Lukos Vatc Jv LLC v. United States

In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No. 14-122C

(Filed: May 12, 2014)

************************************

*

LUKOS VATC JV LLC, *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

v. *

*

THE UNITED STATES, *

*

Defendant, *

*

and *

*

ITA INTERNATIONAL, LLC, *

*

Intervenor-Defendant. *

*

*************************************

OPINION AND ORDER

This is a bid protest action. Basically, the issue in this case is whether LVJV was

qualified as a small business under the Small Business Administration’s 8(a) Business

Development Program in time to submit a proposal on a procurement issued by United

States Special Operations Command (“SOCOM”) that has a 100% set-aside for 8(a)

Program participants. The case is now before the Court on cross-motions for judgment on

the administrative record. For the reasons that follow, LVJV’s motion for judgment on

the administrative record is DENIED, the Government’s cross-motion is GRANTED, and

ITA’s cross-motion is DENIED, as moot.

I. Background

a. Regulatory Framework

The Small Business Act (the “Act”) authorizes the Small Business Administration

(“SBA”) to establish “detailed definitions or standards by which a business concern may

be determined to be a small business concern for the purpose of this Act or any other

Act.” 15 U.S.C. § 632(a)(2)(A). The Act also authorizes SBA to issue regulations

related to the Act. 15 U.S.C. §634(b)(6).

SBA’s small business size standards are found in 13 C.F.R. Part 121. Pursuant to

Part 121, the SBA uses the North American Industry Classification System (“NAICS”) to

1

establish size standards, which are either limited by number of employees or annual

receipts. 13 C.F.R. § 121.201. A business concern that wishes to bid on a contract that

has been set aside for small business participation must meet the NAICS size standard

specified in the solicitation.

While a concern’s size is usually determined based upon the aggregate number of

employees or value of receipts, 13 C.F.R. §121.103(h)(2), there are several exceptions to

this general rule. One of these exceptions arises under the SBA’s 8(a) Business

Development program, which allows a participant to form a joint venture with a mentor

concern under the SBA’s Mentor-Protégé Program:

Two firms approved by the SBA to be a mentor and protégé under

§ 124.520 of these regulations may joint venture as a small

business for any Federal government prime contract or

subcontract, provided the protégé qualifies as small for the size

standard corresponding to the NAICS code assigned to the

procurement and, for purposes of 8(a) sole source requirements,

has not reached the dollar limit set forth in § 124.519 of these

regulations. If the procurement is to be awarded other than

through the 8(a) BD Program, SBA must approve the joint venture

pursuant to § 124.513. If the procurement is to be awarded other

than through the 8(a) BD program (e.g., small business set aside,

HUBZone set aside), SBA need not approve the joint venture prior

to award, but if the size status of the joint venture is protested, the

provisions of §§ 124.513(c) and (d) will apply. This means that

the joint venture must meet the requirements of §§ 124.513(c) and

(d) in order to receive the exception to affiliation authorized by this

paragraph. In either case, after contract performance is complete,

the 8(a) partner to the joint venture must submit a report to its

servicing SBA district office explaining how the applicable

performance of work requirements were met for the contract.

13 C.F.R. § 121.103(h )(3)(iii). A joint venture seeking to take advantage of this

exception must apply for approval of its mentor-protégé agreement (“MPA”).

Part of the dispute in this case lies with who has authority to make this approval.

The parties are in agreement, however, as to the general procedure. The business seeking

approval first submits its MPA to the Business Opportunity Specialist (“BOS”) in the

protégé’s SBA District Office. The BOS prepares a recommendation for the Assistant

District Director for the 8(a) Business Development Program (“ADD”). If the ADD does

not approve the MPA, both parties are notified. If the ADD approves, the

recommendation is forwarded to the District Director (“Director”). If the Director agrees,

the MPA is forwarded to Washington, DC, where the MPA goes through several

additional layers of approval. If the MPA is finally approved, the mentor, protégé and

district office are informed.

2

b. Factual Background

LVJV is a joint venture comprised of Lukos, LLC (“Lukos”) and Visual

Awareness Technologies and Consulting, Inc. (“VATC”). Both are participants in the

8(a) Program. In March of 2013, Lukos and VATC executed a mentor-protégé

agreement (“MPA”) which was submitted to the SBA’s Miami District Office for

approval and admission into the 8(a) Program. On March 26, 2013, the assigned BOS

informed Lukos that he had approved the MPA and forwarded his recommendation of

approval. The MPA began to work its way up the chain at SBA. In April of 2013, Lukos

and VATC formed the unpopulated joint venture, LVJV.

On May 16, 2013, while the MPA was still being processed, SOCOM issued

solicitation number H92222-13-R-0013 (the “Solicitation”), which stated an NAICS code

of 541990, which has a size standard of $14 million. The procurement was a 100% set-

aside for 8(a) Program participants. The deadline for responses to the Solicitation was

June 17, 2013.

In response to the Solicitation, LVJV informed the SBA that it intended to submit

a proposal and that time was of the essence. On June 3, 2013, LVJV was informed that

the MPA had been forwarded to Washington, DC for final review. On June 7, Lukos and

VATC decided that if they did not obtain approval in time for the Solicitation’s deadline,

as an alternative, they would submit a proposal naming Lukos as the prime contractor and

VATC as a major subcontractor. On June 10, however, the BOS called LVJV and,

during the conversation, informed LVJV that its MPA had been approved and that no

official approval letters were issued, but that the MPA was awaiting a final signature

from an SBA official who was on vacation until after June 17. But on June 14, Garth

Arevalo, the CEO of Lukos, was informed by telephone “that there may have been a

misunderstanding about the MPA approval in DC.” AR Tab 18 at 189.

Despite the absence of the final signature and the disturbing telephone call of June

14, LVJV opted to submit its proposal as an 8(a) Program based on the representations

made by the BOS on the June 10 phone call. It appears from Mr. Arevalo’s statements

that this was done because there was not time to prepare an alternate bid and with the

hope that approval would come by June 17. AR Tab 18 at 189. But formal approval did

not come until June 19, 2013, when the Associate Administrator, Office of Business

Development (“AA/BD”) issued an internal memo stating that the MPA had been

approved.

Meanwhile, SOCOM determined that LVJV’s proposal ranked highest among all

offers under technical, management and past performance categories. In addition, it was

the lowest-priced offer. In accord with Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) 19.806

and 13 C.F.R. § 124.507(b), SOCOM contacted the SBA’s local District Office to

determine LVJV’s eligibility for the award. On September 18, 2013, the SBA issued a

letter to SOCOM indicating that it had determined that Lukos and VATC were eligible.

3

On September 25, 2013, the unsuccessful offerors were notified by email that the

procurement had been awarded to LVJV. At this point, Intervenor-Defendant ITA

International, LLC (“ITA”) instituted a protest with the SBA Area Office in Atlanta,

wherein it argued that LVJV did not meet the size requirements listed in the Solicitation.

The Area Office determined that LVJV’s MPA was not approved until June 19, 2013,

two days after the Solicitation closed. As such, the Area Office determined that Lukos

and VATC were merely affiliated for purposes of the Solicitation, which finding rendered

them ineligible to receive the contract.

LVJV appealed the Area Office’s determination to SBA’s Office of Hearings and

Appeals (“OHA”). OHA affirmed the Area Office’s determination, finding that the MPA

was not approved until June 19, with the result that LVJV was not eligible to receive an

award under the Solicitation until after the Solicitation closed. OHA ruled that the BOS’s

statements on June 10 regarding approval were irrelevant because it is the AA/BD and

not the BOS who has authority to approve MPAs.

c. Procedural Background

After losing its appeal at OHA, LVJV instituted a bid protest action in this Court

on February 11, 2014. The parties began briefing the pending motions in March of 2014,

at which time a dispute arose over ITA’s motion to supplement the Administrative

Record (“AR”). Portions of ITA’s cross-motion for judgment on the AR relied upon the

proposed supplementary information. The Court convened a status conference on March

26, 2014 to discuss the motion to supplement.

During the discussion, the parties informed the Court of certain facts not directly

relevant to the pending protest. Essentially, ITA was concerned that if the Court granted

all the remedies requested by LVJV, the Court’s ruling would interfere with certain

corrective action agreed to in a parallel GAO protest instituted by ITA. The Court

assured ITA that it would take that corrective action into account in tailoring its order if it

determined that LVJV was entitled to judgment, but that it otherwise considered the GAO

protest to be beyond the scope of LVJV’s protest at this Court. Based on the Court’s

assurances, ITA withdrew its motion to supplement the AR during the conference.

Briefing on the pending cross-motions for judgment on the AR was completed on

March 28, 2014. The Court now turns to the issues raised in the briefing and properly

before it. Obviously, this opinion does not discuss any of ITA’s additional arguments

based on the GAO protest, because these arguments exceed the scope of the dispute

before this Court.

II. Standard of Review

a. Standard of Review for Judgment Upon the Administrative Record

Under Rule 52.1 of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”), this

Court reviews an agency’s procurement decision on the basis of the existing AR. Rule

4

52.1 essentially provides a procedure for “trial on a paper record, allowing fact-finding

by the trial court.” Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Instead, “the focal point for judicial review should be the administrative record already in

existence, not some record made initially by the reviewing court.” Florida Power &

Light v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 743-44 (1985); see also Axiom Resource Management,

Inc. v. United States, 564 F.3d 1374, 1380 (“The purpose of limiting review to the record

actually before the agency is to guard against courts using new evidence to convert the

‘arbitrary and capricious’ standard into effectively de novo review.”) (internal quotations,

citations omitted).

b. Standard of Review for Procurement Challenges

This Court maintains jurisdiction over bid protests pursuant to the Tucker Act. 28

U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1). The Tucker Act requires the Court to “review the agency’s decision

pursuant to the standards set forth in” the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5

U.S.C. § 706(2). See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(4). Under the APA, an agency action may be

found unlawful if that action is found to be “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion,

or otherwise not in accordance with law and, if so, whether the error is prejudicial.”

Glenn Def. Marina (Asia), PTE Ltd. V. United States, 720 F.3d 901, 907 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

Under this standard, a procurement decision may be set aside “if either: (1) the

procurement official’s decision lacked a rational basis; or (2) the procurement involved a

violation of regulation or procedure.” Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v.

United States, 238 F.3d 1324, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citations omitted).

III. Discussion

LVJV’s brief raises four arguments as to why the Court should find that it was

eligible for the award. First, it argues that the MPA was legally approved by the various

layers of SBA actions prior to final approval by the AA/BD. Second, it argues that the

AA/BD’s final approval on June 19 serves as ratification of the BOS’s June 10 statement.

Third, it argues that principles of equitable estoppel render LVJV eligible for the award.

Fourth, it argues that general principles of equity require the Court to find it eligible for

the award. Finally, LVJV argues that it is entitled to injunctive relief. These arguments

are joined by both the Government and ITA, but ITA adds a further assertion that LVJV

has failed to establish this Court’s jurisdiction. The Court will, therefore, look first to the

jurisdictional dispute and then address LVJV’s substantive arguments.

a. This Court Possesses Jurisdiction Over the Action

ITA argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction over LVJV’s argument. In making its

argument, ITA argues that the judge in Red River Service Corp. v. United States, 60

Fed.Cl. 532 (2004), found that the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over SBA

decisions. Notably, the Government did not challenge the Court’s jurisdiction in either of

its briefs. LVJV counters ITA’s argument by citation, without explanation or substantive

discussion, to Metters Industries, Inc. v. United States, 109 Fed.Cl. 444 (2013), and LB &

B Associates, Inc. v. United States, 68 Fed.Cl. 765 (2005).

5

In Red River, the Court was faced with a situation only facially similar to the one

now before the Court. Digging into the decision, however, it is clear that Red River is

inapposite to the case now pending. The Air Force, the procuring agency in Red River,

assigned a particular NAICS code which set a size standard of $21 million, and Red

River requested that the SBA direct the Air Force contracting officer to re-designate the

NAICS code. Red River, 60 Fed.Cl. at 534. The challenge was to the specific size

standard called for in the solicitation, and not to any decision as to whether Red River

was qualified to submit a proposal under the size standard set forth in the solicitation.

That is not what LVJV requests in this action, and such a remedy would require the Court

of Federal Claims to second-guess an Agency’s own procurement officials’

determinations of the requirements of the procurement itself.

The two cases relied upon by LVJV are likewise not directly on point. Not only

does the Metters opinion not discuss jurisdiction, it does not even include the word

“jurisdiction.” It is, however, similar to this case in that the plaintiff there was

determined to be the “apparent awardee,” but the agency requested a formal size

determination which resulted in a determination that the plaintiff did not meet the size

requirements specified in the solicitation, see Metters, 109 Fed.Cl. at 446, much like

SOCOM’s request here. Still, the Court evidently exercised jurisdiction because it ruled

on the substantive dispute before it.

LB & B presents a similar situation. In that case, the plaintiff’s initial offer on a

solicitation included a certification of small business status. LB & B, 68 Fed.Cl. at 767.

The solicitation was an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract which called for

individual task/delivery orders. Id. After receiving the plaintiff’s offer, the agency

awarded two task orders to the plaintiff, neither of which required re-certification of

small business status. Id. Then, the agency issued another request for proposals on a task

order under the contract and requested that the offerors re-certify their status. Of the

three approved offerors, two re-certified and the plaintiff relied upon its earlier

certification. There was evidence that the plaintiff was no longer small, so the procuring

agency instituted a protest at the SBA. It was the final SBA determination in this protest

which the plaintiff brought to the Court of Federal Claims and, again, the court exercised

jurisdiction. See id. at 769-771.

Although none of these cases is directly on point, the Court finds that the two

cases cited by LVJV are much more closely related to the instant challenge to

jurisdiction, and they are therefore more persuasive. Moreover, the Court finds that

reference to the Tucker Act tilts the scales in favor of its exercise of jurisdiction. The

Tucker Act states that this Court possesses jurisdiction over “any alleged violation of

statute or regulation in connection with a procurement or a proposed procurement.” 28

U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1) (emphasis added). The broad “in connection with” language of the

Tucker Act clearly encompasses the agency actions here, both in that SOCOM requested

confirmation of small business status from the SBA specifically for purposes of awarding

a procurement contract and in that the SBA’s determination had a direct effect on the

outcome of that procurement. The Court therefore may properly exercise jurisdiction

over LVJV’s complaint.

6

b. The MPA Was Not Approved Until June 19, 2012

In its opening brief, LVJV puts forth the astounding argument that the relevant

regulations are confusing, that they merely require that the “SBA” approve the MPA, and

that, according to principles of statutory construction, the AA/BD’s approval is not

required to approve the MPA. In stating its case, LVJV directs the Court to 13 C.F.R.

§124.520(d)(1)(i), which states that the “SBA must approve the mentor/protégé

agreement before the two firms may submit an offer as a joint venture…” However, as

both the Government and ITA point out, the regulation further states that “[t]he written

agreement must be approved by the AA/BD.” 13 C.F.R. § 124.520(e)(2). Only plain

English is needed here: an MPA must be approved by the AA/BD.

LVJV attempts to inject further confusion into the issue by way of reference to the

SBA’s Standard Operating Procedures (“SOP”). In its brief, LVJV highlights the

following provisions of the SOP in support of its position that the BOS may “approve” an

MPA:

a. After the BOS reviews the Agreement [MPA] and prepares a

thorough evaluation and recommendation, which must include

comments of District Counsel, the agreement is forwarded to

the Assistant District Director for 8(a) BD (ADD/8(a) BD).

b. If the ADD/8(a) BD does not approve the Mentor/Protégé

Agreement, the process stops. The ADD/8(a) BD notifies both

parties to the proposed Mentor-Protégé Agreement of the

SBA’s final decision at whatever point the process stops.

c. If the ADD/8(a) BD recommends approval of the Agreement,

he/she will forward the recommendation to the District

Director.

d. If the District Director agrees with the approval

recommendation, he or she will forward the Agreement to the

Office of Management and Technical Assistant in

Headquarters.

SBA SOP 80 05 3, p. 187 (emphasis added). As pointed out by the Government, the SOP

unequivocally does not authorize approval of the MPA by the BOS, the ADD/8(a) BD or

the District Director. It merely grants them authority to deny an MPA or recommend

approval to someone higher up in the chain of command. There is no need for reference

to any canons of construction here beyond reference to the plain and ordinary meaning of

the words in the regulation and SOP. LVJV’s position is completely untenable.

c. The AA/BD’s Approval Does Not Serve As Ratification of the BOS’s

Statements

Next, LVJV argues that the AA/BD’s final approval on June 19 amounts to a

ratification of the BOS’s “approval” on June 10. Specifically, LVJV argues that “[i]n

government contracting, an unauthorized act can be adopted through ratification.” See

7

LVJV Br. at 18 (quoting Appeal of Nu-Way Concrete Co., Inc., CBCA No. 1411, 2011-1

BCA ¶ 34,636. Ratification “is the adoption of an unauthorized act resulting in the act

being given effect as if originally authorized.” Appeal of Healthcare Practice

Enhancement Network, Inc., No. VABCA-5864, 2001-1 BCA ¶ 31,383. Critically,

“[r]atification requires knowledge of material facts involving the unauthorized act and

approval of the activity borne with authority.” Appeal of Corners & Edges, Inc., ASBCA

No. 55767, 2009-1 BCA ¶ 34,019.

Although the Government and ITA present various arguments regarding

ratification, the Court thinks only one needs to be addressed to resolve the issue: there is

no affirmative evidence in the AR that the AA/BD had “knowledge of material facts

involving the unauthorized act” of the BOS’s stated approval. At best, as LVJV asserts,

the “AA/BD’s final approval was based on the identical file that was in the SBA’s

possession when the BOS gave his mistaken approval notice.” LVJV Br. at 19. This

“file” was produced prior to the June 10 statement (LVJV was informed that the file had

been sent to Washington by June 3), and the Court can discern no modification to the file

before the AA/BD that would indicate that the BOS had informed LVJV that its MPA

had been approved. In essence, LVJV asks the Court to ignore the evidence included in

the AR and to instead impute knowledge of a low-level government official’s actions to

another government official several levels of authority above and several hundred miles

distant from the original act. The Court declines to do so. Without affirmative evidence

contained in the AR, the Court cannot conclude that the AA/BD had the requisite

knowledge necessary to constitute ratification of the BOS’s June 10 statement.

d. Equitable Estoppel Does Not Apply

Next, LVJV asserts that the SBA is equitably estopped from denying timely

approval of the MPA. According to LVJV, equitable estoppel requires a showing that:

(1) the agency knows the true facts; (2) the agency intends or expects that its statements

will be relied upon; (3) the contractor is ignorant of the true facts; and (4) the contractor

relies upon the agency’s conduct to its injury. LVJV Br. at 26 (citing Zacharin v. United

States, 213 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). The parties dispute whether an equitable

estoppel argument made against the Government requires “affirmative misconduct” as

well. LVJV’s argument is riddled with flaws.

First, the Court observes that, by its own admissions, LVJV was not ignorant of

the true facts. According to the declaration of Garth Arevalo, the Chief Executive Officer

of Lukos, LLC, which was filed at the OHA, Mr. Arevalo was informed on June 14,

2013, four days after the BOS’s alleged approval and three days prior to the close of the

Solicitation, “that there may have been a misunderstanding about the MPA approval in

DC.” AR Tab 18 at 189. According to Mr. Arevalo’s declaration, he didn’t receive an

explanation of the misunderstanding, but rather than clarifying the issue, LVJV

determined that “there was now no time left to prepare an alternate bid. Moreover, for all

we knew, SBA might yet approve the MPA later that Friday or on the following Monday

morning, June 17.” Id. This statement paints a clear picture: LVJV knew, before June

17, that its MPA had not yet been approved, but it proceeded with its chosen course of

8

conduct despite the still-pending MPA approval. LVJV was absolutely not ignorant of

the true facts, which renders its estoppel argument inapposite.

Second, it is clear that an equitable estoppel claim against the Government must

include a showing of affirmative misconduct by the Government. Thus, in LVJV’s reply

brief, the Court was surprised to see the statement that “apart from the Federal Circuit’s

recent dicta, no federal appellate court has suggested, much less held, that affirmative

misconduct is necessary to establish estoppel when the Government officials acted within

the scope of their authority.” LVJV Reply at 10.1 Ironically, the “dicta” which LVJV

claims irrelevant here is found in the very decision it cites for the estoppel standard:

Zacharin. In Zacharin, the Federal Circuit stated that, “[w]hile the Supreme Court has

not squarely held that affirmative misconduct is a prerequisite for invoking equitable

estoppel against the Government, this court [the Federal Circuit] has done so, as has

every other court of appeals.” Zacharin, 213 F.3d at 1371 (citations omitted). The one-

paragraph discussion that follows is premised entirely on the Circuit’s conclusion that

there was no evidence of affirmative misconduct in the case before it. To the extent that

one could characterize the June 10 “approval” as affirmative misconduct, that misconduct

was remedied by the June 14 phone call informing LVJV of the misunderstanding

regarding approval of its MPA.

e. General Principles of Equity Do Not Help LVJV

LVJV also contends that general principles of equity and fairness require the

Court to find that its MPA was timely approved. Lukos Br. at 21-26. Most of its

argument relies upon decisions by OHA which are not controlling here. For example, it

points to Cabrini Medical Center, SBA No. SIZ-4610 (2004), which involved a statement

by an SBA office that any appeal “must be postmarked no later than thirty (30) days after

receipt of this letter.” Id. The instruction was erroneous: the regulation required that an

appeal be received within 30 days. OHA still accepted the appeal.

The issue here, as the Government observes, is that the MPA program is not tied

to a specific procurement. Gov’t Br. at 30. The SBA received and considered LVJV’s

MPA. LVJV apparently believes that the SBA should have accelerated consideration of

its MPA in order for LVJV to submit a proposal on the Solicitation at issue here.

Nothing in the cited authority indicates that the SBA is required to accelerate its

consideration of a given MPA in order to satisfy a particular solicitation which the

applicant intends to pursue.

The Court notes that the Government’s argument can be taken a step or two

further: in all of the SBA decisions cited by LVJV, the SBA applied equitable principles

to modify its own timing rules. Here, it was SOCOM, not the SBA, who set the proposal

1

Although further discussion on this point is unnecessary here, the Court has already

found that the BOS had no authority to approve the MPA. Thus, any “approval” by the

BOS is necessarily beyond the scope of the BOS’s authority. This point of its own power

removes this case from the authority of the various cases cited by LVJV on this issue.

9

deadline. Further, substantive regulations, and not procedural ones, which require that an

MPA be approved before the joint venture may submit offers on any government

procurement, see 13 C.F.R. § 124.520(d)(1)(i), and that the MPA be approved by the

AA/BD and not a lower-level SBA official. Id. at § 124.520(e)(2).

In addition, the Court reiterates the point that LVJV was informed of the

misunderstanding prior to submission of its proposal. Even if the Court were inclined to

balance the equities in this case, the fact that SBA informed LVJV of its erroneous June

10 “approval” tips the scales against LVJV. In sum, nothing in LVJV’s arguments gives

the Court reason to apply general principles of equity to allow it to skirt the SBA’s rules

and regulations in order to award LVJV a contract for a Solicitation which it was not

eligible to apply for until after the Solicitation was closed.

f. LVJV Is Not Entitled to Injunctive Relief

Because a permanent injunction requires that a plaintiff succeed on the merits, see

PGBA, LLC v. United States, 389 F.3d 1219, 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2004), and LVJV has failed

on the merits, its request for permanent injunction is denied.

IV. Conclusion

As discussed above, the Court possesses jurisdiction over this action. That said,

LVJV has failed to present any combination of arguments and evidence that would render

it successful on the merits. Its reading of the relevant SBA regulations and the SOP are

entirely contrary to the plain language of those authorities. LVJV’s argument on

ratification is not supported by the evidence contained in the AR. Its estoppel argument

is in fact undermined by the evidence, and its appeal to general principles of equity fail

for similar reasons. Nothing in the AR demonstrates that the combined actions of the

SBA and SOCOM lacked a rational basis or were otherwise in violation of regulation or

procedure.

For these reasons, LVJV’s motion for judgment on the administrative record is

DENIED, the Government’s cross-motion is GRANTED, and ITA’s cross-motion is

DENIED, as moot. The Clerk is directed to mark this case closed and to enter judgment

accordingly.

s/ Edward J. Damich

EDWARD J. DAMICH

Senior Judge

10