Free Answer - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:05-cv-00425-CCM

Document 10

Filed 08/19/2005

Page 1 of 45

IN THE UNITED STATES COURTOF FEDERALCLAIMS EP PRODUCTIONS, INC., Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. DEFENDANT'S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM For its answerto the complaint, defendant, the UnitedStates, admits, denies, and alleges as follows: 1. Deniesthe allegations containedin the first sentence of paragraph1 for lack of No. 05-425C (Judge C. Miller)

knowledge informationsufficient to form a belief as to their trath. Theallegations contained or in the secondsentence of paragraph1 constitute conclusionsof la~v to whichno response is required; to the extent they maybe deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. Admitstbe allegations contained in the third and fourth sentences ofpara~aph1 to the extent supported by Contract NumberDAMT01-02-C-0035 ("Contract") and Modification No. P00010to that Contract, whichare the best evidenceof their contents; otherwisedenies the allegations containedin the third and fourth sentences of paragraph1. Theallegations containedin the fifth sentence of paragraph1 constitute conclusionsof law to whichno response is required; to the extent they maybe deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. 2. Theallegations containedin the first sentence of para~maph constitute 2

conclusionsof law and plaintiffs characterization of its case to whichno responseis required; to the extent they maybe deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. Admitsthe allegations

Case 1:05-cv-00425-CCM

Document 10

Filed 08/19/2005

Page 2 of 45

contained in the second sentence of paragraph 2 to the extent snpported by Modification No. P00010,issued on February13, 2003, whichis the best evidenceof its contents. 3. Theallegations contained in paragraph 3 constitute conclusions of law and

plaintiff's characterization of its case to whichno responseis required; to the extent they may be deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. 4. Theallegations contained in paragraph4 constitute conclusions of law to which

no response is required; to the extent they maybe deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. 5. Admitsthe allegations contained in the first sentence ofparagaph5 to the extent

supported by the document cited, whichis the best evidenceof its contents; otherwise denies the allegations containedin the first sentence of paragraph5. Admitsthe allegations containedin the second sentence of paragraph5 to the extent supportedby the cited contracting officer's May 27, 2004final decision letter, whichis the best evidenceof its contents; otherwisedenies the allegations contained in the secondsentence of paragraph5. 6. Defendant'sresponses to paragraphs 1 through 5 of the complaint are

inco~-poratedby reference. 7. Admitsthe allegations containedin the first sentence of paragaaph7 to the extent

supportedby the Contract, whichis the best evidenceof its contents; otherwisedenies the allegations containedin the first sentence of paragraph7. Admitsthe allegations containedin the secondsentence of paragraph7. Admitsthe allegations containedin the third, fourth, and fifth sentences of paragraph7 to the extent supported by the cited email, whichis the best evidenceof

Case 1:05-cv-00425-CCM

Document 10

Filed 08/19/2005

Page 3 of 45

its contents; otherwisedenies the allegations containedin the third, fourth, and fifth sentencesof paragraph 7. 8. Admitsthe allegations containedin paraga'aph8 to the extent supported by

Modification No. P00010,issued on February 13, 2003, whichis the best evidence of its contents; otherwisedenies the allegations contained in paragraph8. 9. Admitsthe allegations contained in paragraph9 to the extent supported by

Modification No. P00010,issued on February 13, 2003, whichis the best evidence of its contents; otherwisedenies the allegations contained in paragraph9. 10. Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 10 for lack of kaaowledgeor infomaation sufficient to foma belief as to their truth. a 11. Admitsthe allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph 11 to the extent supportedby the cited invoices, whichare the best evidenceof their contents; otherwise denies the allegations containedin the first sentence of paragraph11. Admitsthe allegations contained in the second, third, and fourth sentences of paragraph11 to the extent supported by the cited letter to plaintiff, which the best evidence its contents; other~visedenies the is of allegations containedin the second, third, and fourth sentences of paragraph11. 12. Admitsthe allegations contained in the first sentence ofpara~aph12 to the extent

supportedby the contracting officer's letter to plaintiff dated April 14, 2003, whichis the best evidenceof its contents; otherwisedenies the allegations containedin the first sentence of paragraph 12, The allegations contained in the second sentence of paragraph 12 constitute

Case 1:05-cv-00425-CCM

Document 10

Filed 08/19/2005

Page 4 of 45

plaintiff's characterization of its case, to whichno responseis required; to the extent they may be deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. 13. Theallegations contained in the first, second, and third sentences of paragraph13

constitute conclusionsof law and plaintiff's characterization of its case to ~vhichno responseis required; to the extent they maybe deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. Admitsthe allegations containedin the fourth sentence of paragraph13 that Ms. Porter attended the IPT, went to Washington,and met with Ms. Robinson-Bumette; otherwise denies the allegations contained in the fourth sentence of paragraph13 for lack of knowledge information sufficient or to forma belief as to their truth. Deniesthe allegations containedin the fifth sentenceof paragraphI3 for lack ofl~aowledge informationsufficient to forma belief as to their truth. or 14. Theallegations containedin para~aph14 constitute plaintiff's characterization of

its case to whichno responseis required; to the extent they maybe deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. 15. The allegations contained in paragraph 15 constitute plaintiff's characterization of its case to whichno responseis required; to the extent they maybe deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. 16. Theallegations containedin paragraph16 constitute plaintiff's characterization of its case to whichno responseis required; to the extent they maybe deemed allegations of fact, they are denied.

Case 1:05-cv-00425-CCM

Document 10

Filed 08/19/2005

Page 5 of 45

17. Admitsthe allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph 17 to the extent supported by the referenced contracting officer's email, whichwasdated April 16, 2004, which is the best evidenceof its contents; otherwisedenies the allegations containedin the first sentence of paragraph 17. Admitsthe allegation contained in the second sentence of paragraph 17 that plaintiff metwith the contracting officer on February2, 2004; other~vise denies the allegations contained in the second sentence of paragraph 17. Admitsthe allegations contained in the third sentence of paragraph17. Theallegations containedin the fourth sentence of paragraph17 constitute conclusionsof law and plaintiff's characterization of its case to whichno reply is necessary; to the extent they may deemed be allegations of fact, they are denied. 18. Admitsthe allegations contained in paragraph 18 to the extent supported by the cited document, whichis the best evidenceof its contents; otherwisedenies the allegations contained in paragraph 18. 19. Admitsthe allegations contained in paragraph 19 to the extent supported by the cited document, whichis the best evidenceof its contents; otherwisedenies the allegations contained in paragraph 19. 20. 2 I. Plaintiff's complaintdoes not include paragraph20. Admitsthe allegations contained in paragraph21 to the extent supported by the

cited document, whichis the best evidenceof its contents; other~vise denies the allegations contained in paragraph 21.

Case 1:05-cv-00425-CCM

Document 10

Filed 08/19/2005

Page 6 of 45

22. Admitsthe allegations contained in paragraph 22 to the extent supported by the cited document,whichis the best evidenceof its contents; otherwisedenies the allegations contained in paragraph 22. 23. Admitsthe allegations contained in paragraph 23 to the extent supported by the cited document,whichis the best evidenceof its contents; otherwise denies the allegations contained in paragraph 23. 24. Admitsthe allegations containedin the first, second, and third sentences of

paragraph24 to the extent supported by the cited document, whichis the best evidenceof its contents; otherwisedenies the allegations containedin the first, second, and third sentencesof paragraph24. Deniesthe allegations contained in the fourth sentence of paragraph 24. 25. Admits the allegations contained in paragraph 25 to the extent supported by the cited document, whichis the best evidenceof its contents; otherwisedenies the allegations contained in paragraph25. 26. Admitsthe allegations contained in paragraph26 to the extent supported by the

cited document, whichis the best evidenceof its contents; otherwisedenies the allegations contained in paragraph 26. 27. Admitsthe allegations contained in paragraph27 to the extent supported by the

cited document, whichis the best evidenceof its contents; otherwisedenies the allegations contained in paragraph 27.

Case 1:05-cv-00425-CCM

Document 10

Filed 08/19/2005

Page 7 of 45

28.

Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 28 for lack oflaaowledgeor

infomaation sufficient to forma belief as to their truth. 29. Admitsthe allegations contained in paragraph 29 to the extent that plaintiff submitted a proposal in response to solicitation numberDAMT01-03-R-0072, proposal is which

the best evidenceof its contents; other, vise denies the allegations containedin paragraph29. 30. Admitsthe allegations contained in paragraph 30 to the extent that the contracting officer initiated an investigation of plaintiff, as required by 48 C.F.R.§ 3.104-7, followingthe release of confidential source selection inforuaationto plaintiff in comaection solicitation with number DAMT01-03-R-0072, that the Commander the Surface Deployment and and of Distribution Command ("SDDC") subsequently directed that a request for a formal investigation be made;otherwise denies the allegations contained in paragraph30. 31. Denies. 32. Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 32 for lack of l~mwledge or infom~ation sufficient to fom~ belief as to their truth. a 33. Denies.

34. Admitsthe allegations contained in pm'agraph34 to the extent supported by the cited proposals, whichare the best evidenceof their contents; otherwisedenies the allegations contained in paragraph 34. 35. Theallegations containedin the first sentence of paragraph35 constitute

conclusionsof law and plaintiffs characterization of its case to whichno responseis required; to

Case 1:05-cv-00425-CCM

Document 10

Filed 08/19/2005

Page 8 of 45

the extent they maybe deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. Admitsthe allegations containedin the secondsentence of paragraph35 to the extent supported by the cited ratings documents, whichare the best evidenceof their contents; other~vise denies the allegations contained in the secondsentence of paragraph35. Theallegations contained in the third sentence of paragraph35 constitute conclusionsof law and plaintiff's characterization of its case to which no responseis required; to the extent they maybe deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. 36. Denies. 37. The allegations contained in paragraph 37 constitute conclusions of law and plaintiff's characterization of its case to whichno responseis required; to the extent they maybe deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. 38. The allegations contained in paragraph 38 constitute conclusions of law and plaintiff's characterization of its case to whichno responseis required; to the extent they maybe deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. 39. Admitsthe allegations contained in paragaph39 to the extent supported by the

contracting officer's final decision dated November 2004, ~vhichis the best evidenceof its 9, contents; other~vise denies the allegations containedin paragraph39. 40. Theallegations contained in paragraph 40 constitute conclusions of law and

plaintiff's characterization of its case to whichno responseis required; to the extent they maybe deemed allegations of fact, they are denied.

Case 1:05-cv-00425-CCM

Document 10

Filed 08/19/2005

Page 9 of 45

41. Defendant's responses to paragraphs 1 tl~rough 40 of the complaint are incorporated by reference. 42. Admitsthe allegations contained in paragraph42 to the extent supported by 48

C.F.R. § 52.212-4, whichis the best evidenceof its contents; otherwisedenies the allegations contained in paragraph 42. 43. Admitsthe allegations contained in paragraph 43 to the extent supported by the Contract, whichis the best evidenceof its contents; otherwisedenies the allegations containedin paragraph 43. 44. The allegations contained in paragraph 44 constitute conclusions of law and plaintiff's characterization of its case to whichno responseis required; to the extent they may be deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. 45. Theallegations contained in paragraph 45 constitute conclusions of law and

plaintiff's characterization of its case to whichno responseis required; to the extent they may be deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. 46. The allegations contained in paragraph 46 constitute conclusions of law and plaintiffs characterization of its case to whichno responseis required; to the extent they maybe deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. 47. The allegations contained in paragraph 47 constitute conclusions of law and plaintiff's characterization of its case to whichno responseis required; to the extent they maybe deemed allegations of fact, they are denied.

9

Case 1:05-cv-00425-CCM

Document 10

Filed 08/19/2005

Page 10 of 45

48. Defendant's responses to paragraphs 1 through 47 of the complaint are incorporated by reference. 49. Admitsthe allegations contained in paragraph 49 to the extent supported by plaintiff's settlement proposal, whichis the best evidenceof its contents; otherwisedenies the allegations contained in paragraph49. 50. Admitsthe allegations contained in the first and second sentences of paragraph 50 to the extent supportedby the contracting officer's final decision dated May 2004, whichis 27, the best evidenceof its contents; otherwisedenies the allegations containedin the first and second sentences of paragraph50. Theallegations contained in the third sentence of paragraph 50 constitute conclusionsof law and plaintiff's characterization of its case to whichno response is required; to the extent they maybe deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. 51. Theallegations contained in paragraph 51 constitute conclusions of law and

plaintiff's characterization of its case to whichno responseis required; to the extent they maybe deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. 52. The allegations contained in paragraph 52 constitute conclusions of la~v and plaintiff's characterization of its case to whichno responseis required; to the extent they may be deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. 53. Admitsthe allegations contained in paragraph53 to the extent supported by the

contracting officer's final decision dated May 2004, whichis the best evidenceof its 27, contents; otherwise denies the allegations contained in paragraph53.

10

Case 1:05-cv-00425-CCM

Document 10

Filed 08/19/2005

Page 11 of 45

54.

Admitsthe allegations containedin the first sentence of paragraph54 to the extent

supported by the cited equipment contract, whichis the best evidenceof its contents; otherwise denies the allegations containedin the first sentence of paragraph54. Theallegations contained in the second sentence of paragraph54 constitute conclusionsof law and plaintiff's characterization of its case to whichno response is required; to the extent they maybe deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. 55. Admitsthe allegations contained in paragraph 55 to the extent supported by the

contracting officer's final decision dated May 2004, whichis the best evidenceof its 27, contents; otherwise denies the allegations containedin paragraph55. 56. Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 56 for lack of knowledge or

information sufficient to fom~ belief as to their truth. a 57. The allegations contained in paragraph 57 constitute conclusions of law and plaintiffs characterization of its case to whichno responseis required; to the extent they maybe deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. 58. Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 58 for lack ofl~mwledgeor information sufficient to forma belief as to their truth. 59. Theallegations contained in paragraph 59 constitute conclusions of law and

plaintiff's characterization of its case to whichno responseis required; to the extent they may be deemed allegations of fact, they are denied.

11

Case 1:05-cv-00425-CCM

Document 10

Filed 08/19/2005

Page 12 of 45

60.

The allegations contained in paragraph 60 constitute conclusions of law mad

plaintiff's characterization of its case to whichno responseis required; to the extent they maybe deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. 61. The allegations contained in paragraph 61 constitute conclusions of law and plaintiff's characterization of its case to whichno responseis required; to the extent they maybe deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. 62. Admitsthe allegations contained in paragraph 62 to the extent supported by the contracting officer's final decision dated May 2004, whichis the best evidenceof its 27, contents; otherwise denies the allegations containedin paragraph62. 63. Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 63 for lack of knowledgeor infomaation sufficient to forma belief as to their truth. 64. Admitsthe allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph64 to the extent

supportedby the cited Contract, whichis the best evidenceof its contents; otherwisedenies the allegations containedin the first sentence of paragraph64. Deniesthe allegations contained in the second and third sentences of paragraph64 for lack of'knowledge information sufficient to or fonna belief as to their truth. 65. Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 65 for lack of knowledgeor infomlationsufficient to fonna belief as to their truth. 66. Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 66 for lack of knowledge or

information sufficient to forma belief as to their truth.

Case 1:05-cv-00425-CCM

Document 10

Filed 08/19/2005

Page 13 of 45

67. Admitsthe allegations contained in paragraph 67 to the extent supported by the contracting officer's final decision dated May 2004, whichis the best evidenceof its 27, contents; otherwise denies the allegations containedin paragraph67. 68. The allegations contained in paragraph68 constitute conclusions of law and

plaintiff's characterization of its case to whichno responseis required; to the extent they may be deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. 69. The allegations contained in paragraph 69 constitute conclusions of law m~d plaintiff's characterization of its case to whichno responseis required; to the extent they may be deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. 70. Admits the allegations contained in paragraph 70 to the extent supported by plaintiff's settlement proposal, whichis the best evidenceof its contents; otherwisedenies the allegations contained in paragraph70. 71. Admitsthe allegations contained in paragraph71 to the extent supported by the

contracting officer's final decision dated May 2004, whichis the best evidenceof its 27, contents; otherwise denies the allegations contained in paragraph71. 72. Denies. 73. Theallegations contained in paragraph 73 constitute conclusions of law and

plaintiff's characterization of its case to whichno responseis required; to the extent they maybe deemed allegations of fact, they are denied.

13

Case 1:05-cv-00425-CCM

Document 10

Filed 08/19/2005

Page 14 of 45

74. The allegations contained in paragraph 74 constitute conclusions of law and plaintiff's characterization of its case to whichno responseis required; to the extent they may be deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. 75. The allegations contained in paragaaph 75 constitute conclusions of law and plaintiff's characterization of its case to whichno responseis required; to the extent they may be deemed allegatious of fact, they are denied. 76. Admitsthe allegations contained in para~aph76 to the extent supported by the

contracting officer's final decision dated May 2004, whichis the best evidenceof its 27, contents; otherwise denies the allegations containedin paragraph76. 77. Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 77 for lack of knowledgeor info~nnation sufficient to fom~ belief as to their truth. a 78. The allegations contained in paragraph 78 constitute conclusions of law and plaintiff's characterization of its case to whichno responseis required; to the extent they may be deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. 79. Theallegations contained in paragraph 79 constitute conclusions of law and

plaintiff's characterization of its case to whichno responseis required; to the extent they may be deemed alle~ations of fact, they are denied. 80. Denies the allegations contained in paragraph 80 for lack of knowledgeor infomaation sufficient to forma belief as to their truth.

14

Case 1:05-cv-00425-CCM

Document 10

Filed 08/19/2005

Page 15 of 45

81.

Theallegations contained in paragraph 81 constitute conclusions of law and

plaintiff's characterization of its case to whichno responseis required; to the extent they maybe deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. 82. Admitsthe allegations contained in paragraph82 to the extent supported by the

contracting officer's final decision dated May 2004, ~vhichis the best evidenceof its 27, contents; othenvise denies the allegations contained in paragraph82. 83. The allegations contained in paragraph83 constitute conclusions of la~v and

plaintiffs characterization of its case to whichno responseis required; to the extent they maybe deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. 84. Theallegations contained in paragraph 84 constitute conclusions of law and

plaintiff's characterization of its case to whichno responseis required; to the extent they maybe deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. 85. Defendant's responses to paragraphs 1 through 84 of the complaint are incorporated by reference. 86. Admitsthe allegations contained in paragraph 86 to the extent supported by the cited document, whichis the best evidenceof its contents; otherwisedenies the allegations contained in paragraph86. 87. Admitsthe allegations contained in paragraph87 to the extent supported by the

contracting officer's final decision dated November 2004, whichis the best evidenceof its 9, contents; otherwise denies the allegations contained in paragraph87.

15

Case 1:05-cv-00425-CCM

Document 10

Filed 08/19/2005

Page 16 of 45

88. Admitsthe allegations contained in paragraph 88 to the extent supported by the contracting officer's final decision dated November 2004, whichis the best evidenceof its 9, contents; otherwise denies the allegations contained in paragraph88. 89. Admitsthe allegations contained in paragraph 89 to the extent supported by

ModificationNo. P00005 the Contract, whichis the best evidenceof its contents; otherwise to denies the allegations containedin paragraph89. 90. Admitsthe allegations contained in paragraph 90 to the extent supported by ModificationNo. P00005 the Contract, whichis the best evidence of its contents; otherwise to denies the allegations containedin paragraph90. 91. Admits the allegations contained in paragraph 91 to the extent supported by ModificationNo. P00005 the Contract, whichis the best evidenceof its contents; otherwise to denies the allegations containedin paragraph91. 92. Admitsthe allegations contained in paragraph 92 to the extent supported by the

cited document, whichis the best evidenceof its contents; otherwisedenies the allegations contained in paragraph 92. 93. Admitsthe allegations contained in paragraph 93 to the extent supported by the contracting officer's final decision dated November 2004, whichis the best evidenceof its 9, contents; otherwise denies the allegations contained in paragraph93.

16

Case 1:05-cv-00425-CCM

Document 10

Filed 08/19/2005

Page 17 of 45

94. Admitsthe allegations contained in paragraph 94 to the extent supported by the contracting officer's final decision dated November 2004, whichis the best evidenceof its 9, contents; otherwise denies the allegations contained in paragaph94. 95. The allegations contained in paragraph95 constitute conclusions of law and

plaintiff's characterization of its case to xvhichno responseis required; to the extent they may be deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. 96. The allegations contained in paragaph 96 constitute conclusions of law and plaintiff's characterization of its case to whichno responseis required; to the extent they may be deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. 97. The allegations contained in paragraph 97 constitute conclusions of law and plaintiff's characterization of its case to whichno responseis required; to the extent they may be deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. 98. The allegations contained in paragraph 98 constitute conclusions of law and plaintiff's characterization of its case to whichno responseis required; to the extent they maybe deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. 99. The allegations contained in paragraph 99 constitute conclusions of law and plaintiff's characterization of its case to whichno responseis required; to the extent they maybe deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. 100. Defendant's responses to paragraphs 1 through 99 of the complaint are incorporated by reference.

I7

Case 1:05-cv-00425-CCM

Document 10

Filed 08/19/2005

Page 18 of 45

101. The allegations contained in paragraph 101 constitute conclusions ofla~v and plaintiff's characterization of its case to whichno responseis required; to the extent they may be deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. 102. The allegations contained in paragraph 102 constitute conclusions of law and plaintiff's characterization of its case to whichno responseis required; to the extent they maybe deemed allegations of fact, they are denied. 103. Deniesthat plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested following paragraph102, or to any relief ~vhatsoever. 104. Denies each and every allegation not previously admitted or otherwise qualified. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 105. Plaintiff's claim is barred by illegality as a result of submittinga false claimand engagingin fraud related to the Contract. 106. Plaintiff's claim is barred by fraud related to the Contract. SPECIAL DEFENSE BY WAYOF COUNTERCLAIM 107. This counterclaimarises pursumatto the forfeiture statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2514, the antifraud provision of the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. § 604, and the False ClaimsAct, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733.The Court possesses jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1503 and 2508. 108. Defendantand counterclaim plaintiff is the United States. 109. Plaintiff and counterclaim defendant is EP Productions, Inc. ("EP").

18

Case 1:05-cv-00425-CCM

Document 10

Filed 08/19/2005

Page 19 of 45

Factual Background The Contract i 10. OnMarch 21, 2002, the Military Surface Deploymentand Distribution Command ("SDDC")awarded Contract NumberDAMT01-02-C-0035 ("Contract") to EP Productions, ("EP"), to plan madconduct SDDC's annual symposiumsin 2003 and 2004 at the AdamsMark Hotel in Denver, Colorado"Adams Mark"). The Contract was a fima, fixed-price contract with a two-year performanceperiod, from April 20, 2002, through April 19, 2004. 111. The Contract contains the standard Changes Clause for CommercialItems, FAR 52.212-4(c), whichprovides that changesin the terms and conditions of the Contract may madeonly be written ageementof the parties. 112. The Contract also contains the standard Disputes Clause, FAR52.233-1, which prescribes the procedurefor a contractor asserting a claim arising under a contract. Theclause requires such claims to be made writing and submittedto the contracting officer for a written in decision. Theclause also provides that a routine submissionmaybe converted to a claim if it is disputed as to liability or amount is not acted uponin a reasonabletime. or 113. Section I0.0 of the Contract's Statement of Work,"Collection of Registration Fees," providedthat "It]he Contractorshall be responsible for the collection, security and disbursementof the registration fee monies." The Contract contemplatedthat EP woulduse these moniesfor the purpose of "protecting contractual food and beverage obligations between the Contractor and the hotel .... "

19

Case 1:05-cv-00425-CCM

Document 10

Filed 08/19/2005

Page 20 of 45

114. Attaclmaent5 to the Contract providedthat the registration fee for the 2004 symposiumwould be $230.00. Modification of the Contract 115. Onor about September2002, EP's President, Elizabeth Porter, sought to modify the Contract to ensure that EP's food and beverage expenses were fully compensated the event in that collected registration fees did not satisfy the food and beveragecosts chargedto EPby the Adams MarkHotel. Ms. Porter represented that EP's contract with the Adams Markrequired a minimum $350,000.00 for food and beverage service per event. 116. In response, SDDC asked for a copy of the EP-Adams Markcontract. 117. OnOctober 4, 2002, EP's attorney sent a letter to SDDC. lieu of the Contract, In the attorney stated that he wasproviding"a certified copyof the pertinent provisions thereof as it relates in any way, by reference or inference, to food and beverage guarantees for the Symposium contract in 2003and 2004." Heexplained, "I trust you will agree that the less the Govermnent is involvedin the actual hotel contract, the better." Exhibit A. 118. Attached to the letter was a certified and notarized statement, signed by Elizabeth Porter Taylor. The statement purported to quote the EP-Adams contract as stating that Mark "It]he Groupagrees to spend a minimum $350,000for banquet and meeting food and of beverageover the dates of the Event." Ms. Porter represented this statement "to be trae and accurate as extracted fiom the EP Productions, Inc. 2003and 2004contract." Exhibit A.

2O

Case 1:05-cv-00425-CCM

Document 10

Filed 08/19/2005

Page 21 of 45

119. Theletter also suggested language for the proposedcontract modification. Specifically, the letter suggestedthat the contract provide: "At the conclusionof on-site Registration, Contractorshall furnish the Government written report setting forth the total a registration fees collected, at whichtime, the Govennnent agrees to reimburseContractor for the difference, if any, between$350,000.00 the total registration fees collected." Exhibit A. and 120. Based upon these representations, SDDC agreed to modify the Contract. On

October 21, 2002, SDDC EP executed Modification NumberP00005, which provided that and "the governmentwill reimburse the difference, over and abovethe contract amountfor 2003 and 2004, betweenthe fees to be collected from 1,600 attendees at the rates set forth in Attachment 5 and any lesser amount fees resulting from less than 1,600 attendees." The1,600 attendee of count was used to ensure that EP wouldcollect the $350,000.00EPhad represented as necessary to meet its minimum food and beverage service obligation to the Adams Mark. EP's Claims 121. OnJuly 27, 2004, EP submitted an invoice to the contracting officer seeking $25,070.00, based upon the assertion that 1,491 persons had attended the 2004 symposium and paid the required registration fees. The$25,070.00represents the difference betweena 109 shortfall in attendees (1,600 minus1,491) times the $230.00registration fee amount. 122. Pursuant to Modification Number P00005, the contracting officer asked for documents support of the invoice. in

21

Case 1:05-cv-00425-CCM

Document 10

Filed 08/19/2005

Page 22 of 45

123. EP refused to furnish documentationstating that: "The dispute bet~veenthe parties is no longerlimited to the parties. In fact, there are several subs aud other entities that must be paid... There is a modification. Themodification is fair and reasonable because the parameters were set by the agency. Pursuant to that modification, EP submitted an invoice. The only thing left is for the invoiceto be paid." 124. OnNovember 2004, the contracting officer issued a final decision denying EP's 9, claim because "the elements of your Claim are not sufficiently supported by the documents you submitted, or by the contract file, or other documentation." final decision stated that the The "guarantee clause modification on whichthis claim was established is apparently based on misleading statements by Ms. Porter as to EP Productions $350,000F&B obligation to the AdamsMark Hotel." 125. OnApril 1, 2005, EP appealed the contracting officer's decision to this Court, reasserting its claim for $25,070.00pursuant to Modification Number P00005of the Contract, uponthe basis that the registration fees collected by EPfor the syaaaposium not compensate did EP for the minimum required by the Adams Markfor food and beverage service. EP's False Statements and False and Fraudulent Claims 126. EP's statements and claims are false and fiaudulent in the following respects: a. The contract bet~veen EP and the Adams Markcontained no minimum food for and beverage service. Exhibit B.

22

Case 1:05-cv-00425-CCM

Document 10

Filed 08/19/2005

Page 23 of 45

b.

Thecontract provided only that "[p]lanned banquet food and beverage revenue is $121,000.00."As stated in the contract, this wasa "planned" amount,not a minimum obligation. In fact, EP was obligated to pay only for food and beverage service actually provided. Exhibit B.

c.

EP's actual total food and beverage expense for the 2004 ssqnposiumwas $115,065.85.

127. Ms. Porter and EP knewthat its statements and claims as alleged in paragraphs 105-126above, were false and fraudulent whenmadebecause at all times relevant Ms. Porter and EP knew(a) that its contract with the Adams Markdid not contain a minimum food and for beverage service, (b) that it had fiaudulently induced SDDC enter into ModificationNumber to P00005based upon its misrepresentation that the EP-Adams Markcontract contained a minimum food and beverageservice, and (c) that its claims for $25,070.00to both the for contracting officer and in this Court were based upona fraudnlently inducedcontract modification. Count I Forfeiture Of Fraudulent Claims 28 U.S.C. § 2514 128. The United States incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 105 through 127 above. 129. EP practiced or attempted to practice fraud against the UnitedStates in the proof, statement, establishment, or allowanceof the claims identified in the paragraphsabove. Namely,

23

Case 1:05-cv-00425-CCM

Document 10

Filed 08/19/2005

Page 24 of 45

EPfalsified its claims against the UnitedStates whenit represented to the Government it that was required to pay a $350,000.00minimum to the Adams fee MarkHotel in order to receive a contractual guarantee of a $350,000.00 reimbursement registration fees. in 130. Therefore,EPis liable for the forfeiture of its claims, in their entirety, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2514. CountII Contract Disputes Act 41 U.S.C. § 604 131. The United States incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragaphs 105 through 127 above. 132. EP is unable to support portions of its claims as alleged abovebecause of a misrepresentationof fact or fraud. 133. Therefore, EP is liable to the United States pursuant to the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. § 604, for such unsupportedportions of its claims, plus the Government's costs attributable to reviewing such parts of its claims. CountIll False Claims Act - Presentation of False Claims 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1) 134. TheUnited States incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 105 through 127 above.

24

Case 1:05-cv-00425-CCM

Document 10

Filed 08/19/2005

Page 25 of 45

135. For purposes of obtaining paymentor approval, EP knowinglypresented, or causedto be presented, false or fraudulent claims to officers or employees the UnitedStates. of 136. Therefore, EPis liable pursuant to the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1), for a civil penalty of not less than $5,500and not morethan $11,000for each claim presented. Count IV False Claims Act- Use Of False Statements 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(2) 137. The United States incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in para~aphs 105 through 127 above. 138. For purposes of getting false or fraudulent claims paid or approvedby the Government, knowinglymade, used, or caused to be madeor used, false records or EP statements. 139. Therefore, EP is liable pursuant to the False ClaimsAct, 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(2), for a civil penalty of not less than $5,500 and not morethan $11,000for each claim presented. Count V False Claims Act - Conspiracy to Defraud 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(3) 140. The United States incorporates by reference the allegations set for in paragaphs 105 through 127 above. 141. For purposes of getting false or fiaudulent claims allowed or paid, EP, together with its president, Elizabeth Porter Taylor, entered into a conspiracy to defraud the Government.

25

Case 1:05-cv-00425-CCM

Document 10

Filed 08/19/2005

Page 26 of 45

142. Therefore, EP is liable pursuant to the False ClaimsAct, 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(3), for a civil penalty of not less than $5,500and not morethan $11,000for each claim presented. Prayer For Relief WHEREFORE,United States requests that judganent be entered in its favor and the against EP as follows: (a) on CountI (Forfeiture of FraudulentClaims),for forfeiture of Plaintiffs entire claim; (b) on CountII (Contract Disputes Act), for damages the amountof $25,070.00, plus in the Government's cost of reviewing such claims; (c) on CountIII (False ClaimsAct - Presentation of False Claims), for such civil penalties as are allowableby law; (d) on Count1V(False ClaimsAct - Useof False Statements), for such civil penalties are allowable by law; (e) on CountV (False ClaimsAct - Conspiracyto Defraud), for such civil penalties are allo~vable by taw; and (f) for such other and further relief as the Court maydeem appropriate.

Respectfully submitted, PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General DAVID M. COHEN Director

26

Case 1:05-cv-00425-CCM

Document 10

Filed 08/19/2005

Page 27 of 45

S/HAROLD LESTER. JR. D. HAROLD LESTER, JR. D. Assistant Director

Of Counsel: CAPTAIN PATRICK BUTLER Attorney United State ArmyLegal Services Agency

S/KELLY B. BLANK IG/LLY B. BLANK Trial Attorney CommercialLitigation Branch Civil Division Departmentof Justice Attn: Classification Unit 8th Floor 1100 L St, N.W Washington, D.C. 20530 Tele: (202) 353-7578 Fa.x: (202) 353-7988 Attorneys for Defendant

August 19, 2005

27

Case 1:05-cv-00425-CCM

Document 10

Filed 08/19/2005

Page 28 of 45

EXHIBIT

A

Case 1:05-cv-00425-CCM

Document 10

Filed 08/19/2005

Page 29 of 45

THE F____R!_CKS FIRM, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
POST O~'P[CE BRIAN C. RANOK BOX 4086
MACON, ~BOR~IA 3~208-4086 TELEPHONE (4~8) 7~3-6S00 E-MAIL firm@fr~c ka fir~.eom

0v~obor 4, 2002

3d_r. Frank Giordano Deputy PARC HQ-MTlVIC-AcXluisition 200 Stovail Street HoffmanBldg. II Alexandria, 22332-5000 VA Re: El" Productions, [no. Contract DAMT01-02-003 5 Dear Mr. GiOrdano: This firm represents EP Productions, ]Me., the incumbentcontractor for the MTMC Symposium the Military Traffic Management for Command. Specifically, my ollent informs me that the Government wishes to modifycertain contractual terms relative to DAMT01-02-0035, to wit: a) Page 13 of 36, Attachment5, Item 7; b) Page 15.of36, Attachment5, Item 7. Thecurrent version thereof states: All Symposium attendees and exhibitors, governmentand industry, are required to pay the registration fee. This includes all Symposium support team members functional breakout speakers and all other speakers. and Based on a facsimile from Ms. ToyeLatimorc dated September28, 2002, it is our u derstandmgthat the Government rashes to modifythose prowstons as follows: All persons whoattend or participate in any of the Symposium events or functions, including those in meetingor publio space, other than those that tako place only in the separate exhibit area (Towerbuilding - "a floor), are required to pay the registration fee. Persons whohave not paid the registration f~ will not be permitted entry into any Symposium area or event other than entry into the exhibit area. This includes Symposium

- -. ....................

. .... ~

u;

Oct-8-02

3:43PM;

Page 3/5

Case 1:05-cv-00425-CCM

Document 10

Filed 08/19/2005

Page 30 of 45

Mr. Frank Giordano October 4, 2002 Page 2 of 3 support team members,functional breakout speakers, and employeesand representatives of exhibitors. The Govi~rnment certainly aware of the damaging is impact such a change in the Contract might have. Accordingly, EP Productions, Inc. believes that any modification must contain language that prote~ts it in light of prior commitments derived fromthe original Solicitation, including the SOW Attachments created and disbursed by the Government January 2002. and in In an effort to equitably resolve this issue, EPProductions,Inc, will agree to the proposed Government modification provided the Contract is further amended follows: as 1. By AddingThe F.ollowing To Pag~ 14 of 36 - Attachm~nt5:

~

Item 13: At the conclusionofon-site Registration, Contractor shall furnish the Governmentwritten report setting forth the total registration fees collected, at whichtime, the a Government agrees to reimburse Contractor for the difference, if any, between$350,000.00and e total registration fees collected. Anysuch reimbursementffequired hereundershall be ~ eluded and paid to Contractor upon the Government'sreceipt era separale i.nvoiee submitted j ./_~

to the Payment Om~.
2.

~g ~e Following To Pane ] 6 of 36 - Attachment 5:

~Goovezmnent
3.

Item 13: At the conclusionof on-site R~gistration, Contractorshall furnish the written sct~ng forth the total colle~ted, at whichtime, the

vernment agrees to re~mbur~ Contra~/r for the di/~eren~.~ if any~ betwee21 $3S0,000.00 and tho total reg|strafion f~s coll~ed. Any suoh reimbursement ~ he~'~under sha~| be inoluded and paid to Contractor upon th0 Government's receipt of a separate invoic~ submitted to the Payment O~ee.

B3t RcmoyingThe Following From.SOW 10.3 At 10.3: Remove second sentence. It wilt no longer apply. the

4.

By RemovingThe Following From SOW 3.2 ! At 13.2: the word"exhibit" ~om sentence one. It w~ll nOlonger apply.

Finally, myclient understands from Ms. Jaokie Woodson's e-mail dated October 2, 2002, that the Government wishes to review a copy of the food and beverage guarantees contained in the hotel contracts with EP Productions, Inc. Accordingly,I include herewith a oertlfied copy of

Case 1:05-cv-00425-CCM

Document 10

Filed 08/19/2005

Page 31 of 45

IVlr. Frank Giordano October 4, 2002 Page 3 0£3 the pertinent provisions thereof~ it relates in any way, by reference or inference, to food and bwerageguarantees for the Symposium contract in 2003 and 2004. For obvious reasons, especially given the lawsuit betweenShowmakers, Inc. and the Atlanta I~tlton and Towers arising out of the 2001Symposium, matlro contract is not included. I trust you will agree that the the less the Government involvedin the a~'ual hotel contract, the better. is Kindlyconsider the above,as I believe that it represents a goodfaith effort on the part of EPProdut;tlons, line. to resolve the outstwadingi~ues concerningregistrmion fee~. WhileI'm certain weall regret the time it has taken to get to this point, perhapsthis "middleground"will finally put it to rest - and hopefully, by close of business Tuesday,October8, 2002. My cliem anxiously awaits the modification. In the unlikely ~vvnt this issue requires further discussion, please contact Ms. Porter direct at (770) 804-0095. Looking forward to another su~ Symposium, I am Yourss'mcerely,

Robert AbneyFricks KAF/de Toyo Latimore ~eanie Bell Window EPProductions, Inc.

Case 1:05-cv-00425-CCM

Document 10

Filed 08/19/2005

Page5/5 Page 32 of 45

THE

FRI..CK~M,
ATTORNE, YS AT LAW

P
Post OFFICE ~OX 4086 MACON, G~O~OIA 31~08-4086 T~LBPHON~ (4~8) 743-6300

~xert 9OreEPPro~ttCtions Symp0,slum ConWoct 2003 "The Groupagrees to spend a minimum $350,000 for bm~luet and meeting food and beveraEe of over the dates of the Event CF&B lvIinimum"). This F&B Minimum does not include any applicable charges for meetingroomrental, setvic~ charges, tax, labor charges, audio visual, parking, restaurantroom or scPrice ¢b~ge% food beverage anyother icw and or miscellaneous charges incurred. Should final your count drop below approximate of guests the number listed in your program Agenda, cancellation forone more your or occurs or of events, Pat~ies the agree that the difference betweenthe F&B Minimum the actual food and b~vcrage expenditure and will be assessed to your Master Account." Exert from EP Productions Symposium Contract - 200~ "The Groupagrees to spend a minimum $350,000 for banquet and meeting food and beverage of over the dates of the Event ("F&BMinimum").This F&B Minimum does not include any applicable charges for meetingroomrental, service charges, ~ labor charges, audio visual, parking, restaurant or roomservice charges, icw food and beverage or any other miscellaneous charges incurred. Should your final count drop belowthe approximatenumber guests li~ted in of your programAgenda,or cancellation occurs for one or moreof your events, the Parties agree that the difference betweenlhc F&B Minimum the actual food and beverage expenditure and will be asse~ed to your Master Account."

Case 1:05-cv-00425-CCM

Document 10

Filed 08/19/2005

Page 33 of 45

EXHIBIT B

09/16/04

THU 1:05-cv-00425-CCM Case12 01 F~ 203 626 2542

ADAMS ~L%RK DENVER HOWL Document 10 Filed 08/19/2005

Page 34 of 45

GROUP SALES CONTRACT January 23, 2002 Porter Pr~x:luclJons Ms. El'rzabeth Porter Pros|dent P,,351 Raswall Rd NESuite 356 AtlanL~, GA, 30350

DF..SCRIPT~ON AND DEFINmDNS Th~/~lamsMark Denver(hereafter knownas The Hotel) is pleased to confiml the following anrangement< for Porter Productions, Inc., ~s repmsenatives assigns (hereafter known The Group)over the d~tes and as of March 17.2DO4 through March 27, 20D4.

MEETING DATES AND GUEST ROOMBLOCK

~_..! P~, I I~ I 1S TOTAL ROOM NIGHTS: 5.Q4D

~OO~ ~D0 I~=00 ~12D0"'"112~?',~300 ~ 1~, I 2.....

B

GUEST ROOMRATES AND POLICIES Government rates ere baseduponthe current federal per diem for the City of Denver,In the event the per diem ~ raised or loweredprior t~ this event, the newP~r diem will prevail. The currant preva21~g governmentper diem: Standard Single Occupancy: Standard Double Occupancy: Standard TFipIe Occupancy;. Standard Quadruple Occupancy: $112.00 $112.o(:] $142.00 $157.00

Weore pleasedto confir~ to TheGroUp the Corporaterates IL~ted below: S~ndard Single OccupenGy: Stand~rd Double Occupancy;. Standard Tdpl~ occupancy; Standap~ Quadruple Occupant: $137.00 $137.00. $160.00 $175,00

Thane r~om rates are IQ%commi~ionable ~ ~o Group and subJe~ to applicable taxes at coD{erence.

91/23/02

WED16:01 [T'//~.T~

NO 8520] ~002

09/36/04

THU 12:01 1:05-cv-00425-CCM Case FAX 303 626 2542

" " ADAMS'10 .F_aN_~.R08/19/2005 Document ~ D Filed .HOTEL

Page 35 of 45

"~'o~ r ~rouprates will b~ honored your atter~dee'sthroe (3) d.a~ before grouparrival and three for

~:~ [;',e ov~-.,~[ z wavier Is ~uedby the Govemman| Government f~r a~endees trevellng to ~ls conference, ~'he Ho~e]w~l| wor~( w~hTheGm~p sel'dng up a voucheror rebate system. This waverwill Bet effect in rcvonue~,; derived by The H~elin any form or f~sh|on, In order to protect TheHotel end TheGroupfrom IJnfleC~sssryetb'ffion, TheHotel will not olTor roomor suite rates lower than thc~aa lisced within this Agreement dudngthe peric¢l of March20 - 27, 2004. ResecvalJons c~lncBIled within (72) houm arrival '.~11 b= charged n'~lht% roomer~ of one ~ show~.Tha Hotel will proV~ea lls~ ofthes~ "=hargod resarw~ons ~ Th~ Groupun Mar¢l~ ~ The=;a~chargedm.~erv~tions will be credited to The Group'splck-up ahd ~mcommlssi0rF~ble 10%. at The Hot;el wig haveall computer ~ermlnals opened st~ffed at both front de=Ira dudrtg primary check-in and end check-oUtt~mes. Primary chec~:-in and chock-out tJmm;Inclurie but are not limited tu; Sunday,March 21 ~nd Menday,March ~ 2004 from 3:ODpm 9:00pro and Thuz~lay, March 25 and Friday, Marsh 26. to 2004from fl;DOamto 12:o0pm. The Hotel recognizesthat fe~v att~nde=swill =dz3iz~~ldeo ohe¢k-out.

In the event a roomis not av~ll~bto ~or a guest holding a guaranteed mornre~e~onand the guest for ~at evening do~s not excaad ~e Guest Room Block ~ d~a ~an ~s Hotel ~11 pay ~r ~e ~t n~ht ~h~t ~ey are unable to accomm~e~e a~e~de~ st ~e Ho~l at an =q~alant al~r~a~e iden~fiud ~ the ~o~1R~g Gu~v), ~nspo~on to a~d from sush pmpe~ve u day on t~ a~end th~ ~e~ings ~t ~a Ho=I and ~ ~c (5) mlnu~ lung d~ ~all. The HOtel will al~ ~t~¢

CoMPLIMENT~Y

ACCOMMODA~ON~

The Hotel will proV~du one (1) e0mplimenbry roomnight, ~tthe lewes[ greup roomrate, on nlgh~y basis, for ea¢~ fort~ (40) roomnights ac~elly occu~d~ attendees of The Graupand p~id for

Case 1:05-cv-00425-CCM

Document 10

Filed 08/19/2005

Page 36 of 45

our undemtandtng that you will

ul~liZe

approximately 3~0 ~mp~men~W nigh~ dud~ ~e mo~

TheHotel will extend eight (~) complimentary nioh~s at The Hotel on the concierge floor t= The Groupon space ~valieble bas~', for pr~plannlng and =dis ~. Thos~=ompllmenterynJght~ cannot be uaed in ~ eonjU~lC~on w~th the ¢~nferencedates. The Hotel will openthe c¢~c|ergeb~aldast on the 22 fie;or at 5:4sam on ~a mornings of Mar~ ~, 23 and 24, 2004.

Weere pleasedto effar you ~hefollowing additional consideml~ons, provided at least eighty:five percent (8~;%)of the mornn~gh~:= your block amoccupiedand paid for at your group rates, in

A total value of $50,570.00.

ROOM RESERVA'RON PROCEDURES

........

09/16/04 ~ 12:02__ F,~ 303 825 2542 Case 1:05-cv-00425-CCM

Document 10

Filed 08/19/2005

Page 37 of 45

[~1004 .....

will be applied to The Group's guest roomblock and

CHECK-~N I CHECK-OUT Guest ac¢omrnoda~ans be ~v~gabiaat 3;Og p.m. on arrival day and reserved until 12;00 noonon will dep~n~u~a Any aRendoo day. wishing special consideration far late checkoutshould inRuh'e at the front desk on the day of depsrture.

GUF.~'T ROOM CHA~GE,S It is understood your attendeeswill be respons~b|e ~elr room, tax and ~nciden~!charles. for

MEETING 5PACE REQUIREME~ The Hotel agrees to set aside, mesrveand hold the sped/Is meeting spae.~ li~ted L,1Attashm~nt Two to aCcomr~odste The Groups program.

MEET~G SPACE RENTAL YoU're requested meeting ~pace has a retail value e1~$300,0~O. con~era~n~ your sloe,rig morn In ~m~nt and mooting morn r~uir~men~, all of Wo~ed The Group uses at fea~ e~gh~a ~msnt {8S%) of~ (~1 guest teem comm~e~ or 4~4 ~om~lgh~. In the ~ent Io~s than 4,284 room n~gh~

Meeting RoomResell $7'5,000Flat $120,00oFlat ~lSn,g00 Flat .~40,O~O ~

TERMSAND CONDITIONZZGOVERNING U~E OF I~XHIBrI'

~PAcE

TheHotel hss reseIV~l far TIle Groupexhibit space consisting of: The Grated Ball[gum, North Cgr, wrl~er~ Lobby, Sau~h ConventionLobby, and Towercourt A-D, TI~ o.hiblt area will ba avagehlefor set-up at 7:CO AM on SaShay, Ma~h 20, 2004. ~t ~ da~l bB Monday Ma~h ~ - W~ne~ay March ~,

09/:1.6/04

THU 12:03 FAZ 30,3 626 2542 ......

Case 1:05-cv-00425-CCM

ADA3.fS Document 10 ~ffA.RK 08/19/2005HOTEL ..... of /[.-~ ~' ~]00~' Filed DENVER Page 38 45

~,ec=~rity ut~ed dudngexhibitor move-inand exhlbP, or dismanUe days is TheGroup'sresponsibility, Hotel's Cony,re'don=Services Department v~ll be glod to assist in obl~dning segr~r~ty ~.

The

,% ;he ~,~,~n~_d~mage occurs to the furniture of the Hotel, ~ree, bu~dingor equipmentcausedby i,~.~lallat~o:~, pre~nce~nd/or removalof e~1il~ exhil~t materials, the Group and shall mirnbursethe Hotel ~or ~,h~. ¢o~oI ~-~ch repatr or replecemellt as maybe n=ccssaw, TheGroup respcr~blefor ee~-~dng approvalof the I:~m/or Fire Marshallfor il~ flour plan prior to the L~ the exhibit date. Copiesmu~tbe se~t to the Convention Se~,,~ces Manager approval before final printing of far the .Exhib~ter'~ prosp~oJs. The Group is responsible for subm~ngall exegut~d role=so of ~ab~llty from B~ ~Ror =r ~ thi~ ropr~en~e in cha~e of pro~l~g in~lla~on and dism~n~g ~e~ p~r ~ ~et-~p. The re~ase m~

Case 1:05-cv-00425-CCM

Document 10

Filed 08/19/2005

Page 39 of 45

~srch ~7 - 27, 2004.

In t~s event The Grouppk:ks up I~ss ~han 5040 Room Nights, The Groupagrees to pay The Hotel Io~ prolk on rooms ¢dJtlzed as liquidated demages listed below:. not as Room Nlahts Utilized 5040- 4284 N~h~s 4283 - 3640 N~hts 3639-- 3og3Nights Less than 3~92 Nights

No Charge $~ 15.00 per night $125.o0par night $130.00per night

Case 1:05-cv-00425-CCM

Document 10

Filed 08/19/2005

Page 40 of 45

Nskhsr party har¢to shall

be held resporc~ble in any form or ~n ~r ~ny d~ or ~a~l~, monoPOly

due ~ ~s~quakes, dot or (nsurre~on,

government mgula~ons or ~a~g~s, a~ of'Congr~ or ~ Oapa~nt

All indk~dua(s whoaltand Will ha responsible for the|r Qwnroom, ~e= ~ appll~la), =dR= =ha~ u~n ¢he=k~uL ~l appm~d ~nqu~t feed and b~mgo and ~llanaou~ ~ed to ~o m=~r a~unt a~ ap~aved ~ ~g ~ The Group o~ The Group's a~o~ ~¢ maser a~unt ~1 be ~d In full ~ cmd~ ~rd ~in ~t~ (3~) da~ ~r m=el~ of a ~ final ~1. ~1 m~r a~ount ~arges not ~{d ~ Ten (10) da~ ~f~e ~11~ data ~11 ~ar inmr~t m~e I~r ~e mm ~f 1.5% per month, ~mpou~do~ m~n~, ~ pe~ta by ~W, or ~e ~ha~ rote pa~l= by

~ ~ the m~r a~un~ It~ pro~d~ ~ The Hotel p~r to

need

~at~e

Grip

~ ~ ~m~ a~ ~=~r

pa~0rk

~1

Individual guest acceunts payableat ¢heck-ot,-t by cash, checkor credit card. are

AUDIO-VISUAL, PROPERITIE~, CONFERENCE EQUIPMENT 6PE~'~,J. & Due to tho serl~ilive

SERVICIE~

~alure of the matedal ~ preened at ~ G~rnmnnt co~f~nce, The ~1 no =d~on=l cha~ or fees ~1 ~ ~ed ~ ~e Group ~t ~ng an

suppo~ ~is confemn~ and that ~de vondor.

Add~onally, The Hotel will provide complimen~ry rigging saMee~ The Groupin the Plaza Ballreom en to Sunday. March21,2004 ~om2:00pro - 4:00pro and On Thursday, March 25, 2004. from lO:O~am 12:0Dpm. Further, The Hotel '~B provide complimentaryuse Grail in-house soun¢| systems and patches b mee~ng rooms a~ well as compllmentaw120 volt sense for ed~ng oU~e~In ~11 meefin~ a~ ~n~on .~ce and

d~ p~or to the evenL

~D ~

0]./23/02

~D 16:01 [r£X/P3T-NO B5201 ~]OOB

Case 1:05-cv-00425-CCM

Document 10

Filed 08/19/2005

Page 41 of 45

Th~Group will rec'~dv¢somp|iment~.ry storageand handlingcharges the first l~fiy (50) box=., not for excemia (oral of 5001be.Addi~onalchargesf~=r sh~Ppingand stooge Will be =onlirmudby Th=aHotel monUls pdor to the aff'hral of TheGroup. The Groupshall have f'me end o|ea~' complimentaryaccessto edsljng data network gnd cabling lhz'r=structu~e within the hotel to S~leW data/telecommunications rot reqo]rementsfor TheDepadxn=nt of ~e(~..se ~d R's contractors [or the duration of this ~enLThis wo~lld Include the use of any e~st[l~ or Groupwill also hnve fm~and clear =omplimentaly sccessto the interest via a full T-1 clrcu~ provld~l by The Hotel, ~nd will allow complimentary~¢essfar an outside tele¢ommunimal~ons c~rder to bring T-1 end ~r=rJy~elsphon service or lines to The Hotel ~ requestedor required by The Depadmzent Defense i~ of or assignedcon~ra=totafor this event, it is fuP.her undsmtood thLs accessend use of any additional ~at networkor nef~or~ eecud~ equlpmrard shall not alter ~e conffclen~Jiy, lntegrffy or ava~abJlRy ~e Hotel's of dstaJtelecommun~caflans net~:~rk,

IN~,URAN[C~ AND

TheHotel shall indemni~, defendand hold harmlessthe Groupand i'm officers, directors, partp, era, agentS, rnernber~ and employeesfrom and against any and all demands~ claims, damages ~ons or to las~s and ]labil~es. including reasoners aRorney's fees (co~e~iy "C~ ailing out of or ~u=ed~ ~ Hotel's ~ogllgebce ib connec~on ~ ~e pr~~ion at sauces or ~a ~e of~ H~I ~1~. The Hotel shall not have ~cd or ~ ~eam~d ~ have Wo~, ~ mason of ~is ~mgraph, a~y defer~ which

'~ 09/16/0~ ¯

Case 1:05-cv-00425-CCM

THU 12~04

~.A~

3~3 626 25~2 ADds .... ..... ~'" ~ Document 10 DE~ER HOTEL ....... " = . 45 Filed 08/19/2005 Page 42 of ....

.~.0_0~ .....

!.~o~'~,,>v~,Hole.t and groupw~ll each indemnlPf hold harmles~ other from any liability orang ihe and the ~'romylalat~ans ef the ~,a'nerlcanaw~thDi~eb~T~m', by' the Indemni~/ing A~t pady. - - -"

The Hotel and The Groupundemtand realize that the terms, cond~en= and and eontraCtual obligaSer~s contained whhlnth~s Agreement well as all oral conver~d~ons decisions by The Hotel and T~he as and Group it relates to this Agreement of a confidential nature arid both TheHotel, Its represerltatk'es as a='e end assigns, ~nd TheGroupwill ~akagre~! cm'oin protecting th~a wardsand will not release or reveal any ¯ Inform~xt~on contained within er¯~;~daining'to this Agmemar~t without pd0rw~ltten pP-.n'nissien from the other

01/25/02

WED 18:01

[TX/I~

NO 8S201 ~010

Case 1:05-cv-00425-CCM

Document 10

Filed 08/19/2005

Page 43 of 45

i.~. ~e Group ~ll Hotel ~1 require

ne~ ~ make a comm~snt ~a ~ de.on ~ 72 houm of

Weloo~ f~r,v.~d t= wo~lng,~J~y~u en~ to hosP, r~g a memorable meeting.

~y The Group~ authed.,'.ed representative:

Case 1:05-cv-00425-CCM

Document 10

Filed 08/19/2005

Page 44 of 45

AT~#,CH~ENT QNE- FOOD AND BEVERAGE

49~500,00 16~600-00

800.00
758.00 18~500-00 59,000.00+ 4~050,00 555.00 I~9,763o00
0o00 *

01/23/02

WED 16:01

Case 1:05-cv-00425-CCM

Document 10

Filed 08/19/2005

Page 45 of 45

CERTIFICATE OF FIL1NG I hereby certify that on August 19, 2005, a copy of the foregoing "DEFENDANT'S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM" was filed electronically. I understand that notice of this filing will be

sent to all parties by operation of the Court'selectronic filing system. Parties mayaccess this filing through the Court's system.

/s/KELLY B. BLANK