Free Administrative Record - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-8

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 1 of 15

From:Patrick/Henry LLP

708 256 7888

04/05/2006 18:05 #]75 P.O02

166

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Frog:Pat r i ck/Henry LLP

Document 15-8

708 ~56 7883

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 2 of 15

Patrich Henry LLP 2'619 Li¢:de River Tu~pihe
~uite 3~0

A~,,~hh, V~#~ z2oo3
(703) 256-775~
~ax: (~03) 256-7885

FAX COVER SHEET
FROM: FAX No. PHONE No. Cllent/Matter: Date: Do~UMENTS : DaryleA. Jordan 703.256,7883 703.256,7754 The Ravens Group, Inc, April6,2006 NUMBER OF PAGES (inc!u~ding cover)*

Th~ R~v~ns Group, Inc. Pro'~es~ of Defense Intelligen.ce Agency's Revocation of a Contract Award to Rowe Contracting Sera4ces,, I...n.

PLEASE DELIVER TO THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS IN YOUR ORGANIZATION NAME ORGANIZATION PHONE # FAX #

Office of the General Procurement Law Control 202,512,8234 CounseI, Group Mr. Guy A. Tortes, ............. irginia Con'~acting V '202.231.8077 Contracting Officer Activity, Boiling Air Force Base Mr. 'Jeff Robertson The Ravens Group 301,577.8585
COMMENTs: DAJ
The information ae~talnzd in this facMmile m~rsage h information p~t*cted ~v ono;~e~cllent and[or the

2.9749
202.2'~1.28~1

301.577,9097

prodgct pri~H~g~. ]t is intended only for th~ ux~ of th~ individual named abou~ and th~ privileg~ are not wah~d by vi~ua of
tttis haui~g bean a~t byfaeMmil¢. ~the ~e~,ron actually r~civlng this fa~tmil~ or any other t~ad~r of the facslmil~ & no~ the

noti~ us by te/ephon~ and re~n ~be original message.to us at the above address via U,g Postal

167

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB
MAR-3i-2006 14=03

Document 15-8

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 3 of 15 P.O05

PAFRICK HEN RY]q

7619 Little Ri,,er Turnpike Suite 340 Annandale~ VA 22003 Tel: 703.256,7754 Fax: 703,256,7883

PROTECTED MATERIAL: TO BE DISCLOSED ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE PROTECTIVE ORDER

March 27, 2006 V_ia F,.acsimile and Hand Dclivcrz, Office of the General Counsel General Accountability Office 441 G Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20548
Attention:
Re:

Procurement Law Control Group Protest of The Ravens Group, Inc. Under Request for Proposal HHM402-05-R-O017 ........ D_e.f.e.ns g.:!n ~e!!igence .Agency

Y.UVORA NONG adrnhted lrl VA, DC, FI.

Dear Sir:
The Ravens Group, Inc. ("Ravens Group")~ 9901 Business Parkway. First Floor, Suite H, Lanham,. Maryland 20706, by its undersigned counsel. hereby protests the Defense Intelligence Agency's ("DIA" or "Agency") proposed rcvocation of its award to the Ravens Group of a contract pursuant to Request for Proposal N o. HHM402-05-R-0017 and award of this requirement to Rowe Contracting Services. The Ravens Group's telephone number is 301.577.8585 and its facsimile number is 301,577.9097. The Contracting Officer for this procurement is Guy A. Torrcs, Virginia Contracting Activity, 200 MacDill Boulevard, Building 6000, Boiling Air Force Base, Washington, D.C. 20340-5100. The Contracting Officer's telephone number is 202,231,8077 and his facsimile number is 202,231,2831. A copy of this protest is being sent via facsimile and overnight mail to the Contracting Officer. The Ravens Group requests that GA 0 notify the Defense Intelligence Agency ~ of this p~'otest because DIA has granted the deemed new awardee permission to immediately begin htterviewing The Ravens Group's personnel--a decision which we are concerned will prove extremely disruptive to the Ravens Group. Notice today appears to be necessary to secure a "stay" of performance pursuant to FAR 33.104(c).

I~THEL MITCHELL admittad in MD, DC TX US Virgin Ifland,£
MALIK N. DRAKE admi ted it VA, DC USPTO Registration

NORMAN

5900 Princess Garden Parkway Suite 640 Lanham, ME) 20706 Tel: 240,296.3a88 Fax'. 240.296.3487

www.patrickhenry.net

168

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-8

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 4 of 15

HENRY . PATRICK..
General Accountability Oll]ee March 27, 2006 Page 2 The Ravens Group first learned of the information upon which this protest is based, including the prejudice to the Ravens Group on March 23, 2006, via its receipt ofa f~csimilc lcttcr from the Contracting OI'l]cer on the same date. Because this protest is being filed within ten (10) days o[" the Ravens Group's notice of the bases of the protest, the protest is timely filed. 4 C.F.R. § 21.2(a)(2). The Ravens Group is an interested party within the meaoing of 4 C,f:,R, section 21.0(a), to file this protest because the Ravens Group is an actual oft'eror whose direct economic interest is affected by DIA's decision to revoke the contract award previously made to the Ravcns Group, and to award the contract to another contractor, DIA failed to timely notiI) the Ravens Group o1" the protest o1" the original contract award to the Ravens Group. DIA's failure to provide notice of the protest of the original award, severely prejudiced the Ravens Group by denying the Ravens Group important procedural and subst~.ntive rights to which it was entitled, to protect its property interest in the contract it was awarded. In addition, DIA°s revocation of award to the Ravens Group and award to a newcontractor on the ground that award to the new contractor presents "the bcst valuc to the Govcrnmcnt'" is unreasonable and irrational given the fact that DIA has twice made that very same finding about the Ravens Group--ooce nine (9) months ago at the time of thc original a~vard and a second time three (3) months ago, when it exercised the first option year of the Contract. DIA als~ took an unreasonably and unjustifiably long period of time t{} decide to revoke the Ravens Group's contract which also severely prejudiced the Ravens Group. Moreover, DIA's unreasonable delay in re-evaluating the proposals provided all offcrors a competitive advantage versus the Ravens Group, Finally, it is also clear that DIA's most reevaluation of the proposals was defective since it has already determined on two (2) prior occasions that the Ravens Group presented the %est value to the Government." In sum. the ba~es ot" this protest are au~ follows: DIA violated Federal law, including the Federal Acquisition Regulation ('"FAR") when it failed to timely notif) the Ravens Group of the protest of the original award to the Ravens Group and thereby denied the Ravens Group of important proccdural and substantive rigl~ts to which it was entitled to protect its property interest in the contract it was awarded, DIA's award o[" the Contract to Rowe nn the alleged basis that award to Rowe is in the %est interest of the Government" is unreasonable and irrational in light of the fact that DIA has on two (.2) prior occasions determined that award to the Ravens Group was in the "'best interest o£ the Government."

PROTECTED MATERIAL: TO BE DISCLOSED ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE PROTECTIVE ORDER www.patrickhenry.net

169

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-8

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 5 of 15
P.O07

]T2TR!. , CKHENRY
General Accountability Oftice March 27, 2006 Page 3 DIA's delay in revoking the Contract award to the Ravens Group was unreasonable and highly pr.cjudicial. By unreasonably delaying the revocation it now seeks, and allowing the Ravens Group to expend substantial resources in recruiting, training, m~d securing clearances for its personnel, DIA's re-evaluation provides an unfair competitive advantage to the other offerors versus the Ravens Group, DIA intentionally or negligently denied the Ravens Group import-mat procedural and substantive rights to which it was entitled under Federal law, including the FAR, to meaningfully participate in the protest of the original contract awardto the Ravens Group. Due to the substzmtial time that has passed since the protest and the corrective action taken by DIA tl3ree (3) days ago, it is unreasonable and unfair for DIA to terminate the Ravens Group Contract which it has diligently performed for nine (9) months, For each of these reasons, and for th{}se reasons further set forth below, GAG should grant the Ravens Group's protest and sustain its origina.l award to the Ravens Group. In the alternative, the Comptroller General should recommend that DIA pay the Ravens Group all ol'its bid costs and legal fees related to this procurement,
I. BACKGROUND A. Boiling Air Force Base Janitorial!Custo'diai Services RFP

DIA issued RFP No. IIHM402-05-R-0017 l'or janitorial/custodial services at its liacility located on Boiling Air Force Base on April 14, 2005 (the.-"Contract'~). Among other significant requirements, the RFP required the successful offeror to have at least twenty percent (20%) ol'its personnel cleared with a top secret clearance with access to. Special Compartmented [nl~}rmation ("TS-SCI") prior to award and a minimum {}fsixty percent (60%) ol'its personnel cleared with a top secret clearance within six months aaer contract award. See RFP, p. 6. As a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and an overhaul of security requirements, the demand l~or cleared personnel has increased enormously and recruitment of such personnel has become extremely difficult and expensive. In accordance with the evaluation criteria of the RFP, award of the contract was to bc made to "thc responsible offeror whose ol'fcr, conforming to the solicitation, is determincd to be the "'best value to the Government," See RIPP, p. 40. By awarding the Contract to the Raveas Group on June 28, 2005, DIA presumably determined that the Ravens Group provided the ~'best overall value to the Government" as was required by the RFP.

PROTECTED MATERIAL: TO BE DISCLOSED ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITII GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE PROTECTIVE ORDER

www, patrickhenry.net

170

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-8

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 6 of 15

P,O08

PAT R I C K HEN RY
General Accountability Office March 27, 2006 Page 4 DIA's Untimely Notice of the Protest of the Original Award to the Ravens Group The Ravens Group began performance under the Contract on or about July 1,2005. By email, dated August 11,2005~ DIA issued thc Ravens Group a Contract rnodi ficadon, noticing the Ravens Group for the first time of DIA's intent to re-eval uate "all technical proposals under the referenced Request for Proposals." Significantly, the email did I~ot notify the Ravens Group that a protest had been filed or the basis for DIA's determination that evaluation was necessary. By reply ernaiL dated August 15, 2005, the Ravens Group questioned the basis for thc Contract modification and the lack of any prior notice of any issues or concerns in connection ¯ with the original award of the Contract. In an undated communication to the Ravens Group, received by the Ravcns Group August 30, 2005, DIA notified the Ravens Group for the first time of the protest of the original Contract award to thc Ravens Group. In its notification, DIA apologized for the late notification of protest. The notice stated that the protesl was received by DIA J~tn~ 29. 2005, just one day after DIA executed the Contract. The notice further stated, thai on August 2, 2005, based on legal review recommendations regarding technical evaluation panel members~ evaluation of the nine offerors, the Contracting Officer had decided to take corrective action and re-evaluatc the nine proposals that were received," The notice did not provide any detailed in formation regarding the findings of the legal review, or the ~pecific basis tar tlne corrective action recommcndcd. Further, the Contracting Officer did not provide the Ravens Group any o['fl~e protcst docume~ts even though the protest was ongoing. Indeed, D1A has neqer provided the Ravens Group any evidence or documents to corroborate the original protest.
DIA Unreasonably Delayed Corrective Action for Approximately (9) Months

By Contract Modification No. 1, executed by DIA December 20, 2005, nearly i'our (4) months after DIA's initial nod fication to the Ravens Group of the protcst, DIA executed thc first option of the Contract, extending the Ravens Group's performance from October 31,2005 through October 3 I, 2006. By the time the Ravens Group was notified of DIA"s attempt to revoke the Contract award to the Ravens Group on March 23~ 2006, the Ravens Group had been working on the Contract for nearly nine (9) months, Further~ in reliance that it had not been notified of DtA's dctermination to revoke the Contract and that DIA had cxccutcd the first option year of the Contract, the Ravens Group continued to incur substantial expenses in the recruitment, training, and securing oF cle~ances for its personnel as well as performance of the Contract.

PROTECTED MATERIAL: TO BE DISCLOSED ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE PROTECTIVE ORDER

www, patrickhenry, net

171

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-8

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 7 of 15

P?(TR..,, ICKHENRY "-General Accountability Office March 27, 2006 Page 5
lI. BASIS OF PROTEST DIA Violated the FAR Re.quircmcnt to Timely Notify the Ravens Group of the Original Protest

DIA violated Federal law and thc FAR by neglecting to provide the Ravens Group timely notification of the protest of i!2s award. The oversight greatly prejudiced thc Ravens Group by depriving it of procedural and substmativc legal rights to which it was entitled to protect its property interest in the Contract it was awarded.~ FAR § 33,104 states that "°Immediately after receipt of the GAOls written notice that a protest has been flied, the agency shall give notice of the protest to the contractor if the award has been made." In this case, DIA did not notify the Ravens Group of the protest for almost two (2) months alter the protest was filed. The lack of notice deprived the Ravens Group of important substantive legal rights. The important rights the Ravens Group was denied as a result of DIA°s violation of the law, included l ) a~ opportunity to review the basis(es) of the protesl; 2) an opportunity to review the contracting officers statement of facts regarding the conduct of the procurement award: 3) an opportunity to review the Agency legal memorandum regarding the conduct of the procurement action; 4) the opportunity to file other information relevant to the protest m~d the Agency's review of the protcst; and 5) the opportunity to present evidence or insight that could have swayed the dctcrmination by DIA to revoke the award to the Raven.s Group. By depriving the Ravens Group of these procedural rights, DIA adversely affected a substantive right to which the Ravens Group was entitled---the opportunity to protect its property interest in the contract it was awarded, Moreover, even after DIA was placed on notice of its oversight and violation of the FAR, DIA still did not take reasonable steps to rectify the situation. DIA did not immediately provide the Ravens Group a copy of the protest or even a description 0f the alleged basis oI the protest. Thus, the Ravens Group was deprived of critical information it needed to protect its property interest in the contract it was awarded.

~ GAG has previously determined that failure to notify the awardee of a protest involves o.nly procedural right.s that entitle the pmt.cster only to a rchcarlng of the protest, tn this case, we argue that due to the lapse of time a rehearing is not adequate and that tile Agency's revocation should therefore be overruled. Moreover, we believe that tile denial of an ~pportunity to protect, its property interest violated substantive property rights in the contract the Ravens Group was awarded.

PROTECTED MATERIAI.: TO BE DISCLOSED ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT ACCOLJNTABILITY OFFICE PROTECTIVE ORDER

www.patrickhenry.net

172

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-8

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 8 of 15

PATRICK HENRY
¯

General Accountability Office March 27, 2006 Page 6

DIA's Contract Award to Rowe on the Alleged Basis that the Award Offers the Best Value to,the Government is Irrational Given the Fact that DI[A has Determined on Two (2) Prior Occasions that Award to the Ravens Group Provided the Best Overall Value to the Government

DIA's attempted revocation o1' the Contract award to the Ravcns Group and award to Rowe, based on DIA's recent detemaimation that award to Rowe provides the best value to the govemment~ is unreasonable and irrational given the fact that DIA has determined on two (2) prior occasions---at award of the ori.gir~al contract and incident to execution of the first option period.--that award to tb.e Ravens Group represented the best valuc to the Government. DIA determined in June 2005, that award ot"the Contract to the Ravens Group providcd the best value to the government. The RFP required that award be made on this basis and DIA has presented no evidence that its decision was not based on the stated criteria or th'at it's determination that award to thc Ravens Group was based on anything other than that the Ravens Group presented the "best value to the Government," In December 2005, DIA determined again for a second time--that award to the Ravens Group presented the best value to the Government, when DIA exercised the first option period of th~ Contract. Bet'ore exercising a Contract option, the contracting officer must review the circumstances existing at the time of its consideration of the option and make a rmmber of important determinations. FAR § 17.207 (c) provides that a contracting officer may exercise optioas only after determining: ",.. the exercise of the option is the most advantageous method of fulfilling the Government's need, price and other factors.., considered." Thus, by deciding to exercise the Contract option, which it was under no obligation to do, DIA made an att]rmativc determination that the Ravens Group performance of the Contract still presented the best value to the Go'~emment in December 2005. DIA made this decision with full knowledge that the evaluation of the proposals had bccn challenged in a protest and after it had had approximately six (6) months to re-evaluate the proposals. It is therefore unreasonable and irrational for DIA to determine three (3) months after its exercise of the option and concurrent determination that the Ravens Group presented the best value to the Government, that another contractor now presents the best value to the Government. There is simply no evidence to support such a contention.

PROTECTED MATERIAL: TO BE DISCLOSED ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE PROTECTIVE ORDER

www.patrickhenry.net

173

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-8

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 9 of 15

HEN RY
General Accountability Office March 27, 2006 Page 7 D1A's Delay in Taking Corrective Action was Unrcasonable and Highly Prejudicial

DIA's unreasonable delay in taking corrective action, is inexcusable and highly prejudicial to this service-disable veteran owned small business, ll is undisputed that agencies should bc granted a reasonable opportunity to take corrective action. In this case, however, DIA's nine (9) month delay in taking corrective action is unreasonable, irrational, and highly prejudicial. The Ravens Group has incurred considerable expense recruiting, training, and securing clcarataces lbr the personnel assigned to the Contract, By DIA's own admission, the original award was protested June 29, 2005, just one day after Contract award. In addition, by August 11,2005.-when DIA first issued the Contract modification, D[A had apparently detern~ined that it would have to re-evaluate the proposals. Thus, there is simply no justification for DIA's Ihilum to complete this process within a reasonable time.
D. DIA has Provided Rowe an Unfair Competitive Advantage

By delaying its decision to revoke the Contract award to the Ravens Group and allowing the Ravens Group to perform on the Contract for nine (9) months, DIA created an unlhir competitive ad'vantage lbr Rowe and the other offerors. The Comptroller General has held that: "The record must reasonably support the evaluation ofthc proposals [.citation omitted] and it is l"undamental that the contracting agency must treat all offerors equally; it must even-handedly evaluate offers against common requirements and evaluation criteria." See Tidewater Homes Rea_lj_t~, B-274689, 96-2 CPD ¶ 241 at 3. ,q~e also COMARK Fcderal...~ystems, B-278343: B-278343.2, 98-1 CPD ~l 34; Gr_Q£~. Advertising, Inc., B-184825, 76-1 CPD ~[ 325 (once offerors are informed of tlae criteria against which proposals will be evaluated, it is. incumbent upon the procuring activity to adhere to tl~ose critcria). By allowing nine (9) months o1" pertbrmanee by {hc Ravens Group, including the Ravens Group's recruitment, training, and acquisition of security clearances tbr the personnel necessary to perform this reqtfircmcnt, and by unreasonably delaying rc-cvaluation oF the proposals, DIA did not adhere to those criteria in this procurement and thus The Ravens Group is cntitled to remedial action. It is clear that the recruitment, training, and acquisition of security clearances Contract personnel, was an essenlial requircment of the Contract. Since receiving award of the Contract nearly nine (9) mohths ago, the Ravens Group has incurred substantial expenses recruiting, training, and securing clearances for its personnel. As a result of the Ravens Group's diligent and cosily work, Rowe and the other off%rots did not have to dcvote as much time resources, consideration and planning to this important
PROTECTED MATERIAL: TO BE DISCLOSED ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE PROTECTIVE ORDER

www.patrickhenry, net

174

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-8

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 10 of 15
P.O12

General Accountability Ofl'iee March 27, 2006 Page 8 aspect of the requirement as the Ravens Group, beeausc they new lhat the Ravens Group had already completed most of this important work; they knew that they would be able to hire the incumbent personnel the Ravens Group already had in place and that they would not have to incur the same level of expense the Ravens Group had incurred. The knowledge that cleared personnel were already in place and the knowledge that they would not have to incur substantial expense to recruit, train, and clear personnel providcd Rowe and the other offerors a significant mad unfair competitive advantage over the Ravens Group.
It is highly unlikely that Rowe, a small company located in Louisiana would havc been able to demonstrate its ability to meet the staffing and clearance requirements ot" the Contract but for its knowledge that thc personnel werc already in place. Indeed, DI.A infomacd the Ravens Group today of'its decision to authorize Rowe t~ immediately begin to interview current Ravens Group personnel. This action is improper, unfair, and ,disruptive to thc Ravens Group. Ill. CONCLUSION

The Ravens Group requests a ruling on its protest by the Comptroller General ol" the United States that DIA's decision to revoke award to the.Ravens Group and award the Contract to another contractor is in violation of the RFP, and Federal law, including the FAR. In additidn, its untimely decision is manifestly unjust and unfair. The Ravens Group therefore respectfully requests that the Comptroller General recommend that: DIA reverse its decision to reyoke the Contract Award to the Ravens Group and reinstate the Ravens Group; and Pay the Ravens Group its attorneys fees and other costs incurred in pursuing this protest, In 1he alternative, the Ravens Group requests that the Comptroller Ueneral recommend that: DIA pay the Ravens Group its bid costs for prep.aring and submitting its proposal pursuat~t to the above-referenced RFP, including its submissions I'o]lowing the August 2005 Contract amendment; and Pay the Ravens Group its ],egal fees and other costs incurred in pursuing this protest.

PROTECTED MATERIAL: TO BE DISCI.OSED ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE PROTECTIVE ORDER
www.patrickhen ry. net 175

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-8

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 11 of 15

HEN RY
General Accountability Office March 27, 2006 Page 10

go

REQUEST FOR HEARING AND PROTECTIVE ORDER

"

If the issues in this case cannot be resolved on the basis o.1" the documents requested, the Ravens Group requests a hearing on a!l of the matters set l;orth herein. 4 C.F.R. § 2 I. (2006). The Ravens Gr6uP also requests that a protective order bc issued in this protest. Respectfully submitted,

~The Ravens' .,@4oup', I'nc. ,Mr. G'~y A. Torrcs Contracting Officer ,Virginia Contracting Activity Boiling Air Force Basc

176
PROTECTED MATERIAl.: FO BEDISCLOSE,D ONLY IN ACCORiJANCE WITH GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE PRo~E, CTI.VE.ORD~R. ', www.patrickhen ry. ni~t
TOTAL P.Oi3

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB
04/24/~.006 11:25 FAX

2025129749

Document 15-8

GAO PL DIV

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 12 of 15

002/002

~~=GAO
Washington, DC 20548

Accountability ° Integrity "Rellablllty

Comptroller General of the United States

United States Government Accountability Office

Decision
Matter of: File: Date: The Ravens Group, Inc. B~296741.3 April 6, 2006

DECISION
The Ravens Group, Inc. protests the award of a contxact to Rowe Contracting Services by the Defense Intelligence Agency under solicitation HHM402-05-R-0017. We view the protest as academic because the agency has decided to reconsider the award decision.

The jurisdiction of our Office is established by the bid protest provisions of the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3551-3556 (2000), amended by the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, Pub. L. No. 108-375, § 326, 118 Stat. 1811 (2004). Our role in resolving bid protests is to ensure that the statutory requirements for full and open competition are met. Pacific Photocopy and Research Servs., B-278698, B-278698.3, Mar. 4, 1998, 98-1 CPD ¶ 69 at 4.
The Government Accountability Office will not consider a protest where the issue presented has no practical consequences with regard to an existing federal government procuremen.t, and thus is of purely academic interest. Accordingly, the protest is dismissed. Anthony H. Gamboa General Counsel

177

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-8

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 13 of 15

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
UNITED STATES ARMY LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY 901 NORTH STUART STREET

