[00:00:00] Speaker 03:
192392, NetCentrics Corporation versus United States.

[00:00:06] Speaker 03:
Mr. Nichols, whenever you're ready.

[00:00:08] Speaker 03:
Good morning.

[00:00:09] Speaker 04:
We're very happy to be in front of this court to help vindicate what we believe was a wrongful disparagement of NetCentrics integrity.

[00:00:19] Speaker 01:
Mr. Nichols?

[00:00:21] Speaker 04:
Yes, sir.

[00:00:22] Speaker 01:
This is Judge Wallach.

[00:00:26] Speaker 01:
I'll refer to employee A, and you know who that is, right?

[00:00:31] Speaker 04:
Yes, sir.

[00:00:33] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:00:34] Speaker 01:
Am I correct that in December 2018, your client identified employee A as a current employee?

[00:00:49] Speaker 04:
Yes, Judge.

[00:00:51] Speaker 01:
Okay.

[00:00:52] Speaker 01:
That was not true, was it?

[00:00:55] Speaker 04:
That is correct, but the CO found that not to be a material fact at all to the award decision.

[00:01:12] Speaker 01:
Keep going.

[00:01:14] Speaker 04:
Under Dell, this court must set aside the agency's disqualification of NETCETRIX, the severest form of corrective action, because it was unreasonable under the circumstances

[00:01:25] Speaker 04:
and not rationally related to the underlying facts.

[00:01:30] Speaker 03:
This is Judge Crouse.

[00:01:32] Speaker 03:
Are you differentiating counsel, therefore, between the decision to rescind the contract award and the decision to disqualify your client from further competition?

[00:01:42] Speaker 03:
Is there a distinction to be drawn between those two actions?

[00:01:46] Speaker 03:
Because I didn't see you tease... Maybe I missed it.

[00:01:50] Speaker 03:
I didn't see you tease out the different...

[00:01:54] Speaker 03:
compelling or resulting difference from those two separate actions?

[00:02:01] Speaker 04:
It's a good question, Judge.

[00:02:03] Speaker 04:
We believe that this Court's decisions in PRC and in United Architecture say that even rescinding the contract is inappropriate where there was no deceptive intent.

[00:02:21] Speaker 04:
Certainly disqualifying a contractor is inappropriate and also against the government's interest.

[00:02:32] Speaker 03:
PRC, you mean, are you referring to our opinion in planning, something called planning research?

[00:02:38] Speaker 04:
Yes, Judge, thank you.

[00:02:40] Speaker 03:
I'm not sure about your, I think you're pretty much over reading the holding in that case.

[00:02:47] Speaker 03:
And in planning research, we held that the agency improperly failed to take corrective action in response to intentional material misrepresentation.

[00:02:56] Speaker 03:
We didn't address whether an agency has discretion to take corrective action in cases involving negligent material misrepresentation.

[00:03:06] Speaker 03:
So I don't see it in this case.

[00:03:08] Speaker 03:
Are you aware of any other federal circuit case law that resolves that question?

[00:03:13] Speaker 04:
So we read planning research

[00:03:15] Speaker 04:
and United Architecture, 251F3rd, 170 together.

[00:03:19] Speaker 04:
And in planning research, the Federal Circuit found, focused on the deceptive intent as reason to take corrective action, in our opinion.

[00:03:32] Speaker 04:
And in United Architecture, the court affirmed that corrective action should not occur where there was no deceptive intent.

[00:03:41] Speaker 04:
So reading these two together, the only decision from the Federal Circuit

[00:03:45] Speaker 04:
we see a distinction based on whether there is or is not deceptive intent.

[00:03:50] Speaker 04:
And in fact, the Court of Federal Claims in Northrop Grumman, applying planning research, specifically found that a contractor should lose its rights to a contract only when it makes a willful and egregious misrepresentation in its proposal.

[00:04:12] Speaker 04:
And we believe that that is the correct rule.

[00:04:17] Speaker 05:
But did you, I just wanted to follow up.

