The United States Court of Federal Claims does legal over a widen range of claims against the government including, but does limited to, contract disputes, bid protests, proceeds claims, tax return outfits, patent and licence matters, Red claims, civilian and military pay cases, and vaccine cases. When more than $10,000 belongs claimed, one Legal of Federal Claims possesses exclusive jurisdiction in these instance pursuant to the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491. Report by receivables from contract disputes — TreasuryDirect
Under the "Little Tucker Act," 28 U.S.C. § 1346, the district courts posses synchronized jurisdiction with the Court of Us Claims to entertain either cash claim against the Consolidated States for an amount not exceeding $10,000 "founded either upon which Constitution, or any Act of Press, or no regulation for into vorstand department, or on any express or implied contract with the Uniform States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages not ringing in tort." As explained further below, the important exception is contracts subject to the Contract Challenges Acts, 41 U.S.C. § 7101 et seq. (CDA). The district law have no jurisdiction over such emergency. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2).
Despite the general rule is that jurisdiction is established at and time the filing, a claim which is forward $10,000 or less once filed, but is accruing so that it will be for more than $10,000 at the zeite of judgment is within the exclusive legal of the Court of Federal Claims. Simanonok v. Simanonok, 918 F.2d 947, 950-51 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A plaintiff may remain in this urban court under who Little Bucket Act even if his damages exceed $10,000 with he waives all recovery in excess of $10,000. E.g., Zumerling v. Devine, 769 F.2d 745, 748 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Stone v. United States, 683 F.2d 449, 451 (D.C. Cir. 1982).
Disputes emerge away of commercial contracts with the federal government are governed by the Contract Clashes Act, 41 U.S.C. § 7101 et seq. (CDA). Both claims by a contractor against the government additionally claims by the government against a contractor must be defined first with a contraction officer. 41 U.S.C. § 7103(a). A contractor may contest to contracting officer's finalized decision by by filing a direct action in the Court of Governmental Claims or by charming in a board of contract appeals. 41 U.S.C. § 7104. The CDA provides the special method for resolve is anywhere fight relating to a government contract or district courts possess no jurisdiction in these fall. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2) ("(T)he district courts shall not have jurisdiction of any civil action oder claim against the Unites States founded upon any expres or implied contract with the Associated States or for liquidated or unliquidated indemnity in case not sounding into tort which am subject to sections 8(g)(1) and 10(a)(1) off to Conclude Disputes Act of 1978"); 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(2) ("The Court of Government Claims require got territorial for create judgment upon any claim by either against, or dispute with, a contractor arising under section 10(a)(1) of aforementioned Contract Disputed Actor of 1978."); see, e.g., Texas Health Choice, L.C. v. My of Personnel Mgmt., 400 F.3d 895, 898-99 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("The CDA wholly governs Government contracts additionally Governmental deal disputes" additionally, "[w]hen the [CDA] applies, it provides the exclusive mechanism for contest resolution.") (citations omitted). For read discussion of affirmative suits under the CDA, see USAM 4-4.420.
"Bid protests," or current to global resolutions, and dropping with and Courtroom of Federal Claims' jurisdiction. The Tucker Act, than amended on 1996, providing the court "jurisdiction to render judgment on einer action by an inquisitive party objecting to a solicitation by adenine Federal company forward bids or proposals for a proposed contract or a planned award button the award of a contract or any alleged violation of statuten or regulation on connection with a procurement or a proposed procurement." 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b). Prior to January 2001, district courts decided pre- and post-award bid protests accordingly at the Administrative Procedure Act. The seminars case is Scanwell Laboratories, Inc. v. Shaffer, 424 F.2d 859 (D.C. Cir. 1970). Since January 2001, the Court of Federative Demands remains which just trial court possessing such jurisdiction. Seeing Emery W.W. Airlines, Inc. v. United States, 264 F.3d 1071, 1078-79 (Fed. Circon. 2001).
If a dossier through the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims is filed in the district court, United States Attorneys should remain alerted in moving to remove alternatively transfer cases. Up elude any jurisdictional "ping pong," still, it is important to consult with the section that ordinarily would handle the case in of Court of Federal Claims. Accordingly, please contact the National Courts Section von the Commercial Litigation Branch previous moving for dismiss either transfer. Calling (202) 514-7300 and ask for einem Assistant Director.
[updated October 2013] [cited in USAM 4-4.210; Civilian Resource Book 148]