ARLINGTON, VA 22203-1837
REPLY TO ATTENTION OF

(703) 696-2850 DSN 426; Fax ext. 1537 E-mail: [email protected]

S: 09 May 2006 JALS-CA (715y) 24 April2006

MEMORANDUM FOR Virginia Contracting Activity/Defense Intelligence Agency, ATTN: LTC Joe Treanor, DIAC-DAP-2, Building 6000, Bolling Air Force Base, Washington, DC 20340-5100 SUBJECT: GAO Protest by The Ravens Group, Inc. (B-296741.3) 1. We enclose for your information and appropriate action a copy of the decision dismissing the subject protest. 2. In accordance with AFARS § 33.190-1, you are required to submit a bid protest after-action report (including agency-level protest) to this office not later than 15 days following the notification of resolution of the protests, including resolution by withdrawal. 3. If you should have any questions or conmaents, please contact Ms. Tracy Williams, Paralegal Specialist, at DSN 426-2850 or commercial 703-696-2850. Ms. Tracy Williams e-mail address is [email protected]. Sincerely,

Encls 1. Decision 2. After-Action Report Form

CF: Virginia Contracting Activity/Defense Intelligence Agency, ATTN: Guy Tortes, Contracting Officer, Building 6000, Bolling Air Force Base, Washington, DC 20840-5100, Via facsimile: 202-231-2831

178

04/24/06 MON 12:08 FAX 703 696 1537

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-8

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 14 of 15

TRANSMISSION OK
TX/RX NO CONNECTION TEL SUBADDRESS CONNECTION ID ST. TIME USAGE T PGS, RESULT 4195 992022312831

04/24 12:07 01'10 4 OK

HQ, U.S. ARMY LITIGATION CENTER DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CONTRACT APPEALS DIVISION, USALSA 901 N. STUART STREETt SUITE 500 ARLINGTON, VA 22203-1837 Tracy. [email protected] (703) 696-2850 phone (708) 696.1537 fax

facsimile transmittal
Date: Re: F~om:

April 24, 2006 GAO Protest of The Ravens Group, Inc. (B-296741.3) Tracy Williams, Paralegal Specialist

NUMBER OF ]PAGES (INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET): 4 Name L ~C Joe Treanor DIA
Contracting O~licer

Firm/Agency

Phone No. 202-231-2821 202-231-8077

Fax No. 202-231-28'31

202-231-2831

MESSAGE
Accompanying this header sheet is the GAO Decision and After Action Report for the above mentioned protest, if transmission problems occur, please contact Ms. Tracy Williams, (703) 696.2850, DSN: 426-2850. Direct all other questions to Major Peter Tran, Trial Attorney at 703-696.2825 or DSN 426.2825.

179

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-8

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 15 of 15

HQ, U.S. ARMY LITIGATION CENTER DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CONTRACT APPEALS DIVISION, USALSA 901 N. STUART STREET, SUITE 500 ARLINGTON, VA 22203-1837 Tracy. [email protected] (703) 696-2850 phone (703) 696-1537fax

facsimile transmittal
Date: Re: From: April 24, 2006 GAO Protest of The Ravens Group, Inc. (B-296741.3) Tracy Williams, Paralegal Specialist

NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET): 4

Name
L TC Joe Treanor Guy Torres

Firm/Agency

Phone No. 202-231-2821 202-231-8077

Fax No. 202-231-2831 202-231-2831

DIA
Contracting Officer

MESSAGE
Accompanying this header sheet is the GAO Decision and After Action Report for the above mentioned protest. If transmission problems occur, please contact Ms. Tracy Williams, (703) 696-2850, DSN: 426-2850. Direct all other questions to Major Peter Tran, Trial Attorney at 703-696-2825 or DSN 426-2825.

Confidentiality Notice
This facsimile transmission and/or the documents accompanying it may contain confidential information belonging to tile sender which is protected by the attorney-client privilege. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly probibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately by telephone or arrange the return of documents.

180