Free Notice (Other) - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:07-cv-00280-LJB

Document 47

Filed 08/16/2007

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS _____________________________________ IRONCLAD-EEI, A Joint Venture, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 07-280C UNITED STATES, Defendant, and CAMPBELL ROOFING & CONSTRUCTION, INC., MGC/CAMPBELL ROOFING & CONSTRUCTION, INC., Intervenor-defendants. ______________________________________ NOTICE OF CLARIFICATION Plaintiff, by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully files this Notice of Clarification regarding Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's and Intervenors' Motions to Dismiss and Motions for Judgment on the Administrative Record, and Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Leave to Supplement the Administrative Record, and states as follows: In its Reply in Support of its Partial Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Judgment Upon the Administrative Record, Defendant notes on pg. 2 that Plaintiff mistakenly relies on the Administrative Procedure Act definition of "interested party" that arises from that statutory scheme's standing requirement. Defendant further explains that this standard was rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Am. Fed'n of Gov't 1
PROTECTED MATERIAL TO BE DISCLOSED ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS PROTECTIVE ORDER

(Judge Bush)

Case 1:07-cv-00280-LJB

Document 47

Filed 08/16/2007

Page 2 of 2

Employees v. United States, 258 F.3d 1294, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Defendant goes on to state that the proper standard for "interested party" in a bid protest is defined in the Competition in Contracting Act ("CICA"), 31 U.S.C. §§3551-56, as an "actual or prospective bidder[] or offeror[] whose direct economic interest would be affected by award of contract or by failure to award contract." While maintaining its position that it has standing in the instant protest, Plaintiff acknowledges that former standard described above was inadvertently cited in Plaintiff's Response papers, and that the standard and definition of "interested party" relied upon by this Court is, as Defendant (and Intervenor) points out, that which is defined in CICA and set forth above, and withdraws any reference to, or reliance upon, the former standard/definition. Dated: August 16, 2007 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Kevin M. Cox Kevin M. Cox Camardo Law Firm, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff 127 Genesee Street Auburn, New York 13021 Tel: (315) 252-3846 Fax: (315) 252-3508

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 16th day of August, 2007, a copy of Notice of Clarification was filed electronically. I understand that notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court's system. /s/ Kevin M. Cox Kevin M. Cox

2
PROTECTED MATERIAL TO BE DISCLOSED ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS PROTECTIVE ORDER