United States Court of Federal Claims

No. 16-1704 C 

(Filed Under Seal: October 31, 2017) 

(Reissued: November 16, 2017)

____________________________________ 

DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL, LLC, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Defendant, 

and 

AAR AIRLIFT GROUP, INC., 

 Defendant-Intervenor. 

_____________________________________

David M. Nadler, Esquire, Blank Rome LLP (DC), for plaintiff. 

Douglas G. Edelschick, Esquire, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, 

Washington, DC, for defendant. 

Joel Singer, Esquire, Sidley Austin, LLP (DC), for defendant-intervenor. 

OPINION AND ORDER

Hodges, Senior Judge.

DynCorp International, LLC filed its complaint in this court to enjoin and setaside the United States Department of State’s award of a $10 billion follow-on contract, 

Solicitation No. SAQMMA14R0319, for global law enforcement and counter-narcotics 

operations to AAR Airlift Group, Inc. Plaintiff DynCorp and intervenor AAR were the 

only bidders in this procurement. Before the court are plaintiff’s motion for judgment on 

the administrative record and a petition for injunctive relief; plaintiff’s amended motion 

for judgment on the administrative record; defendant’s and intervenor’s cross-motions for 

judgment on the administrative record are also pending. 

 

We issued this Opinion under seal on October 31, 2017, and invited counsel to propose redactions prior to its 

publication. The parties have agreed on suggested redactions and so advised the court. The October 31 Opinion is 

hereby reissued for publication, unsealed, with minor alterations to account for the redactions. 

Motion for Judgment on Administrative 

Record, RCFC 56; United States 

Department of State; Bureau for 

International Narcotics and Law 

Enforcement Affairs, Office of Aviation;

Aviation Support Services; Post-Award 

Bid Protest; Disparate Treatment; 

Procurement Violations; Limited 

Confidence for Past Performance; 

Incumbent; Competition in Contracting 

Act; Corrective Action; Profit Margin 

Analysis
- 2 - 

DynCorp’s incumbent contract has been extended twice, currently to October 31, 

2017. For the reasons discussed below, we must deny plaintiff’s motion for judgment on 

the administrative record, deny plaintiff’s amended motion for judgment on the 

administrative record, and grant the cross-motions filed by defendant and intervenor. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

Plaintiff filed its post-award bid protest Complaint and a motion for a preliminary 

injunction in December 2016. Because defendant had previously agreed to a limited stay 

on performance of the contract awarded to intervenor until October 31, 2017, this court 

denied that motion as moot. In early January 2017, pursuant to defendant’s first motion 

for voluntary remand, the court remanded this case to the Department of State for thirty 

days to allow the Contracting Officer to reconsider certain matters under the Procurement 

Integrity Act (PIA) in light of a newly available memorandum from the Office of the 

Inspector General. On February 22, defendant filed the Contracting Officer’s Remand 

Decision finding that no PIA violation had occurred.

Plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the administrative record on April 17. In 

light of arguments plaintiff raised in this motion, defendant filed a second motion for 

remand on May 1, requesting thirty days to allow the Department of State to reconsider 

its price reasonableness analysis. The court granted this motion. Defendant filed its 

remand record in June and the parties agreed that more litigation would be necessary to 

resolve the case; plaintiff would file an amended motion for judgment.

Plaintiff filed an amended motion for judgment on the administrative record on 

July 7. Three weeks later, defendant and intervenor filed cross-motions for judgment on 

the administrative record. We held oral argument on October 6, 2017 in Washington, DC. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When considering cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record, the 

court “asks whether, given all the disputed and undisputed facts, a party has met its 

burden of proof based on the evidence in the record.” Court of Federal Claims Rule 

52.1(c). See Pmtech, Inc. v. United States, 95 Fed. Cl. 330, 340 (2010) (citing Bannum, 

Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346, 1356–57 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).

The standards for challenging an agency’s procurement decision are taken from 

the Administrative Procedure Act at 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A): “[T]o successfully challenge an 

agency’s procurement decision, a plaintiff must show that the agency’s decision was 

arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.” 

