Document 15-45
Filed 05/12/2007
Page 1 of 30
From:Patrick/Henry LLP
708 256 7888
0]/24/2007 ]8:42 ~27 P.O06
1111
Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB
Document 15-45
Filed 05/12/2007
Page 2 of 30
From.Patrlck/H~nry LLP
708 256 7888
0]/24/2007 ]8:42 #827 P,OO7
1112
Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB
Document 15-45
Filed 05/12/2007
Page 3 of 30
Frog:Patrick/Henry LLP
70~ 256 788~
0]/24/2007 ]8:4~ #927 P,O08
1113
Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB
Document 15-45
Filed 05/12/2007
Page 4 of 30
From:Patrick/Henry LLP
708 256 7888
01/24/2007 ]8:48 #327 P.O09
1114
Frog:Patrick/Henry LLP Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB
708 256 7888 Document 15-45
0]/2~/2007 Page 5 of 30 Filed 05/12/2007 ]8:44 ~327 P.O]O
1115
Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB
Document 15-45
Filed 05/12/2007
Page 6 of 30
From:Patrick/Henry LLP
708 256 7888
01/24/2007 18:44 ~27 P.011
UBJEC'I :
i
Comments:
1116
Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB
Document 15-45
Filed 05/12/2007
Page 7 of 30
From:Patrick/Henry LLP
703 256 7883
0]/24/2007 ]8:45 ~27 P.O]2
7619 Little River Turnpike Suite 340 Annandale, VA 22003 Tel: 703.256.7754 Fax: 703.256.7883
January24,2007 Via U.S. Mail Ms. Vicki J. Walker Contracting Officer Capital District Contracting Center Army Contracting Agency Headquarters, Northern Region 9410 Jackson Loop---Suite 1 O1 Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060-5134
Re: Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request Dear Ms. Walker:
]~ICIIARI) L-'. PATRICK
MAYNARD M. ]-IENRY, ~R. admitted in ~, DC PA. MI ~HAROK 1. ~IIEODORK-LK~S admil~ed in MD, DC NY, OH DARYLE A, JORDAN admiued in VA, DC. YA
Of Counsel
'Yt.'VORA NONG admltled in VA. DC.
ETH El. M ITCII ELL arJmilted in MD, DC. TX U5 Virgin Islands, Ghana MALIK N. DRAKE adrnitled in vg, DC U5PTO RegislraIion
Pursumat to the Freedom of Information Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. § 552), and on behalf of our client, F&L Construction. Inc. ("F&L'), we hereby submit this FOIA request as follows:
1. Description of information sought. A complete copy of any contract, including any amendments and extensions, awarded to a contractor by this contracting agency for the performance of trash "recycling" services at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and Forest Glen within the past six (6) months. On information and belief, the requested contract was awarded on or about October 1,2006.
JIJ .... II
I I1
ii Ill FI__2
2. Fee.__~s. We hereby authorize the Army to conduct its search and duplicate the requested record and we agree to pay the fees for such service up to $150.00. Please bill Patrick Henry LLP at the address at the top of this letter for the required payment amount. If the search and/or duplication will exceed $150.00, please contact the undersigned before proceeding. Thank you in advance for your prompt response to this request. /-~gi~erelA //~ (~-----~-~4~e~ J o rda n~.._ Cotmsel-to-F-&~L-C~
51AI~.YLANI~ OFFICE 9 Princess Garden Parkway Suite 640 Lanham, MD 20706 Tel: 240.296.3488 Fax: 240.296.3487
1117
www.patrickhenry.net
Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB
Document 15-45
Filed 05/12/2007
Page 8 of 30
From:Patrick/Henry LLP
703 256 7883
0]/24/2007 ]8:40 #327 P.O0]
Patrick Henry LLP
7619 Little River Turnpike Suite 340 Annandale, Virginia 22003 (703) 256-7754
Fax: (703) 256-7883
FAX COVER SHEET
FROM: FAX No. PHONE No. Client/Matter: Date: Daryle A. Jordan 703.256.7883 703.256.7754 The Ravens Group, Inc. January 24, 2007
B-296741.12 Response to GAO's Voicemail today, January 24, 2007
Eleven (11)
PLEASE DELIVER TO THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS IN YOUR ORGANIZATION ORGANIZATION PHONE # NAME Procurement Law Control 202.512.4788 Ms. Mary G. Curcio, Office of the General Group Counsel, GAO Lt Col. Frank March U.S. Army Legal Services 703.696.2826 (Contract and Fiscal Law Division) COMMENTS: FAX #
202.512.9749
703.696.1537
The information contained in this facsimile message is information protected by attorney-client and/or the attorney/work product privilege. It is intended only for the use of the individual named above and the privileges are not waived by virtue of this having been sent byfacshnile. If the person actually receiving this facsimile or any other reader of the facsimile is not the n dt~trtbulton n c Wvl~J~gqC~l!.munication is strictly prohivited, lf you nave re-E'b'Ned this com,nunicavon t r . p notify us by telephone and return the original message to us at the above address via U.S. Postal Service. 'Y
1118
From:Patrick/Henry LLP
Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB
Document 15-45
708 256 7888
Filed 05/12/2007 19:84 #010of 30 01/80/2007 Page 9 P.O02
! |01 Pcnn~ylvanl= Av=nu=, N.W, 611~ ¯ W.~hinllvon, DC 20004 D~ur Mr. Bali=rd
1119
Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB
Document 15-45
Filed 05/12/2007
Page 10 of 30
PatrM~ Hen~ LLP
.7619 .Little River Annnnd.ale, Virginia 22003 (703) 256-775z~
'tL~x: (703) 256-7883
FAX COVER SHEET
FROM: FAX No. Pt~tONE No. Client/Matter: Date: DOCUMENTS B-296741.12 Response to D1A's ,J~n,uary 31 st Email Daryle A. Jordan 703.256.7883 703.256.7754 The Ravens Group, Inc, January 31,2007 NUMBER OF PAGES (including cover)* .........................
Eight (S)
PLEASE DELIVER TO THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS IN YOUR ORGANIZATION NAME Ms. Mary G, Curcio, Office of the General Counsel, GAO ORGANIZATION PHONE # Procurement.Law Control .... 502.512.4788 FAX # 202.512.9749
Group U,S. Army Legal Services 703.696.2826 (Contract and Fiscal Law Division) 703.696.!537
Lt Col. Frank .March
CO/VlMENTS:
it~)tw~ation contained in this~tc:~'imile mt:~'sage i.~ it~/brmati.n protc~:tcd I(p atto,'m:y-clh~nt and/o," the attorm~/wo,k
pro~tel plqvilt]ge. It ix irttt, mlcd onOt,/}~r 1he u.s'e r~thc indlvldual named above arid the privih,gt~' are not waived by vh'tue qf having heen ,~'nnl h), f!~cwlmil¢~. ~the person actual@ receiving thZL]~l~wimi~ ot any other reat&r t~'lhe fiJt:simila L~' not tim
t~N~]~t~{munication i~',vtri~:tly prohibitcd Ifyott have r~ed ofi.~ eommunicatio~t in err'or, p~ea,~'o immc.diatc,(~ no¢~ tts by telepholl¢ and retttrn the original mex,~'age to ux at the above address v&~ tZS. Postal Scrvi<:e,
1120
Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB
Document 15-45
Filed 05/12/2007
Page 11 of 30
7619 Litlle River Turnpike Suite 340 Annandale, VA 22003 Tel: 7(13,25(,,27,B4 Fax'. 703.256.7883
PROTI,'A':TIr.D MATI~RIA I. TO BE DIS(:LOSI~D ONI.Y IN ACCORDAN(:E w'rI'H GOVERNMENT AC(:OUNTABILITY OFFICE PRO'fE(YI'IVE Ol~.l)l,;R
,Im~um'y 31,2007
VIA FACSIMILE Oi't]cc of the General Counsel tJ.S. Govcrnmcnl Accountability 0 i'(lce 441 G Street, N,W. Washington. D.C. 2(1548
Atl.cniion:
Ms. Mary G. Curcio Senior Attorncy Procurement l.aw Control Group Protest No. B-296741.12 llcfc!lse Intelligence Agency Response to I')1A's .l:)n,llar~ 31t 2007 Email
.OLCou n sc
"fl 'VOI-:A NOKG
Dear Ms. Curcio:
'Ibis lctlcr responds tt) the Dcl'ensc Intelligence Agency's (~q)iA") January 31 st cmail regarding the abovc-rel'erenced protest. The Scptcml~cr 14, 2006, attachment to I)1A's cmail does not show that The R.avcns (3roup received DIA's December 19th communication in a timely manner. 1o the contrary, as discussed below, DIA's cmail and attachment merely confirms otlr previous statement--that even arter The Ravens Group notil]cd DIA on several occasions, to Pax all communications to Ihx number 301.577.9097, the fax number of The Ravens Group's principal ol'l'ic~: in Maryland, [)IA continued fi'om time-to-time to mis-send its I"ax communications to the company's D.C. fax number.
.luanita .loncs. a DIA contracting official followed up the Scplcmbcr 14. 2006, letter with a telephone call to General Ballard to ctml~n-n his receipt of the September 14th letter. General Ballard advised Ms. Jones again correct Ib.x number, and, on October 12.2006. when I)IA sent The Ravens (3roup the "'rescission o r contract termination letter,'" DI A sent lhc communication to I:,tx number 301.577.9097, thc fax number at "l'lae Ravens Group's principal office in Maryland. See Enclosure 3 to The R.avcns Group's January 24. 2007, submission. Thus, DIA's cmail and attachment conl3rms that il was DIA"s routine and custom, relied upon by The Ravens Group. to vcril:y its l"ax communications t0 The Ravens Group by Ib!lowing up wi[h at telephone call, email, or U.S. mail copy.
1121
www.patrickhen ry.net
E:BSL-gc;;~ {EOL} d77 I=iJUeH "~ot.d'3ed eO~ :60 LO IO qe4
Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB
Document 15-45
Filed 05/12/2007
Page 12 of 30
General Accountability .lammry 3 I. 2007 Page 2
I:'.'nch~surc 1 to our .tanuary 24~h submission to (}AO est:.tblished, that as early as .lunel 7, 2005, I)IA was on notice oi'the eorreel fax number to which it was required to lhx its communications to "l'he R.avens Group. l~nclosure 1 shows, that after striking through the "fax ntlrnber. DIA sent the C'ontract award document to The Ravens G,'oup's Ihx Ill.llllbcr ul its Maryland Office. Thus, bythc lhnc DIA faxcd the December 19I~ letter, it had possessed acl.ual knowledge el:the correct I"ax number for The Ravens Group for over a ),car ttlld a hall: There is but one r.'.ttional reason for DIA's decision to strike through the I),C, fax ntlmber and enter the Maryland fax number for transmission of the Contract award document to The Ravens (.;roup. was at 'lhe Ravens G,'oup's request. In addition, in a Novation Agreemcnl, dnled .larmary I. 2006, a full twelve (12) months before the December 19"' "'unsuccessful offeror notice [received by The Ravens Groul*~ December 29, 2006 ],'" The Ravens Group nod fled DIA oF its incorporation, ils name change, ur~d lhe location el:its "~principal el]ice in ganham, Maryland," Scc Novation Agreement, enclosed, "l'his I~ollowed DIA's June 17.2{i}(}5. fax regarding the Contrael award document. The Ravens (h'Ot.lp clearly provided an authorized DIA official the correct fax number for hs Maryland office as well as wrilten notiliemion el'the location of its principal office in Maryland. We also understand that {l~e Cenu'a.l (?ontraclor Registration (CCR) lists °l'hc Ravens Group's Maryland el'flee address and fax number, not the D.C. address or Tax numbe,'. Ofcourse~, it was not necessary Ibr I)IA lo go to thc CUR to obtain The Ravens Group's correct fax number. The Ravens Grotlp provided the number to DIA directly. Regarding the distribution o1: our .lanuary 8, 2007, supplemental protest, we I'axed a complete copy or that submission to the, contracting officer on the sm~c day we liled the supplemental protest with GAO. We li~rwarded the copy to the contracling of liter because we had not been advised of the identity of DIA's counsel-when we submitted Ihc filing. Surely I,T(? March's client provided him a copy. I)IA's counsel has not demonstrated that Thc Ravens Group received DIA's December 19u' correspondence in a timely manner. Ralhcr, the September 14th letter conllrms our previous discussion~that The Ravens Group had to remind DIA IYom time-to-time of The Ravens Group's new Ihx number at. its Maryland oflqce, and thai DIA routinely Ibllowed up ils 15~x communications to The Ravens Group wi{!~ telephone calls, cmails, or U.S. mail verilicutions. As discussed in this I~ttcr and previously, I')IA's fourth award of lhis single procuren~ent to Rowe, is arbitrary, unreasonable, and unlawful. See Beta Analyl.ics Intcrnnlk~nal. lnc, vs The (JnitcO~t~.and .Madcn "l'ech Consulting, Inc., 67 Fed. CI. 384 (,lun. 25, 2006) (Navy acted arbitrarily and capriziously), The only l~ir and jusl way lbr DIA to correct its ntlmerotls and scri~ms mistakes, errors, and omissions, is for DIA ~o conduct a new solicitation and award this rcqui,'emcnt.
PROTECTED MATERIAL: TO BE DISCI.OSED ONLY IN ACCORi)ANCI,." WITH (;OVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE PROTECTIVE ORDI,~R
www.patrickhenry.net
1122
Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB
Document 15-45
Filed 05/12/2007
Page 13 of 30
(.~ener;.d Accountability Office .lanuary 3 l, 2007 Page 3
We rcqtlcst lhal GAO deny I)lA's and Rowc's request lbr dismissal, alld sustain thi~ prolegl,,
~
!.'~ nc ] OSu rc
sub~fitled~
'CgLIllSe] "l~)l'
"l'hc Ravens G roLII),
I,TC Frank March, Esq.
1123
PRC~TECTEI) MATERIAL: TO BE DISCLOSED ONLY IN ACCOI,~DANCE WITH GOVERNWIIt;N'I" ACCOUNTp_I~ILITY
www.patrickhenrymet
eO~:60 LO IO
Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB
Document 15-45
Filed 05/12/2007
Page 14 of 30
(a) Th~ parties agree to the following faas: (1) The ~3overnment, x~pre~en~ed by varimaa C.xnttraet~g Offices of the V1RG£NIA ONT~CT~ ACTI~,'h~entered ]n~ ~ con~s~-~..~= Tt~f~r~ m ~ i~ ~he a~hed l~t "~bit A' ~R izco~d hx ~s A~ccment by refer~~. ~e ~ '~e co~ac~, A~em~ me~ ~e ab~= cont~t~ ~d p~chas¢ o~ ~d ~1 o~er =on~ac~ ~ purc~e o~rs, af~s A~e=ment (wh~ or ~ot 9=~0~= ~ pa~e~t Mv~ be~ completed ~d ~ted jf~e ~ve~cnt or ~e Tr~ferot ~ ~y ~m~ng figh~, dutlea~ .or obtigations under ~ese coa~ac~ ~ p~ch~e orders). ~cluded ~ ~e te~ "~ ¢on~t~" ~ M~o ~1 ~e ~ ~c tc~S ~d c~difion~ o~vse on~ ~d p~cha~= ord~s b~een ~ Goriest ~d ~e Tr~sfc~, on or ~ ~e eff~tlve date orris (2) As of__Jarx~&ry 1 ,2006, th~ Troasferor h~s transferral to the Trartsfm'e¢ a substanrdal portion of the as~cts ofth0 Transferor by virtue ofma Assigrtrnertt aaui As~_mption Agreement between the Tranfferor attd the Trartsfedee dated ~ 2006.
(3) The Transfetxe lure acquired said ~c ~sse~ of the Tranafcror l~y virtue ofth~ above trmasfer. (4) The Transferee Ires asstxmed sll obligatiotas atxd liabilifieg ofxlm Trar~feror under the contracts by virtue of fl~= above trmasf~. (5) The Transferee is in apositlon to fully perform all obligations that may oxlst under the contrmt~, (6) It i~ oansistent with tho Goveramem'~ interest to recogni~v th,- Tranafere~ as the su~eeo~or party to
e0miderafion of ~h~.s~ facts, the ~parfi~s agree ~t hy fl~ia Agreeraent -(I) Ttm Tranaferor eonfirrrm the transfex to ~e Transferee, artd wMves any =lah'ns and risht,~ agaJX~t ~e Oovemme-r~t that it now ha~ or may have in the fi.lrtare ha ~omaccti0n with tho co~lrracts.
