Schindler Elevator Corp. v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth.

Decision Date23 December 2020
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 20-3157 (RC)
Citation514 F.Supp.3d 197
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Columbia
Parties SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant, and Kone, Inc., Intervenor-Defendant.

514 F.Supp.3d 197

SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION, Plaintiff,
v.
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendant,
and
Kone, Inc., Intervenor-Defendant.

Civil Action No. 20-3157 (RC)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed December 23, 2020


514 F.Supp.3d 200

Lawrence Michael Prosen, Kilapatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Attison L. Barnes, III, Moshe Broder, Samantha S. Lee, Wiley Rein LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

Lyndsay Amelia Gorton, Crowell & Moring LLP, Washington, DC, for Intervenor-Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND SUA SPONTE DISMISSING FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

This case involves Plaintiff Schindler Elevator Corporation's ("Schindler") challenge to Defendant Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority's ("WMATA") award of contracts to replace and install new escalators throughout WMATA's metro rail and transit station system. WMATA recently awarded these contracts to KONE, Inc. ("Kone"), an Intervenor-Defendant in this case. Schindler alleges that it was improperly disqualified by WMATA from the bidding process for having a non-compliant technical proposal, in purported violation of the terms of WMATA's Compact, its Procurement Procedures Manual ("PPM") and the terms of its Request for Proposals ("RFP") governing the contract. Schindler also alleges that Kone's proposal fails to meet the RFP criteria and does not provide the best value of the project. Alongside its Complaint, ECF No. 1, Schindler filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, see Pl.’s Mot. Prelim. Inj. ("Pl.’s Mot."), ECF No. 4. WMATA and KONE oppose the motion. See Def.’s Opp'n Prelim. Inj. ("Def.’s Opp'n"), ECF No. 15, Int.’s Opp'n Prelim. Inj. (Int.’s Opp'n),

514 F.Supp.3d 201

ECF No. 17. Oral argument on the issue was held on December 10. Having considered the parties’ briefing and oral arguments, the Court denies Schindler's motion for preliminary injunction, as it finds it does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate this dispute. Lacking jurisdiction, this Court sua sponte dismisses the case.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Origins of WMATA

On November 6, 1966, Congress created WMATA by approving an interstate compact ("the WMATA Compact") between the Commonwealth of Virginia and the State of Maryland to which the District of Columbia was also a signatory." Dant v. District of Columbia , 829 F.2d 69, 71 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (citing Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Compact, Pub.L. No. 89–774, 80 Stat. 1324 (1966), amended by Pub.L. No. 94–306 ). The purpose of WMATA was, and continues to be, to operate a system of Metrorail trains and buses connecting points along Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, D.C. Id.

B. WMATA's Request for Proposals

WMATA announced the RFP at issue on January 30, 2020. Compl. ¶ 20. The RFP sought proposals from interested vendors "to furnish new escalators" including the "removal, manufacture and installation" of new escalators within the WMATA Metro Rail System. Id. ¶ 21. The RFP would award a fixed price contract to the offeror who provided the best value, to be judged "by an integrated assessment of the evaluation criteria to be most advantageous to [WMATA] based on technical merit and price." Id. ¶ 22. To that end, the RFP provided five Technical Evaluation factors under which each submitted proposal would be evaluated. Id. ¶ 34.

Schindler is "one of the leading global manufacturers and services providers of elevators, escalators, and moving walks," and has been selected to perform at least four recent escalator contracts with WMATA. Id. ¶¶ 16, 18. Schindler submitted its proposal to WMATA for the RFP at issue on May 6, 2020. Id. ¶ 35. A little over a month later, on June 18, 2020, WMATA sent a letter to Schindler requesting that they clarify certain information and provide additional documentation by answering eighteen questions. Id. ¶ 37–38. Schindler submitted the requested supplementary response on June 23, 2020. Id. ¶ 42. On August 5, 2020, WMATA notified Schindler that their technical proposal failed to conform to the requirements of the RFP and would not be considered for an award. Id. ¶ 45.

Schindler quickly took action to challenge their disqualification. On August 19, 2020, Schindler filed its initial protest, arguing that WMATA "committed multiple material errors" in evaluating Schindler's Proposal, namely wrongly disqualifying Schindler for "purported non-compliance" when its proposal was in compliance "in all material respects." Id. ¶ 50. Schindler met with WMATA for a "debrief" on August 27, 2020 via telephone. Id. ¶ 59. During the debrief, WMATA explained that Schindler's Technical Proposal was unacceptable because, contrary to the proposal requirements, (1) it "included four locations where more than one escalator was scheduled to be replaced at the same time," id. ¶ 61, (2) Schindler "recommended WMATA's size requirements be modified for an internal drive to be installed," id., and (3) key personnel did not have the required qualifications. Id. ¶ 62. Regarding the first factor, Schindler contends that two of the locations identified were the result of "minor clerical numbering errors in the bid proposal schedule," while the other locations were merely "recommendations."

