Legal Case Summary

CREWZERS FIRE CREW TRANSPORT v. United States

Date Argued: Fri Dec 06 2013
Case Number: 146440
Docket Number: 2601057
Judges:Not available
Duration: 30 minutes
Court Name: Federal Circuit

Case Summary

**Case Summary: Crewzers Fire Crew Transport v. United States, Docket Number 2601057** **Court:** United States Court of Federal Claims **Date:** [Insert Date of Judgment] **Background:** Crewzers Fire Crew Transport, a company specializing in the transport of firefighting crews, filed a lawsuit against the United States. The dispute arose from the denial of a claim for payment under a government contract related to the transportation of firefighting personnel. Crewzers alleged that the government breached the contract by failing to pay for services rendered. **Issues:** 1. Whether the United States breached its contract with Crewzers by not making timely payments. 2. Whether Crewzers fulfilled its contractual obligations in accordance with the terms specified in the contract. **Arguments:** - **Plaintiff (Crewzers):** Crewzers argued that they provided transportation services as stipulated in the contract and that they submitted timely invoices. They contended that the government’s failure to pay constituted a breach of contract, leading to financial damages for the company. - **Defendant (United States):** The government argued that it had valid reasons for not making payments, including alleged deficiencies in Crewzers’ performance of the contract terms. The government contended that any delays in payment were justified and that Crewzers did not meet certain contractual obligations necessary to trigger payment. **Rulings:** The court, after reviewing the evidence presented and hearing the arguments from both parties, issued a ruling on the matter. **Outcome:** [Insert Outcome: The court may have ruled in favor of Crewzers, ordering the United States to pay the claimed amounts, or it may have ruled in favor of the government, citing valid reasons for non-payment.] **Significance:** This case highlights the importance of adherence to contract terms and the complexities that can arise in government contracting, particularly in service sectors like firefighting. The ruling may provide guidance on contract enforcement and the obligations of both parties in similar scenarios. **Conclusion:** Crewzers Fire Crew Transport v. United States serves as a significant legal precedent in contract law, especially within the context of government contracts, demonstrating the essential balance between performance requirements and payment terms. [Note: Specific details regarding the date, court ruling outcome, and other pertinent facts should be filled in as necessary to provide a complete summary.]

CREWZERS FIRE CREW TRANSPORT v. United States


Oral Audio Transcript(Beta version)

no audio transcript available


s the proper use of the federal procurement system to respond to those wild land fires. The object of this contract that is the terms of the solicitation for which are here disputed is for buses transport paracels to and from wild land fires. Also could you address the jurisdictional issues? Do we have jurisdiction to be here in this case? This is an appeal from a final decision of the court of federal claims. This is the appellate court for the court of federal claims. With respect to whether the movement is issued? Yes. All right. I'll deal with the movement is issued. After this case was filed fairly significantly after. The contract which my clients received was terminated by the four asserts. We have contested that termination

. The termination is proceeding under a different statutory regime. The case here is a procurement protest. The termination is a contract disputes matter. There are two different bailing weeks if you will. The court held that the BPA is not a contract. They certainly did and then the forest service turned around and terminated are not contract. Which creates I believe a conundrum for the forest service that the court of federal claims has not yet had an opportunity. The day was during which it terminated you from the contract or from participating in the BPA. They had terminated us and in bad faith from the contract. What happened to your standing to proceed over the BPA? What happened to our standing? Well, I'll tell you what happened to our standing

. My third co-counsel says that the only thing you can get from the court of federal claims is a money judgment. Therefore, the matter you're attempting to raise here in the court is moved. Well, we forget about the difference between the contract disputes act and a protest. A protest is a matter in which the forest service here determines the record, submits the record to the court and then you argue from the record the forest service is submitted. A contract disputes matter is a matter where both parties participate in construction of the record and the judge as opposed to an APA review which is what this case is about. In a contract disputes matter, the court of federal claims judge has the same authority as the forest service contracting officer and this court has so held in the bad higher works case that is cited in the response to the motion that it submits. Todd Construction, a recent decision from this court, explains the contract disputes jurisdiction of the court of federal claims and basically under the contract disputes jurisdiction of the court of federal claims, the judge of the court of federal claims has the same authority as the federal contracting officer and a federal contract officer who terminates a contract has a right under the procurement rules to reinstate that contract. Why wasn't the judge in this case correct? This is just a framework for future contracts. Well, I would point out the obvious if it was just a framework what unworldly terminate? Because they don't want to use the framework anymore. But we are using other frameworks

