ST. CROIX — The District Court’s recent dismissal of a federal lawsuit against the Virgin Islands Public Finance Authority and its Office of Disaster Recovery that challenged a disaster recovery contract awarded to the winning bidder affirms the integrity of the government’s procurement process, according to an ODR official.
A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit brought by Hill International Inc. challenging the VIPFA’s award of a major hurricane recovery contract, concluding that Hill lacked standing to pursue part of its claims and failed to state a legally plausible case on the remainder.
“The District Court’s dismissal of Hill International’s lawsuit affirms the integrity and fairness of the procurement process administered by the Virgin Islands Public Finance Authority and the Office of Disaster Recovery,” ODR Director Adrienne Williams-Octalien wrote in a text message to WTJX when asked for a comment. “ODR remains fully committed to continued compliance with all federal and territorial laws, regulations, and oversight requirements as we advance critical recovery projects for the people of the Virgin Islands.”
In a 24-page memorandum issued January 2, District Judge Juan Sánchez adopted in full a Report and Recommendation from Magistrate Judge Alan Teague, granting VIPFA’s motion to dismiss Hill’s complaint.
Teague filed his Report and Recommendation in the case on March 5, 2025.
READ MORE: U.S. magistrate judge recommends District Court grant PFA’s motion to dismiss firm’s lawsuit in part
Sánchez’s ruling ends Hill’s bid protest action against a $137 million contract awarded to CH2M Hill Inc. for project management and construction management services related to federally funded disaster recovery efforts.
The case arose from a March 2024 request for proposals issued by VIPFA’s Office of Disaster Recovery seeking firms to support hurricane recovery projects in the territory. Hill International submitted a proposal in May 2024 but was not selected. VIPFA awarded the contract to CH2M following an evaluation by a five-member committee.
Hill filed suit in September 2024, alleging that VIPFA violated federal and Virgin Islands procurement law. Among other claims, Hill argued that VIPFA lacked authority to conduct the procurement, that the Virgin Islands Department of Property and Procurement should have overseen the process, and that the award to CH2M was “arbitrary and capricious.”
Hill sought injunctive relief to block performance of the contract and a declaration that the award should have gone to Hill.
READ MORE: Global firm files lawsuit to block PFA/ODR from executing ‘improperly awarded’ $137 million contract
Under the PFA’s procurement policy, Williams-Octalien clarified that the Authority is responsible for evaluating the bids it issues. She said that was done in the contract awarded to CH2M.
“PFA is issuing a request for proposals,” she said. “When those requests are submitted, then the issuing entity reviews it.”
One of Hill’s primary arguments was that VIPFA unlawfully exercised procurement authority that belonged to P&P. Sánchez agreed with Teague that Hill lacked standing to pursue this claim in federal court.
While the court acknowledged that Hill suffered an economic injury as a disappointed bidder, it found Hill failed to show that its injury was fairly traceable to VIPFA’s alleged lack of procurement authority or that the injury would be redressed by a favorable court ruling. The court emphasized that Hill did not plausibly explain how the outcome would have differed had P&P conducted the procurement instead of VIPFA. Because standing is a jurisdictional requirement, the court dismissed this procurement authority claim without prejudice.
“It is unclear how VIPFA conducting the contract procurement and bidding instead of P&P caused Hill to not be awarded the contract and to then suffer the damage to a potentially profitable relationship with the government and the loss of the costs incurred in preparing and submitting a proposal,” Sánchez wrote.
The court also dismissed Hill’s remaining claims with prejudice, finding they failed to state a plausible claim for relief.
Hill alleged that VIPFA acted arbitrarily by awarding the contract to CH2M despite a $107 million price difference between the bids. The court rejected this argument, noting that the RFP was a “best value” procurement that allowed VIPFA to weigh technical factors more heavily than price. Price disparity alone, the court held, does not establish arbitrariness.
Hill claimed an impermissible conflict existed because three of the five members of the evaluation committee responsible for awarding the contract were employed by the Virgin Islands Department of Public Works while two employees of CH2M’s parent company, Jacobs Solutions Inc., were also working for DPW at the time of the award. The court found these allegations speculative and unsupported by “hard facts,” concluding Hill failed to allege any actual influence, information sharing, or improper conduct.
Hill argued that the RFP required VIPFA to award at least two contracts and that awarding only one was unlawful. The court disagreed, finding the RFP was at minimum ambiguous on this point and that Hill waived any challenge by failing to raise the issue before bids were submitted.
Hill requested permission to amend its complaint if the court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation. Sánchez denied that request as to the dismissed claims, concluding that any amendment would be futile because Hill could not plausibly cure the deficiencies identified.
