1

Keven Barnes

From: Keven Barnes [keven.barnes@latvianconnectionllc.com]Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 6:18 PMTo: 'Crosby Matthew T'; 'crosbym@gao.gov.rpost.org'Cc: 'Schiavetti, Anthony F CPT USARMY HQDA OTJAG (US)'; 'Mann Eyester, Laura'Subject: RE: Registered: B-407972.1, .2; Protest of Latvian Connection LLC; Resolution of Request

for Dismissal (UNCLASSIFIED)Attachments: RE: B-407391.2 - Protest of the Small Business Administration - Request to Dismiss

(UNCLASSIFIED); B-407391.2 - Protest of the Small Business Administration - Request to Dismiss (UNCLASSIFIED); LatvianRedacted.pdf; FAX201212200920.PDF; United States and Kuwait Sign Trade and Investment Framework Agreement _ Off.pdf; Postal Operations Service - FA4889-13-R-0005 -FBO SOLE SOURCE FOR KUWAIT 8a SET-ASIDE.pdf; S--Utilities for accompany and unaccompany Government personnel - W912D2-13- QATAR sole source.pdf

Mr. Crosby,   Latvian Connection LLC's evaluation of local market sources showed of the Video Wall was that the value of the project would exceed $ 150,000 and a set‐aside was not sought. However, Latvian Connection LLC is a Small Business that is covered under the Small Business Act. By Latvian Connection LLC being a Veteran‐Owned business and FAR 5.201 states that:   5.201 General. (a) As required by the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(e)) and the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 416), agencies must make notices of proposed contract actions available as specified in paragraph (b) of this section. (b)(1) For acquisitions of supplies and services, other than those covered by the exceptions in 5.202 and the special situations in 5.205, the contracting officer must transmit a notice to the GPE, for each proposed—       (i) Contract action meeting the threshold in 5.101(a)(1);       (ii) Modification to an existing contract for additional supplies or services that meets the threshold in 5.101(a)(1); or       (iii) Contract action in any amount when advantageous to the Government.       (2) When transmitting notices using electronic commerce, contracting officers must ensure the notice is forwarded to the GPE. (c) The primary purposes of the notice are to improve small business access to acquisition information and enhance competition by identifying contracting and subcontracting opportunities. (d) The GPE may be accessed via the Internet at http://www.fedbizopps.gov.   Latvian Connection LLC believes that solicitations should be posted on www.fbo.gov as it is the only approved GPE in the FAR. www.usmilitarycontracting.com is a commercial site and is NOT subject to Freedom of Information Act requests. (2 ) says that the notices should be forwarded to the GPE. And worse is that the site doesn't time and date stamp solicitations and now doesn't appear to even function. The site doesn't meet the requirements of being the GPE discussed in 5.201.  And 2 ( c ) says that the primary purpose of the notice are to improve small business access to acquisition information and enhance competition for identifying contracting and subcontracting opportunities. Camp Arifjan contracting office is not complying with FAR 5.201 in regards to knowing that Latvian Connection LLC is a Small Business and not complying with set‐asides when the value does fall between $ 3,000 to $ 150,000.  

2

To date, the Camp Arifjan Contracting Commander, LTC Scuteri has ignored requests under FAR 5.102 for copies of solicitations not electronically posted and continue to circumvent the Competition in Contracting Act.   Latvian Connection LLC has been continually denied opportunities to bid on contracts due to Camp Arifjan's on‐going concealment of solicitations and actions exactly like what has occurred with this solicitation and the other 2 solicitations that Camp Arifjan cancelled as a pretext to not answer a GAO Report.   Latvian Connection LLC doesn't see that FAR 5.201 refers to any set‐aside, it refers to Small Businesses and the opportunities for them to have visibility on solicitations. The Simplified Acquisition Threshold for Camp Arifjan far exceeds the $150,000 mark and the issue in reference to this is that Camp Arifjan contracting officers should be posting solicitations on the GPE ( www.fbo.gov ). FAR 5.201 is the legal grounds that the Army do not seems to be seeing in the Protest for Latvian Connection LLC as a legal basis to expect that the Army will post its solicitations and link them to the approved GPE.  The GAO didn’t decide GAO B‐407391   W912D1‐12‐T‐0070  LAMs because that solicitation too was allowed to be dismissed by Counsel Susan A. Poling, Not Mr. Briones, after yet another pretext cancellation of the solicitation by Camp Arifjan as a tactic that is recognized by the Small Business Administration as a way to escape the GAO Protest Decision because the Army rely on the dismissal due to it being rendered academic, when it is merely a pretext. The requirement exists.    

November 8, 2012   SBA Attorney Laura Mann Eyster filed response for the Small Business Administration 

December 15, 2012  Army cancel solicitation 

Wednesday, January 09, 2013 9:48 AM 

Army request dismissal of B‐407391 based on cancellation of solicitation by Counsel Susan A. Poling 

   

  Latvian Connection LLC believes that there are legal opinions of the Small Business Administration made by their attorney that are applicable to this GAO Protest in regards to Small Business. Specifically in the email RE: B‐407391.2‐Protest of the Small Business Administration – Request to Dismiss “GAO's dismissal in Latvian Connection LLC, B‐407391, Dec. 12, 2012 has created precedent that SBA believes is contrary to §15(j) of the Small Business Act,”  The SBA believes the Small Business Act does apply overseas and Latvian Connection LLC would like to submit these emails from the SBA attorney since the GAO still has not referred this GAO Protest to the Small Business Administration officially and would like the legal opinions expressed by the SBA to be applied to GAO B‐407972.1 as they refer to the Small Business Act and FAR 5.201 .  The Army continually try to avoid complying with the Competition in Contracting Act by citing FAR 5.202 (a) ( 12)  In February 2004, the United States and Kuwait signed a Free Trade Agreement, so it would seem that an exception for the Department of Defense DOES NOT APPLY. Further, Latvian Connection LLC is a Local Source and Latvian Connection LLC has NEVER been approached by Camp Arifjan as a Local Source.   Latvian Connection LLC believes that the approved GPE www.fbo.gov could be utilized by Camp Arifjan and that the contracting officers can cite that only LOCAL SOURCES will be used just the way that the Army post sole sources on www.fbo.gov and cite FAR 6.302-1 - Only one responsible source ( ATTACHED SOLE SOURCE ) which was posted on www.fbo.gov by Camp Arifjan’s 408th operating in Qatar.

3

The other sole source attached is to demonstrate that a Section 8a was sole sourced for performance of a contract overseas for the Air Force, another Department of Defense Agency, and this contract has performance in Kuwait. Why is the Air Force complying with posting solicitations on www.fbo.gov and the Army contracting officers at Camp Arifjan are not ?  

 5.202 Exceptions. The contracting officer need not submit the notice required by 5.201 when— (a) The contracting officer determines that—

(1) The synopsis cannot be worded to preclude disclosure of an agency’s needs and such disclosure would compromise the national security (e.g., would result in disclosure of classified information). The fact that a proposed solicitation or contract action contains classified information, or that access to classified matter may be necessary to submit a proposal or perform the contract does not, in itself, justify use of this exception to synopsis; (2) The proposed contract action is made under the conditions described in 6.302-2 (or, for purchases conducted using simplified acquisition procedures, if unusual and compelling urgency precludes competition to the maximum extent practicable) and the Government would be seriously injured if the agency complies with the time periods specified in 5.203; (3) The proposed contract action is one for which either the written direction of a foreign government reimbursing the agency for the cost of the acquisition of the supplies or services for such government, or the terms of an international agreement or treaty between the United States and a foreign government, or international organizations, has the effect of requiring that the acquisition shall be from specified sources;(4) The proposed contract action is expressly authorized or required by a statute to be made through another Government agency, including acquisitions from the Small Business Administration (SBA) using the authority of section 8(a) of the Small Business Act (but see 5.205(f)), or from a specific source such as a workshop for the blind under the rules of the Committee for the Purchase from the Blind and Other Severely Handicapped; (5) The proposed contract action is for utility services other than telecommunications services and only one source is available; (6) The proposed contract action is an order placed under Subpart 16.5; (7) The proposed contract action results from acceptance of a proposal under the Small Business Innovation Development Act of 1982 (Pub. L. 97-219); (8) The proposed contract action results from the acceptance of an unsolicited research proposal that demonstrates a unique and innovative concept (see 2.101) and publication of any notice complying with 5.207 would improperly disclose the originality of thought or innovativeness of the proposed research, or would disclose proprietary information associated with the proposal. This exception does not apply if the proposed contract action results from an unsolicited research proposal and acceptance is based solely upon the unique capability of the source to perform the particular research services proposed (see 6.302-1(a)(2)(i)); (9) The proposed contract action is made for perishable subsistence supplies, and advance notice is not appropriate or reasonable; (10) The proposed contract action is made under conditions described in 6.302-3, or 6.302-5 with regard to brand name commercial items for authorized resale, or 6.302-7, and advance notice is not appropriate or reasonable; (11) The proposed contract action is made under the terms of an existing contract that was previously synopsized in sufficient detail to comply with the requirements of 5.207 with respect to the current proposed contract action; (12) The proposed contract action is by a Defense agency and the proposed contract action will be made and performed outside the United States and its outlying areas, and only local sources will be solicited. This exception does not apply to proposed contract actions covered by the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement or a Free Trade Agreement (see Subpart 25.4); (13) The proposed contract action— (i) Is for an amount not expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold; (ii) Will be made through a means that provides access to the notice of proposed contract action through the GPE; and (iii) Permits the public to respond to the solicitation electronically; or

4

(14) The proposed contract action is made under conditions described in 6.302-3 with respect to the services of an expert to support the Federal Government in any current or anticipated litigation or dispute.

(b) The head of the agency determines in writing, after consultation with the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy and the Administrator of the Small Business Administration, that advance notice is not appropriate or reasonable.    Best Regards,   Keven L. Barnes CEO MSgt (USAF) Ret.  United States  530 999 3322 Mobile ( Kuwait ) 00 965 501 22 072 keven.barnes@LatvianConnectionLLC.com www.LatvianConnectionLLC.com CAGE:                 SGM59 DUNS:                534749622  CALIFORNIA  DUNS 830587791 CAGE 5GLB3   ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Schiavetti, Anthony F CPT USARMY HQDA OTJAG (US) [mailto:anthony.f.schiavetti.mil@mail.mil]  Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 12:52 AM To: Crosby Matthew T Cc: keven.barnes@latvianconnectionllc.com; Schiavetti, Anthony F CPT USARMY HQDA OTJAG (US) Subject: RE: Registered: B‐407972.1, .2; Protest of Latvian Connection LLC; Resolution of Request for Dismissal (UNCLASSIFIED)  Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE  Mr. Crosby:        The Army seeks clarification on the scope of the response requested by the GAO to the subject protest and supplemental protest.  The protest does not clearly and consistently list grounds of protest, and contains inconsistent sections labeled "Factual Grounds of Protest" and "Legal Grounds of Protest," as well as inconsistent prayers for relief.  The Army intends to respond to the issues regarding site visits, the length of time available for response, and the posting of the solicitation on usmilitarycontracting.com rather than FedBizOpps, as these are consistently asserted throughout.  In addition, the Army will, as directed, respond to the supplemental protest alleging that the solicitation was cancelled as a pretext.  Other complaints are alluded to or asserted in passing, and are not clearly raised in this protest.        Of particular concern is the penultimate sentence on the eleventh and final page of the protest.  For the first time in the protest, this sentence appears to request that this solicitation be set aside for small 

5

business concerns.  No labeled legal or factual protest ground cites the decision not to set aside for small business, however.  As you may be aware, a previous GAO protest by Latvian Connection LLC, B‐407391, involved another decision not to set aside a procurement for small business concerns based on the FAR exclusion at 19.000(b).  In that case, the Small Business Administration was called upon by the GAO attorney, Mr. Pedro Briones, to comment, and the SBA responded in a lengthy brief on the extraterritorial application of the Small Business Act,  which prompted a lengthy response from the Army.  The GAO ultimately did not decide the issue, dismissing the protest on that issue for a failure to state a valid basis of protest (please see the attached decision by the GAO in that case).         The Army does not believe this issue to have been properly raised in this protest, as it was merely mentioned in passing in one of several prayers for relief, and not listed among two sections listing grounds of protest.  Also, the Army notes that it appears that the GAO has not yet asked the SBA to comment, as it did in the previous protest.  However, we ask that you please clarify if the GAO believes this issue to be properly raised.  If so, the Army is prepared to respond as directed.  Thank you.  Very Respectfully,  Anthony F. Schiavetti Captain, U.S. Army Trial Attorney Trial Team III  Contract & Fiscal Law Division U.S. Army Legal Services Agency 9275 Gunston Road Fort Belvoir, VA 22060‐5546 E‐mail:  anthony.f.schiavetti.mil@mail.mil Tele:  (703) 693‐1223  DSN 312‐223‐1223 Fax :  (703) 806‐0655          This e‐mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information.  If you are not the intended recipient of this e‐mail, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e‐mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this e‐mail in error, please notify me by telephone and permanently delete any printout of the message, the original and any copy of the e‐mail.  Attorney‐Client Privilege, Attorney Work Product, Do Not Copy, Do Not Forward, Do Not Release Under FOIA.   ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: CrosbyM@gao.gov [mailto:CrosbyM@gao.gov]  Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 11:05 AM To: keven.barnes@latvianconnectionllc.com; Schiavetti, Anthony F CPT USARMY HQDA OTJAG (US) Subject: Registered: B‐407972.1, .2; Protest of Latvian Connection LLC; Resolution of Request for Dismissal  This is a Registered E‐mailR message from Crosby Matthew T.  ____________________________________________________________________________ 

6

____________  Mr. Barnes and Captain Schiavetti:  GAO has considered the Agency's February 13 request for dismissal as well as the Protester's February 15 response thereto.  At this time, the Agency's request is denied.  GAO expects the Agency to file a report that responds both to the initial protest, as well as the supplemental protest that the solicitation was cancelled as a pretext.  The due date for the report is Friday, March 1.  ‐Matt Crosby  Matthew T. Crosby Senior Attorney United States Government Accountability Office crosbym@gao.gov (202) 512‐6837 (tel.) (202) 512‐9749 (fax)       ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________ For more information about the RPostR Registered E‐mailR service visit www.rpost.com   Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE