In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 19-748C (E-filed: October 16, 2019) 1 ) METROPOLITAN INTERPRETERS ) AND TRANSLATORS, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Motion to Strike; Supplementing the v. ) Administrative Record; Fed. R. Evid. ) 1006; Compliance with Formatting THE UNITED STATES, ) Requirements; Technical Evaluation; ) Past Performance Evaluation; FAR Defendant, ) 8.404(d) (2018); FAR 8.405-2(d) ) (2018); Denying Permanent Injunctive and ) Relief. ) MVM, INC., ) ) Intervenor-defendant. ) ) Holly A. Roth, McLean, VA, for plaintiff. Veronica N. Onyema, Trial Attorney, with whom appeared Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Director, and Douglas K. Mickle, Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant. Douglas J. Becker, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, of counsel. Meghan F. Leemon, Washington, DC, for intervenor-defendant. 1 This opinion was issued under seal on September 26, 2019. Pursuant to ¶ 6 of the ordering language, the parties were invited to identify proprietary or confidential material subject to deletion on the basis that the material was protected/privileged. The parties’ agreed-upon redactions are acceptable to the court. All redactions are indicated by brackets ([ ]). OPINION CAMPBELL-SMITH, Judge. Plaintiff Metropolitan Interpreters and Translators, Inc. (also referred to as Metro or MIT), filed this bid protest to challenge the award of a contract for the provision of translation services to the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (the agency or ICE). The parties’ cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record (AR) and defendant’s motion to strike are now before the court. The motions are fully briefed and ripe for decision. In ruling on these motions, the court has considered the following: (1) plaintiff’s second amended complaint, ECF No. 34 (complaint); (2) the AR, ECF Nos. 26, 30; (3) plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the AR, ECF No. 32; (4) defendant’s response to plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the AR, cross-motion for judgment on the AR, and motion to strike, ECF No. 35; (5) intervenor-defendant’s response to plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the AR, and its cross-motion for judgment on the AR, ECF No. 36; (6) plaintiff’s reply in support of its motion for judgment on the AR, and its response to defendant’s and intervenor-defendant’s cross-motions for judgment on the AR, ECF No. 37; (7) defendant’s reply in support of its cross-motion for judgment on the AR and motion to strike, ECF No. 38; and (8) intervenor-defendant’s reply in support of its cross-motion for judgment on the AR, ECF No. 40. For the reasons set forth below: (1) plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the AR, ECF No. 32, is DENIED; (2) defendant’s cross-motion for judgment on the AR and motion to strike, ECF No. 35, are GRANTED; and (3) intervenor-defendant’s cross- motion for judgment on the AR, ECF No. 36, is GRANTED. I. Background A. The RFQ and Amendments On May 1, 2017, the agency issued Request for Quotation No. HSCEMS-17-Q- 00010 (RFQ) seeking “General Translation, Transcription, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals