Free Administrative Record - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-10

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 1 of 30

.PAIR ICKHENRY =
General Accountability Office May 12, 2006 Page 7 9. 10. All Agency communications in connection with the RFP. All documents relating to The Ravens Group and the awardees' proposals, including but not limited to all intemal agency correspondence, memoranda and notes referring or relating to the RFP, including those relating to the proposals. The source selection plan, if any. Any and all other guidance provided to the evaluators, or referred to by them. REQUEST FOR HEARING AND PROTECTIVE ORDER

l 1. 12. V.

If the issues in this case cannot be resolved on the basis of the documents requested, the Ravens Group requests a hearing on all of the matters set forth herein. 4 C.F.R. § 21.1 (d) (2006). The Ravens Group also requests that a protective order be issued in this protest. Respectfully submitted, LLP

Counsel to The Ravens Group, Enclosures Mr. Guy A. Torres Contracting Officer Virginia Contracting Activity Bolling Air Force Base

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

www.patrickhenry.net

211

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-10 /U~ Zbb

Filed 05/12/2007

l~:lO ~296 P.O09/OlO Page 2 of 30
p.3

THERFIVEHSGROUP

30157?SOS7

VIRGINIA CONTRACTING ACTIVITY 200 MAGDILL BLVO., i~LDG 5Doll BOLLING ~JR FORCE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20341~51

May4,2006 U.6644/AE-2A

Mr. Jonah ~allard The Ravens Group, LLC 1 "101 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 6'~ Floor Washington, IDC 2004 ILE: Notice of Protest filed the P-.averts C-~oup, I'~. Under R=quest for Proposal No. HIqM402-OS-R.0017, Defense Intelligence Agency,
D~ir Mr, Ballard: This letter is to inEorm you thai: ~a GAO protest has been filed by the P.~vens Group 2967413 ) trader PJYP/-tHM402-05-R-0017 for the procurernenl ~fjanitorial and custodial scwices "for tl~e Defense Intellige-n~e Analysis C~nt~ (DIAC) and it~ new expa.s~on building. Group and ha~ decided to take the tbltowing corrective action. The Agency cot{duct a n~w souroe selection and a new source selection decision will be issued. There will be no new ~valuatiou, The new sou.ee,~ selection will be ba~ed on the evaluation of all offerors' final proposal r~visiori, You will be notified oF future developments.

TOTAL P,O02

212

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB Fro~.ra~ricK/r~enry LLI-"
12 ~OOB IO:~FIM

Document 15-10 /LI~ Zbb

Filed 05/12/2007 Page 3 of 30 Ub/12/ZUUU
3015778087

THERFI~EMSGROUP

GROUP INC.

2006 Via U.S, Mail and Facismile Mr. Guy A. Tortes Contracting Officer Virginia Contracting Activity Boiling Air Force Base 200 M~Dill Boulevard--Building 6000 Washington, DoC. 20340-5100 DIA Corrective Action Pursuant to {~AO Protest No. B-296741.3 De~Mr. To~es: This responds to your letter, dated May 4, 2006, and requests clarification of thelcorrecrive action you agreed to take in response to our above-referenced protest. Your letter states that there will be a "new source selection and new source:sele~,tion decision" but that there will not be a new evaluation. How Can there be a new source selection de~ision without a new evaluation? In addition, your letter states that the "new source selection will be biased on the current evaluation of all offerors' final proposals." We interpret this provision to mean ~hat The Ravens Group would be allowed to revise our proposal for this requirement In our April 6, 2006, Protest letter, our April 20~ supplement to that protest, and our April 21" letter to you, +e notified you of compelling and credible evidence we had obtained, including sworn statements, that Rowe Contracting Services, Inc. (°~Rowe") had paid for and obtained confidential mad proprietary information regarding our proposal. Thus, it is essential that you allow us, at a minimum, to revise c~ur proposal. To deny us an opportunity to revise our proposal would place this company at a severe ~ompetitive disadvantage in th& "'new source selection" process, and render the "corrective action" ~ou promised to take meaningless. It is undisputable that the integrity o~" our proposal has been comprom, ised by Rowe's improper, umethical, and potentially unlawful business practices. Your r~fusal to honor our valid request to revise our proposal, would leave us no choice but to file anoth:er p~otest to protect our rights. Rela edly, we have not heard from you regarding our request for you to disquah~ Rowe from further participation in this procurement action based on its unethical and unfair bLisine~.s practices. We raised serious concm-ns regarding Rowe s business practices as well as its potential ,breach of security. We are surprised and concerned that the Defense Intelligence Agency has notiacted on our request or contacted us to investigate these serious charges.

We request your response to our request for clarification by close o£business Wbdnesday, May 10, 2006, so we will have adequate time to determine whether we will have to file another protest_
Sincerely, Jo e ~ allard President The tLavens Group, Inc.

213

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-10

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 4 of 30

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

REP LY TO ATTENTION OF

May 16,2006 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/~, ~

Dear Ms. Curcio:
Enclosed please find a letter from the Contracting Officer clarifying the Agency's corrective action. 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

Intervener:
Kenneth Weckstein, Esq., Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., Telephone: (202) 861-0900; Facsimile: (202) 822-4657

214

MAY-15-ZUU5 II:I~

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB Document 15-10 A6-ZA

Filed 05/12/2007ZUZ Page 5 of 30 Z~I Z~I ~.UUZ

DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 203A0.

U-2053/AE-2A

May 15, 2006

MEMORANDUM FOR MAJ Peter Tran, HQ, U.S. Army Legal. Service Agency, Contract Appeals Division, Team I, ATTN: JALS-CAI, 901 North Stuart Street, Suite 500, Arlington, Virginia 22203~1837 Subject: B-296741.5; Protest of The Ravens Group, Inc. Cont.r.acting Officer's Statement In response to GAO's request for clarification of the Contracting officer's Notice of Corrective Action, dated April 3, 2006, the following is provided. As the April 3, 2006 Notice of Corrective Action states,
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 deemed to be the appropriate awardee, the contract with Rowe will be terminated for convenience and the appropriate offeror awarded a contract for the reminder of the services required.