[00:04:19] Speaker 05:
I thought Judge Pro's question was a good one, which was, are you aware of any federal circuits that specifically address whether there has to be deceptive intent before an agency can exercise discretion to take action when there has been, you know, misleading or incorrect statement in a bid?

[00:04:44] Speaker 04:
It is a good question and the answer is no.

[00:04:47] Speaker 04:
We're not aware of any decision by the federal circuit.

[00:04:50] Speaker 04:
We think that's part of the reason for the split in the lower courts is that different courts read planning research and united architecture differently.

[00:05:00] Speaker 04:
We read them as making a distinction based on whether there is or is not deceptive intent and the courts are split on this issue.

[00:05:11] Speaker 04:
We think this is why there are so many key personnel cases

[00:05:15] Speaker 04:
out there, dozens of these cases that have come up in the last 10 years, and deciding that issue once and for all would be very helpful for the government and for industry.

[00:05:26] Speaker 03:
You have just going back to the first, this is Judge Crouse, going back to the first point I was making, you're not making a separate argument for the rescission of the contract and the disqualification, right?

[00:05:39] Speaker 03:
In other words, you're not saying

[00:05:41] Speaker 03:
Maybe you don't need deceptive intent for the first, but you would need it for the second for the following reasons.

[00:05:46] Speaker 03:
You haven't differentiated between the two in your briefing, have you?

[00:05:50] Speaker 04:
We've differentiated slightly.

[00:05:54] Speaker 04:
We believe that the right answer is what the Court of Federal Claims found in Northrop Grumman that rescinding a contract and making a contractor ineligible for award should only occur

[00:06:10] Speaker 04:
where that contractor has sought to mislead the government.

[00:06:14] Speaker 04:
But we think that is even more so for disqualifying a contractor.

[00:06:19] Speaker 04:
It's the severest form of corrective action.

[00:06:22] Speaker 04:
And we believe that under Dell, it was irrational based on these facts.

[00:06:27] Speaker 03:
Well, let me ask you, what does it mean for misrepresentation to be material?

[00:06:34] Speaker 04:
It means that it affected the outcome of the evaluation

[00:06:39] Speaker 04:
decision.

[00:06:40] Speaker 04:
So in this case, the CO specifically said that the misstatement that Mr. A continued to be current employee was not actually material at all to their evaluation.

[00:06:54] Speaker 04:
They didn't care whether he was a current employee or not, so it was immaterial to their decision.

[00:07:01] Speaker 03:
Whereas if... Wait a minute, I'm missing something.

[00:07:04] Speaker 03:
Maybe I'm misremembering the briefing and the decisions here.

[00:07:09] Speaker 03:
There was no materiality with respect to the misrepresentations with regard to employee status in terms of his ready willingness to come back, how long he would be back, et cetera.

[00:07:21] Speaker 03:
What am I missing?

[00:07:22] Speaker 04:
Oh, I'll clarify, Your Honor.

[00:07:24] Speaker 03:
So there were actually two supposed mistakes in the... Okay, so why don't we focus on the one that he had a one-year commitment and guaranteed immediate availability.

[00:07:38] Speaker 04:
That certainly is material, and was material, if it had actually been.

[00:07:42] Speaker 03:
And found to have been misrepresented.

[00:07:45] Speaker 04:
Correct, yeah.

[00:07:46] Speaker 04:
That would have been material if, in fact, it were true.

[00:07:49] Speaker 04:
It, of course, wasn't true, as we now know, based on his subsequent declaration indicating that he certainly had led Netflix to believe

[00:08:04] Speaker 04:
that he was committed.

[00:08:05] Speaker 04:
He had originally committed, he never withdrew the commitment.

[00:08:08] Speaker 04:
Are we talking about the declaration that the judge didn't allow in?

[00:08:13] Speaker 04:
Well, two things.

[00:08:14] Speaker 04:
NetCentrics, during the inquiry, provided multiple statements saying that he had committed, he had never withdrawn his commitment, they believed he would return as he had done before, and then he subsequently confirmed that he had left NetCentrics with the impression

[00:08:33] Speaker 04:
that he would return.

[00:08:34] Speaker 04:
And in fact, he was ready, willing, and able to return.

[00:08:38] Speaker 04:
That came through in his declaration.

[00:08:42] Speaker 04:
But the real focus here... Let me ask you again.

[00:08:44] Speaker 03:
I guess I want to know when you're citing to us as a basis for our making a change in this opinion, a declaration, my understanding is that declaration was not allowed in.

[00:08:59] Speaker 03:
Am I right?

[00:09:00] Speaker 03:
That's correct.

[00:09:00] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:09:01] Speaker 03:
So unless we reverse the district court, the court of federal claims ruling on your 60B2 motion, we're not going to be relying on employees' declaration, correct?

[00:09:15] Speaker 03:
So employees, employees... Can you just give me a yes or no answer to that?

[00:09:20] Speaker 03:
Correct.

[00:09:22] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:09:23] Speaker 04:
Go ahead.

[00:09:25] Speaker ?:
OK.

[00:09:25] Speaker 04:
So our point in raising the declaration is to, if in fact Mr. A's intent, not NetCentric's understanding of his commitment was important, that issue is really resolved by his very clear subsequent statements.

[00:09:43] Speaker 04:
But more importantly, the CEO never actually asked NetCentric for a clear statement from him regarding his intent.

[00:09:54] Speaker 04:
What the CO did during her inquiry was ask NetCentrics about its understanding.

[00:09:59] Speaker 04:
It was NetCentrics proposal.

[00:10:02] Speaker 04:
They asked about NetCentrics understanding.

[00:10:04] Speaker 04:
But then, when actually making the determination, the CO sort of pulled a switcheroo and said, okay, well, that was NetCentrics understanding, but you never gave me anything affirmative from Mr. A. She's never asked for it.

[00:10:21] Speaker 04:
But that's the basis on which she made her determination, and we believe that was legal error as well.

[00:10:26] Speaker 04:
So in the event that the relevant inquiry is Mr. A's intent, we believe the declaration, well, we believe that Netcentric's statements regarding his intent should have been sufficient, and the declaration certainly confirms their understanding.

[00:10:47] Speaker 04:
And that's where the declaration comes in.

[00:10:51] Speaker 04:
And this is, in my opinion, the real problem with this case.

[00:10:55] Speaker 04:
A lot of these key employee cases are bait and switch cases, where there's a discussion about what the contractor knew when it proposed somebody who didn't actually show up.

[00:11:09] Speaker 04:
In this case, there was no switch.

[00:11:12] Speaker 04:
NetCentrics proposed Mr. A, fully intended to have him perform the job,

[00:11:21] Speaker 04:
And he's confirmed that he was going to.

[00:11:23] Speaker 04:
So what really comes into play is... Counsel, this is Judge Wallin.

[00:11:30] Speaker 01:
Let's go to the nuts and bolts on Mr. A's proposed evidence that was rejected by the court.

[00:11:43] Speaker 01:
How is that newly discovered evidence?

[00:11:47] Speaker 04:
It's newly discovered in the respect that Mr. A did not want to provide any statement in the context of a bid protest, because he did not want to endanger his current employment if this job did not materialize.

[00:12:03] Speaker 01:
It wasn't until he saw... Was you aware of the facts that it set forth in that proposed statement?

[00:12:14] Speaker 04:
Sorry.

[00:12:14] Speaker 04:
Could you say that again, Judge?

[00:12:16] Speaker 01:
I said, was your client aware of the facts that were set forth in that proposed statement?

[00:12:24] Speaker 04:
The fact that he intended to return, I believe they were aware of that.

[00:12:29] Speaker 01:
And how is it newly discovered?

[00:12:32] Speaker 04:
Because it's evidence from Mr. A confirming his intent, which is the basis on which the CO actually made her determination.

[00:12:47] Speaker 01:
Did you subpoena him for a deposition?

[00:12:52] Speaker 04:
We did not subpoena him for a deposition in large degree because the CO had never asked for his opinion until she made her determination.

[00:13:05] Speaker 04:
And then we received a letter of confirmation from him just days later.

[00:13:11] Speaker 04:
We believed that that would suffice.