. The other framework is found that the school buses work to be. But they do not ensure that's the case but that seems to be from the facts that we have before. This was a series of contracts where you propose a price for a specific to a spare center. And then when an emergency comes about, the Forest Service picks up the telephone and calls the crew carrier contractors and asks them if they can meet the magic phrase as date and time needed. And they proceed from the lowest price first. Now, what the court of federal claims were saying in regard to the not contract is that when the phone rings, you can pick it up and decide not to perform, not to respond. But the only way with this instrument, try not characterize it one way the other. The only way with this instrument, you get an opportunity to provide services for the direct benefit of the United States is if you have one of these instruments and you are the next lowest price on the dispatch list. Did you seek reinstatement to the BPA and the claims court? Yes. Yes

. And what happened? The United States has an extension request and their response to the complaint is not due until sometime in January. In other words, that wasn't decided in the case on a field here. Correct. And the larger issue here is if the United States is correct, if this termination makes this appeal moot, then the United States is basically saying anytime somebody takes an appeal from the court of federal claims to this tribal and we don't like the potential outcome of that appeal. We'll get rid of it and we'll terminate the bloody contract. That's just plain wrong. This case is not moot. This is a live controversy. And that's a live controversy notwithstanding the fact that the Forest Service and for granted. The live controversy, if as you just told us, the only way that any obligation arises is if they pick up the phone and call

. And yet they have now terminated any agreement under which they would ever pick up the phone and call. But they have now said we're not making any phone calls. Period. Okay. This is a three year contract. There are two years yet to run. We have asked the court of federal claims to either give us damages. Are reinstated? What would the damages be? They never called you so that you never had a contract on which you would be able to sue. In the one year in which this contract ran. And before the fire season started in the northern states out west in Idaho

. These people did $600,000 in revenues on dispatching buses. But buses which are operated by Native Americans. 30 of the exact. Did you get paid for that? Yes. Well then you're not complaining about that. No. But then I'm planning to figure out what you're complaining about. Well what we're complaining about to the court of federal claim. They're not going to call you again. They've terminated any agreement under which they would call you again

. Correct. So what's your complaint? Our complaint is based on the prices we have if we hadn't been terminated we would have been called. And this would have been the rate that they would not have called you. Pardon? They said they would not call you. They have terminated that. They don't want to call anybody. I have a right. They have school buses. They don't want to use that. That's not what it said

. Well okay I'm sorry I'm jumping ahead. What they have said is they're not going to make any calls. I'm trying to figure out. But what you need to receive that call is an opportunity to folks to fulfill. The service is required by the United States. Okay what is the damages in a lost opportunity? They've said they're not going to use this system. They are still using the system. These people are no longer part of that system. Your clients no longer part of the BPA. The system is still in existence

. They still place orders for us. Your clients are not part of the BPA any longer. That's contestable. Right now no. You're seeking relief as if you were a BPA party. We're seeking relief based upon the fact that we had an instrument that gives us a right to seek that relief. And the relief we're seeking is either reinstatement or damage. Both of which are available remedies under the contract, the Speeds Act. Let's hear from Mr. Rodriguez, Theo, and Keith Geard. Thank you for the time. Good morning Chief Judge. Judge is made a police report. I think the first thing I'd like to address with the court is this question of cruisers' case on appeal now being moot. Because they're no longer part of the blanket purchase agreement. As a result, whatever this court decides in the instant appeal isn't going to make a difference. This court cannot afford relief in terms of saying that the lower court was incorrect and finding that the bill was not going to be approved. The government's method of using the blanket purchase agreement, which by the way they haven't even appealed the question of the BPA. The sole question that cruisers appealed before the court is whether the lower court was incorrect in stating that the use of agency cooperators pursuant to the Reciprocal Fire Protection Act was valid under procurement law. That's what the lower court said

. Thank you for the time. Good morning Chief Judge. Judge is made a police report. I think the first thing I'd like to address with the court is this question of cruisers' case on appeal now being moot. Because they're no longer part of the blanket purchase agreement. As a result, whatever this court decides in the instant appeal isn't going to make a difference. This court cannot afford relief in terms of saying that the lower court was incorrect and finding that the bill was not going to be approved. The government's method of using the blanket purchase agreement, which by the way they haven't even appealed the question of the BPA. The sole question that cruisers appealed before the court is whether the lower court was incorrect in stating that the use of agency cooperators pursuant to the Reciprocal Fire Protection Act was valid under procurement law. That's what the lower court said. My friend on the other side, his appeal is that the court was incorrect because rather than relying upon the Reciprocal Fire Protection Agreement Act, that instead the fire service was required to use a procurement vehicle under the federal grants and cooperative agreement act under 63 or 3. And you're saying whether or not that's correct enough, he cannot raise it because he's out of the BPA. Correct. Whatever this court decides wouldn't make a difference because they're no longer part of the BPA. He's seeking reinstatement of that now in a claims court, isn't he? He is seeking reinstatement of that, not at the time of that we filed our response brief, so we apologize for a new confusion. Subsequent to us filing our brief and stating that they were not seeking reinstatement, cruisers filed a second-demanded complaint seeking reinstatement. So at this point, they are seeking reinstatement from the full court of federal claims. Our position is that it doesn't matter whether they're seeking. Does the trial court have to accept that amended complaint? I believe it was accepted. I don't think we objected to that

. My friend on the other side, his appeal is that the court was incorrect because rather than relying upon the Reciprocal Fire Protection Agreement Act, that instead the fire service was required to use a procurement vehicle under the federal grants and cooperative agreement act under 63 or 3. And you're saying whether or not that's correct enough, he cannot raise it because he's out of the BPA. Correct. Whatever this court decides wouldn't make a difference because they're no longer part of the BPA. He's seeking reinstatement of that now in a claims court, isn't he? He is seeking reinstatement of that, not at the time of that we filed our response brief, so we apologize for a new confusion. Subsequent to us filing our brief and stating that they were not seeking reinstatement, cruisers filed a second-demanded complaint seeking reinstatement. So at this point, they are seeking reinstatement from the full court of federal claims. Our position is that it doesn't matter whether they're seeking. Does the trial court have to accept that amended complaint? I believe it was accepted. I don't think we objected to that. But the question is that it doesn't matter because what is the response to the rule? What's our authority to rule on the reinstatement issue that's being brought up when if the court of claim is going to entertain that issue? I don't think the court of appeals has the authority to act on that question at all or on that other case at all because it hasn't even been decided yet by the Court of Federal claims. Let alone hasn't been appealed to this court. The question before this court is a different one. If I could, just as one cruisers haven't provided any authority under which the Court of Federal claims would be able to reinstate them. We understand that there's authority that the Court of Federal claims could provide non-monetary relief. But no authority to reinstate them to the contract. But if they were reinstated, just for the sake of argument. What they would be reinstated to is the blanket purchase agreement which they accepted, which includes the agency cooperator preference. Because that's been in effect. Once they lost their bid protest, they accepted the BPA which the BPA itself is not a contract

. But the question is that it doesn't matter because what is the response to the rule? What's our authority to rule on the reinstatement issue that's being brought up when if the court of claim is going to entertain that issue? I don't think the court of appeals has the authority to act on that question at all or on that other case at all because it hasn't even been decided yet by the Court of Federal claims. Let alone hasn't been appealed to this court. The question before this court is a different one. If I could, just as one cruisers haven't provided any authority under which the Court of Federal claims would be able to reinstate them. We understand that there's authority that the Court of Federal claims could provide non-monetary relief. But no authority to reinstate them to the contract. But if they were reinstated, just for the sake of argument. What they would be reinstated to is the blanket purchase agreement which they accepted, which includes the agency cooperator preference. Because that's been in effect. Once they lost their bid protest, they accepted the BPA which the BPA itself is not a contract. But they accepted the BPA under which terms the preference for agency cooperators existed. And the agency cooperators are municipalities, tribal resources that can be used in emergencies. My friend, yes sir? Can we affirm that the claims court is here or the fee while expanding, therefore we must dismiss his appeal? Our position is that this court must dismiss the appeal as moot because it has become moot as a result of cruisers no longer being a blanket purchase agreement holder. And the reinstatement question hasn't yet been decided by the claims court. It has not. It has not your honor. How do you respond to the argument that there's unfairness at play here because in the very process of a pilling, they were undercut by the government by removing them from the BPA program? There doesn't. In terms of a question of bad faith or anything like that, our position is that the government hasn't shown any bad faith. And in fact, that question is not is not before the court. But again, whether fair or not, I guess the law is clear in the sense that you have to have a live controversy

. But they accepted the BPA under which terms the preference for agency cooperators existed. And the agency cooperators are municipalities, tribal resources that can be used in emergencies. My friend, yes sir? Can we affirm that the claims court is here or the fee while expanding, therefore we must dismiss his appeal? Our position is that this court must dismiss the appeal as moot because it has become moot as a result of cruisers no longer being a blanket purchase agreement holder. And the reinstatement question hasn't yet been decided by the claims court. It has not. It has not your honor. How do you respond to the argument that there's unfairness at play here because in the very process of a pilling, they were undercut by the government by removing them from the BPA program? There doesn't. In terms of a question of bad faith or anything like that, our position is that the government hasn't shown any bad faith. And in fact, that question is not is not before the court. But again, whether fair or not, I guess the law is clear in the sense that you have to have a live controversy. There has to be an ability for this court to provide relief to this particular appellant and the trial judge has no authority to reinstatement. We're not aware of any authority that will allow trial judge in the pending complaint to simply order reinstatement of cruisers to the BPA, especially when the BPA isn't even a contract. There's a question of cruisers got a call under the BPA and said, hey, can you respond to this site by X and X time? And while they were in the process of responding, that is under the contract because that's the only time when you have the contract. Once they offer an acceptance and they are proceeding under the contract, if they were terminated abruptly in that situation, we agree it would be a different case. But here, they were just terminated from the BPA. They were terminated from the list and being called as Chief Judge Rader put it, they're not going to be called anymore, they're helping fires. There are a list of multiple other sources that they can call and they decided, they decided that for certain reasons, we don't need to get into them here, but performance type issues, they decided that they weren't going to use cruisers anymore. So cruisers is no longer a part of the BPA. Moreover, cruisers cannot espouse its cause on behalf of other members of the BPA. We discussed the issue of the case of the Polo King, which was recently inside by this court, it was an unpublished decision, but it's cited to a number of preferences

. There has to be an ability for this court to provide relief to this particular appellant and the trial judge has no authority to reinstatement. We're not aware of any authority that will allow trial judge in the pending complaint to simply order reinstatement of cruisers to the BPA, especially when the BPA isn't even a contract. There's a question of cruisers got a call under the BPA and said, hey, can you respond to this site by X and X time? And while they were in the process of responding, that is under the contract because that's the only time when you have the contract. Once they offer an acceptance and they are proceeding under the contract, if they were terminated abruptly in that situation, we agree it would be a different case. But here, they were just terminated from the BPA. They were terminated from the list and being called as Chief Judge Rader put it, they're not going to be called anymore, they're helping fires. There are a list of multiple other sources that they can call and they decided, they decided that for certain reasons, we don't need to get into them here, but performance type issues, they decided that they weren't going to use cruisers anymore. So cruisers is no longer a part of the BPA. Moreover, cruisers cannot espouse its cause on behalf of other members of the BPA. We discussed the issue of the case of the Polo King, which was recently inside by this court, it was an unpublished decision, but it's cited to a number of preferences. Because during the course of the appeal, the appeal dies. That terminated the fact that there was a continue to be a contract. Here, circumstances have changed. To the extent that cruisers disagrees with the forest services termination of them from the blanket purchase agreement, they have a proper cause of action, this goes back to the fairness question Judge Reynon brought up. They have the opportunity to take their cause in front of the trial court and obtain a judgment there, and ultimately if they're not satisfied with that judgment, they can appeal to the court of appeals. But right now, and this is measured from the state of play right now. They're not a part of the BPA. There's no relief that this court could offer, and this court we feel should dismiss it as moving. Okay, thank you, Mr. Rodriguez-Fair

. Because during the course of the appeal, the appeal dies. That terminated the fact that there was a continue to be a contract. Here, circumstances have changed. To the extent that cruisers disagrees with the forest services termination of them from the blanket purchase agreement, they have a proper cause of action, this goes back to the fairness question Judge Reynon brought up. They have the opportunity to take their cause in front of the trial court and obtain a judgment there, and ultimately if they're not satisfied with that judgment, they can appeal to the court of appeals. But right now, and this is measured from the state of play right now. They're not a part of the BPA. There's no relief that this court could offer, and this court we feel should dismiss it as moving. Okay, thank you, Mr. Rodriguez-Fair. Would the court like me to address any of the merits, or thank you, gentlemen, we respectfully request that the court affirm the trial court's decision. Excuse me. We respectfully request that the court dismiss the appeal is moving in the alternative, and we respectfully request the court affirm the trial court's decision. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Phillips. When a contract disputes matters before the court of federal claims, the court of federal claims rules on that matter to Nova. The court of federal claims under the jurisprudence of this court has the same authority as a contracting officer. But we rule on the decision that was rendered below based on an argument by a party who has proper standing and lost the law. Well, that in the case of the matter before the court of federal claims now, the court of federal claims obtains the authority of the contracting officer to rule on the matter that was before the contracting officer

. Would the court like me to address any of the merits, or thank you, gentlemen, we respectfully request that the court affirm the trial court's decision. Excuse me. We respectfully request that the court dismiss the appeal is moving in the alternative, and we respectfully request the court affirm the trial court's decision. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Phillips. When a contract disputes matters before the court of federal claims, the court of federal claims rules on that matter to Nova. The court of federal claims under the jurisprudence of this court has the same authority as a contracting officer. But we rule on the decision that was rendered below based on an argument by a party who has proper standing and lost the law. Well, that in the case of the matter before the court of federal claims now, the court of federal claims obtains the authority of the contracting officer to rule on the matter that was before the contracting officer. This is not a lower court, a pallet court type of activity. And that contracting officer, the fourth service contracting officer, under the acquisition regulation, 49102 has the explicit authority to reinstate the contract. Now, whether or not this matter is successful, we don't yet know. What we do know is I don't see how this court can possibly decide that you're going to lose, and you have to decide that I lose the court of federal claims to say I don't have standing. I haven't lost yet. I mean, I'm in back in the federal court of federal claims. You say you haven't lost yet. You're almost saying the case we're reviewing isn't final. That doesn't help you. Well, this case here comes not from what the contracting officer decided

. This is not a lower court, a pallet court type of activity. And that contracting officer, the fourth service contracting officer, under the acquisition regulation, 49102 has the explicit authority to reinstate the contract. Now, whether or not this matter is successful, we don't yet know. What we do know is I don't see how this court can possibly decide that you're going to lose, and you have to decide that I lose the court of federal claims to say I don't have standing. I haven't lost yet. I mean, I'm in back in the federal court of federal claims. You say you haven't lost yet. You're almost saying the case we're reviewing isn't final. That doesn't help you. Well, this case here comes not from what the contracting officer decided. This case comes from the court of federal claims authority to review the solicitation for these blanket purchases agreements. And the issue here is whether or not one part of that blanket purchase agreement solicitation is on lawful. If we are successful here, and if we are reinstated, then there's two more years on this contract where the fourth service, if we are successful here, will be precluded from giving a preference to local government entities for the use of buses. This is not in the case. Thank you. Thank you.

Mr. Phillips? So it's always good not to have an opponent. Yeah right. Sorry I remember someone left the bag under the house. Excuse me I had received that there was someone present and thought we were all here. Please proceed now Mr. Phil. Thank you for waiting. 70 years ago today and just a little more than an hour from now local time we had a national emergency on the island of a wafer. This is a case about national emergencies. In this case the national emergencies are the wild land fires. And in this case the question is the proper use of the federal procurement system to respond to those wild land fires. The object of this contract that is the terms of the solicitation for which are here disputed is for buses transport paracels to and from wild land fires. Also could you address the jurisdictional issues? Do we have jurisdiction to be here in this case? This is an appeal from a final decision of the court of federal claims. This is the appellate court for the court of federal claims. With respect to whether the movement is issued? Yes. All right. I'll deal with the movement is issued. After this case was filed fairly significantly after. The contract which my clients received was terminated by the four asserts. We have contested that termination. The termination is proceeding under a different statutory regime. The case here is a procurement protest. The termination is a contract disputes matter. There are two different bailing weeks if you will. The court held that the BPA is not a contract. They certainly did and then the forest service turned around and terminated are not contract. Which creates I believe a conundrum for the forest service that the court of federal claims has not yet had an opportunity. The day was during which it terminated you from the contract or from participating in the BPA. They had terminated us and in bad faith from the contract. What happened to your standing to proceed over the BPA? What happened to our standing? Well, I'll tell you what happened to our standing. My third co-counsel says that the only thing you can get from the court of federal claims is a money judgment. Therefore, the matter you're attempting to raise here in the court is moved. Well, we forget about the difference between the contract disputes act and a protest. A protest is a matter in which the forest service here determines the record, submits the record to the court and then you argue from the record the forest service is submitted. A contract disputes matter is a matter where both parties participate in construction of the record and the judge as opposed to an APA review which is what this case is about. In a contract disputes matter, the court of federal claims judge has the same authority as the forest service contracting officer and this court has so held in the bad higher works case that is cited in the response to the motion that it submits. Todd Construction, a recent decision from this court, explains the contract disputes jurisdiction of the court of federal claims and basically under the contract disputes jurisdiction of the court of federal claims, the judge of the court of federal claims has the same authority as the federal contracting officer and a federal contract officer who terminates a contract has a right under the procurement rules to reinstate that contract. Why wasn't the judge in this case correct? This is just a framework for future contracts. Well, I would point out the obvious if it was just a framework what unworldly terminate? Because they don't want to use the framework anymore. But we are using other frameworks. The other framework is found that the school buses work to be. But they do not ensure that's the case but that seems to be from the facts that we have before. This was a series of contracts where you propose a price for a specific to a spare center. And then when an emergency comes about, the Forest Service picks up the telephone and calls the crew carrier contractors and asks them if they can meet the magic phrase as date and time needed. And they proceed from the lowest price first. Now, what the court of federal claims were saying in regard to the not contract is that when the phone rings, you can pick it up and decide not to perform, not to respond. But the only way with this instrument, try not characterize it one way the other. The only way with this instrument, you get an opportunity to provide services for the direct benefit of the United States is if you have one of these instruments and you are the next lowest price on the dispatch list. Did you seek reinstatement to the BPA and the claims court? Yes. Yes. And what happened? The United States has an extension request and their response to the complaint is not due until sometime in January. In other words, that wasn't decided in the case on a field here. Correct. And the larger issue here is if the United States is correct, if this termination makes this appeal moot, then the United States is basically saying anytime somebody takes an appeal from the court of federal claims to this tribal and we don't like the potential outcome of that appeal. We'll get rid of it and we'll terminate the bloody contract. That's just plain wrong. This case is not moot. This is a live controversy. And that's a live controversy notwithstanding the fact that the Forest Service and for granted. The live controversy, if as you just told us, the only way that any obligation arises is if they pick up the phone and call. And yet they have now terminated any agreement under which they would ever pick up the phone and call. But they have now said we're not making any phone calls. Period. Okay. This is a three year contract. There are two years yet to run. We have asked the court of federal claims to either give us damages. Are reinstated? What would the damages be? They never called you so that you never had a contract on which you would be able to sue. In the one year in which this contract ran. And before the fire season started in the northern states out west in Idaho. These people did $600,000 in revenues on dispatching buses. But buses which are operated by Native Americans. 30 of the exact. Did you get paid for that? Yes. Well then you're not complaining about that. No. But then I'm planning to figure out what you're complaining about. Well what we're complaining about to the court of federal claim. They're not going to call you again. They've terminated any agreement under which they would call you again. Correct. So what's your complaint? Our complaint is based on the prices we have if we hadn't been terminated we would have been called. And this would have been the rate that they would not have called you. Pardon? They said they would not call you. They have terminated that. They don't want to call anybody. I have a right. They have school buses. They don't want to use that. That's not what it said. Well okay I'm sorry I'm jumping ahead. What they have said is they're not going to make any calls. I'm trying to figure out. But what you need to receive that call is an opportunity to folks to fulfill. The service is required by the United States. Okay what is the damages in a lost opportunity? They've said they're not going to use this system. They are still using the system. These people are no longer part of that system. Your clients no longer part of the BPA. The system is still in existence. They still place orders for us. Your clients are not part of the BPA any longer. That's contestable. Right now no. You're seeking relief as if you were a BPA party. We're seeking relief based upon the fact that we had an instrument that gives us a right to seek that relief. And the relief we're seeking is either reinstatement or damage. Both of which are available remedies under the contract, the Speeds Act. Let's hear from Mr. Rodriguez, Theo, and Keith Geard. Thank you for the time. Good morning Chief Judge. Judge is made a police report. I think the first thing I'd like to address with the court is this question of cruisers' case on appeal now being moot. Because they're no longer part of the blanket purchase agreement. As a result, whatever this court decides in the instant appeal isn't going to make a difference. This court cannot afford relief in terms of saying that the lower court was incorrect and finding that the bill was not going to be approved. The government's method of using the blanket purchase agreement, which by the way they haven't even appealed the question of the BPA. The sole question that cruisers appealed before the court is whether the lower court was incorrect in stating that the use of agency cooperators pursuant to the Reciprocal Fire Protection Act was valid under procurement law. That's what the lower court said. My friend on the other side, his appeal is that the court was incorrect because rather than relying upon the Reciprocal Fire Protection Agreement Act, that instead the fire service was required to use a procurement vehicle under the federal grants and cooperative agreement act under 63 or 3. And you're saying whether or not that's correct enough, he cannot raise it because he's out of the BPA. Correct. Whatever this court decides wouldn't make a difference because they're no longer part of the BPA. He's seeking reinstatement of that now in a claims court, isn't he? He is seeking reinstatement of that, not at the time of that we filed our response brief, so we apologize for a new confusion. Subsequent to us filing our brief and stating that they were not seeking reinstatement, cruisers filed a second-demanded complaint seeking reinstatement. So at this point, they are seeking reinstatement from the full court of federal claims. Our position is that it doesn't matter whether they're seeking. Does the trial court have to accept that amended complaint? I believe it was accepted. I don't think we objected to that. But the question is that it doesn't matter because what is the response to the rule? What's our authority to rule on the reinstatement issue that's being brought up when if the court of claim is going to entertain that issue? I don't think the court of appeals has the authority to act on that question at all or on that other case at all because it hasn't even been decided yet by the Court of Federal claims. Let alone hasn't been appealed to this court. The question before this court is a different one. If I could, just as one cruisers haven't provided any authority under which the Court of Federal claims would be able to reinstate them. We understand that there's authority that the Court of Federal claims could provide non-monetary relief. But no authority to reinstate them to the contract. But if they were reinstated, just for the sake of argument. What they would be reinstated to is the blanket purchase agreement which they accepted, which includes the agency cooperator preference. Because that's been in effect. Once they lost their bid protest, they accepted the BPA which the BPA itself is not a contract. But they accepted the BPA under which terms the preference for agency cooperators