Tim Agency simply intends to conduct a new source selection. The Agency will not be conducting a new technical evaluation of proposals or accepting revised proposals from any offerors. The new source selection will be based on the offerors' previously submitted ' proposals, which does not include a review of any Joint Personne! Adjudication SyStem " ("JPAS") files. The JPAS is a database managed by the DoD Agency Central Adjudication Facilities and is u~ed to confirm the clearance validity ~f contractor personnel The JPAS is a contract administration tool that is not used during the procurement process.

215
TOTAL P.002

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-10

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 6 of 30

TX/RX NO INC01tPLET~ TX/RX TRANSACTION OK

4284 (1) (2) (3) (4) 9912025129749 9917032567883 9912028224657 9912022312831

ERROR

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

f ~ile transmittal
Dat~:

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): 3 Name Mary Curcio Daryle Jordan Kenneth Weckstein Guy Tones

Firm/Agency
GAO Protester Intervener Contracb'ng Officer

Phone No. 202-512703-256-7754 202-861-0900 202-231-8077,,,

Fax No. 202-512-9749 703-256-7883 202-822-4657 202-231-2831

MESSAGE
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.

216
C;onfidentiality Notlc~ Tills fa~imil~ transmission and/or the documents a¢gompanying it may contain confidential Informallon belonl~ing to the sender" which is larateeted by the attorney-lient privilege. The inform~ltion is intended olllv for tile use of the hldlvldual or entity named

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-10

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 7 of 30

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, rail (703) 696-2850 phone (703) 696-1537fax

f acsimi~ trarasmittal
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): 3 Name Mary Curcio Daryle Jordan Kenneth Weckstein Guv To~es Firm/Agency GAO Protester lntervener Contracting Officer Phone No. 202-512703-256-7754 202-861-0900 202-231-8077 Fax No. 202-512-9749 703-256-7883 202-822-4657 202-231-2831

MESSAGE
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 703-6962825 or DSN 426-2825.

Confidentiality Notice This facsimile transmission 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 immediately by telephone or arrange the return of documents.

217

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-10

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 8 of 30

]EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN~ P.C:.

KW E: I~ K ~TEI N@ E B 13 LA~/~ tOM

May 22, 2006
VIA TEL, EFAX

Anthony H. Gamboa, Esquire General Counsel General Accountability Office 441 G Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20548
Re: Protest of The Ravens Group B-296741.5 and .6

Dear Mr. Gamboa: Rowe Contracting Services, Inc. ("Rowe"), 5t50 Highway 22, Suite Cll, Mandeville, Louisiana 70471, hereby intervenes in the referenced protests Rowe was the awardee of the contract that is the subject of the protests. Accordingly, Rowe is an intervenor as defined in 4 C.F.R. § 21.0(b). I would appreciate it if GAO and the parties would provide me with copies of all materials filed in the protests. My contact information is listed above. My protected telefax number is (202) 822-4657. Thank you. truly yours,/2

KBW:cmj Guy A. Torres, Contracting Officer Daryle A. Jordan, Esq. Scott Rowe Marcy Curcio, Esq. Major Peter H. Tran

DC:589558v3

218

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-10

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 9 of 30

FACSIMILE COVER SHEET

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
To: Major Peter H. Trax~ From: Kenlteth B. Wecksteil~ Date: May 22, 2006

Fax Number:
(703) 696-1537 Atty. No.~ Client No.: 052

Telephone Number:
(703) 696-2825 Pages (irtcluding cover):

53807,002

NOTICE OV PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY THIS TELECOI~Y IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL, 1T IS INTENDED SOI,~LV FOR TH~ ADDRESSE~, ANY UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSUR-E, REPRODUCTJON~ DISTR]'BUTION OR THE TAKING OF ANY ACTION IF] RELIANCE OH" THE CONTENTS OF: TIlIS INFORMATION IS PROI-III~ITED, IF YOU RECEIVI~D THIS TELECOPY IN EI~O.OR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATBLY. THIS COMMUNICATION DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE STANDARDS OF A COVERED OPINION WITI.~TN THE MEANING OF CIRCULAR 23~ I~SUED BY THE UNITED ~TATES SECRETAFW OF THE TREASURY, ACCORDINGLY, ANY TAX ADVIC]B CONTAINI~D 1N THIS COMMUHICATION CANNOT BE USED,'AND WAS NOT 1NT~NOED OP. WI~.ITTEN TO BE USF~D. FOP. TIlE PUP`PO~E OF AVOIDTNG UNITED STATE~ TAX PENALTIES. IN ADDle|ON, ANY TAX ADVICE CONTAINED £N THIS COMMUNICATION MAY NOT BE USED TO PROMOTE, MAP.KET OIK P.ECOMMEND A TRANSACTION TO ANOTFIER PERSON,

DC:605116vl

U5/Z3/ZUUU 11:49 VAX ZUZSIZ9749

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-10

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 10 of 30

002/003

Accountability * Integrity * Rel|abl~h'y

GAO

Comptroller General of the United States

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Decision
Matter of: The Ravens Group

File:
Date: DECISION

B-296741.5; B-296741.6
May 19, 2006

The Ravens Group protests the award of a contract to Rowe Contracting Services, Inc., under Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) request for proposals (RFP) No. HHM402-05-R-0017, for janitorial and custodial services. We dismiss the protest. The solicitation, issued on April 14, 2005, provided for award on a "best value" basis, considering cost and technical factors. On June 28, DIA made award to Ravens. On June 29, NOSLOT Cleaning Services, Inc. protested the award to our Office. On August 2, DIA decided to take corrective action in response to the NOSLOT protest by allowing offerors to submit final proposal revisions, reevaluating the proposals and malting a new best value determination. As a result, our Office dismissed NOSLOT's protest (B-296741.2, Aug. 4, 2005). Following the submission of revised proposals and the reevaluation, DIA selected Rowe for award. Ravens filed a protest in our Office challenging that decision (B-296741.3; B-296741.4). The agency again proposed corrective action, this time in the form of reconsidering the award decision; accordingly, we dismissed Ravens's protest. DIA is currently implementing the proposed corrective action.

Ravens protests certain actions by Rowe that allegedly occurred after DIA selected Rowe for award following the NOSLOT protest. Specifically, Ravens claims that Rowe obtained access to the automated system the Department of Defense uses to maintain information regarding its employees and contractors (JPAS), and manipulated the data to make it appear that Ravens's persolmel were Rowe employees, all without the knowledge of Ravens or the personnel involved. Ravens further asserts that, while its initial protest was pending in our Office, Rowe obtained information about Ravens's proposal by making payments to Ravens employees. According to Ravens, these actions compromised the procurement and warrant eliminating Rowe from the competition.

220

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-10

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 11 of 30

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. Toward this end, our Bid Protest Regulations, 4 C.F.R. § 21.i(c)(4) and (f) (2006), require that a protest include a detailed statement of the legal and factual grounds for protest, and the grounds stated be legally sufficient. These requirements contemplate that protesters will provide, at a minimum, either allegations or evidence sttfficient, if uncontradicted, to establish the likelihood that the protester will prevail in its claim of improper agency action. Id.
Ravens's assertions do not constitute a valid basis of protest because, even if we found them meritorious, they would not provide a basis for sustaining the protest. In this regard, prejudice is an essential element of any viable protest and, even where the record establishes a procurement deficiency, we will sustain a protest only where the deficiency resulted in competitive prejudice to the protester. See Johnson Controls World SeYvs,, Inco, B-285144, July 6, 2000, 2000 CPD ¶ 108 at 3. Ravens has not demonstrated compdtitive prejudice here. Proposals were submitted prior to the alleged actions about which Ravens complains, and DIA's proposed corrective action is limited to reconsidering its award decision based on the proposals as already submitted; DIA will not request new or revised proposals, and will not reevaluate the proposals but, rather, will only review the evaluations that followed NOSLOT's protest and the award to Rowe, and make a new best value determination. Since the new award decision will be based on the proposals as submitted before Rowe's alleged improper actions, Rowe will be unable to gain any competitive advantage from those actions. It follows that Ravens was not competitively prejudiced, and that there would be no basis for sustaining the protest.1 The protest is dismissed. Anthony H. Gamboa General Counsel

l Ravens irrationally asserts that the only way to eliminate competitive harm to Ravens is to allow offerors to submit revised proposals. If Ravens's allegations are correct, Rowe would potentially benefit from its actions if DIA solicits revised proposals. Thus, DIA's plan not to allow offerors to submit revised proposals is the appropriate way to protect Ravens from competitive harm.

Page 2

B-296741.5; B-296741.6

221

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-10

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 12 of 30

GAO
I A¢counMb[llty ' Inlegrlty * R=llablllty

United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548

Facsimile Transmission Sheet

Date: Re:

From:

Mary G. Curcio, Senior Attorney

Name Daryle A. Jordan, Esq.

Firm/Agency
Patrick Henry LLP

Phone 703-256-7754

Fax

703-256-7883 703-696-1537 202:8224657

M~jor Peter H. Tran, Esq. Defense Intelligence Agency 703-696-2825 Kenneth B. Weckstein, Esq. Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. 202-861-0900 ....

Comments: *Corrected Copy

222

From:Patrick/Henry LLP

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-10

703 256 7888

Filed 05/12/2007

06/0]/2006 ]6"]4 #%9 P.O02

Page 13 of 30

]PATRI.C2K HENRY~

7613 Little River 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
June 1, 2006

I~ICHMr~D E. PArI-?21CK admitted in VA. DC MAYNARD M. IIENRY, ~R. admiffed in VA, DC, PA, MI ~HARON 1, THEO~RE-LE~q~ admitted in MD, DC NY, OFt ; DARYLE A. JORDAN admil~ed in VA, DC. PA

VIA U.S. MAIL AND FACSIMILE Office of the General Counsel U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20548 Attention:
Re:

Procurement Law Control Group REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION B-296741.5; B-296741.6 Protest of The Ravens Group, Inc. Under Request for Proposal No. HHM402-05-R-0017 Defense Intelligence Agency

Of Counsel
'YUVORA NONG admitted in VA, DC. FL ETHEL MITCHELL admitted in MD, DC TX US Virgin Islands, Ghana MALIK N. D~kKE admil~ed in VA, DC USPTO Re~is~raffon El.TON .F, NOR,MAN admitted in DC NY, GA

Dear Sir: The Ravens Group, Inc. ("Ravens Group"), by its undersigned counsel, hereby requests reconsideration of the Government Accountability Office's ("GAG") May 19, 2006, decision dismissing The Ravens Group's Protests of the Defense Intelligence Agency's ("DIA" or "Agency") proposed corrective action in connection with the above-referenced procurement action. A copy of this Request for Reconsideration is being sent via facsimile to the Contracting Officer.

The Ravens Group first learned of the information upon which this Request for Reconsideration is based, on May 22, 2006 via a facsimile from GAG. Because this Request for Reconsideration is being filed within ten (l 0) days of The Ravens Group's receipt of the information upon which the Request for Reconsideration is based, the Protest is timely filed. 4 C.F.R. § 21.14(b) (2006). Protected Information To Be Disclosed Only In Accordance With United States Court of Federal Claims Protective Order
MARYLAND OFFICE

5,900 Princess Garden Parkway
Suite 640 Lanham, MD 20706 Tel: 240.296.3488 Fax: 240.296.3487

www.patrickhenry.net

223

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-10

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 14 of 30

,

~rom:Patrick/Henry LLP

703 256 7888

06/0]/2006 ]6:14 ~09 P,O03

PATRIC. KHENRY
General Accountability Office June 1,2006 Page 2 GAO's May 19th decision contains substantial errors of fact and law, Contrary to the conclusions in GAO's May 19th decision, some of Rowe Contracting Services, Inc.'s ("Rowe") most significant and harmful actions against The Ravens Group, were taken prior to Rowe's selection as contract awardee. GAO's mistaken factual determinations include: 1 ) its determination that "[all] Proposals were submitted prior to Rowe's alleged misconduct; and 2) its determination that the corrective action and new award decision contemplated by DIA would be based only on proposals submitted before Rowe's alleged misconduct.

Further, relying on the above-referenced factual errors, GAO reached erroneous legal conclusions, including: 1) GAO's determination that Rowe would not be able to gain a competitive advantage from its actions, and 2) GAO's determination that The Ravens Group was not competitively prejudiced by Rowe's actions. As this Request will demonstrate, Rowe has essentially admitted to obtaining a competitive advantage based on confidential and/or proprietary information it [improperly] obtained about The Ravens Group.
Thus, based on this Request for Reconsideration, including a sworn witness statement, and the discussion and sworn witness statements in The Ravens Group's April 6, 2006, Protest, as supplemented April 20, 2006, and the discussion in The Ravens Group's May 12, 2006, Protest, GAO should reverse its earlier decision and reinstate The Ravens Group's Protest. Please note that in our previoas Protests, we did not omit the factual discussion that forms the bases of this Request for Reconsideration. Indeed, the substance of everythittg we discuss in this Request was addressed in previous Protests. We are convinced, however, that GAO misinterpreted important aspects of those previous discussions. Thus, this Request . attempts to clarify factual assertions and arguments made in previous protests, not to introduce entirely new information or arguments that could have been produced or made in previous protests. 1. LEGAL STANDARD

In order to sustain a Request for Reconsideration, the Bid Protest Regulations and GAO state that the requesting party must show that GAO's °'prior decision contains errors of either fact or law, or must present information not previously considered, upon which reversal or modification of the decision is deemed warranted." 4 C.F.R. § 21.14(a) (2006); see also Wackenhut international, Inc.; B-295352,3, B-295352.4; 2005 U.S. Comp. Gen. LEXIS 70 (April 19, 2005). In this instance, GAO's prior decision contains significant errors of fact and law.

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

224

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB ~rom:PatrickiHenry LLP

Document 15-10

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 15 of 30

708 256 7888

06/01/2006 16:15 ~09 P.O04

General Accountability Office June 1,2006 Page 3
I1. ARGUMENT

As discussed above, GAO's May 19tl~ decision is based on several important but false factual determinations. These are detailed below. Rowe Submitted Its Proposal Following Its Unauthorized Acquisition of Confidential and/or Proprietary information Belonging to The Ravens Group
Contrary to the assertion in GAO's May 19th decision, all of the proposals were not submitted prior to Rowe's misconduct. More importantly, Rowe did not submit its proposal until after it had improperly acquired confidential and/or proprietary information belonging to The Ravens Group. GAO's conclusion in this regard is refuted by Scott Rowe's own statements, as recounted in the sworn witness statements of J. Jeff Robertson and Milton Grant, two Ravens Group's officials with whom Mr. Rowe personally discussed Rowe's questionable business tactics. See Exhibit A, J. Jeff Robertson Sworn Statement, dated June 1, 2006, enclosed; see also J. Jeff Robertson's and Milton Grant's Sworn Statements enclosed to The Ravens Group's April 6, 2006, Protest, and the discussion thereto.

First, during his discussion with The Ravens Group's officials, Mr. Rowe acknowledged that DIA had contacted him approximately six (6) months after the original award to The Ravens Group and requested that Rowe resubmit a bid if Rowe were still interested in the requirement. This would have been during the period of time that DIA was taking corrective action in connection with the protest filed by NOSLOT.~ Id. In addition, according to Mr. Robertson, Mr. Rowe admitted to him on April 3, 2006, that the only reason Rowe won the award after DIA's corrective action [pursuant to the NOSLOT protest], was Rowe's submission of a work schedule it developed based on one The Ravens Group had submitted. The information regarding scheduling was key to The Ravens Group's proposal and carefully guarded information within the company. Thus, if Rowe had detailed knowledge about The Ravens Group's schedule, which Mr. Rowe suggests he had, Rowe's acquisition of that information would clearly have been unauthorized. /d.
t As discussed in our Protest letter, dated March 27, 2006 ("Protest No. B-296741.3), we noted that, in response to the NOSLOT protest, DIA had decided to take corrective action August 2, 2005, approximately one month following NOSLOT's protest. The corrective action included re-evaluation of all of the offerors proposals, and that offerors determined to be in the competitive range would be provided the opportunity to submit final "revised proposals. See Exhibit B, DIA Memorandum (Undated), enclosed. As also discussed in Protest No. /3-296741.3. it took DIA nine (9) months to complete the corrective action.

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

www.patrickhenry.net

225

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-10

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 16 of 30

Erom:Patrick/Henry LLP

708 256 7883

06/01/2008 16:15 #009 P.O05

General Accountability Office June 1~2006 Page 4 Based on the above, it is clear that all of the proposals, and particularly Rowe's proposal, had not been submitted prior to Rowe's alleged misconduct.