(2) The Transferee agrees to be bound by arid m perform e~h contract: in ac~ord~ee ~ ~ eondifion~ ~n~ned i~ ~e co~c~, The Tr~sfere~ also ~s~ ~I obligatio~ ~d liabili~es o£, ~d dl clams ~ ~ Tr~feror ~d~ ~e c~ts as jf~e T~f~ee ~ ~ ofig~ p~ to the con~a,
1124
£-d
E88&-9£~ [EO&~
dqq ~JUeH ~o~d~ed
eO~:60 LO IO qe9
Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB
Document 15-45
Filed 05/12/2007
Page 15 of 30
conteaerg, 'ITae Transferee by tht.~ Agreement becomes emltled to all fights, titles, hnd~ int:~esxs of r.he Transferee in and to ff~ eontr~ts as if~e Transferee we~ the origirml parry re th~ ¢gntracts. ~olaowln~ the effective d~te of lhi~ AgreemenL tim term "Contractor," a~ usecl in th~ contra~ts, shal~ refer to the Transferee. (5) Except zs exl~reasly proVided in this Agreement, nothing in it ghal! be or,~trued ~s ti wai.~r of any right~ ofdl¢ Oovexmn~nt against th~ Transferor. " (6) All lc~yrn~,~t~ and rrimbursements previously mad~ by the Government ~o the Tran~t'ero~, and all other previous a~ticms lakcn by th~ Oovcmment under the contracts, shall be oonsid~ed to ~aave disela~ged those parts 0ftlm Govemament'a obligatior~ lmder the contracts. All payn~e.nra a.rtd ~eimbursem~ts made by the Government area" the date of dliS Agreemenl in the nanie uf~r to the e.omplete di~lxtrge of the Gov~t-mn~t's oblii~aiions under th~ ¢on~r~ets, to the eXten~ of~¢ amounts paid or re.lmbursed, (7) "l'h, Transferor and the Tran~ferre agree tlmt the ~ovemment is not obligeted to pay or reimburse either of them for, or otheradso giv~ effect to, any costs, taxes, or oth~ expenses, or m-ty related 5rmreases, directly or indLrectly arising om of or resulting from the transfer or this Agrrcment, o~her to pay or reimburse xmder the ~erma of the ~on~.
(8) The Tranrd'eror guarantees payment of all liabillttcs and the performanc~ of M1 obligations ,hat the Tm~fe~ee -(i) Assun~s under this Agreement; or ..,.
(ii) May landerrtako in the future e~ttld these contracts be modified reader their t~rm~ and conditions. The Transferor waives notice of', mad ~onsents to, any stu:h 'future modifications. (9) Th~ eontr~ts shall remain in ~ force ma~! ~ffe¢Z, ex~pt ~ modified by this Aster_went. Each party has executed t2fis Agre~maent as vfLlae day ~nd year first abov= written. VIRGINIA CONTRACTING United Starts of America, By
1125
Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB
Document 15-45
Filed 05/12/2007
Page 16 of 30
The Ravens-Group~ LLC
The Ray©as Group, Inc.
Title
CERTRIFIC.ATE I, ~...0 N,.. Ballazd , cextify that I am tlt¢ Se~1'etary ot'T~¢ ~v~ns ~up, L~; ~t Joe N, BaH~d, who si~ed ~s Ag~mmt for ~is co~ra~, w~ ~en M~ng Member of~ comply; ~ ,~at ~is A~cm~I ~s duly signed for m~d oi~ b~hMf orris compmy by au~ofi~ of ira governing body ~ wi~n ~c scope ofi~ pow~s, Wi~s ~y ~d ~ ~e scal of~is ~mp~y ~s ls~ ~ycf 2~ 2006.
CERT]~I~ICATE
I, __~,~ssio L. Bsll_~___. certify that I am the g:ea~tary of The ~em ~oup, ~c.; &at Joe N. who signod ~is Ag~ent for ~is co~orafio~ w~ ~n Presider of ~s c~oration; ~d ~t Agr¢~¢nt was duly sidled for ~O ~n b~h~f of~ co~orafion by a~oHW of its governing body
~d ~ th~ scop¢~w~s. Wim~ss my ~d ~d ~ seat orris co~ora~on
1126
Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB
Document 15-45
Filed 05/12/2007
Page 17 of 30
Tho Ravems Group, LLC.will.novata the following f~deral contract ~ffeot[v~ f'or lmmmy 1, 2006, subj¢c¢ to fl~¢ gavermmeat'a approval to Th~ Raveas Crroup, Inc. USA, ~ !~d~SF..agRCH ACQ ACTIVlq'Y ATTN: AR.CHIE CARDWELL 820 CHANDLER FORT DETR!CI~ lvfD Z1702-5014 C OIWTR.ACT #WS1XWV~-04-FOTO2 VA MEDICAL CENTER. ATTN: ffOAN F. VAN MIDDLESWORTH WAP.EI-IOUfiE C60042 50 IP.VIN'O STREET, NW WAflHI~GTON, ])C 20422
P.o. ~6~8-C60042
d. CO~qTRACTI~I'G CKNTE~ OF EXC~LLF2qCE (CCE)
co~c~me
5200 ~ PE~AGON WAS~GTON. DC 2031 CO~CT #W~4VSH-O6-F-O0~S
~OOM 2B*116
~q/TED CONCESSIONS, LLC ATTN: STANLEY N. W~ISS 200 MacDILL BLDG. 6000 ~OLL~G ~, W~H~GTON, DC 20340 ~0 CO~CT # (P~ATE)
1127
8-d
E88&-9~2 ~gOL)
d77 RJUaH ~°TJaed
el~:GO LO I0.
Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB
Document 15-45
Filed 05/12/2007
Page 18 of 30
Patri.cl~ Henry I.LP
76 !9 Little River.
Sult't., 340 krirlaitd.'ll,a, Virv~inh* 2200:5 C103) 256-7754
I:,,x: (703) 255-7883
FAX COVER SHEET
I';ROM: I;AX I~I'IONI:. No. C licnt/Matter: Date: DOCUMENTS
B-296741.12
Datyle A, .Iordan 703.256,7883 703.256.7754 The Ravens (.iroup, hie, February I, 2007 NldMBER. OF PAGES (,iilql udi n_g,
~o DIA's .lunua~y 31'~ Email
Three (3)
I LIsASE DELIVER TO THE FOLi.~OWING INI)IVll)UALS IN YOUR ORGANIZAT!ON NAM E Ms. Mar3, G. CAIrcio, Ofl]cc oflhe General Counsel, GAO 1.,I Col. I"rank March ORGANIZATION PHONE # Procurement Law Control 202.512.4788 Group
FAX # 202.512.9749
703.696.1537
U.S. Army Legal ,.crwces 703,696.2826 (Contract and Fiscal Law __D.ivision)
C,(.)MMENTS:
1128
I -d E:B8L-9£2 trEOL) d77 F:;,JUeH ~to3d"z.ed dSt :EO LO I0 qe_d
Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB
Document 15-45
Filed 05/12/2007
Page 19 of 30
February 1. 2007 VIA FACSIMII,E Ol'llce or I.he Gcnm'a.I Counsel IJ.S. Government Accountability Oflice 441 (] Street, N,W. WusMnglon, D.C. 20548
Attention
Ms. Mary G. Curcio Senior Attorney Procurcmmat Law C t,mll OI Group Protest No. B-296741. i 2 Defense Intelligence Agency Second Response to DIA's ,January 31~ 2007 Emai!
YI '\'Oh:,\ NONv; ;nlnuro,r! m VA, 1)1, II
Dear Ms. Curcio:
.\l.',t.n, N. I)k'.xm
I.iyP [) h' ,i,i~lr, ffltm
Please lind enclosed a copy of a~ email I'mm Guy Tortes. a l:o,:mcr DIA contracthlg o{'fiecr. The email concerns DIA's railure to tloti[) "['he Ravens Group of the protest filed by NOSLOT again)st the originnl award or the Contract to The Ravens Group. R.clevmlt to our ct, rrcnl protcsl. Mr. Tortes acknowledged his understanding that the "notilqcatioW" wus to be faxed 301.577.91)97, The Ravens Group's l'ax number at its principal ollqcc in i,anllam, Maryland. This also confirms our previous contention that routinely lbllowcd up its Ihx communic:,ttions with an cmail, tclcphonc, or II.S. mail verification. In this case, Mr. Ton'cs lbilowed up his fax with an cmail. ~pcet ]/!/lly st]bin i tied.
COUlIMcl l"Or The
Ravens (;rt)up, Into
I::.nclosurc co: L I .. Frank March. Esq. (w/Encl.)
1129
www.patrickhenry.net
dE;I :~O LO IO qa..-t
Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB
Document 15-45
Filed 05/12/2007
Page 20 of 30
=Dar~ie Jordan
From: Sent: To: Subject: Importance: Darylc Here is clc.,ar proof that Guy Tortes and his office was in.formed of our fax n~mber. You have ~ copy of the letLe~ that he foxed. P-'Le,-3se not~ that he foxed iL L'.O the Lanhan~ B ~?I'0m: Torr~s, ~Uy A. [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: ~u~sd0y, August 30, 2005 5:2~ PM Subject: RE: Re'~,-e~Oe: notificatio~ r~x~d to 301 577-9097 General Joe Ballard [jballard@theravensgroup,com] Wednesday, January 31,2007 11:36 PM 'Daryle Jordan' FW: Reference; notification foxed to 301 577-9097 High
Mr. 8ollard - I just foxed the letter to
..... Original Message ..... From: jbo.llard [mailto:jbal][email protected]] Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 2:14 PM To: [email protected] Subject: FW: Reference: Modification to I.H-~40R-05-R-00Z7 Email dated Thursday, August ii, ~005 3:33 PM
.....Ori~:[nal Message ..... F:ro~: jballard [mailto:jballard@therav~nsg:~0up.com] Sent: Fridav, Augumt 26, 2005 12:19 PM To: 'denise.carterSdia.mi].'; joe baliard (jba]][email protected]) Subject: FW: Reference: Modification to HHM402-05-R-0017 Ema].l duted Thursday, A~]QuSt II, 2005 3:33 Denise thanks for t~king my call. I 0~n forwarding a copy of ~[~ email to Ms. Jones. I believe it is clear that I was neve:~ notified of a prote$L~. IL is also clear th,gn we h
..... Original From: jba].&afd [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, August 3.5, 2005 12:43 PM To: 'Juanita./l'[email protected]' Cc: joe b&llard ([email protected]) ----Subject: Reference: Modification ~o NHM402-05-R-0017 Em~i]. d[~ted Thursday, August ii, 2005 3:33 PM
1130
Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB
Document 15-45
Filed 05/12/2007
Page 21 of 30
~_~. G. A O "
United States G0vernment.Accountability O~ce Wa~hingt0n, DC 20545
Facsimile Transmission Sheet
Date: Re:
March 16, 2007 B-296741.12; B-296741.13 The Ravens Group, Inc.
NUmber or pages, including ~ds ao~er sheet: 6
From:
Name
Mary G. Curcio, Senior Attorney Firm/Agency Patrick Hem-y LL~
Defense Intelligence Agency Phone
Daryle A. Jordan, Esq..
703:256-7754 703'~696-2825
703-256-7883 03-696-1537
M~jor Peter H. Tran Comments:.- None
1131
Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB
Document 15-45
Filed 05/12/2007
Page 22 of 30
. Comptroller General Off:he U~ited Sta ,t~. s_
Decision
Matter of: The Ravens Group, Inc:
File:
Date: DECISION
B-296741.12i B-296741.13 MarchlS, 2007
The Ravens Group, Inc. protests the award of a contract to Rowe. Contracting Services, Inc. under request for proposals (RFP) No. HHM402-05-R~0017, issued by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) for janitorial services. We dismissthe protest. The solicitation was issued on April 14, 2005 and DIA made award to Ravens on June 28. However, that award was challenged in a series of protests filed in our Office by various offerors~ and subsequent corrective actions by DIA resulted in reevaluations and new award determinations, with award finally being made to Rowe. Ravens challenges various aspects of the award decision, Our Bid Protest Regu]at2ons contain strict rules for the:timely submission of pro,tests. Under those Regulations, a protest based on other.than a solicitati0nimpropriety must be filed within 10 days after the.protester knows or should have known the basis of protest. 4 C.F.I~. § 21.2(a)(2) (2006). Ravens's challenges are raised in a Januar~ 8 protest, which is based on.information contained in the award notice DIA faxed to Ravens on December 19. Supplemental Protest, Jan. 8, 2007, at 1, Ravens therefore knew or should have known of the basis forits January 8 protest no later than Decembe~ 19, and its protest, .fried more than 10 days later, is untimely. Ravens claims.that i~ January 8 protest is timely becauseDIA sentthe December 19 award notice to the wrong fax number; ~his prevented Ravens from receiving the no~ice in a timely fashion,. In this regard, the agex~cy faxed .the award notice to a 202 area code number on the cover sheet of its proposal. Ravens states that, on June 17, 2006, one of its pzincipals specifically told the contracling officer to send formal communications to a different fax number (also on its proposal cover sheet), this one with a 301 area code, Ravens Claims that, since that time, on a number of
1132
Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB
Document 15-45
Filed 05/12/2007
Page 23 of 30
~J. UUJ/
occasions over the course of the procurement, it advised the agency thatit had used the wrong-i.e___~., the 202 area code-number, but that the agency last used the 202 number in March 2006..Ravens concludes that the protest is timely because it did not receive the December 19 notice at its preferred 301 area code fax number until December 29.~ Ravens's argument is unpersuasive. The principal agency contracting officials who conducted this procurement-a contracting specialist who was responsible for the procuremer~t until June 2006, and the current contracting officer,, who became involved at that time-deny that they were ever given instructions by Ravens .to send correspondence to the 301 area code number, E-mail from Army to GAO, Jan. 31, 2007, and the agency states that it does not know of aay written inst~ctions from Ravens. to that effect. E-mail from Army to GAO, Jan_ 26, 2007. DIA also notes that it has communicated with Ravens using the 202 areacode number on a regular basis, and has submitted a copy of a notice that it faxed to Ravens at the 202 number as late in September 2006. Id___~. Ravensd0es not deny that the 202 area. code number is under its control, and does not deny that the notice was received at that number on December 19. Nor has Ravens provided any evidence corroboratingits claim that it asked the agency to send Correspondence to the 301 area code .number.~ Given these facts, we find that faxing the award notice m the 202 area code.number listed on Ravens's proposal was a reasonable means of providing t~e notice to Ravens, and that Ravens therefore was on notice of its protest grounds On December 19. Ravens's failure to monitor its ~ax machine does not excuse its failure to raise the issues in its supplemental.pro~es~ within 10 days after December 19. 3
' Ravens has not explained how the notice made its way from the location of the 202 area code £ax machine tothe location of the 301 area code machine. However, documentation Ravens submitted to our Office shows that the notice was faxed to the 301 area code number on December 29, "~ Ravens argues that DIA should have known that the 301 ares code number was its preferred fax number because in.January 2006 Ravens provided DIA a novation agreement expIaining that Ravens was incorporating al~d changing its name, and that its principal office was in Lanham, Marylandi with a 301 area code: In fight of the evidence discussed above-including the .fact that the agency used .the 202 area code number as late as September 2006-this argumel~ does not chan'ge our. conclusion. In any case~ we note that the novation agreement shows that Ravens's principal place of b~siness also was in Lanham prior to the date of the agreement~ Novation Agreement at l, '~ Ravens asserts that the agency previously followed up its .faKes with a.phone call, e-mail, or a mailed hard copy, However, the agency's prior actions axe irrelevant given our conclusion that the December 19 fax was sufficient to put Ravens o~ notice ot~ its protest grounds.
Page 2
Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB
Document 15-45
Filed 05/12/2007
Page 24 of 30
Ravens also argues that DIA improperly made award to Rowe without providing Ravens with discussions, as it allegedly promised to do in an October 12 letter. This argument is timely (since it ~vas raised in Ravens's original protest, which was filed on December 29), but. is clearly without merit. We have reviewed the letter (Ravens provided it to Our OffJcc in response to our specific request) and it does not even mention discussions.
The protest is dismissed.
Gary L. Kepplinger
Page
B-296741,12 B-296741.i~
1134
Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB
Document 15-45
Filed 05/12/2007
Page 25 of 30
SEYE__AP,._ T H
815 Connmct{cut Ave~lue, Sul{e 5OO W~shingt~n. D.C. 20006-400.'1 (202) 463-2~00 Fax (202) 828-5393 www,seyl'allh.com
Facsimile Transmission
Date: February 20, 2007
RECIPIENT
LTC Frank A. March Ken Weckstein
FROM: PHONE: RE: File No: 24134.016 Grace Bateman (202) 828-5359
COMPANY Defense Intelligence Agency Epstein Becker & Green
PHONE NO.
FAX NO. 703-696-1537
703-696-2826
202-861-0900
202-861-3560
REPLY FAX NO.: (202) 828-5393
Number of Pa~es, Includin~ Cover: [] []
21
[] Hard copy to follow [-"] Per your request [] Please telephone me
MESSAGE:
Hard copy will not follow Please review and revise if necessary
Protected Information To Be Disclosed Only In Accordance With United States Court of Federal Claims Protective Order
THI~ INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE IS CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY At_qO CONTAIN PRWILEGED ATTORNEY-CLIENT INFORMATION OK wORK PRODUCT, THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OK ENTITY TO WHOM r]" Is ADDRESSED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE TO DELIVER IT TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY USE, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED, IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THE FACSIMiLE IN EP.P.OR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTJVY US BY TELEPHONE, AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ADDRESS ABOVE VIA THE U.S. POSTAL SERV ICE. THANK YOU. ANY TAX INFORMATION OR WRIT'FEN TAX ADVICE CONTAINED HEREIN (INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS) 15 NOT INTENDED TO BE AND CANNOT BE USED BY ANY TAXPAYER FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVOIDING TAX PENALTIES TlfAT MAY BE IMPOSED ON THE TAXPAYI~R, FOREGOING LEGEND HAS BEEN AFFIXED PURSUANT TO U.S. TREASURY REGULATIONS GOVERNING TAX
(THE
IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE PHONE (202) 463-2400 AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. DCt 3018916KI / 24134-000016
1135
Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB
Document 15-45
Filed 05/12/2007
Page 26 of 30
81.5 Connecticut A',.'anue, I'q.w. 5ulk~ 500 washinglon, D.C. 20CK)6-4004 202,463-2400
(202) g2g-5359
~ax 202-B7~8-5393
PROTECTED MATERIAL TO BE RELEASED ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH GAO PROTECTIVE ORDER
February 20, 2007
VIA FACSIMILE 202-512-9749 AND U.S, MAIL Mary G. Curcio, Esq. Senior Attorney Procurement Law Division Oov_,m~_ment A,',',-~,ntabi]ity 0!~fice 441 O Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20548 B-29674.14; Olympus Building Services, lnc.'s Second Supplemental Protest and Comments on the Agency Re~ort o~n. Olympus' First Supplemental Protest.
8
Dear Ms. Curcio:
The protester, Olympus Building Services, Inc. ("Olympus"), hereby files its Second Supplemental Protest and its Comments on the Agency Report on Olympus' First Supplemental
Protest.
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL PROTEST The bases for Olympus' Second Supplemental Protest are as follows: 1. DIA's TradeoffAnalysis is irrational because it is based upon a material error of fact
Z
regarding the manpower the awardee Rowe Contracting Services, Inc. ("Rowe") and Olympus are proposing. The SSA mistakenly concluded that Rowe offered five more employees than Olympus,
1~1 30191762.1
1136
Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB
Document 15-45
Filed 05/12/2007
Page 27 of 30 Mary O. Curcio, Esq. February 20, 2007 Page 2
SE__YF _~AK_.TH
when, in fact, Olympus actually offered 31 more employees (Full-time Equivalents "FTE"s) than Rowe over the contract term. The SSA relied on this mistake of fact in deciding that Rowc's offer represented the best value. 2. In the alternative, GAO cannot determine whether the $$A's best value decision is
reasonable in the absence of documents in the record that explain the S SA's comparative manpower analysis, or confirm whether the SSA pertbrmed any such analysis at all. Olympus' Second Supplemental Protest is timely, in that it is filed within 10 days of February 14, 2007, the date on which DIA first provided to Olympus a copy of Rowe's price proposal which containsthe data that the SSA relied on when she made the manpower comparison referenced in the agency's price analysis and best value decision. It is also filed within 10 days of February 15, 2007, the date on which Olympus received an e-mail message from DIA disclosing that the agency does not have any evaluation documents to support the SSA's analysis of the manpower the respective firms offered, I. The SSA's Tradeoff Analysis Is Fatally Flawed Because It ls Based Upon A Matcrial Error Of Fact Regarding The Offerors' Proposed Manpower. A. The SSA Mistakenly Concluded That Rowe Offered Five More Employees Than Olympus Offered.
The SSA references and compares the manpower that Rowe and Olympus will provide in both the "Price/Cost Analysis" section of the Source Selection Decision ("SSD") and in the '°TradeoffAnalysis" section of the SSD. AR, Tab 32, pp. 14 -16, In the °'Price/Cost Analysis" section, the SSA determines that Olympus" price is reasonable and realistic, but then notes that Olympus' price exceeds Rowe's price while offe five fewer employees than Rowe:
OLYMPUS: Offered price is considered reasonable and realistic. However, the offered price is the second lowest among four offers
PROTECTED MATERIAL TO BE RELEASED ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH GAO PROTECTIVE ORDER
D~i 30191762,1
1137
UZ/ZUiZUUt
Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB
t ~'~
P~X
ZUZ~Z~
Document 15-45
~EYP~RIH
Filed 05/12/2007
~H~
LLK
Page 28 of 30
~ UU~/UZ
s EYFA_ _P,.TH SHAW
Mary G. Curcio, Esq. February 20, 2007 Page 3
and would cost the Government over $557,000 more than Rowe's offer. Also~ Ol~pus' cost breakdown indicated that they are offering 51 employees, five fewer employees than the 56 employees offered by Rowe. ld___:, at p. 14 (emphasis added). Similarly, in the "TradeoffAnalysis" section of the SSD, the SSA compares the final four
offerors and determines that Rowe's low price offer provides fo employees, e more than the
next lowest offeror, Olympus: Of the four final offerors, Rowe proposes the lowest priced offer at a firm-fixed-price in the total amount of $19, 217,912 including all labor e (5) more employees than the next lowest priced offeror, Olympus3 ld__:, at p. 15 (emphasis added). The SSA obviously thought the comparison between the manpower Rowe and Olympus offered was a major discriminator between offers, because she repeated this comparison in the next paragraph in the "Tradeoff Analysis" section of the S SD: Additionally, not only does Olympus propose a higher price more) than Rowe, bus it proposes this higher price while offering to e less employees than Rowe proposes to do the work...Accordingly, in any comparison between Rowe and Olympus~ Rdwe would present the bettm" value because Rowe not only offers a lo'&er price, but Rowe does this while proposing to staffmore [sic] e more employees at the lower price, Id___:., at p. 15 (emphasis added). Finally~ a~ain hiEhlighting the importance of the manpower issue in her deei.qio~ the SSA
included the number of employees each bidder offered in a separate column in the "Summary
Comparison" table at the conclusion of the 'q"radeoff Analysis" section in the SSD. This separate column in the tabie again reflects the SSA's conclusion that Rowe off ed 56 employees, compared with Olympus employees.
PROTECTED MATERIAL TO BE RELEASED ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH GAO PROTECTIVE ORDER
IX21 30191762.1
1138
O~/ZUi2OU(
Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB
1 ('4~
F~X
ZUZ~Z~
Document 15-45
~EYF~HIH
Filed 05/12/2007
~H~
LLV
Page 29 of 30
~ UUO/UZ I
sE_Y_EAEk.TH
B.
Mary G. Curcio, Esq. February 20, 2007 Page 4
The SSA Mistakenly Concluded That Rowe Offered More Employees Than Olympus By Using A "Number Of Employees" Standard Rather Than An "FTE" Measure.
The record does not contain any documents revealing how the SSA determined that Rowe offered five more employees than Olympus offered. Rowe's incoherent and incomplete final proposal does not state that it will offer to provi 56 employees. See, AR, Tabs 20 and 22. ide 51 employees.
Similarly, Olympus' technical proposal does not state that Olympus will pr
Sc_~c AR, Tabs 23 and 25.t The only documents in the record that clearly indicate the manpower Rowe and Olympus will provide are the offerors' price proposals. Specifically, both offerors' pric~ proposals provide detailed information on the number of janitors, supervisors, and managers offered, and their full-time (8 hours per day, 40 hours per week, 2080 hours per year), or a part-time (20 hours per week, 1040 hours per year) status. AR, Tabs 40 and 41. it is not possible to compare the respective manpower proposals by comparing the "number of employees" off, red, as the SSA has done, beca hours per week are not equivalent five part-time employees each working 20
full-time employees each working 40 hours per week. To
compare the manpower proposals, it is necessary to express both proposals in terms of "Full-time Equivalent" (,FTE") employees. Thus, one full-time 40-hour-per week employee would equal one FTE, and two part-time 20-hour per week employees would also equal one FTE. The following table summarizes Rowe's and Olympus' manpower proposals in tcn-ns of the number of FTEs offered. The data in this table came directly from Rowe's and Olympus' price proposals. AR Tabs 40, 41. I It is possible that the $SA may have actually gotten the number "51" from the "No Wkers." Column for the DIAC in Rowe's price proposal, despite attributing this number to Olympus. Se_~e AR, Tab 40, p. 1.
PROTECTED MATERIAL TO BE RELEASED ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH GAO PROTECTIVE ORDER
DCI 30191762.1
1139
Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB
Document 15-45
Filed 05/12/2007
Page 30 of 30 Mary G. Curcio, Esq. February 20, 2007 Page 5
SE_YF___AK. TH
Rowe's Proposed Total Manpower (Janitorial and Management) For The DIAC And The Expansion Building)~"
Contract Period 7-Month Base Period Option I
Total Annual Labor Hours
Total FTEs ffotai Annt~al Labor Hours/2080)
option 2
.,Option 3 Option 4 TOTAL
Olympus' Proposed ~Vlanpower Proposal (Janitorial and Management) For The DIAC And The Expansion Building3
Contract Period 7-Month Base Period
Option I
Total Annual Labor Hours
Total FTEs (Tota! Annual Labor Hours/2080)
Opdon 2
Option 3
Option 4 TOTAL
~ Rowe's price proposal has separate pages for the DIAC and the Expansion Building for each contract period. The Total Annual Labor Hour column includes both janitorial and management employees. The first number in the parenthesis is for the DIAC, and the second is for the ¯ Expansion Buildiiag. 3 Olympus' price proposal presents data on janitorial and management personnel on separate pages for each contract period. The first number in parenthesis in the Total Annual Labor Hours column is for janitoria! personnel (including the group leader, but excluding the eight security escorts for non-cleared personnel) and the second number is for management. All Olympus data are for both the DIAC and the Expansion Building.
PROTECTED MATERIAL TO BE RELEASED ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH GAO PROTECTIVE ORDER
1~I 30191762.1
1140
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms