Many of the challenges, like the instant protest, have been attempts to challenge acquisitions where the contract in question was awarded years ago. The Company's protests have challenged the acquisitions of a wide range of federal agencies. In fiscal year 2016, the Company's protests included challenges to acquisitions conducted by the Department of Defense; Department of the Army; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Department of the Air Force; United States Marine Corps; Department of the Navy; United States Coast Guard; National Guard; Defense Logistics Agency; Defense Information Systems Agency; Department of Veterans Affairs; Department of Homeland Security; National Parks Service; Department of State; Broadcasting Board of Governors; and Department of Interior.
The contracts or orders awarded, or to be awarded, under the protested acquisitions include a similarly wide array of goods and services. In fiscal year 2016, a non-exhaustive list of the Company's protests includes acquisitions for engineering services, furniture, cell phone services, landscaping services, housekeeping and facilities operation services, printing and delivery services, antennas, laundry chemical services, portable generators, basic life support services, stevedoring and marine cargo handling services, industrial-size frequency converters and uninterruptable power supply batteries, passenger vehicles, refrigeration containers, industrial truck scales, the lease of barges, medical equipment and supplies, safety shoes and vests, anti-microbial medical privacy curtains, brake test machines, and the repair and alteration of an airfield in Bahrain.
Despite the wide-ranging list of acquisitions for goods and services protested by the Company, an examination of data included in the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) shows that the Company has been awarded only one government contract; in 2011 the Department of the Army awarded the Company a contract for miscellaneous medical supplies. The value of the contract was approximately $113,000, and it was subsequently terminated for the convenience of the government (hmm, wonder why).
In a single week in fiscal year 2015, Latvian Connection filed 59 separate protests challenging what the protester termed were Air Force solicitations. All 59 protests were dismissed when it became evident that the 59 solicitations that the Company was challenging did not actually exist.
GAO found that the Company's protest filings typically are a collection of excerpts cut and pasted from a wide range of documents having varying degrees of relevance to the procurements at issue, interspersed with remarks from the protester. The tone of the filings is derogatory and abusive towards both agency officials and GAO attorneys. The most common allegations raised in the Company's protests are that the acquiring agency improperly failed to set aside an acquisition for SDVOSBs or small businesses, and/or that the agency has failed to publicize the procurement through the required government point of entry, www.fbo.gov.
While its protests typically revolve around the two central issues noted above, the Company also routinely makes baseless accusations. In recent months, the Company has claimed that agency and GAO officials are white collar criminals; that the actions of agency procurement officials have violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), that various federal agency officials have engaged in treason; that GAO has violated the Equal Access to Justice Act, and that agency and GAO officials have engaged in activities that amount either to engaging in, or covering up, human trafficking and slavery.
Abuse of Process and Suspension According to the GAO:
These filings reflect a larger pattern of vexatious protesting that dates back several years. As set forth above, these protests have challenged an array of acquisitions conducted by a host of contracting agencies worldwide. In the overwhelming majority of these protests, the record has demonstrated that (the company) either was not an interested party to challenge the agency’s actions, or raised challenges that were legally insufficient. In other words, (the company)--time and again--either has failed to demonstrate that it was capable of, or interested in, performing the solicited requirements, or that it had a legitimate basis to question an agency’s actions. Indeed, despite filing protests challenging hundreds of federal procurements, there is little or no evidence that this company has the requisite direct economic interest in any of these procurements. Publicly available information provides no evidence that (the company) has successfully performed even a single government contract, and there is no evidence in the many cases presented to our Office to suggest that (the company) engages in any government business activity whatsoever beyond the business of filing bid protests. It has become evident to our Office, and to procuring activities across the government, that (the company's) protests are not filed for the purpose of allowing the firm to compete on a relatively equal basis for a requirement that it is capable of, and interested in, performing. Moreover, the effect of (the company's) protests is to hector the acquiring activities--and our forum--with a stream of protests that divert our collective time and resources. In the cases described above, and in the many, many other cases (the company) has filed, attorneys for procuring agencies have prepared responses to (the company's) protests on the basis that (the company) is not an interested party to challenge these procurements; that its protests are procedurally infirm in one way or another; or that they simply are without merit. Correspondingly, our Office has expended significant resources to process (the company's) filings, review the facts and law, and respond meaningfully and equitably to (the company's) contentions. The wasted effort related to (the company's) filings is highlighted by its latest series of protests (including the current protest) challenging acquisitions that were conducted years ago, where performance is complete and there is no possible remedy available.8 These protests have placed a burden on GAO, the agencies whose procurements have been challenged, and the taxpayers, who ultimately bear the costs of the government’s protest-related activities.And with that, the GAO suspended the company from the ability to file bid protests for one year.
You can read the entire decision here.
So what is the name of this "Company"? Is that information classified?
ReplyDeleteTo me this is not a news story. Either tell us the whole story, all info, or don't write anything at all.
The company name is linked in the last line of the post.
DeleteSDVOSB LATVIAN CONNECTION LLC bid on many solicitations with Teaming Partners and alone. The core problems is that solicitations are not being AUTOMATICALLY set aside. That is more mandatory than SHALL decided 8 - 0 in the Supreme Court for the Dept of Veteran's Affairs contracting Executives and Contracting Officers that circumvented unambiguous plain text language. Congress has stated that U.S. Federal Agencies will aide and assist U.S. Small Businesses and Veteran Owned Small Businesses ( VOSB and SDVOSB alike ) I don't see that, I see U.S. Small Business contract money being awarded to Large Businesses and foreign businesses with the aiding and abetting being U.S. Federal Contracting Officers facilitating the theft ( white collar crime ) and already defined Presumed Loss to U.S. Small Businesses. Overseas contract money is and always has been part of the U.S. Federal Budget. Do you believe B-408633 and Places of Performance happened without an effort ? What about Obama's Joseph Jordan joining FEDBID and within a month 3 companies that prevailed at the GAO were suspended: AEROSAGE LLC; FITNET INC. ; and LATVIAN CONNECTION LLC. LATVIAN FILED 500 GAO PROTESTS to protest that a private company could not suspend a U.S. Small Business from accessing FEDERAL contracts. As a result of Latvian's win against the State Department and FEDBID in B-410947 in a sustained protest and another the same week against FEDBID and the Dept of Interior in B-410981 where the GAO stated that FEDBID doesn't comply with the Small Business Act and doesn't comply with other Federal Procurement Rule and Regulations. After that win against Billionaires Steve Case and Ted Leonsis, General George Casey, and Revolution Group - FEDBID will never suspend another U.S. Small Business. But FEDBID still violates 55 FEDERAL Laws, Statutes and Regulations, ACTS, and Directives. FEDBID platform circumvents the DD Form 2579 Small Business Coordination Record and a host of other violations. There is a Request for the Small Business Administration to investigate these 55 violations by FEDBID of Federal Laws. That was abuse and Latvian prevailed and Small Businesses will benefit. The other abuses are outline in the LATVIAN CONNECTION LLC STATEMENT http://bit.ly/2bCKJEy
ReplyDeleteFigures that there are two sides to every story. The content of our posting was based solely on the published GAO bid protest decision. The posting was not intended to provide an objective understanding of the events leading up to GAO's action nor an opinion on the merits of anyone's positions.
DeleteThis article gave you the only side of the story that matters. LATVIAN CONNECTION LLC and its "CEO" do not perform any work, instead they file frivolous protests and that the frantic musings and a waste of taxpayer money to respond to
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWHY CONGRESS TO WE HAVE TO DEPEND UPON A BIASED, ANTI-VETERAN, ANT-SMALL BUSINESS GAO THAT DOESN'T INVITE THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION TO COMMENT ?
ReplyDeleteDuring Latvian's 2 wins against FEDBID - FEDBID themselves were suspended for ETHICS AND INTEGRITY VIOLATIONS http://bit.ly/1C7OiG3 noted in an article by NICK WAKEMAN, for blatant bid-rigging and Executive Level violations and acting for gain while an Obama Administration employee for personal gain and unprofessionally acting as a FEDBID agent while a U.S. Government employee. The 2 VA OIG investigations are VAOIG-13-03065-304 ( VA INVESTIGATION of FEDBID ) http://bit.ly/2b5XPbW and VA OIG Report 13-01408-294 - ( Pg 14 REGISTRATION on FEDBID NOT NECESSARY AND NEITHER IS VA PORTAL http://bit.ly/2aDLUj0
The doctrine of constructive notice creates a presumtion of notice in law that cannot be rebutted. See e.g. Townsend v. Little and others. 109 U.S. 504, 511 ( 1883 ) ( "constructive notice is defined to be in its nature no more than evidence of notice, the presumption of which is so violent that the court will not even allow of its being controverted") By definition the doctine imputes knowledge to a party without regard to the party's actual knowledge of the matter at issue. Given the severity of such a rule, our decisions holding protesters to constructive notice of information published in the CBD and now on FedBizOpps have been expressly designated by statue and regulation as the official medium for providing notice of contracting actions by federal agencies. See Herndon & Thompson, B-240748, Oct. 24, 1990, 90-2 CPD ¶ 327 at 3 ( protesters are charged with constructive notice of contents of procurement synopsis published in the CBD since it is the official public medium for identifying proposed contract actions); see also 15 U.S.C. § 637 ( e )( 2 )( A ) ( 2000 ); 41 U.S.C. § 416( a )( 7 ) ( 2000 ); FAR 2.101 ( Designating FedBizOpps as the governmentwide point of entry ( GPE ), "the single point where Government business opportunities greater than $ 25,000, including synopsis of proposed contract actions, solicitations, and associated information, can be accessed electronically by the public" ).
ReplyDeleteSo while Pacific Northwest Consultants states they know that Latvian is not an interested bidder and blindly sides with the same GAO that has actually sustained GAO Protests in Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business Latvian Connection LLC's favor and Pacific Northwest Consultants have no idea that Latvian has achieved an effective rate of 75% and the agency escaped the U.S. Small Business Bank of 23% robbery in progress due to the GAO aiding and abetting the U.S. Federal Agency white collar criminal activity of violating the Small Business Act, violating the Rule of 2 ( just like KINGDOMWARE ) and failing to AUTOMATICALLY set aside solicitations and violated fAR 19.506 by failing to obtain SBA authorization to dissolve. CAUSING a PRESUMED LOSS to Latvian Connection LLC and other VETERAN OWNED SMALL BUSINESSES and SDVOSB concerns.
ReplyDeleteWe are not taking sides in any disputes. We simply reported on the substance of a published GAO bid protest decision. This is a blog, not an in-depth treatise of the relative merits of either side's position.
Delete