[00:13:13] Speaker 04:
It wasn't until we saw the declaration from Mr. B mischaracterizing his commitment that he agreed to finally weigh in in the litigation.

[00:13:26] Speaker 03:
I must say, this is Judge Prost.

[00:13:28] Speaker 03:
I'm a little confused by your answer to Judge Wallach-Ping.

[00:13:33] Speaker 03:
The CO never asked for it.

[00:13:35] Speaker 03:
I mean, you're putting on a case here and the heart of the case from beginning to end

[00:13:42] Speaker 03:
is the status and the future status of the particular individual.

[00:13:47] Speaker 03:
So I'm a little confused by your suggestion that in the absence of the CO aggressively asking for you to put on evidence to support your case, that sort of lets you off the hook.

[00:14:00] Speaker 03:
I don't know if you want to respond to that observation or not.

[00:14:03] Speaker 04:
Yes, I will.

[00:14:04] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Judge.

[00:14:06] Speaker 04:
NETCENTRIX interpreted every one of the CO's requests

[00:14:12] Speaker 04:
as asking for Netcentric's understanding of his intent, and they answered every one of those requests.

[00:14:21] Speaker 04:
Our chart in our reply brief shows that.

[00:14:25] Speaker 04:
She never asked for any statement from Mr. A regarding his intent, and that's why they never want him to ask for that.

[00:14:34] Speaker 04:
They just described the basis for their belief, and so that's the distinction.

[00:14:41] Speaker 03:
Okay, thank you.

[00:14:42] Speaker 03:
Will we serve the remainder of your vote or let's hear from the other side.

[00:14:45] Speaker 03:
Ms.

[00:14:45] Speaker 03:
Soros?

[00:14:46] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honor, and may it please the court.

[00:14:50] Speaker 02:
The trial court's judgment should be affirmed, beginning with the argument related to the material misrepresentation standard.

[00:14:59] Speaker 02:
PRC does not state what NET-Centrix relies upon it for.

[00:15:03] Speaker 02:
In PRC, this court

[00:15:07] Speaker 02:
was reviewing a decision from the Board of Contract Appeals that had already found an intentional material misrepresentation.

[00:15:17] Speaker 02:
This court in that case never set down a standard that only intentional material misrepresentations were sufficient to disqualify a contractor.

[00:15:27] Speaker 02:
In this court's 2007 Blue and Gold decision, this court considered

[00:15:33] Speaker 02:
the material misrepresentation standard and never stated intent was required.

[00:15:41] Speaker 03:
Well, Ms.

[00:15:41] Speaker 03:
Sorris, let me ask you, this is Judge Crouse, let me ask you what I asked your friend on the other side, which is what does it mean for misrepresentation to be material?

[00:15:51] Speaker 02:
It means that the agency relied upon that misrepresentation.

[00:15:55] Speaker 02:
And here, as both the trial court and the contracting officer found, the agency relied upon

[00:16:03] Speaker 02:
several of NetCentrics offers in its proposal.

[00:16:09] Speaker 02:
For example, in its proposal to the government, NetCentrics indicated that it would be providing key personnel.

[00:16:15] Speaker 02:
And the agency relied upon that offer to award NetCentrics a strength.

[00:16:24] Speaker 02:
The agency also awarded NetCentrics a strength for the fact that he would be providing key personnel for one year.

[00:16:33] Speaker 02:
In addition, the agency awarded NetCentrics a strength for the fact that it was providing key personnel that had been incumbents, Your Honor.

[00:16:46] Speaker 02:
Mr. A, as well as another key personnel, were both incumbents.

[00:16:51] Speaker 02:
They had been working on this requirement in previous contracts.

[00:16:57] Speaker 02:
So based on those offers from NetCentrics, and it's December

[00:17:02] Speaker 02:
2019 final proposal, the government gave net centric.

[00:17:08] Speaker 03:
Well, your friend points out repeatedly that at least one of the data points that you've referred to, which is involves whether he was a current employee and that was not one of the bases upon which the contracting officer resolved this case.

[00:17:23] Speaker 03:
Is that correct?

[00:17:26] Speaker 02:
No, your honor, that is incorrect.

[00:17:27] Speaker 02:
The contracting officer actually

[00:17:30] Speaker 02:
did consider the current employment issue material.

[00:17:35] Speaker 02:
She discusses it when discussing Ms.

[00:17:38] Speaker 02:
Catliota's admission.

[00:17:40] Speaker 02:
This is in the record at 132.13.

[00:17:42] Speaker 02:
The contracting officer also discusses this admission related to the incorrect information about Mr. A on 132.18 of the record.

[00:17:54] Speaker 02:
So in those two places, the contracting officer is considering

[00:17:59] Speaker 02:
the fact that the current employment status was not accurate.

[00:18:06] Speaker 02:
And as the trial court pointed out, during oral argument, even NetCentrics Council conceded that its failure to update Mr. A's resume was in hindsight a mistake.

[00:18:17] Speaker 02:
So the trial court also relied upon that.

[00:18:21] Speaker 02:
So the NetCentrics is incorrect.

[00:18:24] Speaker 02:
The issue of

[00:18:27] Speaker 02:
Mr. A's employment status was not updated.

[00:18:32] Speaker 02:
And as the trial court has recognized, and commonly in other cases, this is something that offerors are responsible for.

[00:18:40] Speaker 02:
They are responsible to provide final proposals that contain accurate information because the agency relies upon the four corners of that final proposal in terms of evaluating the proposal for award.

[00:18:56] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, related to whether disqualification is inappropriate, this court has reached that issue in Impreza.

[00:19:08] Speaker 02:
There, the court found that when considering a material misrepresentation, it is appropriate for an agency to

[00:19:22] Speaker 02:
to decide on disqualification because, of course, this material misrepresentation constitutes violations of procurement integrity.

[00:19:35] Speaker 02:
Adults will like to address NET-Centrix claims related to NET-Centrix understanding.

[00:19:43] Speaker 02:
The understanding issue is actually raised

[00:19:50] Speaker 02:
in Ms.

[00:19:51] Speaker 02:
Cattleota's certification.

[00:19:53] Speaker 02:
And, Your Honor, the contracting officer provided a very fulsome analysis of both the Cattleota certification as well as the Walker Declaration, which was submitted on February 11.

[00:20:09] Speaker 02:
She devotes approximately six pages to a paragraph-by-paragraph analysis.

[00:20:15] Speaker 02:
Beginning with her inquiry on February 7, she asked,

[00:20:20] Speaker 02:
for an understanding at the time of the submission, NetCentric submission of its final proposal, whether NetCentric knew whether Mr. A would leave his current employment and return to NetCentric.

[00:20:36] Speaker 02:
This is discussed at 132-49.

[00:20:39] Speaker 02:
The only response they received from Ms.

[00:20:42] Speaker 02:
Cagliota was that she... Ms.

[00:20:47] Speaker 02:
Cagliota stated only that, quote,

[00:20:50] Speaker 02:
NetCentric's understanding that it would be able to make Mr. A immediately available, that it was NetCentric's understanding that it would be able to.

[00:21:03] Speaker 02:
The problem with that response, and this is on 132.13, is that it doesn't address the key issue of what NetCentric knew and reasonably believed when it was submitting its final proposal.

[00:21:16] Speaker 02:
Another concern with Ms.

[00:21:17] Speaker 02:
Cattleota's response that the contracting officer analyzed was when Ms.

[00:21:25] Speaker 02:
Cattleota stated, quote, NetCentric's intent was to rehire Mr. A. The contracting officer concluded that these responses were insufficient because references to NetCentric's understanding and its intent to rehire Mr. A didn't confirm the key temporal issue, which is

[00:21:45] Speaker 02:
Weathernet Centrics had a reasonable belief at the time that it submitted its final proposal back in December 2018 that it would be able to make Mr. A available.

[00:21:57] Speaker 02:
And the GAO in dealing with this whole intent to hire has rejected that an intent to hire is sufficient to avoid a material misrepresentation claim.

[00:22:08] Speaker 02:
And this is discussed in our papers.

[00:22:10] Speaker 02:
The case, the GAO case is Henry Patricio Enterprises.

[00:22:15] Speaker 02:
As for Mr. Walker's declaration, this is another submission that NextCentrics relies upon.

[00:22:25] Speaker 02:
That was another submission that the contracting officer devoted extensive analysis of, again, taking it paragraph by paragraph.

[00:22:38] Speaker 02:
In that submission,

[00:22:43] Speaker 02:
Again, the contracting officer found that NetCentrics wasn't dealing with the key temporal issue of whether Mr. A was committed to perform at the time that NetCentrics submitted its December 3 final proposal submission.

[00:22:57] Speaker 02:
And in the record at 132.16, the contracting officer concluded that the Walker Declaration failed to provide requested information which went to

[00:23:11] Speaker 02:
Her query asked to all commitments that Mr. A had made to NetCentrics, showing that he intended to perform on the contract at the time, again, the key temporal issue, at the time that NetCentrics submitted its proposal back in December 2018.

[00:23:30] Speaker 02:
She concluded that NetCentrics had failed to, or Mr. Walker had failed to provide specific dates, which is what she asked for.

[00:23:40] Speaker 02:
And she also noted in the determination that Mr. Walker's declaration included or excluded precisely the dates that she was looking for, which is that December 3 key date in terms of when NetCentric files or submitted its final proposal.

[00:23:58] Speaker 02:
So based on these submissions, the contracting officer reasonably concluded that it was missing important requested information.

[00:24:08] Speaker 02:
And one thing that NET-Centrix and its briefing relies upon is the fact that NET-Centrix happened to be talking or its employees happened to be talking with Mr. A at various periods and in commonly the trial court rejected this notion that simply having discussions would be sufficient to show a reasonable belief that a key employee would be available because those discussions are not definitive as to whether that

[00:24:36] Speaker 02:
key personnel would be available pursuant to a proposal that promises that key personnel would be immediately available.

[00:24:45] Speaker 02:
Significantly, the GAO, which is a neutral body, asked NetCentrics for comparable information.

[00:24:52] Speaker 02:
In fact, the GAO went a step further in seeking a submission from Mr. A. In his presentation, NetCentrics' counsel refers to one of those submissions

[00:25:06] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, the trial court correctly applied this court's axiom decision in concluding that that letter of commitment was not before the contracting officer when making her decision and thus should be or could not be reviewed by the trial court.

[00:25:25] Speaker 02:
But even that submission, the letter of commitment, again, failed because it did not include a definitive

[00:25:34] Speaker 02:
statement from Mr. A that he, as of the time of final proposal submission on December 3, was available to, as the NetCentrics proposal offered, to begin contract performance immediately and for one year.

[00:25:51] Speaker 02:
Again, that's key, the one-year commitment that NetCentrics also promised the government.

[00:26:00] Speaker 02:
And as for the later October, November 2019 declaration from NETCentrics, that declaration also failed.

[00:26:10] Speaker 02:
Again, Your Honor is correct that those weren't allowed in, but since NETCentrics continues to rely upon that declaration, it's worth noting a key provision of the declaration which the trial court relied upon in her Rule 60B ruling

[00:26:29] Speaker 02:
And that's paragraph 14 of this October 2019 declaration.

[00:26:34] Speaker 02:
In that paragraph, Mr. A states, quote, in all candor, I cannot say for certain how I would have answered if NetCentrics had asked me for a letter of commitment in early December 2018, end quote.

[00:26:48] Speaker 02:
And that declaration appears at 20022.

[00:26:52] Speaker 02:
So it's this declaration.

[00:26:58] Speaker 03:
Finish your sentence.

[00:27:00] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, so this declaration, which is presumably Mr. A's best and final statement, does not show, does not state that Mr. A was available as of December 3 to perform.

[00:27:12] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:27:13] Speaker 03:
Mr. Johnson, you've allocated three minutes for you to argue, so we'll hear from you.

[00:27:21] Speaker 00:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:27:22] Speaker 00:
In the quarter billion dollar procurement at issue,

[00:27:25] Speaker 00:
The agency was entitled to candor.

[00:27:28] Speaker 00:
NetCentrics did not provide that.

[00:27:31] Speaker 00:
I just want to touch on a few points.

[00:27:33] Speaker 00:
Can you just lower your voice?

[00:27:35] Speaker 03:
I'm sorry, this is Judge Krause.

[00:27:36] Speaker 03:
Could you just lower your voice?

[00:27:37] Speaker 00:
Oh, I'm very sorry.

[00:27:38] Speaker 00:
I want to start with the question of whether the current employee representation was material.

[00:27:48] Speaker 00:
Ms.

[00:27:48] Speaker 00:
Soros pointed to a number of places where the contracting officer discussed that in her

[00:27:55] Speaker 00:
determination, but the agency in its letter to NET-Centrix informing it of the disqualification decision also expressly identified the current employee statement as a material misrepresentation.

[00:28:11] Speaker 00:
That's at Appendix 13.260.

[00:28:16] Speaker 00:
On unified architecture, which Mr. Nichols discussed in discussing this court

[00:28:23] Speaker 00:
case law about the intent negligence issue.

[00:28:27] Speaker 00:
I want to point out that that is a non-precedential summary affirmance.

[00:28:33] Speaker 00:
So the court in that case did not issue a decision, much less a decision that wrestled with the intent negligence issue present in this case.

[00:28:45] Speaker 00:
On the question of whether

[00:28:49] Speaker 00:
The remedy here by the contracting officer should have been to just rescind the contract, but not to disqualify NetCentrix.

[00:29:01] Speaker 00:
First, NetCentrix has not made that argument.

[00:29:04] Speaker 00:
It hasn't been briefed, so it's forfeited.

[00:29:07] Speaker 00:
Also, this court in planning research itself favorably cited Comptroller General authority from in-rate informatics

[00:29:16] Speaker 00:
saying that the submission of a material misstatement should disqualify the proposal.

[00:29:22] Speaker 00:
So in disqualifying NETCENTRIX, the contracting officer here at least was acting within the scope of her discretion, and that's supported by this court's recent decision in Dell Federal Systems, which say that contracting officers get deference on the scope of the corrective action that they take.

[00:29:45] Speaker 00:
I just want to end with the fundamental principle that underlies the argument that negligence is the right standard, that deceptive intent should not be required.

[00:29:57] Speaker 00:
And that's that agency contracting decisions are entitled to deference.

[00:30:02] Speaker 00:
And that deference means that agencies should have the discretion to protect the integrity of their procurement

[00:30:10] Speaker 00:
from misrepresentations, and that should be even if the misrepresentations are negligent rather than intentional.

[00:30:19] Speaker 00:
With that, I'll yield the remainder of my time.

[00:30:22] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:30:24] Speaker 03:
Mr. Wilson, I think you have several minutes remaining.

[00:30:30] Speaker 03:
Sorry, Mr. Nichols.

[00:30:31] Speaker 03:
I'm very sorry.

[00:30:33] Speaker 04:
Mr. Nichols.

[00:30:33] Speaker 04:
No problem.

[00:30:34] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:30:35] Speaker 04:
Intervener says that NetCenter had a duty of candor

[00:30:40] Speaker 04:
Netcentrix was entirely honest about Mr. A and the understanding it had from Mr. A. And in fact, as I mentioned, this is not a bait and switch case because they didn't switch him.

[00:30:54] Speaker 04:
He has confirmed that he was ready, willing, and able.

[00:30:58] Speaker 04:
What really happened is that the contracting officer disregarded the weight of the evidence regarding Netcentrix's reasonable belief that he would return.

[00:31:10] Speaker 04:
And in favor of pure conjecture that he wouldn't return, she jumped to a conclusion that was against the weight of the evidence, and that was clear error.

[00:31:26] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:31:26] Speaker 03:
We thank both sides.

[00:31:28] Speaker 03:
The case is submitted.

[00:31:29] Speaker 03:
That concludes our proceeding for this morning.

[00:31:32] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:31:34] Speaker 05:
The Honorable Court is adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 a.m.