If GAO's May 19tla Decision is not Reversed, the Corrective Action Contemplated by DIA and DIA's New Award Decision Would be Based on Rowe's Revised Proposal Submitted Following Rowe's Misconduct and Thus Extremely _~_ejudicial to The Ravens Group As discussed above, Scott Rowe has admitted to obtaining some of the intbrmation most damaging to The Ravens Group during the pendency of the corrective action DIA undertook in response to the NOSLOT protest. In particular, Rowe admitted to obtaining information about The Ravens Group's price proposal and its technical proposal, including its scheduling strategy and methodology--a key aspect of The Ravens Group's proposal. Moreover, Rowe admitted to using this information in its revised proposal. Indeed, Rowe admitted that but for its acquisition and use of confidential and proprietary information it improperly obtained about The Ravens Group, it would not have received award of the Contract. Rowe's Acquisition and Use of The Ravens Group's Confidential Information Clearly Gave Rowe an Unfair Competitive Advantage
We agree that competitive prejudice is an essential element of every viable protest. We disagree that we have not demonstrated competitive prejudice in lhis instance. To demonstrate prejudice, the protestor generaIIy must establish that but for the actions complained of, it would have had a substantial chance of receiving award. McDonald-Bradley, B-270126, 96-1 CPD ¶ 54. In CDA Investment Technologies. Inc., B-272093.3, 97-1 CPD ¶ 103, GAO broadened the test to include a "'reasonable possibilily that the protestor would have otherwise been the successful offeror", as a sufficient basis for sustaining a protest. In this case, prejudice is clear. The Ravens Group was the initial awardee on this procurement. It is undisputed that Rowe won award during DIA's implementation of corrective action pursuant to the NOSLOT protest. It is also undisputed that DIA requested revised proposals pursuant to the corrective action. Most importantly, Rowe has admitted that the only reason it won the contract award, was its acquisition and use of knowledge about The Ravens Group's proposal, including The Ravens Group's scheduling strategy and methodology and pricing information. Rowe obtained this information improperly and potentially unlawfully, and used the information to its competitive advantage and the competitive disadvantage of The Ravens Group.

PROTECTED MATERIAL: TO BE DISCLOSED ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE PROTECTIVE ORDER www.patrickhenry.net 226

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB ~rom:Patrick/Henry LLP

Document 15-10

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 17 of 30

703 256 7883

06/0]/2006 ]6:]6 #009 P.O06

HEN RY
General Accountability Office June 1, 2006 Page 5 III. UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICE DISCUSSION IN PREVIOUS PROTESTS

In previous protests, in addition to Rowe's misconduct discussed above, we discussed other unfair and potentially unlawful business practices by Rowe, including its cash payments to Ravens Group employees to obtain information about The Ravens Group, and its unauthorized tampering with The Ravens Group's personnel clearances. We believe that this conduct was egregious and warrants Rowe's disqualification fi-om participation in this procurement action. Rowe's actions discussed above, however, directly affected the outcome of the corrective action DIA undertook pursuant to the NOSLOT protest, and placed The Ravens Group at a severe competitive disadvantage vis-h-vis Rowe.

IV.

CONCLUSION

The Ravens Group requests that the Comptroller General of the United States reverse its decision to dismiss the above-referenced Ravens Group Protests, that it reinstate those Protests, and that it grant the relief requested in those Protests. V. REQUEST FOR HEARING

If the issues Jn this case cannot be resolved on the basis of the documents requested in the original Protests, the Ravens Group requests a hearing on all of the matters set forth herein. 4 C.F.R. § 21 .l(d) (2006). Respectfully submitted,

Enclosures Cc:

Mr. Guy A. Tortes Contracting Officer Virginia Contracting Activity Boiling Air Force Base

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

227

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-10

Filed 05/12/2007
3015779097

F, rom:Patrick/Henry LLP
Jurl

708 256 7888

06/01/2006 16:16 #009 P,O07

Page 18 of 30
p.2

Ot 2006 I = 36PM

THERRVEblSGROUP

l~avens
GROUP INC.

SWORN STATEMENT

OF
J. JEFF ROBERTSON On Monday, April 3, 2005 around 7:45 am while in the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) cafeteria, Milton Grant and I w~s approached by Scott Rowe, President of Rowe Contracting Services, and one of his project managers. Scott began to engage Milton and me in a conversation about the DIA_ custodial contract. During the conversation Mr. Rowe informed us that during the initial bid The Ravens Group submitted a schedule whereas his company did not submit one. This schedule was a key aspect of The Ravens Group's proposal, and as such, was carefully guarded information within the company. The only way Mr. Rowe could have lmown about our schedule was kfhe inspected our proposal, and we are certain that we did not authorize Mr. Rowe to review our technical proposal Thus, any access he had to our technical proposal was unauthorized mad improper. Mr. Rowe also stated that he knew this was the only reason Rowe did not win the original bid. He told us that he received a phone call from DIA 6 months after the original award to The Ravens Group requesting that he resubmithis bid. 1"his would have been pursuant to the corrective action DIA agreed to take in response to the protest by NOSLOT. Mr. Rowe went on to say thfit Rowe:s resubmitted bid was $1.5 million less than The Ravens Group's price. This statement suggesled that 1VIx. Rowe had also seen our price proposal. Mr. Rowe admitted to having the above information prior to the best mad final offer being submitted by Rowe in response to DIA's request for a best and final offer following DIA's agreement to take corrective action based on NOSLOT's :protest. Mr. Rowe asserted that he won the award after corrective action because Rowe provided a work schedule based on the one that he had learned The Ravens Group haxt submitted. Furthermore, he submitted a lower quote then our quote since he was made aware of our numbers. I solemnly swear affirm and declare under penatties of perjury and upon personal knowledge that the foregoing is true and correct.

(~LL~. Jeff Robertson Executive Vice President

9901 Busine~ Park~vm5, - Suite H ¯ Imtnbam,/'/JD 20706 - 301-577-8585 veic~ ¯ 3 01-577-9097 lax 110l Perm~ylvania A~'c, NW ¯ 6°~ Floor, Washing~otn, DC 200134 ¯ 202-756-4556 vole:

228

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-10

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 19 of 30

~rom:Patrick/Henry LLP

708 256 7888

06/0!/2006 16:17 #009 P.O08

DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20340-5100

The Ravens Group, LLC 9901 Business Parkway Lanham, MD 20706 Attn: Mr. Joseph B. Ballard
Subject: NOTIFICATION OF GAO PROTEST

Mr. Ballard,
In accordance with FAR. 33.104 DIA Contracting should have informed you in a timely manner that at GAO protest was filed against the Government on the recently awarded custodial services contract (HHM402-05-C-0026). I apologize to your sir that this was not administered in a timely fashion. The GAO protest filed by NOSLOT cleaning services w~s received by DIA on June 29, 20195. An override stay was sent to GAO on July 1, 2005 for the continuation ofthis essential service at the DIAC. On August 2, 2005, based on legal review recommendations regarding the technical evaluation panel members' evaluation of the nine offerors, the DIA contracting officer decided to lake corrective action and re-evaluate the nine proposals that were received a the close of the original submission deadline on May 13, 2005. An amendment was issued by the contracting specialist (Ms. Jones) notifying the nine companies of the reevaluation, Once the proposals have been re-evaluated, award may be made without di~eu~ions. If the Agency determines that discussions are warranted, a competitive range will be established and discussion will be conducted with all offerors within the range. Upon completion of discussion, offerors within the competitive range will be provided the opportunity to submit final revised proposals. ~ Again, the Government apologizes for the lack of responsiveness of our part.

