Contract Dispute of Astornet Technologies, Inc. pursuant to Solicitation No. DTFAWA-07-C-0037
Docket
08-ODRA-00466
Date Served
07/10/2009
Decision
Astornet Technologies, Inc. (Astornet) filed this contract dispute with respect to a settlement agreement resolving an earlier bid protest it had filed. Astornet alleged that the FAA had breached the settlement agreement and essentially blacklisted Astornet from doing any more work within FAA. As evidence of the breach of the Settlement Agreement, Astornet asserted that a non-competitive award was made to another contractor for work it could have performed. The Program Office filed a motion that the dispute be dismissed summarily, pursuant to the ODRA Procedural Regulations at 14 C.F.R. §17.29, as legally insufficient. The ODRA granted the motion in part, summarily dismissing portions of the dispute which alleged that the Program Office materially breached a requirement of the settlement agreement by: failing to award contract work to Astornet; failing to notify Astornet of additional contracting opportunities; and awarding work to other contractors rather than to Astornet. The ODRA denied the motion to dismiss for legal insufficiency, without prejudice, with respect to the allegations that the Program Office breached the duty of good faith and fair dealing with respect to Astornet. (Decision on Motion to Dismiss). After discovery, the Program Office filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. The ODRA, after reviewing the pleadings, as well as the entire record, dismissed Astornets contract dispute with prejudice, concluding that: (1) there were no material facts in dispute with respect to Astornets claim that the Agency breached the duty of good faith and fair dealing with regard to Astornet; and (2) the Program Office was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Decision (Decision on Motion for Summary Judgment).
FAA Order
16-02-08
Matter
COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL OBLIGATIONS BY THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA
Docket
16-02-08
Date Served
05/14/2009
Decision
This matter arose from a dispute between the FAA Office of Airport Safety and Standards ("AAS") and the City of Santa Monica, California ("City") the proprietor of the Santa Monica Municipal Airport ("SMO"). More specifically, the dispute involved an ordinance enacted by the City that purports to ban certain categories of aircraft from operating at SMO. Following an investigation and related proceedings conducted pursuant to regulations found at 14 C.F.R., Part 16, entitled "RULES OF PRACTICE FOR FEDERALLY-ASSISTED AIRPORT ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS" ("Part 16") the Acting Director of AAS issued a Determination ("Director's Determination") concluding that the Ordinance is inconsistent with: the City's obligations under two assurances contained in grant agreements between the FAA and the City ("Grant Assurances"); provisions of the Surplus Property Act of 1944, 49 U.S.C. §§ 47151-153 ("SPA"); and the terms of a Settlement Agreement entered into between the FAA and the City on January 31, 1984 ("1984 Agreement") between the parties. Finally the Director's Determination also concluded that the Ordinance "is preempted under Federal Law." A formal adjudication process was conducted in this dispute in accordance with Subpart F of Part 16 by the ODRA Director, who was appointed as the hearing officer for this matter. After having reviewed and given due consideration to the record evidence, as well as the arguments of the parties, he concluded as follows: (1) The ordinance unreasonably and unjustly discriminates against classes of aeronautical activities, and, thus, is inconsistent with the City's obligations under Assurance 22 of the Grant Agreements between the FAA and the City; (2) the ordinance does not grant an "exclusive right" within the meaning of 47 U.S.C.§ 47107(a)(4), and, thus, is not inconsistent with the City's obligations under Assurance 23 of the Grant Agreements between the FAA and the City; (3) the ordinance unreasonably and unjustly discriminates in the operation of the Airport, and, thus, is inconsistent with the obligations of the City under the Instrument of Transfer of the Airport property completed pursuant to the SPA; (4) the ordinance unreasonably and unjustly discriminates in a manner inconsistent with the 1984 Agreement that expressly reserved final authority over issues of safety to the FAA; and (5) the concept of preemption provides context to consideration of whether, under the circumstances here, the City acted properly in adopting an ordinance that precludes categories of aircraft from utilizing SMO solely on the grounds of safety. The Preemption Doctrine, however, does not provide an independent basis for FAA administrative action against the City under Part 16 inasmuch as the Doctrine is not one of the enumerated "authorities" that authorize and govern Part 16 proceedings involving Federally-assisted airports. (Initial Decision).