514 F.Supp.3d 202

Id. ¶ 68, 70. Schindler also alleges that their proposal "undeniably included the requisite years of experience" for the key personnel in question. Id. ¶ 75.

During the debrief, when WMATA's contracting officer was asked about the strengths and weaknesses WMATA identified in Schindler's Proposal, as required by the RFP and PPM evaluation requirements, she represented that "no determination of strengths was made." Id. ¶ 80, 83. Schindler thus concluded that WMATA "arbitrarily and irrationally determined that Schindler's proposal did not meet the technical requirements of the [RFP]." Id. ¶ 88. As a result, Schindler submitted a supplemental protest on September 11, 2020 covering these grounds. Id. ¶ 113. On October 2, WMATA denied Schindler's initial and supplemental protest. Id. ¶ 147. WMATA issued its Notice of Award to Kone on October 14, 2020. Schindler alleges that "WMATA determination to award Kone the contract was biased," and that WMATA engaged in ex parte discussions with Kone in violation of the applicable procurement regulations. Id. ¶ 162, 157.

Schindler subsequently filed this case and now requests preliminary injunctive relief "prohibiting WMATA from taking any further action in moving forward ... under Solicitation No.: F200064/CDS: New Escalator Replacement Project for [WMATA], and prohibiting any award of Task 1 specifically to K[one]." Pl.’s Mot. at 25.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal district courts, as courts of limited jurisdiction, have a sua sponte responsibility to ensure that they have jurisdiction to entertain a case. See Maldonado-Torres v. Mukasey , 576 F. Supp. 2d 57, 58 (D.D.C. 2008) (citing Doe by Fein v. District of Columbia , 93 F.3d 861, 871 (D.C. Cir. 1996) ). "[W]ithout jurisdiction, a court lacks power to consider a case at all." Kaplan v. Cent. Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran , 896 F.3d 501, 510 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (citing Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't , 523 U.S. 83, 94, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998) ). To that end, federal courts are empowered—and indeed, have an obligation—to undertake an independent investigation to assure itself of its own subject-matter jurisdiction. See Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 163 L.Ed.2d 1097 (2006) ; see also Gen. Motors Corp. v. EPA , 363 F.3d 442, 448 (D.C. Cir. 2004) ("As a court of limited jurisdiction, we begin, and end, with an examination of our jurisdiction.").

A federal court must presume that a cause of action lies outside its limited jurisdiction, with "the burden of establishing the contrary" resting upon the plaintiff. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am. , 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994) (citations omitted). The scope of that jurisdiction is circumscribed by both Article III and statutory limits, and "no action of the parties can confer subject-matter jurisdiction upon a federal court." Ins. Corp. of Ir., Ltd. v. Compagnie Des Bauxites De Guinee , 456 U.S. 694, 702, 102 S.Ct. 2099, 72 L.Ed.2d 492 (1982). And if it is determined that the court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction, it cannot afford plaintiffs any relief—injunctive or otherwise. See Bhd. of Maint. of Way Employes Div./IBT v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 217 F. Supp. 3d 249, 256 (D.D.C. 2016) (noting a court "may not ... ‘resolve contested questions of law when its jurisdiction is in doubt’ " (omission in original)) (quoting Zukerberg v. D.C. Bd. of Elections & Ethics , 999 F. Supp. 2d 79, 82 (D.D.C. 2013) ). Accordingly, "[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Price v. Barr
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 22 Enero 2021
    ...regime for commercial filming, which is more closely connected to the threat posed by large groups and heavy filming equipment, 514 F.Supp.3d 197 may pass constitutional muster in the future.3 An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.--------Notes:1 The Court's consideration......
  • Republican Nat'l Comm. v. Pelosi
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 1 Mayo 2022
    ...11–12, 21. But the Court had an independent duty to raise both standing and Rule 19. See, e.g. , Schindler Elevator Corp. v. WMATA , 514 F. Supp. 3d 197, 202 (D.D.C. 2020) ; Eco Tour Adventures, Inc. v. Zinke , 249 F. Supp. 3d 360, 390 (D.D.C. 2017). As for the question about proceeding on ......
  • Church v. Biden
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 8 Noviembre 2021
    ..."not entitled to any relief, let alone the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction." See Schindler Elevator Corp. v. WMATA , 514 F. Supp. 3d 197, 212 (D.D.C. 2020), aff'd 16 F.4th 294 (D.C. Cir. 2021). As discussed below, Plaintiffs fail to show a likelihood of success that their c......
  • McCray v. Biden
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 7 Diciembre 2021
    ...relief, let alone the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction." Schindler Elevator Corp. v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth. , 514 F. Supp. 3d 197, 212 (D.D.C. 2020). As explained below, Plaintiff's motion for a TRO must be denied both because the Court lacks jurisdiction to enjoin ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT