Back to “Business”

March 9, 2014 2 comments

I’ve been quiet for a while because the case was moving through its busiest stage, depositions, and I had very limited time leftover for blogging. But most of that is over now so I can get back to this and bring everyone up-to-date.

There has been so much activity that I think the best place to start is to give an overview of what has happened. I will then follow with a blog on each item.

1. In December the Government filed a Counterclaim 18 months into the process. In the Counterclaim, the Government attorney, Paul ‘P.’ Davis Oliver puts forth yet another amount as his new-final-final amount he swears the government can prove Quimba owes. This latest amount is the seventh final sum certain amount the good attorney Paul ‘P.’ Davis Oliver and the competent DCMA folks have come up with, each time asserting the number as the final-final amount Quimba owes. His Counterclaim filing is itself a testimonial as to how incompetent attorney Oliver believes ACO Craig M. Studley of DCMA actually is – just about the only thing attorney Oliver and I have consistently agreed on. In his Counterclaim, attorney Oliver also proposed a brand new method of allocating contractor costs across contracts and fiscal years that was, to say the least, amusing to read. Those of you who hate the DCAA should pray for the Judge to buy attorney Oliver’s method because it would mean we no longer need the DCAA.

The decision on whether or not the Government can file a Counterclaim is now pending before the Court.

2. Speaking of those snarky little devils in DCAA, in December I filed a Five Million Dollar lawsuit against DCAA under the Federal Tort Claims Act. For those of you who have access to Pacer, you can find the Complaint by searching for case number C13-5984, in the US District Court, Northern California Division. I will of course cover this in detail in upcoming blog posts.

As of today, they have asked for an extension to respond. This should be good.

3. Also in December (yes it was a busy month) DCMA issued two more Contracting Officer’s Final Decision against Quimba, questioning all of our costs in FY 2005 and FY 2006. We are not sure what to make of this because the Administrative Contracting Officer, ACO Delaine Alvarez of the DCMA Northern California branch, did not bother to issue a Letter of Intent to Disallow Costs before issuing the COFD. This, to us, seems contrary to the FAR. We just filed a Notice of Dispute with ASBCA and I am really curious as to why Ms. Alvarez thinks she can issue a COFD without issuing a Letter of Intent to Disallow Costs. Will of course post her COFDs when I blog about this topic.

4. In January we replied to the Government’s response to our Motion for Summary Judgment. I will post this shortly as well.

Quimba’s Motion for Summary Judgment is Pending before the Court.

5. The most interesting event since the last blog post is our Deposition of ACO Craig M. Studley. Most of it was the expected back and forth. However, the good ACO did admit under oath that he knew he made a mistake in his COFD shortly after I notified him but did not correct the error. He says he did not do so because a DCMA attorney advised him not to. You don’t have to have a law degree to understand that the DCMA employees conspired to intentionally break the law, probably, because they wanted to circumvent the CDA’s Statute of Limitation. I intend to explore this and expose those DCMA-Taliban involved in that decision for the incompetent, unpatriotic, dishonorable, un-American, cowards, pension-undeserving leaches that they, in my opinion, are.

Shame on you Craig Studley. You intentionally and willingly wiped your ass with the US flag and betrayed the trust American Citizens placed in you. Anyone who ever mentored you, taught you, or otherwise helped your “career” ought to be proud of you now.

People in this post:
Bob Dourandish –
Paul ‘P.’ Davis Oliver, Esq. (DOJ Attorney) –
Delaine Alvarez (ACO) –
Craig M. Studley – DCMA ACO – Retired on for-life taxpayer-funded Pension and for-life taxpayer-funded Healthcare. No email on file.

DOJ’s Yet-Another Extension Request

December 15, 2013 2 comments

Since our saga turned to DOJ, and it began persecuting Quimba – and I do mean persecute – they have repeatedly asked for extension after extension. I was complaining about this “we don’t need no stinking calendar” approach that, at the very least, DOJ attorney Paul ‘P.’ Davis Oliver, and DCMA attorney, Srikanti ‘Sri’ Schaffner, have used with us. The person I was talking with is an experienced attorney who has worked in post-award CDA litigation for a couple of decades. Her opinion unambiguously reflected my own impression that DOJ attorneys use repeated extension requests as yet-another method of running up legal fees for the contractor. After all, every extension request must be discussed with our attorney (invoice), and our attorney will discuss with us (invoice), and then the request is submitted to our attorney for review (invoice), and then, assuming no issues, the request is submitted to the Court for approval. The Court subsequently will issue an order, and a copy is sent to our attorney (invoice) and our attorney will notify us (invoice). Of course there are five invoices only if we have no reason to oppose the extension. An opposition will eat up a ton more money.

That brings us to my use of the word “persecute” in opening this post. As I have repeatedly chronicled in this blog, the DOJ attorney, Paul ‘P.’ Davis Oliver has explicitly admitted in court documents that Quimba WAS NOT paid monies asserted by DCMA ACO Craig M. Studley, and that the debt ACO Craig Studley levied on Quimba was an error. Both the DOJ attorney Paul ‘P.’ Davis Oliver, and DCMA attorney Srikanti ‘Sri’ Schaffner also know, or should know, the error has, for all intents and purposes, barred Quimba from pursuing any taxpayer-funded opportunities, federal or otherwise. See this post for more on how and why.

Yet both attorneys still are intentionally moving this case forward, which at this point I will have to assume is with the full knowledge and support of their respective chains of command. Why is that assumption reasonable? Because we have filed two complaints with the SBA which has brought our grievances to the attention of both DCMA and DOJ leadership, as reported here and here. As such, it is hard to imagine that these two attorneys don’t have full support of their leadership.

Regardless, in my opinion, the only reason for these two attorneys’ insistence to move the case forward is, primarily, their own personal gain; after all both attorneys must have long realized that they have no legal case.

Folks, as we say around here, this is not “rocket surgery!” This is a very simple case: The Government did NOT pay Quimba any money in 2004 for 2004, on the contract in question, as attorney Paul ‘P.’ Davis Oliver himself has admitted. Therefore, even a five-year-old would understand that Quimba could not have been overpaid. Besides, the DOJ attorney did in fact admit, in writing, that Quimab DOES NOT owe the government the debt ACO Craig M. Studley levied. However, by moving the case forward despite this knowledge and admission, the Government attorneys are hoping to make it so expensive for me that I will walk away with an unfair settlement. So they won’t get a “loss” on their records. That’s the personal gain.

More importantly, if they succeed to bury this case, the impending cases we intend to bring under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) will also go away. Net result? The Government will have been unjustly-enriched, despite committing, through its agents and employees (and with full support and knowledge of DCMA and DOJ leaderships), intentional acts that destroyed a promising small business and inflicted, and continues to inflict significant personal and financial harm on its founders. In my opinion, this is the reason as to why both DCMA and DOJ leadership are supporting attorney Oliver and attorney Schaffner to move this case forward, again, despite the knowledge that there is no case here.

What else would you call this except persecution?

The entire motion for an extension is posted here. If you read it, you’ll note that it says “Joint Motion,” because we did not oppose the new timelines. For the record, however, we did not initiate this extension request.

People in this post:
Bob Dourandish –
Paul ‘P.’ Davis Oliver, Esq. (DOJ Attorney) –
Srikanti ‘Sri’ Schaffner, Esq. (DCMA Attorney) –
Craig M. Studley – DCMA ACO – Retired on for-life taxpayer-funded Pension and for-life taxpayer-funded Healthcare. No email on file.

We Heard Back from the SBA on Quimba Complaint Against the DOJ

December 11, 2013 Leave a comment

As I reported here, we had filed a complaint with the Small Business Administration (SBA) against the Department of Justice (DOJ). You may recall that the basis of the complaint DID NOT have anything to do with our lawsuit. The basis of the complaint was that the DOJ attorney, Paul ‘P.’ Davis Oliver, admitted in court documents, posted here, that Quimba did not owe the Government the debt erroneously levied by the DCMA employee, ACO Craig M. Studley. Despite the unambiguous admission, we complained, neither Mr. Oliver, nor the DCMA attorney Srikanti ‘Sri’ Schaffner moved to rescind the erroneous levy. Because the levy continues to make it impossible for Quimba to pursue taxpayer-funded opportunities, federal or otherwise, we complained that the DOJ attorney, Paul ‘P.’ Davis Oliver, was using the levy to extort an unfair settlement, and that the DOJ (or DCMA for that matter) supervisory chain of command endorsed this action, albeit perhaps by silent inaction.

As you can read for yourself, the SBA folks did try, and according to their letter, they have escalated the complaint to both DOJ and DCMA management. Will anything come of this beyond yet-another documented evidence of how these organizations work? Your guess at this point is as good as mine!

The unedited SBA response is posted here in full.

People in this post:
Bob Dourandish –
Paul ‘P.’ Davis Oliver, Esq. (DOJ Attorney) –
Srikanti ‘Sri’ Schaffner, Esq. (DCMA Attorney) –
Craig M. Studley – DCMA ACO – Retired on for-life taxpayer-funded Pension and for-life taxpayer-funded Healthcare. No email on file.

The DOD Inspector General Response to our FOIA Request

November 30, 2013 4 comments

We heard back on our DOD-IG FOIA request. Unfortunately, it seems to be yet another implementation of DOD administrative foot-dragging, designed to frustrate citizens. Although I must allow for the fact that after spending the past three years of, so far unproductive time and  money wasted on trying to convince DCMA that ACO Craig M. Studley made an error, I may be jaded about all things relating to DCMA, DOD or DOJ.  That said, the short and to the point letter from Jeanne Miller, Chief of the DOD Freedom of Information and Privacy Office basically told us not to hold our breath.

There has to be at least two Americas and I am clearly not a citizen of one where DOD policymakers live. Otherwise, I figure, with DOD’s massive budget, they could afford to put a few more people handling Freedom Of Information Requests. Mind you, I am not saying they should grant every FOIA request. I am only saying that it should not take this much effort to get a request reviewed.

I swear I don’t understand the people who put these processes in place.

Their full response is posted here.

People in this post:
Bob Dourandish –
Jeanne Miller, Chief, DOD Freedome of Information (FOIA) and Privacy Office – No email on file.
Craig M. Studley – DCMA ACO – Retired on for-life taxpayer-funded Pension and for-life taxpayer-funded Healthcare. No email on file.

Two More Administrative Notices Filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act

November 26, 2013 1 comment

Those of you who follow this blog know that we have been serving SF-95 notices of our intent to pursue all legal remedies under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The last set of notices, one on behalf of Quimba and one on behalf of myself, were filed against DCMA, citing DCAM attorney Srikanti Schaffner’s specific acts as the cause of action. In particular, the notice cites the fact that we did provide attorney Schaffner with unambiguous and irrefutable proof of ACO Craig M. Studley’s error. We in fact filed the proof, obtained from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) as an addendum to our ASBCA complaint. The DFAS document, a report of all payments on the contract, clearly showed that Quimba had not been paid the monies ACO Craig Studley claimed in his erroneous Contracting Officer’s Final Decision.

Sadly, however, Ms. Schaffner decided to move the case forward after consulting with our then-ACO, ACO Michael Hurrell. I am not sure what they are going to call this when we actually get to file with the court. We call it conspiracy.

The complete and unedited SF-95s are here (Quimba) and here (Dourandish).

People in this post:
Bob Dourandish –
Srikanti ‘Sri’ Schaffner, Esq. –
Michael Hurrell (ACO) –
Craig M. Studley – DCMA ACO – Retired on for-life taxpayer-funded Pension and for-life taxpayer-funded Healthcare. No email on file.

Quimba Files Motion for Summary Judgment

November 7, 2013 Leave a comment

As I reported here, the Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney Paul ‘P.’ Davis Oliver admitted that Quimba does NOT owe the government the monies the DCMA ACO Craig M. Studley asserted. Attorney Oliver made this admission in a court document, his response to our Request for Admission, which we served pursuant to the Court of Federal Claim (COFC) discovery rules.

The admission itself, and attorney Oliver’s statement that “… avers that Quimba was overpaid an amount other than $91,992.77,” were the focus of Motion for Summary Judgment (MSJ) which we filed with the COFC last week. [Emphasis added].

As I reported in my last post, despite this admission, neither the DOJ Attorney Oliver, nor the DCMA attroney Srikanti ‘Sri’ Schaffner (DCMA attorney supporting DOJ in this litigation) has moved to rescind the erroneous debt levied on Quimba by ACO Craig Studley.

Last week, after spending quite a bit of time (read: Legal Fees) we filed a Motion for Summary Judgment with the Court. The basis of the claim is that with the above admissions, the Government no longer has a sum certain claim.

As detailed in our Motion, while Contract Disputes Act (CDA) does not define a claim, the language of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), particularly FAR 2.101 has been used by the courts. FAR 2.101 defines a claims as “a written demand or written assertion by one of the contracting parties seeking, as a matter of right, the payment of money in a sum certain . . . .” [Emphasis added]. In fact, this language is also used in DCMA’s own Guidebook, last accessed on 2013-11-07, and available here.

Those of you who follow contract disputes know that a lacking sum certain is one of the government’s favorite arguments when moving (asking) for a contractor claim to be dismissed on the grounds that the contractor does not have a valid claim. Citing the above FAR clause, government attorneys have always argued that a claim not asserting a sum certain is not a valid claim and therefore should not be considered by ASBCA or the courts. Since we began this saga, I am continually amazed at how despicably dishonorably DCMA and DOJ staff can behave. It seems to me that, organizationally, they are trained to argue a double standard. Organizationally, win at any cost seems to be their main goal. Not much difference between how these folks behave and the thugs that enforce the will of drug/prostitution/gang bosses, is there?

Except that these “people” are representing the flag of the United States of America – the very same piece of cloth that most citizens, including myself, are willing to die for. Yet, it appears to me, that the DCMA and DOJ staff seem all too willing to wipe their dirty bottoms with the Old Glory. We should demand that they behave slightly better than gang-bangers.

But I digress…

They have 30 days to respond but, if their past behavior is an indicator, they’ll be asking for an extension. So we should have a decision sometime in February 2014. I must admit that I am curious about how they will shape their response to argue that “Quimba owes some other amount….” constitutes a sum certain claim.

You can read the text of our Motion here. The supporting attachments are here, here, and here. You can also find a brief review of the sum certain issue in this blog post, written by an attorney.

People in this post:
Bob Dourandish –
Srikanti ‘Sri’ Schaffner, Esq. –
Paul ‘P.’ Davis Oliver, Esq. (DOJ Attorney) –
Craig M. Studley – DCMA ACO – Retired on for-life taxpayer-funded Pension and for-life taxpayer-funded Healthcare. No email on file.

Quimba Files SBA Complaint Against the Department of Justice

October 31, 2013 Leave a comment

As you know, neither the Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney Paul ‘P.’ Davis Oliver, or the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) attorney Srikanti ‘Sri’ Schaffner has moved to rescind the erroneous debt levied on Quimba by ACO Craig M. Studley. As I reported here, the DOJ Attorney admitted in a legal document that Quimba DOES NOT owe the debt that DCMA’s Craig Studley levied on Quimba.

As you also know, we have attempted to reach anyone in DCMA who gave a f**k. But could not find a single person in DCMA who was willing to act honorably and stand up to the values of fairness and integrity they supposedly represent. This, sadly, included the entire relevant chain of command in our cognizant DCMA office: ACO Michael Hurrell, Supervisor Raymond Yoshids, ACO Delaine Alvarez, Director Mary May, and the DCMA executive director, Charlie Williams Jr.

Further, as I have reported in a number of posts in this blog, despite many attempts including showing up in person, we have failed to reach an appropriate person in the Department of Justice to help us either. So after writing Attorney General Holder (and getting no response), and filing two DOJ Inspector General complaints, we finally gave up on any help from DOJ as well.

All this left us with only one option – to file a complaint with the Small Business Administration. We are hoping that they can compel the DOJ to rescind the debt so we can get on with business while this case is snail-winding its way through the system.

The entire complaint, as filed with the SBA, is here.

People in this post:
Bob Dourandish –
Craig Studley –
Raymond T. Yoshida – Supervisor, DCMA –
P. Davis Oliver, Esq. (DOJ Attorney) –
Michael Hurrell (ACO) –
Delaine Alvarez (ACO) – Delaine.Alvarez@dcma.mi
Srikanti Schaffner, Esq. –
Mary May (Director, DCMA Northern California Branch Office) – No email on file.
Charlie Williams Jr. (Director, Defense Contract Management Agency) – No email on file.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 520 other followers