287 F.3d 1058 (Fed. Cir. 2002), 01-1233, Ridge Runner Forestry v. Veneman

Docket Nº:01-1233
Citation:287 F.3d 1058
Party Name:Ridge Runner Forestry v. Veneman
Case Date:April 18, 2002
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Page 1058

287 F.3d 1058 (Fed. Cir. 2002)



Ann M. VENEMAN, Secretary of Agriculture, Appellee.

No. 01-1233.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit

April 18, 2002

Page 1059

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 1060

Terrence M. O'Connor, Law Office of Terrence M. O'Connor, of Alexandria, VA, argued for appellant.

Maureen A. Delaney, Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for appellee. With her on the brief were Stuart Schiffer, Acting Assistant Attorney General; David M. Cohen, Director; Mark Melnick, Assistant Director.

Before MAYER, Chief Judge, CLEVENGER and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges.

MAYER, Chief Judge.

Ridge Runner Forestry appeals from the decision of the Department of Agriculture Board of Contract Appeals dismissing its cause of action for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to 41 U.S.C. §§ 601-613. In re Ridge Runner Forestry, AGBCA No. 2000-161-1, 2001 WL 170915 (Feb. 13, 2001). Because no contract had been formed, we affirm the board's decision.


Ridge Runner Forestry is a fire protection company located in the Pacific Northwest. In response to a request for quotations ("RFQ") issued by the Forestry Service, Ridge Runner submitted a proposal and ultimately signed a document entitled Pacific Northwest Interagency Engine Tender Agreement ("Tender Agreement"). The Tender Agreement incorporated the RFQ in its entirety, including the following two provisions in bold faced lettering: (1) "Award of an Interagency Equipment Rental Agreement based on response to this Request for Quotations (RFQ) does not preclude the Government from using any agency or cooperator or local EERA resources"; and (2) "Award of an Interagency Equipment Rental Agreement does not guarantee there will be a need for the equipment offered nor does it guarantee orders will be placed against the awarded agreements." Request for Quotation, No. R6-99-117 (March 29, 1999). Additionally, because the government could not foresee its actual equipment needs, the RFQ contained language that allowed the contractor to decline the government's request for equipment for any reason: "Because the equipment needs of the government and availability of contractor's equipment during an emergency cannot be determined in advance, it is mutually agreed that, upon request of the...

To continue reading