Contracting Officer DIA

229

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB , , ~rom:PatrJck/Henry LLP

Document 15-10

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 20 of 30

703 256 7888

06/01/2006 18:18 #%9 P.O01

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:
DaryIe A. Jordan 703.256.7883 703.256.7754 The Ravens Group, hac. June 1,2006

PLEASE DELIVER TO THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS IN YOUR ORGANIZATION NAME ORGANIZATION

Office of the General C. 0unsel, GAO Mr. Guy A. Tortes, Contracting Officer Major Peter H. Tran, Trial A~ttomey
LTG (R) Joe N. Ballard Mr. Jeff Robertson

Procurement Law Control Group Virginia Contracting Activity, Boiling Air Force Base U.S. Army Legal Services Age.ncy The Ravens Group, Inc.

PHONE # 202.512.8234

FAX #

202.512.9749

202.231.8'077 703.696.2825
301.577.8585

2o2.231.2831
703.696.1537
301.577.9097

The Ravens Group, inc. .................................... 301.577.8585

301.577.9097

COMMENTS:
The information contained in this facs!mile~ 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 by facsimile. If the person actually receiving this facshnile or any other reader of the facsimile b not the
n c e n dlstt tbutton l~4q4l~J~z~cjqt~.munication is strictly prohihited. If you have e'b-gi'ged this c;mmunicatio ~ in erro~; please im ediately notify us by telephone and return the original message to us at the above address via U.S. Postal Service.

230

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-10

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 21 of 30

June14,2006

VIA TELEFAX Mary G. Curcio, Esquire U.S. General Accountability Office 44t G Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20548 Re: Protest of The Ravens Group, Inc. Request For Reconsideration B-296741.007 Dear Ms Curcio: This firm is counsel to Rowe Contracting Services, Inc. ("Rowe") regarding the referenced Request For Reconsideration ("Request") filed by The Ravens Group, Inc. ("Ravens"). Based on the information in the redacted Request that has been provided to Rowe, the Request should be denied. The heart of the RequeSt is the June t, 2006, Sworn Statement attached as Exhibit A to the Request. To the extent that the Sworn Statement introduces new facts based on the alleged April 3, 2006 conversation, the statement should be , disregai'ded. Arguments based on such alleged facts are untimely. Secondly, as discussed below, Rowe denies any wrongdoing of any kind. While Rowe cannot discern the specific facts alleged by Ravens (because portions of the Request have been redacted), if Ravens is claiming that Rowe obtained proprietary data of Ravens and used such data to submit its proposal, Ravens is wrong, And, significantly, any such allegation would require a full-scale, private litigation between Ravens and Rowe in which Rowe would have the oppoi'tunity to obtain full discovery from Ravens, assert appropriate counterclaims (for defamation and other causes of action) and question any witnesses for Ravens under cross-examination before a jury. The Government Accountability Office ("GAO") is not the proper forum to resolve such disputes between private parties. This is especially so when the allegations are totally devoid of merit,

DC:592012v2

231

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB Mary G. Curcio, Esquire June 14, 2.006 Page 2

Document 15-10

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 22 of 30

Thirdly, Ravens' Request is based on two allegations. First, Ravens speculates that Scott Rowe "inspected our [Ravens'] proposal..." See Sworn Statement. As best we can tell, this allegation was not in the two protests that are the subject of the Request. And, in any event, Mr. Rowe never has seen Ravens' proposal. Second, Ravens objects to the fact that, as part of DIA's corrective action last year, DIA asked Rowe to "resubmit his bid" and Mr. Rowe said that "Rowe's resubmitted bid was [redacted] less than The Ravens Group's price." See Sworn Statement. In its Request, Ravens apparently is alleging that Rowe was able to underbid Ravens because it knew Ravens' price. Rowe did not (and does not) know what price Ravens proposed in the most-recent and ongoing competition. However, Rowe did know what price Ravens proposed in the initial procurement. This is because " by letter dated June 27, 2005, D1A notified all offerors, included Rowe, that the contract had been awarded to Ravens.at the price of $21,731,005.09. A copy of DIA's letter is attached. Rowe properly had this information about Ravens' contract price and Rowe did submit a proposal below that price. That fact does not provide a basis for a protest or for Ravens' Request For Reconsideration, For the above reasons, Rowe submits that GAO should deny Ravens' Request For Reconsideration. Very truly yours,

eth B. Weckstein KBW:cmj Enclosures Major Peter H. Tran, Esq. Daryle A. Jordan, Esq.

DC:5920J2u2

232

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-10

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 23 of 30

VIRGINIA CONTR, ACT~NG ACTIVITY
200 MACDILL

Mr. Scon Euger~a Rows, Prr.Sidsnl; 515o Hwy 22, Ste C-! I Mand~'ville, LA 70471 Dear Mr. Rowe

Af~~ h~rough evaluation of all pmposa}~ u~J.zigg the evaluation critedat set forth in the RFP, it was deterratned to be in the best int=r=st of ~e Gove~nt to award to ~¢ fol]owlng con~act~ ~ being ~ ~st v~uc {o &c ~v=~t, price ~d o~cr factors Th~ Ravens Group, LLC i 101 Peaasylvania Avenue N,W. Washlnglon, Dt2 20004. Total price incloding th~ base period and a!l options --- $21 If you desire a debriefing, please submi! yo~ r~quest via fax to (202) 231-2831 as soon ,'u~ possib!~ but no later than l ~ July 2005 ~o/uat~ka/one~ (202) 231-3613, Your p~pos~ indical~d that considerable effort wa~ involvcd in its preparation ~nd DIA .qesires to express its @preciadon for yore toque.st in this effort.

To~P.XS7
Officer

233

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-10

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 24 of 30

EPSTEIN BEP-KZER & BREEN~

FACSIMILE COVER SHEET

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
To:

Fax Number: (703) 696-1537 Atty. No. Client No.:
052 53807.002

Telephone Number: (703) 696-2825 Pages (including cover):

Major Peter H. Tran
From: Kenneth B, Weckstein

Date: June 14, 2006
Comments:

NOTICE OF PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY THIS TBLECOPY lS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IT IS INT~NDBD SOLELY FOR THE ADDRBSSEE. ANY UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE, REPRODUCTION, DISTRIBUTION OR THE TAKING OF ANY ACTION IN RELIANCE ON THE CONTENTS OF THIS INFORMATION IS PROHIBITED, IF YOU RECEIVED THIS TELECOPY IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY. "I'HIS COMMUNICATION DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE STANDARDS OF A COVERED OPINION WITHIN THE MEANING OF CIR.CULAR 230 ISSUED BY T~,IE UNITED STATF~ SECR.BTARY OF TFIE TRP_~.SUR, Y. ACCORD!NGLY., ANY TAX ADVICE CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION CANNOT BE USED, AND WAS NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN TO BE USED, FOR THE PUIKPOSB OF AVOIDING UNIT. ED STATES TAX PENALTIES, IN ADDITION, ANY TAX ADVICE CONTAINED IN Tills COMMI~IICATION MAY NOT BE USED TO PROMOTE~ MARKET O1~. RECOMMEND A TRANSACTION TO ANOTHEt~ PBRSON, IF YOU DO NOT R.ECEIVE ALL PAGES OR HA VE ANY PROBLEMS.I'N RECEIVING THIS TELECOPF, PLEASE CALL TItE ,gENDER IMMEDIA TEL ]~.

De:sos] ~6~

234

From:Patrick/Henry LLP

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-10

708 256 7888

Filed 05/12/2007

06/16/2006 12:58//009 P,O02

Page 25 of 30

B~TR.I.C.K. HENRY'.

7619 Little River Turnpike
Suite 340 Annandale, VA 22003

June 16, 2006 VIA U.S. MAIL & FACSIMILE Office of the General Counsel U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20548 Attention: Ms. Mary G. Curcio Senior Attorney Procurement Law Control Group B-296741.7 Protest of The Ravens Group, In-'. Request for Reconsideration Response to Rowe Contractin~ Services~ Inc. Dear Ms. Curcio: This is in response to Rowe Contracting Services, Inc.'s ("Rowe") June 14, 2006, letter, requesting the General Accountability Office ("GAO") to deny The Ravens Group's June 1, 2006, Request for Reconsideration referenced above. As the following discussion clearly establishes, the weight of the arguments, including Rowe's argument for additional discovery, provides ample justification for GAO to grant our Request for Reconsideration. First, our Request for Reconsideration is timely. Our Request for Reconsideration, including the Sworn Statement attached as Exhibit A, does not introduce any new theories or new evidence. It merely reiterates, emphasizes, and clarifies evidence we previously produced and discussed. Moreover, the evidence we have produced--several sworn witness statements--is unchallenged by any other evidence. The sworn statements provide clear, credible, and compelling evidence that Rowe improperly obtained confidential information regarding The Ravens Group and used that information to The Ravens Group's competitive disadvantage. This evidence is wholly unrefuted. Rowe's counsel disputes the sworn statements, but his statements are not evidence. He was not present at any of.the meetings between Mr. Rowe and our witnesses.

Tel; 703.256.7754
Fax: 703.256.7883

I~tC}IARD E. PATRICK admitted in VA, DC

MAYNARD M. I:IENRY,
admitled in VA. DC PA. MI ~l'b~qN 1. THEODORE-LEwIS admitted in MD, DC NE OH

DARYLE A. JORDAN
admitted in VA, DC PA

O~,Counsel
YUVO~A NONG
admitzed in VA, DC FL ETHEL MITCHELL ~dmi~ed in MD, DC. TX US Virgin Islands. Ghana

MALIK N. DIL-~E
admitted i~ ~. DC USPTO Regstralion

EtXON E NORMAN admi{~ed in DC. NY, GA

b.'LA RYI~\NI) OFFICE 5900 Princess Garden Parkway Suite 640 Lanham, MD 20706 Tel: 240.296.3488 Fax: 240.296.3487

www.patrickhenry.net

235

From:Patrick/Henry LLP

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-10

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 26 of 30

708 256 7888

06/16/2006 12:58 #009 P.O03

General Accountability Office June 16, 2006 Page 2 In addition, we disagree with Rowe that GAO is not the appropriate forum to review this dispute. To the contrary, at the heart of this dispute, are serious issues regarding the integrity of the procurement process, and particularly, the integrity of the process that resulted in DIA's decision to terminate the Contract originally awarded to The Ravens Group, and to re-award that requirement to Rowe. We agree with Rowe that further proceedings, including additional discovery and investigation are critical to a proper resolution of this matter. That is why we urge GAO to grant our Request for Reconsideration and allow o~ Protest to proceed.~ We are confident that if we are provided an opportunity to review Rowe's initial proposal, its revised proposal, and the other discovery we have requested to review under a Protective Order, the evidence will clearly corroborate Mr. Rowe's statements to Ravens Group officials, that Rowe would not have won reaward of the Contract but for its acquisition of information in The Ravens Group's proposal. 'Further, The Ravens Group does not have to speculate that Rowe "inspected its [Ravens'] proposal." Scott Rowe, Rowe's President admitted to Ravens Group officials that he had inspected The Ravens Group's proposal, as documented in several sworn statements. Finally, whether or not DIA's approval of Rowe's revised price following DIA's disclosure of The Ravens Group's price is objectionable, there is credible and compelling evidence, including Scott Rowe's own admission, that Rowe sought and acquired key confidential and proprietary information regarding The Ravens Group's technical proposal. It then used this information to The Ravens Group's competitive disadvantage to receive re-award of the Contract. For these reasons, as well as those originally discussed in our June 1, 2006, letter, GAO should grant our Request for Reconsideration.

-

cc:

Major Peter H. Tran
Kenneth B. Weckstein, Esquire

I At this point it would probably be more efficient to allow DIA to complete its source selection review. If DIA determines that the Contract award should remain with The Ravens Group, there would be no further need for The Ravens Group to protest. If, however, DIA determines that the Contract should be awarded to Rowe, The Ravens Group should be permitted an opportunity to resume its Protests.

www.patrickhenry, net

236

From:Patrick/Henry LLP

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-10

708 256 7888

Filed 05/12/2007

06/]6/2006 12:57 #0% P,O0]

Page 27 of 30

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: DOCUMENTS
Response to Rowe Contracting Services, Inc.'s June 14th Letter

Daryle A. Jordan 703.256.7883 70o.256.7754 The Ravens Group, Inc. June 16, 2006
NUMBER OF PAGES (including cover)* Three (3)

PLEASE DELIVER TO THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS IN ,YOUR ORGANIZATION NAME ORGANIZATION

Mary G. Curcio, Esq. Major Peter H. Tran, Trial Attorney LTG (R) Joe N. Ballard
Mr. Jeff Robertson

Office of the General Counsel, GAO U.S. Army Legal Services 703.696.2825 Agency The Ravens Group, Inc. 301.577.8585 The Ravens Group, Inc. 301.577.8585 Epstein Becker & Green, 202.861.0900 P.C.

PHONE # 202.512.8234

FAX #

202.512.9749 703.696.1537 301.577.9097 301.577.9097 202.861.3560

Kenneth B. Weckstein, Esq. COMMENTS:

The information contained in this facsimile message is information protected by attorney-client ancb'or the attorney/work
product privilege. It is intended only.ibr the use of the individual named above and the privileges are not waived by virtue of

this having been sent by facsimile. If the person actually receiving this facsimile or an.v other reader of the facsimile is not the
t¢ c n dtstrtbulton n I ~.~h~cflt~munication is strictly prohibited. If you have re--~-d'~ed tt~Lq communication in error, pt se immeaiate0

notifi.,

tlS by

telephone and return the original message to us at the above address via ~ZS. Postal Service.

237

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-10

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 28 of 30

EPSTEIN BECKER & 13REEN~ P,C.
LAW NW, SUITE ,21gD 3 ?- 1 1

KENNETH 1~. WEE:KSTEIN

June 16,2006

k: W E E: K ~T E I N @ E B ~ L,~ W. I~ ~ 1'4

VIA TELEFAX

Mary G. Curcio, Esquire ' U.S. Government Accountability Office '441 G Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20548 Re: Protest of The Ravens Group, Inc. Request For Reconsideration B-29674t .007 Dear Ms. Curcio: This firm is counsel to Rowe Contracting Services, inc. ("Rowe") with respect to the referenced Request For Reconsideration. Rowe briefly responds to the June 16, 2006 letter of The Ravens Group, Inc. ("Ravens"). In its letter, Ravens essentially admits that its protests are premature. See Ravens' letter at Footnote 1. GAO does not consider premature protests. Ravens complains about the decision of DIA to terminate Ravens' contract. See Ravens' letter at page 2, first paragraph. That~is an issue of contract administration that is not appropriate for consideration by GAO. Ravens also argues that its request should be granted because it requires additional discovery (presumably from Rowe). GAO's rules do not allow for Such discovery. As previously noted, Ravens' request merely repeats arguments already expressed in its protest, simply expresses disagreement with GAO's prior decision and provides information which could .have been, but was not, provided during the protest. For all of the above reasons, Ravens' request should be denied.

¯ DC:.~92012v2

238

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-10

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 29 of 30

MaN G. Curcio, Esquire June 16,2006 Page 2

KBW:cmj cc: Major Peter H. Tran, Esq. Daryle A. Jordan, Esq.

239

Case 1:07-cv-00243-LMB

Document 15-10

Filed 05/12/2007

Page 30 of 30

EPST',:'IN BEI~K£R ,~, GREEN~

FACSIMILE COVER SHEET

To:

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL Telephone Number: Fax Number:
(703) 696-1537 Atty. No. Client No.: 052 53807.002 (703) 696-2825 Pages (inc]uding cover):

Major Peter H. Tran From: Kenneth B. Wecksteln Date: June 16, 2006 Comments:

NOTICE OF PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY THIS TgLECOPY IS PRIVILEGED AND CONF|DENTIAL, IT IS INTENDED SOLELY FOR TlqE ADDRESSEE, ANY UNAUTHORIZED DTSCLOSURE, REPRODUCTION, DISTRII3UTION OR TI-[B TAI(ING OF ANY ACTION 1N RELIANCE ON THE CONTENTS OF THIS INFORMATION IS PROH [BITBD, IF YOU RECEIVED T[fflS TELECOPY IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY,
THIS COMMUNICATION DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE STANDARDS OF A COVER.ED OPINION WITHIN THE MEAN!NO OF CIRCULAR 230 ISSUED BY TI, IE UNITED STATES SECrgJ~TARY OF Tt-I]~ TREASURY, ACCORDINGLY, ANY TAX ADVICE CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION CANNOT BE USED, AND WAS NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN TO BE USED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVOIDING UNITED STA.TES TAX PENALTIES. IN ADDITION, ANY TAX ADV~[CE CONTAINED IN THIS COMMUNICATION MAY NOT BE USED TO PROMOTE, MARKET OR R, ECOMMEND A TRANSACTION TO ANOTHER PERSON. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE A LL PA GEE OR KA VE ANY P~OBL~MS,[N RECEIVING Tills TELECOPY, ~LEASE ~LL TI~E S~NDER IMMEDIA TEL E

DC:60511