existed. And the agency cooperators are municipalities, tribal resources that can be used in emergencies. My friend, yes sir? Can we affirm that the claims court is here or the fee while expanding, therefore we must dismiss his appeal? Our position is that this court must dismiss the appeal as moot because it has become moot as a result of cruisers no longer being a blanket purchase agreement holder. And the reinstatement question hasn't yet been decided by the claims court. It has not. It has not your honor. How do you respond to the argument that there's unfairness at play here because in the very process of a pilling, they were undercut by the government by removing them from the BPA program? There doesn't. In terms of a question of bad faith or anything like that, our position is that the government hasn't shown any bad faith. And in fact, that question is not is not before the court. But again, whether fair or not, I guess the law is clear in the sense that you have to have a live controversy. There has to be an ability for this court to provide relief to this particular appellant and the trial judge has no authority to reinstatement. We're not aware of any authority that will allow trial judge in the pending complaint to simply order reinstatement of cruisers to the BPA, especially when the BPA isn't even a contract. There's a question of cruisers got a call under the BPA and said, hey, can you respond to this site by X and X time? And while they were in the process of responding, that is under the contract because that's the only time when you have the contract. Once they offer an acceptance and they are proceeding under the contract, if they were terminated abruptly in that situation, we agree it would be a different case. But here, they were just terminated from the BPA. They were terminated from the list and being called as Chief Judge Rader put it, they're not going to be called anymore, they're helping fires. There are a list of multiple other sources that they can call and they decided, they decided that for certain reasons, we don't need to get into them here, but performance type issues, they decided that they weren't going to use cruisers anymore. So cruisers is no longer a part of the BPA. Moreover, cruisers cannot espouse its cause on behalf of other members of the BPA. We discussed the issue of the case of the Polo King, which was recently inside by this court, it was an unpublished decision, but it's cited to a number of preferences. Because during the course of the appeal, the appeal dies. That terminated the fact that there was a continue to be a contract. Here, circumstances have changed. To the extent that cruisers disagrees with the forest services termination of them from the blanket purchase agreement, they have a proper cause of action, this goes back to the fairness question Judge Reynon brought up. They have the opportunity to take their cause in front of the trial court and obtain a judgment there, and ultimately if they're not satisfied with that judgment, they can appeal to the court of appeals. But right now, and this is measured from the state of play right now. They're not a part of the BPA. There's no relief that this court could offer, and this court we feel should dismiss it as moving. Okay, thank you, Mr. Rodriguez-Fair. Would the court like me to address any of the merits, or thank you, gentlemen, we respectfully request that the court affirm the trial court's decision. Excuse me. We respectfully request that the court dismiss the appeal is moving in the alternative, and we respectfully request the court affirm the trial court's decision. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Phillips. When a contract disputes matters before the court of federal claims, the court of federal claims rules on that matter to Nova. The court of federal claims under the jurisprudence of this court has the same authority as a contracting officer. But we rule on the decision that was rendered below based on an argument by a party who has proper standing and lost the law. Well, that in the case of the matter before the court of federal claims now, the court of federal claims obtains the authority of the contracting officer to rule on the matter that was before the contracting officer. This is not a lower court, a pallet court type of activity. And that contracting officer, the fourth service contracting officer, under the acquisition regulation, 49102 has the explicit authority to reinstate the contract. Now, whether or not this matter is successful, we don't yet know. What we do know is I don't see how this court can possibly decide that you're going to lose, and you have to decide that I lose the court of federal claims to say I don't have standing. I haven't lost yet. I mean, I'm in back in the federal court of federal claims. You say you haven't lost yet. You're almost saying the case we're reviewing isn't final. That doesn't help you. Well, this case here comes not from what the contracting officer decided. This case comes from the court of federal claims authority to review the solicitation for these blanket purchases agreements. And the issue here is whether or not one part of that blanket purchase agreement solicitation is on lawful. If we are successful here, and if we are reinstated, then there's two more years on this contract where the fourth service, if we are successful here, will be precluded from giving a preference to local government entities for the use of buses. This is not in the case. Thank you. Thank you