Free Administrative Record - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB
NAP-31-2006 1,$:O3

DIA

Document 15-7

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 1 of 15 P.005/014

PA-FRICK HENRY~

7619 Li~e River Turnpike Suite. 340 Annandale, VA 22003 Tel: 703.256,7754 F~: 703,256.7883

PROTECTED MATERIAL: TO BE DISCLOSED ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE PROTECTIVE ORDER March 27, 2006

RICHARD k~. |'ATI~ICK ;zdmitted in VA. DC

admifted in V4, DC. PA. MI

admitted In

Via Facsimile and Hand DeliverT Office of the General Counsel General Accountability Office 441 O Street, N-W. Washington, D.C. 20548 Attention:
Re:

~dmitted in VA, DC, PA

Procurement Law Control Group Protest of The Ravens Group, Inc. Under Request for Proposal HHM402-0S-R-0017 .D..e..f.ense .Inte!ligence ..Agency

............... Y.L!VO r.,x Noxo

admitted tn V.A. DC, H

Dear Sir:

~'1"1! El, MITCHELL ~dmit{¢d in MD, D~. TX US Virgin l~land.%

The Ravens Group, Inc. ('°Ravens Group"), 9901 Business Parkway, First Floor, Suite H, Lanham; Maryland 20706, by its undersigned counsel, hereby protests the Del~ense Intel'ligence Agency's ('°DIA" or "Agency") proposed revocation of its award to the Ravens Group of a contract pursuant to Request tbr Proposal No. 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. Tortes, Virginia Contracting Activity, 200 MacDill Boulevard, Building 6000, Bolling Air Force Base, Washington, D.C. 20340-5100. The Contracting Office£s tclephone number is 202.231.8077 and his facsimile number is 202.231.283 l. A copy of this protest is being sent via facsimile and overnight mail to the Contracting Officer.
The Ravens Group requests that GAO notify the Defense Intelligence Agency ~ of th.is p~otest because DIA has granted the deemed new awardee permission to immediately l~egin interviewing The Ravens Group's personnel---:a, decision which we are concerned will prove extremely disruptive to the Ravens Group. Notice today appears to be n.ecessary to secure a "stay" of performance p~rsuant to bAR 33.104(c).

~IA~,YLAN l) Ol:lalC L'

5900 Princess Garden Parkway Suite 640 Lanham, MD 20706 Tel: 240,296,3488

Fax: 240,296.3487

www.patrickhenry.net

151

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-7

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 2 of 15

PAT R I C K HENRY
General Accountability Ol~]cc March 27.2006 Page 2 The Ravens Group first learned of the information upon which this protcst ~s based, including the prejudice to the Ravens Group on March 23, 2006. via its receipt ofa ~Sesin~ilc letter from the Contracting Officer on the same date. Because this prntest is being filed within ten (10) days of the Ravcns Group's notice of the bases ofthc protcsL the protest is timely filed. 4 C.F.R- § 21.2(a)(2). The Ravens Group is an interested party within the meaning of 4 C.F.R. section 21.0(a), to file this protest because the Ravens Group is an actual offeror whose direct economic interest is alTected by D1A's decision to revoke the contract award previously made to the Ravens Group, and to award the contract to another contractor. DIA failed to timely notify the Ravens Group of the protest of the original contract award to thc Ravens Group, DIAls failure to provide nntice of the protcst of the original award, severely prejudiced the Ravens Group by denying the Ravens Group important proccdural m~d substhntive 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 best value t~~ the Government"~ is unreasonable and irrational given the Net that DIA has twice made that very samc finding about the Ravens Group--once nine (,9) months ago at the time ol~the orighml award and a second time three (3) months ago, when it exercised the first option year o [" the Contract. D[A also took an unreasonably and unjustifiably long period of time to deeidd m rcvokc the Ravens Group's contract which also severely prejudiced the Ravens Group. Moreover, DIA's unreasonable delay in re-evaluating the proposals provided all offerors a competitive advantage versus the Ravens Group. Finally~ it is also clear that DIA's most evaluation of the proposals was detective since it has already determined on two (2) prior occasions that the Ravens Group presented the "~best value to the Government2~ In sum, the ba~es of this protest are as follows:

DIA violated Federal law, including the Federal Acquisition Regulation ("FAR") when it f'ailed to timely notil'y the Ravens Group o1' the protest of the original award to the Ravens Group and thereby denied the Ravens Group of important procedural and substantive rights to which it was entitled to protect its property interest in ~he contract it was awarded.. l-)IA's award of the Contract to Rowe on the alleged basis that award to Rowe is in the "~best interest o1" 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 of the Government.'" PROTECTED MATERIAL: TO BE DISCLOSED ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITII GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABII.ITY OFFICE PROTECTIVE ORDER ww~y.patrickhen ry.net

152

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-7

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 3 of 15 P.007/014

PAl RICKHENRY
OeneKtl Accountability March 27, 2006 Page 3 DIA's delay in revoking the Contract award to the Ravens Group was unreasonable and highly prejudicial. By unreasonably delaying the revocation it now seeks, and al[owi~lg the Ravens Group expend substantial resources in recruiting, training, and securing clearances lbr its personnel, DIA's re-evaluation provides an unPair compctitivc advantage to the othcr olTerors versus the Ravens Group.
DIA inter~tionally or negligently denied the Ravens Group important procedural and substantive rights to which it was entitled under Federal law, including the FAR, to meaningRtlly participate in the protest of the original contract award.to the Ravens Group. Due to the substantial timc that has passed since *he protest and the corrcctivc action taken by DIA three (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 thcse reasons, and for those reasons further set lbrth below, GAG should grant the Ravens Group's protest and sustain its original award to the Ravens Group. In the alternative, the Comptroller General should recommend that DIA pay the Ravens Group all of ils bid costs and legal fees related to this procurement. 1. BACKGROUND Boiling Air Force Base Janitorial!Custodial Services RFP

DTA issued RFP No. HHM402-O5-R-0017 forjanitorial/custodial services at its lhcility 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%) of its personnd cleared with a top secret c~earance with access to Special Compartmented Information ("TS-SCI") prior to award and a minimum of sixty percent (60%) of its personnel cleared with a top secret clearancc within six months after contract award. ~ee RFP, p. 6. As a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11,200l, and an overhaul of security requirements, the demand for cleared personnel has increased enormously and recruitment of such persormcl has become extremely difficult and cxpcnsivc. In accordance with the evaluation criteria of the RFP, award of the contract was to be made to "the responsible offeror whose ol:tbr, conforming to the solicitation, is determined to be the "best value ~o the Government." ,See RFP, p. 40. By awarding the Contract to the Ravens Group on June 28~ 2005, DIA presumably determined that the Ravens Group provided the "best overall value to thc Government" as was required, by the RFP.

PROTECTED MATERIAL: TO BE DISCLOSED ONI..Y IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILH'Y OFFICE PROTECTIVE ORDER www.patrickhenry, net

153

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-7

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 4 of 15

KHENRY
General Accountability Office March 27, 2006 Page 4 DIA's Untimely Notice of the Protest of thc Original Award to the Ravens Group

"l'lae Ravens Group began perl'onnancc under the Contract on or about July 1~ 2005, By email, dated August 11,2005, DIA issued the Ravens Group a Contract modification, notit~,ing the Ravens Group for the first time o1" DIA's intent to re-evaluate "'all technical proposals under the referenced Request for Proposals." Signit]cantly, the cmail did not notify the Ravens Group that a protest had been filed {}r the basis for DIA's determination that reevaluation was necessary.
By reply cmail, 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 Ravens Group August 30, 2005, DIA notified the Ravens Group for the first time of the protest of the original Co~tract award to the Ravens Group. In its notification, DIA apologized lor the late notification of protest. The notice stated that the protest was received by DIA June 29, 2005, just one day after DIA executed the Contract. The notice l'urthcr stated, that on August 2, 2005,. based on legal review recommendations regarding technical evaluation pane~ members'.evaluation of the nine ol'l'erors, the Contracting Officer had decided to take corrective action and rc-cvaluate the nine proposals that were received." The notice did not provide any detailed information regarding the findings of the legal review, or lhe specific basis I'or the corrective action recommended, Farther, the Contracting Officer did not provide the Ravens Group any of the protest documents even though the protest was ongoing. Indeed, DIA has never provided the Ravcns Oroup any evidence or documents to corroborate the original protest. DIA Unreasonably Dclaycd Corrective Action for Approximately (9) Months

By Contract Modification No. 1, executed by DIA .December 20, 2005, nearly four (.4) months after DIA's initial no*ification to the Ravens Group of the protest, DIA executed the l~rst option of the Contract, extending the Ravens Group's performance from October 3 l, 2005 through October 31,2006. By the time the Ravens Group was notified of DIA's attempt to revoke the Contract award to tlae Ravens Group on March 23, 2(106, the Ravens Group had bccn working on the Contract for nearly nine (9) months. Further, in reliance that it had not been notified of DIA's determination to revoke the Contract and that DIA l~ad executed the first option yem- ol" the Contract, the Ravens Group continued to incur substantial expenses in the recruitment, training, mad securing of clearances for i~s personnel aus well as pcrforrnancc of the Contract.

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

154

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-7

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 5 of 15

PATRICKHENRY.
General Accountability Office March 27, 2006 Page 5 !I. BASIS OF PROTEST
DIA Violated the FAR Requirement to Timely Notil~ the Ravens (;roup or the Original Protest

DIA violated Federal law and floe FAR by neglecting to provide the Ravens Group timely notification of the protest of its award, The oversight greatly prcjudiccd thc Ravens Group by depriving it of procedural and substantive legal rights to which it was entitled to protect its property interest in the Contract it was awarded. ~ FAR § 33,1.04 states that ~qmmediately aftcr receipt of the GAG's written notice that a protest has been filed, 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 after the protest was fi led. The lack of notice deprived the Ravens Group of important substantive legal rights.
The imporlant rights the Ravens Group was denied ms a result of DI.A's violation of the law, included 1) an opportunity to review the basis(es) o1" the protest; 2) an opportunity to review the contracting officers statement of facts regarding the conduct ot" 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 and the Agency's review of the protest; and 5) the opportunity to present evidence or insight that could have swayed the determination by D1A to revoke the award to the Ravens Group. By depriving the Ravens Group of these procedural rights, DJA adversely affected a substantive right to which the Ravens Group was cntitlcd--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 of the alleged basis of the protest. Thus, the Ravens Group was deprived of critical information it needed to protect its property interest in the contract it was awarded.

~ GAO has previously determined that fidlure to notil~ the awardce of a protest inv(~lves o01y procedund rights that entitle the protester only to a rehearing of the protest. In this case, we argue that duc to the lapse of tlri~c a r~btx~ring is not adequate and that the Agency's revocation should therefore be overruled. Moreowzr, we believe that the denial of an opportunity to protect its property interest violated substantive property rights in the contract the Ravens Grotlp was awarded.

PROTECTED MATERIAL: TO BE DISCLOSED ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT ACCOUN"f'ABILITY OFFICE PROTECTIVE ORDER www.patrickhenry.net

155

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-7

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 6 of 15

General Accountability Office March 27~ 2006 Page 6 DIA's Contract Award to Rowe on the Alleged Basis that the Award Offers the Best Valuc to-the Government is Irrational Given the Fact that DIA 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 of the Contract award to the Ravens Group and award to Rowe, based on DIA's recent deterrni~.ation that award to Rowe provides the best value to the government, is unr.casonable and irrational given the Fact that DIA has determined on two (2) prior occasions---at award of the original contract and incident to execution of the first option period--that award to thc Ravens Group represented thc best value to the Governmeat. DIA determined in June 2005, that award of the Contract to the Ravens Group provided the b.cst 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 that it's determination that award to the Ravens Group was based ~m anything other than that the Rawns Group prescntcd the "best value to thc Goverrmaent."

In December 2005, DIA determined again--for a second time--that award to the Rover, s Group presented the best value to the Government, when DIA exercised the l]rst option period of th~ Contract. Betbrc exercising a Contract option, the contracting oft~ccr must review the circumstances existing at tlac time of its consideration of the option and make a number of important dctcrminalions. FAR § 17.207 (c) provides that a contracting officer may exercise options only aftcr determining: %.. the cxcrcise of the option is the most advantageous method ~1" IUlfilling 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 affirmative determination that the Ravens Group performance of the Contract still presented the best valuc to the Government in December 2005. DIA made this decision wi~h full knowledge that the evaluation of the proposals had been challenged in a protest and after it had had approximatcly six (6) months to re-evaluate the proposals.. It is thcrcforc unreasonable and irrational for DIA to determine three (3) months after its exercise of the option and con~;urrent 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 WITII GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OF'FICE PROTECTIVE ORDER

www.patrickhenry.net

156

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB
N~R-31-2006 14:06 DI~

Document 15-7

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 7 of 15
P.OII/OI4

PATRICKHENRY
G~ncral Accountability Ol~fice March 27, 2006 Page 7
DIA's Delay in "raking Corrective Action was Unreasonable and Highly Prcj udicial

DIA's unreasonable delay in taking corrective action, is inexcusable and highly prejudicial to this service-disable veteran owned small business. It is undisputed that agencies should be granted a reau~onabIc 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 e×pensc recruiting, training, and securing clearances for the personnel assigned to the Contract. By DIA's own admission, the original award was protested June 29, 2005,,just one day alter Contract award. In addition, by August 11,2005. when DIA first issued the Contract modifications, })IA had apparently determined that it would have to re-evaluate the proposals. Thus, there is simply no justifiqation for I)lA's failure to complete this process within a reasonable time. D. DIA has Provided Rowe an Unfair Competitive Advantage

By delaying its decision to revoke tile Contract award to the Rav.cns Group and allowing .the Ravens Group to perform on the Conti'act for nine (9) months, DIA created an unfair competitive advantage for Rowe and the other ofl'erors. The Comptroller General has held that: ~The record must reasonably support the evaluation of the proposals [citation omittcdJ m~d it is Rmdamcntal that the contracting agency must treat all offerors equally: it must even-handedly evaluate offers against common requirements and evaluation criteria." See Tidewater Homes ¯ Reality, I.nc_,, B-274689, 96-2 CPD ¶ 241 at 3. See al.w~ COMARK Federal S_yAt~e .m..8., B-278343; B-278343.2, 98-1 CPD ¶ 34; Grey Advert.i.sjn,~I.nc., B-184825, 76-1 CPD ~t 325 (once offerors arc informed of the criteria against which proposals will be evaluated, it is incumbent upon the procuring activity to adhere to those criteria). By allowing nine (9) months o~" perli~rmancc by the Ravens Group, including the Ravens Group's reeruitrnent, training, and acquisition of security clearances for the personnel ncccssary to perlbrm this requirement, and by unreasonably delaying re,oval uation of the proposals, DIA did not adhere to those criteria in this procurement and thus The Ravens Group is entitled to remcd.ial action. it is clear that the recruitment, training, and acquisition of security clearances thr Contract personnel, was an essential requirement of the Contract, Since receiving award ol."the Contract nearly nine (9) months ago£ the Ravens Group has incurred substantial expenses recruiting, training, and securing clearances ibr its personnel. As a result of the Ravens Group's diligent and costly work, Rowe and the other offerors did not have to devote as much time resources, consideration and planning m this important PROTECTED MATERIAL: TO BE DISCLOSED ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WJT[I GOVERNMENT ACCOIJNTABILITY OFFICE PROTECTIVE ORDER

www.patrickhenry.net

157

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-7

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 8 of 15
P.012/014

aspect or the requirement as the Ravens Group~ because they new that the Ravens Group had already complcted 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 (fl'expcnse the Ravens Group had incurred. The knowlcdge that cleared personnel were already in place and the knowledge that they would not have to incur substantial expense to recruit, traim and el.ear personnel provided Rowe and the other offerors a significmlt and unfair competitive advantage over thc Ravens Group.

It is highly unlikely that Rowe, a small company located in Louisiana would have been able to demonstrate its ability to meet the staffi.ng and clearance requirements o['the Contract but [(~r its knowledg.c that the personncl were already in place. Indeed, DIA informed the Ravens Group today of its decision to authorize Rowe to immediately begin to interview current Ravens Group personnel. This action is improper, unfair, and disruptive to the Ravens Group.
111. CONCLI,rSION

The Ravens Group requests a ruling on its protest by the Comptroller General ~fl'the United States that DIA's decision to revoke award to the.Ravens Group and a~ard thc Contract to another contractor is in violation of the RFP, and [:ederal law, including the FAR. la additi~m, its untimely decision is manifcsdy unjust and unfair. The Ravens Group thcrefore respectfkflly requests that the Comptroller General recommend that:

DIA reverse its decision to revoke thc 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 the alternative, thc Ravens Group requests that the Comptroller General recommend
that:

DIA pay the Ravens Group its bid costs for prepari~g and submitting its proposal pursuant to tlae above-referenced RFP, including its submissions following the August 2005 Contract amendment; and Pay the Ravens Group its legal fees and other costs incurred in pursuing this protest.

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

158

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-7

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 9 of 15

PATR1 C K HENRY
General Accountability Ot'lice March 27, 2006 Page 9

IV.

DISCOVERY REI~UE~T

The Ravens Group requests that DIA produce the following documents:2 1. All documents evidencing or rel]ecting the original protest of the award to the Ravens Group. including the original protest letter, the contracting ofl]cer's statement, the legal opinion, the agency report, and any other commcmieadon regarding the original protest.

All documents evidencing or reflecting the technical evaluation of the Ravens Group and the other offerors.
All documents evidencing or rel]ecting the basis for D1A's original decision to award the Contract to the Ravens Group and its subsequent decision t0 award to Rowe. All documents upon which the DIA relied in evaluating thc Ravens Group and the other offerors. All documents evidencing or reflecting DIA's evaluation of the capabilities of the Ravens Group m~d the other offerors. All documents evidencing or reflecting D[A's considcration of the Ravens Group's past performance and experience in making its .el.yard decision.

All documents evidencing or reflecting DIA"~ consideration of the Ravens Group's price proposal in making its award decision,

8.

All Agency communications in connection wil[h the RFP.
All documents relating to the Ravens Group and the awardees~ proposals, including but not limited to all internal agency correspondence, memoranda and notes referring or relating to the Pal"P, including those relating to the proposals.

10. l 1.

The sourec selection plan, if any.
Any and

all other guidance provided to the. evaluators, or rcfcrred to by them.

z This request ineludcs all intbrmati~m rclating to DIA's original evaluation which led to tile award to the Ravens Group as well as a~ly subsequent evaluation relating to the determination to revoke the Ravens Group's award al~d award to Rowe.

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

159

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-7

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 10 of 15

PAT R I C K HEN RY -~General Accountability Office March 27~ 2006 Page 10 ".REQUEST FOR HEARING AND PROTECTIVE ORDER ' ..,

Ifrhc issues in .this case cannot be resolved on the basis o1" the documents requested, tile Ravens Group r~quests a hearing on all of the matters s.ct forth herein. 4 C.F.R. § 21,l(d) (2006). The..Raver~s Or6.up also requests that a protective order be issued in this protest. Respectfully submitted,

"Mr. G'hy A. Torrcs Contracting Officer .Virginia Contracting Activity Boiling Air Force Base

PROTECTED MATERIAi.: T.'O BE'DISCLOSE, D ONLY IN ACC.,C:)RDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE PRO~ECTIVE ¯ORDER "

www.patrickhenry.net

160
TOTAL P.O14

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-7

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 11 of 15

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
UNITED STATES ARMY LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY 901 NORTH STUART STREET ARLINGTON, VA 22203-1837 (703) 696-2825; DSN 426; Fax ext. 1537 E-maih [email protected]

REPLY TO ATTENTION OF

April 4, 2006 Contract Appeals Division

VIA FACSIMILE
Ms. Mary G. Curcio, Esq. Office of the General Counsel U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G. Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20548 Subject: Protest of The Ravens Group, Inc., B-296741.3

Dear Ms. Curcio:
Enclosed please find a letter from the Contracting Officer indicating the Agency's intent to take corrective action. Based upon this corrective action, the agency requests that the subject protests be dismissed as academic. Dyna-Air Engineering Corp., B278037, Nov. 7, 1997, 97-2 CPD ¶ 132. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact MAJ Peter Tran at (703) 696-2825, facsimile (703) 696-1537. Sincerely,

Peter H. Tran~ Major, U.S. Army Trial Attorney

Copies Furnished by facsimile: Protester:
Daryle Jordan, Esq., Patrick Henry LLP Telephone: (703) 256-7754; Facsimile: (703) 256-7883

Contracting Officer:
Guy Torres, Defense Intelligence Agency, Virginia Contracting Agency

161

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-7

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 12 of 15

Telephone: (202) 231-8077; Facsimile: (202) 231-2831 Field Attorney: LtCol Joe Treanor, Esq., Defense Intelligence Agency Telephone: (202) 231-2821; Facsimile: (202) 231-2831

162

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB
~ RP~-~4-200S 13:51

Document 15-7

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 13 of 15
202 231 6162 P.02

3FCC-ISR (USSTRRTCOM)

DEFENSE INTELIJGENCE AGENCY Office of the Acquisition Executive Building 6000, Boiling AFB Washington, D,C. 20340-5100 April 3, 2006
U-2053/AE-2A

MEMORANDUM FOR MAJPeter Tran, HQ, U.S. Army Legal Service Agency, Contract Appeals Division, Team L ATTN: JALS-CAI, 901 North Stuar~ Street~ Suite 500, Arlington, Virginia 22203-1837 Subject: B-296741.3; Protcst of The Ravens Group, Inc. Contractin ,g_OflScer's Notice of Corrective Action RFP HHM402-05-R-0017 (the "Solicitation") for the procurement of'janitorial and custodial services for thc Defense I~telligencc Analysis Center (DIAC) and its new expan.sion building was issued o~ I4.April 2005. The Solicitation closed on 13 May 2005. Nine offers were received in response to the Solicitation. Award was madc ~o The Ravens Group, LLC, on 17 June 2005. On 12 July 2005 atad 19 July 2005, two separate protcsts were filed with thc GAG (B-296741.2 and B-296914). The Agency notified GAG tl~at it intended to take corrective action on 3 August 2005. Consistent with the noticc to GAG, the Agency re-evaluated the proposals~ conducted discussions and allowed offerors the opportunity to submit final proposal revisions. From the re-evaluation, a new award was made ~o Rowe Contracting Service, lnc. on 22 March 2006. On 29 March 2006, GAG notified the Agency that Ravens Group had I]led a protest. On 31 March 2006, Rowe was notified of the protest and the required stay of pertbrrnance. The Government has rcvi~wed the allegations contained in the protest filed by Ravens Group. Although the protest is not clearly meritorious, the Agency has decided to take the following correctivc action. The Agency intends to conduct a new source selection and a new Source Selection Decision will be issued. If after the new source selection is conducted and a contractor other than Rowe is dccmed to be the appropriate awardee, the contract with Rowe will be terminated for convenience and the appropriate offeror awarded a contract for the remir~der of the services required,

GUY A. TORRES Contracting O fficer

163
TOTRL P,02

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB
04/04/06

Document 15-7

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 14 of 15

TUE 16:21 FAX 703 696 1537

0Ol

TX/RX NO INCOMPLETE TX/RX TRANSACTION OK

4137

(i) (2 (3

992025129749 997032567883 992022312831

ERROR

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

Date:

April 4, 2006 GAO Protest of The Ravens Group, Inc. (B-296741.3)

From:

Tracy Williams, Paralegal Specialist

NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET): 4

Name Mary Curcio Daryle Jordan L TC Joe Treanor Guy Tortes

Firm/Agency GA O Protester DIA Contracting Officer

Phone No, 202.512703-256-7754 202.231-282.1 202-231-8077

Fax No.
202-512-9749 703-256-7883 202-231-2831 202-231-2831

MESSAGE
Accompanying this header sheet is the Agency's notice of intent to take corrective action in the above referenced 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.

164
Tiffs facsh~file transmission raM/or the dacmnents accompanyilag it may contain confidential information belonh~ng to tlie sender

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-7

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. Williams@ hqda.army.mil (703) 696-2850 phone (703) 696-1537fax

Date: Re: From:

April 4, 2006 GAO Protest of The Ravens Group, Inc. (B-296741.3) Tracy Williams, Paralegal Specialist

NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET): 4 Name Mary Curcio Daryle Jordan L TC Joe Treanor Guy Torres GAO

Firm/Agency Protester DIA Contracting Officer

Phone No. 202-512703-256- 7754 202-231-2821 202-231-8077

Fax No. 202-512-9749 703-256-7883 202-231-2831 202-231-2831

MESSAGE
Accompanying this header sheet is the Agency's notice of intent to take corrective action in the above referenced 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 Tiffs facsimile transnffssion and/or the documents accompanying it may contain confidential information belonging to the 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 prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office inm~ediately by telephone or arrange the return of documents.

165