterans4You, Inc. v. United States, 145 Fed. Cl. 181 (Fed. Cl. 2019), and Veterans4You, Inc. (“Veterans4You”) appeals. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the final judgment of the Court of Federal Claims.
Langan v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Christopher P. Langan appeals a decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”). Because this appeal is untimely, we dismiss.
Land Shark Shredding, LLC v. United States (Nonprecedential)
The Department of Veterans Affairs awarded a government contract to a party other than Appellant Land Shark Shredding. After Land Shark protested, the Court of Federal Claims held that the government’s rejection of Land Shark’s bid was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. Because the decision to award the solicitation to a contractor other than Land Shark had a rational basis and was not a violation of regulation or procedure, we affirm.
Land Shark Shredding, LLC v. United States (Nonprecedential)
The Department of Veterans Affairs withdrew a solicitation for bids that was set aside for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses after determining that no qualifying businesses bid a price that was fair and reasonable. Land Shark, the lowest bidder on the solicitation, challenged the withdrawal of the solicitation. The Court of Federal Claims granted the government’s motion to dismiss on the grounds that Land Shark lacked standing to challenge the withdrawal of the solicitation and that Land Shark failed to state a claim. Because we agree that Land Shark failed to state a claim, we affirm.
Fears v. Wilkie (Nonprecedential)
Stenson Fears, Jr., submitted a claim for disability benefits based on hepatitis B, alleging that the disease was connected to his service in the United States Navy. The Department of Veterans Affairs ordered, and Mr. Fears received, a medical examination from Dr. Gary Wilhelm. Dr. Wilhelm opined that Mr. Fears’s hepatitis B was less likely than not connected to his Navy service. Relying on Dr. Wilhelm’s opinion, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals denied Mr. Fears’s claim for benefits. Mr. Fears appealed to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court), arguing that Dr. Wilhelm was not competent to opine on the cause of Mr. Fears’s hepatitis B. The Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s denial of Mr. Fears’s benefits claim because Mr. Fears had not timely challenged Dr. Wilhelm’s competency. We affirm.
Kramer v. Wilkie (Nonprecedential)
Appellant, Karen Kramer, appeals an order and judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) denying her petition for a writ of mandamus. See Kramer v. Wilkie, No. 19-6754, 2020 WL 1238376, at *2 (Vet. App. Mar. 16, 2020); S.A. 32 (Judgment). To the extent Ms. Kramer appeals the denial of her petition for writ of mandamus, we have jurisdiction pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a) and (c), and affirm. To the extent Ms. Kramer argues that the Veterans Court should have reached the merits of her underlying claim, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Lowe v. Department of the Navy (Nonprecedential)
On October 10, 2018, the Department of the Navy (“Navy” or “agency”) removed Robert Lowe from his position as a GS-0301-13 Regional Dispatch Center (“RDC”) Manager at the Navy’s Emergency Management Program, Mid-Atlantic Region. The Navy took this action based upon two charges. Charge One was “Careless or Negligent Performance of Duties” and contained six specifications. Charge Two was “Conduct Unbecoming” and contained one specification.
Mr. Lowe timely appealed his removal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”). Following a hearing, on December 2, 2019, the administrative judge (“AJ”) to whom the appeal was assigned issued an initial decision in which she found that the Navy had not proved any of the specifications of Charge One, but that it had proved the single specification of Charge Two. Lowe v. Dep’t of the Navy, No. DC-0752-19-0053-I-2, 2019 MSPB LEXIS 4415 (Dec. 2, 2019).
Based upon her finding that the agency had failed to Prove Charge One, but that it had proved Charge Two, the AJ mitigated Mr. Lowe’s penalty to a reduction in grade to a non-supervisory GS-12 position. Id. at *29–35. The AJ’s initial decision became the final decision of the Board on January 6, 2020, after which Mr. Lowe timely petitioned for review. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). For the reasons stated herein we affirm.