Government’s motion to dismiss contractor’s claim for declaratory relief is denied. The court found that while it lacked jurisdiction under the Tucker Act to hear a claim for declaratory relief, it possessed jurisdiction to hear the claim under the Contract Disputes Act. The government also argued that the contractor’s claim for declaratory relief failed to state a claim. The contractor alleged the agency had failed to follow the procedures for validating data rights set forth in 10 U.S.C § 2321. The agency contended that § 2321 did not provide a private right of action. But the court reasoned that in seeking declaratory relief, the contractor was not asserting a freestanding private right of action. Instead, it asserted the violation of § 2321 as a claim under the CDA.
Raytheon had a contract with the Army to provide engineering services. The contract obligated Raytheon to provide the Army with lists of the sources it used to obtain subcontracted items. Raytheon submitted vendor lists to the Army, but the lists were marked with a legend, stating that the information on the lists was proprietary to Raytheon and exempt from disclosure by the U.S. government.
The Army objected to the proprietary legend, claiming that Raytheon had previously provided the information on this lists without restriction. Raytheon refused to remove the legend. The Army then issued a decision, stating that the Raytheon’s vendors lists contained technical data that was essential to Army systems and databases. The Army ordered Raytheon replace its proprietary legend with a Government Purpose Rights legend (GPR).
Raytheon filed suit the COFC, seeking, among other things, a declaration that the Army’s directive to replace Raytheon’s proprietary legend with a GPR legend was invalid because the Army did not follow proper procedural requirements. The Army moved to dismiss Raytheon claim for declaratory relief, claiming that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the claim.
The government contended the court lacked jurisdiction because under the Tucker Act, the court may only hear claims bases on a statute where the plaintiff seeks monetary relief. Here, Raytheon was seeking a declaration, not monetary relief.
The court agreed that it lacked jurisdiction under the Tucker Act to hear a claim seeking declaratory relief. Nevertheless, the court reasoned, it possessed jurisdiction to hear the claim under the Contract Disputes Act. The CDA states that the court has jurisdiction over claims involving “nonmonetary disputes on which a decision of the contracting officer has been issued.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(2). The court found that the Army’s direction to require Raytheon to affix GPR legends to its vendor lists involved a claim under the CDA.
The government, however, argued that the court still lacked jurisdiction because Raytheon did not seek a determination of whether it must actually deliver the vendor lists with the GPR legend. Rather, the government argued, Raytheon had simply asked the court to declare the Army’s decision invalid or void.
The court disagreed with the characterization of Raytheon’s suit. The gravamen of the suit was that Raytheon cannot be compelled to provide vendor lists with GPR markings because the Army denied the company procedural protections mandated by statute. Specifically, Raytheon’s argument was that once the Army determined that the lists contained technical data, it was required to give Raytheon an opportunity to justify the use of a restrictive legend. Regardless of the merit of this argument, Raytheon was effectively seeking a determination as to whether it can be compelled to affix the GPR legend as the Army directed.
The government further argued that the court lacked authority to declare that the Army’s decision was invalid or void. The court rejected this argument, reasoning that the real issue was whether the Army committed any procedural violations when it ordered Raytheon to affix GPR legends to the vendor lists. The court refused to address the scope of declaratory relief it might provide.
Finally, the government contended that Raytheon’s claim for declaratory relief failed to state a claim because the statute that provided the procedure for validating proprietary data, 10 U.S.C. § 2321, did not provide a private right of action. The court, however, found that Raytheon was not asserting a freestanding private right of action. Instead, it had simply asserted §2321 as the basis for its claim under the CDA.
Raytheon is represented by Steven M. Masiello of Dentons US LLP. The government is represented by Domenique Kirchner, Patricia M. McCarthy, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., and Joseph H. Hunt of the U.S. Department of Justice.
