FAR §19.306(e) 4 C.F.R. §21.5(b) (Small Business Administration)

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, I hereby request the following records:

Please find enclosed "19_10_15_FAR_§19.306 4 C.F.R. §21.5(b)" along with the referenced 23 enclosures as tabs
FOIA Offices,

Please find enclosed,
1. "17_08_24_0800_Attention GAO Protest Sol T-3039 Award V-1048" . JEQ&Co's HUBZone status protest at the GAO dated Thursday, August 24, 2017 8:00 AM
a) containing attachments
i. “SPE8EE17V1048 awarded to 00UF8.PDF” ;
ii. “SPE8EE17T3039.PDF” ;
iii. “Quote in dibbs.pdf”
iv. “36-2017 Decision Letter-Sustained.PDF” . SBA HUBZone Program decision in a DLA HUBZone status protest with identical legal and factual grounds as that of "17_08_24_0800_Attention GAO Protest Sol T-3039 Award V-1048"
(1) a letter from SBA HUBZone Program Director, Mariana Pardo,
(2) dated August I5, 20I7
(3) Regarding: HUBZone Protest for Solicitation No. SPE7M3-17-T-5860: Contract No. SPE7M3-17-P-4126.
(4) stating, in part
(5) p. 1
(a) paragraph 1, "...For the following reasons, I am sustaining the HUBZone protest"
(b) paragraph 4, "...Based on my review of this allegation, internal SBA records, and the List of qualified HUBZone SBCs, I have determined that T&T is not a qualified HUBZone SBC. As such, T&T is not elieible for this award"
(c) p. 2 paragraph 1, "Pursuant to the HUBZone regulations, SBA certification is the only way to qualify for HUBZone program status. Id. § 126.301. If SBA approves an application for HUBZone certification, SBA will send a written notice to the concern and automatically enter it on the List of qualified HUBZone SBCs. Id. § 126.306. A concern must appear on the List to be eligible for HUBZone contracts. Id. § 125.308. The List of qualified HUBZone SBCs is maintained on SBA's Dynamic Small Business Search (DSBS). Id. § 126.307 ("Qualified HUBZone SBCs are identified by running a search on the Dynamic Small Business Search at http://dsbs.sba.gov/dsbs/search/dsp_dsbs.cfm."). Therefore, a concern that does not appear on the List of qualified HUBZone SBCs in DSBS is not eligible for HUBZone contracts."
v. “consequences misrepresentation.pdf” . E-mail
(1) dated: August 15, 2017 4:45 PM
(2) To:
(a) HZProtests@sba.gov'; SBA HUBZone program
(b) Rory.OReilly@dla.mi; DLA Contracting activity
(3) sent in response to SBA Administrative Support Assistant's e-mail
(a) dated Tuesday, August 15, 2017 3:58 PM
(b) From: hzprotests@sba.gov
(c) referencing "...attached protest letter [‘36-2017 Decision Letter-Sustained.PDF’(1.a.iv, above)]"
(4) stating, in part,
(a) paragraph 1: "I’m also curious to know whether or not having falsely represented itself harms T&T Products, LLC’s ability to win future awards within the USG
i. indicating a naivety by JEQ&Co that the reasons HUBZone set-aside solicitations were continually awarded to SBCs that were not HUBZone Certified
1. was due exclusively to SBCs misrepresenting their HUBZone status
2. had nothing to do with a systemic, arbitrary and capricious bias from DLA against JEQ&Co
(b) paragraph 3: "...I’m finding several solicitations each week where non-certified firms are winning awards for HUBZone set aside solicitations when JEQ&Co has submitted costs that are 'fair and reasonable' based on historical awards and management data..."
i. alerting the following of a potentially far greater problem
1. SBA HUBZone Program
2. DLA Contracting activity
3. GAO Procurement Law Group (PLG) as of the date of receipt of "17_08_24_0800_Attention GAO Protest Sol T-3039 Award V-1048"
ii. creating a potential opportunity for the SBA, DLA, and GAO Counsels to cooperatively attempt to maneuver around / subvert the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR)

1. for the purposes of justifying the DLA’s failures to correctly adhere to FARs
a. §13.106-2 Evaluation of Offers under Simplified Acquisition Procedures (SAP)
b. §52.219-3 Notice of HUBZone Set-Aside Solicitation specifically called out as (1)(A) from the DLA Directorate, Procurement Notes
c. §19.306(e)
d. When JEQ&Co , CAGE 7B1T4 , made an offer under HUBZone Set-Aside Solicitations between the dates of March 2017 – August 24, 2017
2. Given
a. JEQ&Co’s demonstrable naivety
b. The HUBZone status protests of JEQ&Co being filed by a non-attorney spokesperson
(5) that would - in retrospect, not so mysteriously - receive no response from Ms. Pardo or hzprotests@sba.gov.
vi. “2HUBZone&GAO protest SPE8EE17V1048.pdf” ;
vii. “demonstration of notice to CO.pdf” ;
2. "17_08_24_L06 Protest award SPE8EE17V1048 solicitation SPE8EE17T3039"
a) Dated: Thursday, August 24, 2017 5:31 PM
b) containing attachments
i. “SPE8EE17V1048 awarded to 00UF8.PDF” ;
ii. “SPE8EE17T3039.PDF” ;
iii. “Quote in dibbs.pdf”
3. “17_08_29_1008_acknowledgement of protest B-415412” . E-mail
a) from Jonathan L. Kang Senior Attorney US Government Accountability Office
b) To:
i. Jacob Queern, Principal, JEQ&Co
ii. Bid.protests@dla.mil
iii. protests@gao.gov
c) Dated: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 10:08 AM

d) Containing attached, “B-415142_1 __JEQ_&_COMPANY_LOGISTICS_SOLUTIONS__ACK_CONF_PAC KAGE_WITHOUT_PROTECTIVE_ORDER.pdf”
4. “17_09_07_e-mail_DLA_Request_for_Dismissal”
a) From: Nicole M. Franchetti Senior Counsel, Construction & Equipment DLA Counsel - Troop Support
b) To: Jacob Queern, Principal, JEQ&Co
c) Cc: Bid.protests@dla.mil; protests@gao.gov
d) Dated: Thursday, September 7, 2017 10:36 AM
e) Stating, in part,

“Mr. Queern,
Please see the attached redacted Request for Dismissal…”
f) Containing, among others, “B-415142_JEQ Protest_Request for Dismissal_Redacted.pdf” DLA’s motion to dismiss the HUBZone status protest of JEQ&Co:
i. seemingly as a result of JEQ&Co’s demonstrable naivety / misplaced faith in the Federal Government’s
(1) compliance with the FAR
(2) unwillingness to Obstruct a Federal Audit

ii. Acknowledging on p.1, footnote 1,
(1) JEQ&Co also filed the protest with the SBA [because JEQ&Co had gained reason to suspect that DLA was not forwarding the HUBZone Status Protests made by JEQ&Co to the SBA pursuant to FAR §19.306(e)]
(2) The SBA requested the HUBZone status protests from the DLA accordingly

(3) “Ordinarily, the SBA issues such as challenges (sic) of a firm’s status are not considered by GAO (sic) pursuant to 4 C.F.R. §21.5(b) ”
(4) “The Agency is coordinating with the SBA regarding how it plans to resolve this protest.”
iii. Willfully omitting the text of 4 C.F.R. §21.5(b)
5. “18_08_01_e-mail cover letter SBA-2018-000899” e-mail
a) From: Davida Bobo Administrative Officer, HUBZone Program Government Contracting and Business Development U.S. Small Business Administration
b) To: Jacob Queern, Principal, JEQ&Co
c) Stating, in part,

“This email is in response to your Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request for HUBZone Status Protests that were initiated by JEQ& Co LLC and forwarded to D/HUB between June 14, 2017, and June 14, 2018.”

d) Containing attachments ,
i. “36-2017.pdf;”
ii. “43-2017.pdf”
6. “19_03_20_1711est_SBAOIG_SAC_Eastern_Region_Kupperbusch” e-mail
a) From: Kupperbusch, Kevin A. (Off. Inspector Gen.) kevin.kupperbusch@sba.gov, SBA Special Agent in Charge of the Eastern Region of the SBA Office of Inspector General
b) To: Jacob Queern, Principal, JEQ&Co
c) Dated: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 7:32 AM
d) Stating, in part,
i. “I’ve discussed your complaints at length with our counsel.”
(1) Overcoming the objection raised by SBA Counsel, David Fishman, that
(a) findings by law enforcement aren’t valid
(b) only findings reached by an attorney where matters of law are concerned can be considered as valid
(2) Mr. Kupperbush’s reference to his lengthy discussion with Counsel indicate that the discussion was thoroughly reviewed by a SBA Counsel

ii. “…SBA is delegated the authority to decide size protest issues… the regulations do not provide SBA any recourse if the contracting agency fails to abide by the decisions.”
iii. “SBA’s only course of action is to report the agency inaction to the contracting officer’s supervisor and/or the IG for that agency. Any alleged inaction would be in violation of that agency’s policies on dealing with contracts .”
(1) Per
(a) "17_08_24_L06 Protest award SPE8EE17V1048 solicitation SPE8EE17T3039" became aware of the JEQ&Co’s HUBZone status protest on August 24, 2017 at 1700est
(b) “17_09_07_e-mail_DLA_Request_for_Dismissal” DLA Counsel Nicole Franchetti stated that sometime between August 24, 2017 1700 est and September 7, 2017 1036est
i. the SBA requested that DLA forward JEQ&Co’s HUBZone status protest of award SPE8EE17V1048 solicitation SPE8EE17T3039 pursuant to FAR §19.306(e)
ii. SBA and DLA were coordinating in regard as to how the SBA plans to resolve this protest.

(c) The e-mail containing records in response to SBA-2018-000899 , the DLA never referred JEQ&Co’s HUBZone status protest of award SPE8EE17V1048 HUBZone set-aside solicitation SPE8EE17T3039 to the SBA
7. “17_09_07_1114_GAO_reply to DLA Req Dismissal” e-mail
a) In response to “17_09_07_e-mail_DLA_Request_for_Dismissal ”
b) Dated: “Thursday, September 7, 2017 11:14 AM”
c) From: Jonathan L. Kang Senior Attorney US Government Accountability Office 441 G Street, NW Washington, DC 20548
d) To:
i. Nicole M. Franchetti Senior Counsel, Construction & Equipment DLA Counsel - Troop Support
ii. Jacob Queern, Principal, JEQ&Co LLC
e) Stating,

“We have received DLA’s request to dismiss the above-referenced protest. The protester should file its response to the request by noon (ET) on Monday, September 11, 2017. The due date for the agency report is suspended pending our ruling on the request for dismissal.”
i. Intentionally giving the protester roughly 12 business hours to respond to the Agency’s request for dismissal
ii. Nowhere in the following is there any statute governing that the protester be given 1.5 business days to respond to an Agency’s Motion for Dismissal
(1) The Competition in Contracting act of 1984
(2) 31 U.S.C 3551 – 3556 Bid Protest Regulations
(3) 4 C.F.R. part 21 BID PROTEST REGULATIONS
(4) 48 C.F.R. §33.104 Protests to GAO

iii. Failing to address
(1) Any of DLA Sr. Counsel’s incongruent statements on p.1, footnote 1 of “B-415142_JEQ Protest_Request for Dismissal_Redacted.pdf ”
(2) 4 C.F.R. §21.5(b)
(a) “(1)Small business size standards … Challenges of established size standards or the size status of particular firms… may be reviewed solely by the Small Business Administration.”
(b) “(2)Small Business Certificate of Competency Program. … certificate of competency under that section will generally not be reviewed by GAO. The exceptions, which GAO will interpret narrowly out of deference to the role of the SBA in this area, are protests that show possible bad faith on the part of government officials…due to the manner in which the information was presented to or withheld from the SBA by the procuring agency. 15 U.S.C. 637(b)(7).
(3) Whether or not the DLA forwarded the HUBZone protest requested by the SBA pursuant to FAR §19.306(e)
iv. Intentionally abdicating the GAO responsibility pursuant to 4 C.F.R. §21.5(b)(2)
v. Willfully
(1) cooperating in an obstruction of a federal audit
(2) violating 18 U.S.C
(a) §1516
(b) §371
Given the facts as contained herein, please provide copies of the original records
1. such that the date of creation within the properties of the document reflects a date of creation prior to the date for which the records were sent.
2. In whatever format available ,
a) All correspondence between the DLA, SBA, and GAO regarding "17_08_24_0800_Attention GAO Protest Sol T-3039 Award V-1048". JEQ&Co's HUBZone status protest at the GAO dated Thursday, August 24, 2017 8:00 AM
b) All, complete records requested by JEQ&Co through foiaonline.gov
i. to include those that have
(1) Long past the due dates outlined within
(a) 5 U.S.C § 552
(b) 32 C.F.R. §286.8 Timing of responses to requests.
(c) 13 C.F.R. §102.5 Timing of responses to requests.
(d) 28 C.F.R. §16.5 Timing of responses to requests.
(2) Been closed under false pretense (e.g. DLA’s willfully false allegation that JEQ&Co refuses to pay FOIA fees when by DLA Counsel’s own admission the FOIA requests for which DLA alleges JEQ&Co refused to pay FOIA fees the records released in response to the FOIA requests were
(a) In one case, falsified
(b) In the other case, incomplete

(3) Been redacted under the false pretense that 5 U.S.C § 552(b)(6)
(a) protects the names and contact information of those in the Federal Government
i. serving in a professional capacity
ii. receiving an income provided by the United States taxpayer
(b) Inherently, point of contact information for someone serving in a professional capacity that is receiving an income from the United States taxpayer cannot be an invasion of personal privacy.
ii. For the purposes of concealing wrongdoing by individuals within agency components.
 
Certificate of Service: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on ¬ October 15, 2019 a copy of this by
1. First class mail to the following:
Clerk’s Office, US District Court
Eastern District of VA
600 Granby St.
Norfolk, VA 23510
2. E-mail to nc09.Casework@house.mail.gov
3. Web portal at muckrock.com

The requested documents will be made available to the general public, and this request is not being made for commercial purposes.

In the event that there are fees, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 20 business days, as the statute requires.

Sincerely,

Jacob Queern

On October 18, 2019, the SBA acknowledged receipt of the above referenced FOIA request. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6) (A)
"Each agency, upon any request for records made under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this subsection, shall-
(i) determine within 20 days (excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) after the receipt of any such request whether to comply with such request and shall immediately notify the person making such request of-
(I) such determination and the reasons therefor;"

The SBA did not make such a determination.

No unusual circumstances exist as defined by 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6) (B).

On March 20, 2020, the SBA sent muckrock.com notification that
"In accordance with the Department’s FOIA regulations (13 CFR 102.3(b)), a FOIA requester must describe the records in sufficient detail to enable an employee familiar with the subject area of the request to locate the responsive records with a reasonable amount of effort. Your request does not meet this requirement. Because of the broad and general nature of your request, we are unable to identify which records are being sought.

...In accordance with our regulations (13 CFR 102.3(b)), if we do not hear from you within 20 workdays of the date of this letter, we will assume you are no longer interested in this matter and will close the file on your request."

For reasons that cannot be anything other than an effort by the SBA to close the request without revealing further incriminating evidence pertaining to the roles of the SBA Legal Counsels (Hagedorn, Mueler-Amann, Fishman, Klein, Farris, et al.) in the combined efforts of the SBA, DLA, and GAO to obstruct a federal audit (cooperatively violating 18 U.S.C. §§1516, 371) in the GAO Protest Protest File Number: B-415142, DLA HUBZOne set-aside solicitation SPE8EE - 17 - T - 3039 (T-3039) Award: SPE8EE - 17 - V - 1048 (V-1048) when
1. after - pursuant to 48 C.F.R. §33.103 - Protests to the Agency
a. The SBA having issued a decision regarding a HUBZone status protest on August 15, 2017 wholly in favor of the protester in a protest filed by the requester pertaining to SPE7M3-17-T-5860 (T-5860): Contract No. SPE7M3-17-P-4126 (P-4126). See enclosed, "17_08_15_36-2017 Decision Letter-Sustained.pdf"
b. Where
i. the DLA failed to refer the protest of T-5860 P-4126 to the SBA Cognizant office of the HUBZone program pursuant to FAR §19.306
ii. The SBA learned of the protest only because the protester referred the protest to the SBA.
iii. See SBA FOIA SBA-2018-000899
iv. the SBA sustained the protest of the protester / requester in no uncertain terms
v. the DLA failed to take any corrective action or even so much as cancel the award to the erroneous awardee

2. the protester / requester filed a HUBZone status protest at the GAO pursuant to §33.104 of T-3039 V-1048
a. Having identical legal and factual grounds as that of T-5860 P-4126
b. Where the counsels at SBA, DLA, and GAO engaged in ex parte communications to cooperatively subvert the bid protest provisions of the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA) and 4 C.F.R. Part 21 to enable the wrongdoing by the DLA through the following abuse of the public trust:

i. The GAO's failure to
1) dismiss the protest as on its face frivolous or failing to state a valid basis for protest pursuant to CICA
2) require an agency report pursuant to CICA and 4 C.F.R. 21.3(c)

ii. The DLA's filing a motion to dismiss the protest of the protester requester on September 7, 2017, within the motion DLA Counsel's. See enclosed, "17_09_07_e-mail_DLA_Request_for_Dismissal" containing the also enclosed attachment "B-415142_JEQ Protest_Request for Dismissal_Redacted.pdf"
1) explicitly acknowledging
a) the SBA's having requested the DLA send over the protest to the SBA for a decision (Pursuant to FAR §19.306)
b) that pursuant to 4 C.F.R. §21.5(b)
i) That SBA normally would make determinations of HUBZone status protests
ii) ordinarily the GAO would not make decisions regarding SBA size determinations
2) willfully omitting the text of 4 C.F.R. §21.5(b)
i) (1) that SBA solely can determine such protest matters
ii) (2) except when the agency shows bad faith such as failing to refer the protest to the SBA

iii. The protester / requester's understandably / justified misplaced naivety that the GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABLITY OFFICE
1) wouldn't not violate federal criminal law to enable the improper and ongoing conduct of an agency it was tasked with overseeing
2) would adhere to its oversight role.

iv. after DLA's having issued its Motion to Dismiss the protester / requester's protest of T-3039 V-1048, the GAO
1) Did not respond by stating,
a) DLA isn't suppposed to file a motion to dismiss. DLA is supposed to file a report within 30 days pursuant to CICA and 4 C.F.R.
§21.3
b) And even if that wasn't the case, DLA is stating that the SBA requested the protests. They shouldn't have had to. DLA should have volunteered it pursuant to FAR §19.306 but even ignoring that...DLA, purusant to our role as specified under 4 C.F.R. 21.5(b)(2) have you sent the protest to the SBA and why are they having to ask given that the SBA solely makes these decisions?
2) Gave the protester / requester roughly 36 business hours to respond to the DLA's motion which appears no where in the FAR or CICA concerning bid protest regulations

v. after DLA's having issued its Motion to Dismiss the protester / requester's protest of T-3039 V-1048, the SBA did not speak up and say, "Whoa! this is our turf? GAO, the DLA has not been referring protests to us pursuant to FAR §19.306. Here's one we received from the same protester 2 weeks ago where we issued a determination in T-5860 P-4126. They didn't refer this protest to us either. Something seriously wrong is going on over there. They also didn't make any effort to provide relief to the protester, take any corrective action, or so much as cancel the contract. Either way, given that these protests contain identical legal and factual grounds, our decision is the same."

You guys thought you got away with it didn't you. You were probably hoping this wouldn't arrive in the next 7 minutes but...you're wrong (again) and busted (again)