See IBM Corp. v. United States, 119 Fed. Cl. 145 (2014). 
- 3 - 

An agency decision would be arbitrary or capricious if the agency relied on factors 

that Congress did not intend for it to consider, failed to consider an important aspect of 

the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence 

before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view 

or to agency expertise. Motor Vehicle Mfr. Ass'n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Auto. 

Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). 

Plaintiff’s heavy burden is to demonstrate that the contract award had no rational 

basis. Ft. Carson Support Servs. v. United States, 71 Fed. Cl. 571, 586 (2006). This court 

then determines whether the contracting agency provided a coherent and reasonable 

explanation of its exercise of discretion. IBM Corp., 119 Fed. Cl. at 154 (quoting Impresa

Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. United States, 238 F.3d 1324 at 1332–33 (Fed. 

Cir. 2001)).

Plaintiff’s burden is exacerbated by the fact that this is a best value procurement. 

Determining which offer affords the best value to the Government necessarily calls for 

even broader agency discretion, especially when the contracting officer has provided 

supporting rationale for his decision. Such an award involves consideration of multiple 

factors to determine best value, and not cost alone. Tiber Creek Consulting, Inc. v. United 

States, 129 Fed. Cl. 409, 415 (2016) (citing Galen Med. Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 

369 F.3d 1324, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). 

This court reviews the contracting officer’s decision to determine whether it has a 

rational basis. We do not reweigh the evidence, but grant to the CO wide deference 

unless plaintiff can demonstrate that the decision lacked a rational basis. 

BACKGROUND & ARGUMENTS

I. Worldwide Aviation Support Services (WASS) Program 

Plaintiff Dyncorp is the incumbent on the contract preceding the new Solicitation 

No. SAQMMA14R0319 at issue in this case. The new Solicitation calls for a singleaward indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract with a maximum value of $10 

billion over eleven years. Both contracts call for the contractors to provide flight 

operations, maintenance, and logistical support for the Worldwide Aviation Support 

Services (WASS) Program. The Program supports global law enforcement and counternarcotic operations by the United States Department of State, Bureau for International 

Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, Office of Aviation. 

The Department of State divided WASS into three contracts: Aviation Support 

Services, IT Services, and Program Support Services. The contract award at issue in this 

Protest is for one of these three contracts, the Aviation Support Services contract. Awards 

have already been made for the other two contracts. 
- 4 - 

Plaintiff asserts that the Department of State restructured the WASS program in its 

new Solicitation. Under the predecessor WASS contract, DynCorp and its subcontractors 

performed all contract functions. Conversely, the Aviation Services Contractor’s 

Solicitation requires the contractor to execute Associate Contractor Agreements with the 

other two associate contractors to allow coordination and information-sharing among the 

contractors.

A. Management Information Systems (MIS)

 The Solicitation provided that the Department of State would conduct its 

evaluation using seven enumerated Factors and corresponding Sub-Factors, listed in 

descending order of importance.1 Solicitation § M.12. The most heavily-weighted Factor 

is Management & Administration. The Contracting Officer’s evaluation of the bidders’ 

proposals for Sub-Factor B, Management Information System (MIS), is central to this 

case. In particular, an issue causing much confusion was whether the Aviation Services 

Contractor or the IT Associate Contractor would have responsibility for a newly 

implemented MIS after transition from the old MIS was complete. 

B. Department of State’s First Evaluative Decision

Plaintiff alleges that defendant misled plaintiff to take a certain approach that was 

later the basis for defendant’s disqualification of plaintiff’s proposal. Plaintiff relied upon 

certain language in creating its final proposal to deliver responsibility for the MIS to the 

IT Associate Contractor.

In the first round of proposal evaluations, DynCorp received ratings of 

“Unacceptable” under each of the four Technical Factors, as well as their corresponding 

Sub-Factors, and received a rating of Limited Confidence for Past Performance. 

DynCorp’s price was deemed “not awardable.” With the exclusion of DynCorp from the 

competitive range, AAR became the presumptive awardee. 

DynCorp filed a Protest at the Government Accountability Office in February 

2015 and a Supplemental Protest on March 16, alleging additional errors in the State 

Department’s technical, past performance, and price evaluations of both offerors. On 

March 18, the Department of State notified GAO of its intent to take corrective action in 

response to the Protests and advised that the scope of its corrective action would include 

“reconsideration of each Offeror’s initial proposal (excluding AAR proposal revisions or 

responses to ENs) to include the approach to staffing, re-consideration and validation of 

assigned strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies, and re-consideration of past 

performance.” Complaint ¶ 31.

 

1 The seven Factors are: (1) Management & Administration; (2) Operations; (3) Maintenance; (4) Logistics; (5) 

Small Business Plan; (6) Past Performance; and (7) Price. Factors 1-4 are considered Technical Factors.
- 5 - 

After the Department of State took corrective action in response to DynCorp’s 

GAO Protest, it reinstated DynCorp into the competitive range and conducted discussions 

with DynCorp. Complaint ¶ 42. During those discussions, DynCorp responded to a total 

of 158 discussion questions. Id. DynCorp submitted its first proposal revision on 

November 16, 2015, following the first tranche of sixty discussion questions. Id. 

DynCorp then submitted another proposal revision responding to the remaining ninetyeight discussion questions on March 7, 2016. Id. DynCorp submitted its Final Proposal 

Revision on May 4, 2016. Id. 

C. Department of State’s Second Evaluative Decision

Plaintiff asserts that defendant’s discussion questions in the second round of 

evaluations following issuance of Amendment 5 were misleading. The court finds that 

defendant’s communications with both offerors were not misleading because the 

contracting officer sufficiently identified proposal weaknesses in these discussions.

 In May 2016, the Department of State empaneled a four-member technical 

evaluation team (TET) of industry experts to document its consensus findings regarding 

plaintiff’s and intervenor’s proposals. Tab 9, AR 6649–6705; Tab 17, AR 10031–75. The 

TET rated DynCorp’s proposal “unacceptable” overall because it received a deficiency 

relating for proposing that “the Associate IT Contractor will establish and maintain the 

test environment for the Offeror’s new MIS.” Complaint ¶ 43; Tab 9, AR 6667. With 

respect to Factor 1, Management and Administration, the TET assigned one deficiency, 

three significant weaknesses, and eight weaknesses to DynCorp’s solution for Sub-Factor 

1-B.2 DynCorp received the following ratings for the four technical Factors: 1 

(Unacceptable); 2 (Superior); 3 (Marginal); 4 (Acceptable). Id. AAR received an Overall 

Proposal Rating of “Superior” and the following ratings for the four technical Factors: 1 

(Superior); 2 (Superior); 3 (Acceptable); 4 (Superior). Complaint ¶ 45. DynCorp’s final 

evaluated price was approximately $100 million lower than AAR’s bid. Complaint ¶ 47.

 Because the Department of State rated DynCorp as Unacceptable for Factor 1, it 

deemed DynCorp “ineligible for award” and did not conduct a cost-technical tradeoff. 

Complaint ¶ 48. DynCorp asserts that the Department of State’s sole basis for its 

Unacceptable rating under Factor 1 was the Contracting Officer’s determination to assign 

a deficiency and three significant weaknesses for DynCorp’s Management Information 

System (“MIS”) solution under Sub-Factor 1-B. Id.

 

2

“Evaluators considered a deficiency to be a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a 

combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to 

an unacceptable level.” Tab 9, AR 6650 (emphasis in original); Tab 17, AR 10032 (emphasis in original). “A 

significant weakness in the proposal was defined as a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful 

contract performance.” Id. (same). “Further, weakness was defined as a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of 

unsuccessful contract performance.” Id. (same).
- 6 - 

II. Plaintiff’s Claims 

Plaintiff presents four arguments for the court to consider in our evaluation of 

defendant’s award decision. Plaintiff claims that defendant’s award decision lacked a 

rational basis because (1) defendant’s evaluations of the plaintiff’s and intervenor’s 

proposed MIS solutions were arbitrary and capricious; (2) defendant’s decision not to 

disqualify intervenor for its staffing proposal was arbitrary and capricious; (3) 

defendant’s price evaluation was arbitrary and capricious; and (4) defendant’s 

determination on remand not to disqualify intervenor for "soliciting, obtaining, and 

using" plaintiff’s proprietary information was arbitrary and capricious. 

III. Additional Protests

 In September 2016, DynCorp filed a GAO protest challenging the contract award 

to AAR because the Solicitation “did not impose post-transition operational and 

maintenance responsibilities on the WASS contractor.” GAO issued a decision denying 

the protest in December. The GAO held that the agency’s “evaluations were reasonable, 

consistent with the solicitation, and did not reflect unequal treatment.” Later in December 

2016, DynCorp filed the Complaint now at issue challenging the contract award on 

additional bases. These protests include defendant’s evaluation of intervenor’s staffing 

proposal, defendant’s price reasonableness determination, and alleged violations of the 

Procurement Integrity Act (PIA).

RULING 

Plaintiff asserts that instances of inconsistent communications and disparate 

treatment during procurement resulted in an arbitrary and capricious award decision. 

Defendant objects and argues that the agency supplied a coherent and reasonable 

explanation for the outcome in accordance with the APA standard of review. Although 

the lack of clarity in the overall bidding process is troubling, the contracting officer 

satisfied the relevant standard. Further, the contracting officer maintains the ability to 

select the contract awardee. Therefore, after a thorough review of the administrative 

record, we find that this issue favors defendant.

In addition, we have determined that intervenor’s staffing proposal evaluation did 

not violate agency instructions prohibiting cross-referencing staffing plans in its 

discussion responses and otherwise was rational; its price reasonableness analysis was 

rational; and the CO’s evaluation of the Integrity Act allegations was reasonably based on 

the Administrative Record as a whole and his decision in that regard was rational. Given 

the judicial standards to be applied in reviewing decisions of a contracting officer, the 

agency award decision was entirely reasonable and rational.

This case highlights the importance of presumptions that court decisions have 

provided in favor of government employees who serve as contracting officers. The 
- 7 - 

deference to which the CO is entitled is similar to the Business Judgment Rule as it is 

often applied in other areas of the law. We cannot say that such deference is inappropriate 

given the many billions of dollars that contracting officers manage in the form of 

contracts for goods and services purchased by the United States.

This case included legal arguments that could not be reconciled with each other or 

with the Record. The court had the benefit of excellent answers to a series of questions 

that we propounded to the parties for clarification, then helpful oral arguments last 

month. The lack of coherent and consistent explanations in some instances has resulted in 

uncertainties that remain.

In such circumstances, we must emphasize again the very high burdens of proof 

assigned to any protester in this court. One who would overturn a contracting officer’s 

ruling that a particular bidder has made the “best value” offer to the Government must 

show that the CO had been “irrational or [made] critical miscalculations.” OMV Med., 

Inc. v. United States, 219 F.3d 1337, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The Administrative 

Procedure Act states that a court must not “overturn the challenged decision unless it (1) 

lacked a rational basis; or (2) involved a violation of regulation or procedure.” 5 U.S.C. § 

706 (2006); 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(4); Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. 

United States, 238 F.3d 1324, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “The reviewing court shall . . . hold 

unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be -- arbitrary, 

capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 

706 (2006).

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit added the following explanatory text 

from a line of cases in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals: 

[A] bid award may be set aside if either: (1) the procurement official's 

decision lacked a rational basis; or (2) the procurement procedure involved 

a violation of regulation or procedure.” A court evaluating a challenge on 

the first ground must determine “whether the contracting agency provided a 

coherent and reasonable explanation of its exercise of discretion. When a 

challenge is brought on the second ground, the disappointed bidder must 

show a clear and prejudicial violation of applicable statutes or regulations. 

Axiom Res. Mgmt., Inc. v. United States, 564 F.3d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

These statutes and court decisions provide examples of the standards that support 

decisions of procurement officials upon review by courts. A description of several court 

rulings on a central issue in this case dramatizes the context in which such cases are

decided. A key issue in this case, one that first appeared to be a controlling issue for 

plaintiff here, is its allegations that intervenor benefited from contacts between a former 

employee of the incumbent contractor, DynCorp, and high-level management officers of 
- 8 - 

the intervenor. We have no doubt that the employee transmitted information to intervenor 

that could have helped it win the contract. However, the contracting officer found no 

evidence of record that the intervenor used the information in connection with its bid. 

The former employee of DynCorp, recently hired by intervenor AAR, felt comfortable 

transmitting this intelligence directly to senior officers for use by AAR, the intervenor. 

The insider also made an overture to the East Company, a recent subcontractor of 

DynCorp. The CO apparently found that effort too was on Ms. Hamilton’s own initiative 

and AAR obtained no benefit from the contact.

Defendant and intervenor accuse plaintiff of misstating the standard of review for 

the Agency/Contracting Officer’s decision on the procurement integrity review issue: 

“Ignoring this deferential standard and the broad discretion vested in the CO, DynCorp 

incorrectly claims that, if there are ‘hard facts’ showing ‘an appearance of impropriety,’ 

the CO must disqualify AAR, and this Court must reverse the CO if he does not.”

The plaintiff’s claim is not incorrect. It is the standard set out by the Federal 

Circuit for disqualifying a bidder. However, in the two cases it does cite, the Court did 

not overturn an agency’s discretionary decision but, rather, upheld the agency’s decision. 

Compliance Corp., 22 Cl. Ct. 193 (1990); and NKF Eng’g Inc., 805 F.2d 373 (Fed. Cir. 

1986).3

We include the contracting officer’s ruling on the alleged violations of 

Procurement Integrity Act this point in extenso, as follows: 

I have also considered whether AAR’s conduct gave rise to an appearance 

of a PIA violation such that even though a PIA violation did not occur, 

AAR should be excluded because [sic] the appearance of a PIA violation. 

In this instance, I find that there is no such appearance and there is no basis 

to exclude AAR. See, e.g., Compliance Corp. v. United States, 22 Cl. Ct. 

193, 200 (1990) (“When it appears that a bidder may have prepared its bid 

proposal with knowledge of its competitor’s bid, such an appearance taints 

the integrity of the procurement process, regardless of whether any 

proprietary information was actually obtained or used.”); NKF Eng’g, Inc. 

v. United States, 805 F.2d at 3778. There is no evidence that it appears that 

AAR may have prepared its bid proposal with knowledge of DI’s bid and 

proposal information . . . 

 

3

In Compliance and NKF, however, the courts agreed with contracting officers who found “hard facts [showing] an 

appearance of impropriety.” The CO decisions upheld by the courts were to disqualify bidders that created an 

appearance of impropriety. 
- 9 - 

I find no similarities between DynCorp’s and AAR’s narratives for the 

basis of estimate of the proposed unloaded hourly labor rates. An inspection 

of individual rates listed, by category in the base year shows where 

significant differences (greater than 50%) exist. As already stated above, 

the comparison of each offeror’s indirect rates and fee and profit rates also 

demonstrate these rates are very diverse. It is important to note that AAR’s 

profit and fee rates remained constant at [REDACTED] for both of its two 

price proposal submissions. DynCorp’s fee and profit rates remained the 

same with each submittal ([REDACTED]). In fact, it appears more 

questionable that DynCorp inexplicably reduced its final price proposal 

submission price by over $300M and [REDACTED] with nominal change 

to its final technical proposal submission to come in ~ $100M lower than 

AAR’s bid which remained consistent with its first proposal revision 

submission.

Docket No. 39, #1.

Senator Dole was the floor manager of this court’s jurisdictional statute when it 

passed in 1981. 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(3). In explaining the jurisdiction of the Claims Court 

to grant injunctive and declaratory relief, he stated that “the Government must be 

permitted to exercise its right to conduct business with those suppliers it selects and to do 

so in an expeditious manner.” Cong. Rec. S14694 (daily ed. December 8, 1981). 

Similarly, the House Committee Report on the bill stated that it “expects that the Court 

will utilize the authority conferred upon it by this section only in truly extraordinary 

circumstances . . . .” H.R.Rep. No. 312, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. 44 (1981). Since then, 

courts generally have avoided becoming involved unduly in the procurement process, by 

enjoining the Government from awarding a contract to its chosen offeror. As this court 

stated in Grimberg Co., “injunctive relief [is] awardable ... only in extremely limited 

circumstances.” U.S. v. John C. Grimberg Co., Inc., 702 F.2d 1362, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 

1983).

CONCLUSION 

This procurement was not a model of efficiency or of appropriate government 

acquisition policy. We found it difficult to review some parts of the Record and 

especially to reconcile what we could learn of the important facts with some of the 

parties’ arguments. We found that some of plaintiff’s criticisms were well supported by 

the Record and by common sense. The case would have been much more difficult to 

resolve without the very high, broad standards of review and presumptions that apply to 

judicial review of contracting officers’ decisions.

Given those standards, the case could be boiled down to these findings: The 

government agency’s decision not to disqualify AAR has a rational basis in the entire 
- 10 - 

record; and the CO found no competitive advantage gained by AAR through the efforts 

of Ms. Hamilton to subvert the procurement process. Either finding is dispositive of 

plaintiff’s case. A third determination establishes a significant weakness in plaintiff’s 

case: DynCorp’s revised proposal did not address Federal IT requirements and did not 

address important data migration and capture issues. See e.g., Docket 83, pages 10-11, 

Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record. This provides an 

additional reason to support the contracting officer’s determination that DynCorp’s 

proposal was deficient compared to that of AAR.

Few reviewing courts would be comfortable in all respects with the manner in 

which this procurement was conducted. However, the court’s duty is to review actions of 

the Agency, and more particularly the contracting officer, for overall compliance with 

statutory standards and case law interpreting those standards.

This court’s primary concern at the outset was the apparent violation of laws and 

regulations that attempt to insure that government procurements are conducted fairly. In 

that regard, a former employee of plaintiff DynCorp’s apparently initiated a contact with 

intervenor AAR in an effort to transmit sensitive inside information relating to an 

element of AAR’s bid. For whatever reason, the former employee, Ms. Hamilton, felt 

comfortable contacting the top corporate officers of the intervenor in this case, including 

its Chief Executive Officer. The information remained with management for two weeks 

before AAR’s General Counsel notified the contracting officer of the breach.

One issue arising from this incident is whether such facts might warrant a finding 

of “the appearance of impropriety.” Certainly, most observers without the benefit of case 

law interpreting the meaning of that phrase, “appearance of impropriety,” would think 

that the facts described could meet the definition. Not knowing that such a finding must 

be supported by “hard facts,” most would want to learn more about the incident. The 

need for “hard facts” would not seem to fit well with “appearance of impropriety,” as the 

latter term suggests a lower standard of proof than “hard facts.”

As noted earlier in this Opinion, however, we can assume that sound policy or 

legal reasons pertain not only to this standard but also to the high level of discretion 

accorded contracting officers in carrying out their procurement duties.

In any event, we reviewed the Record carefully to insure that the intervenor meets 

requirements of procurement law sufficient to qualify it to be the winning contractor; that 

the contracting officer met his responsibilities to act fairly and impartially as a quasijudicial government official; and that plaintiff DynCorp fell short of meeting its 

responsibilities as described in Federal Acquisition Regulations and other procurement 

laws and regulations, and required by the State Department’s Statement of Work and 

Invitation to Bid and other relevant contract documents.
- 11 - 

We are satisfied that these detailed reviews have brought the court to the proper 

resolution of this case. To that end, we must GRANT defendant’s motion and 

intervenor’s separate motion for judgment on the Administrative Record and DENY

plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the Administrative Record, and plaintiff’s amended 

motion for judgment on the Administrative Record. The Clerk of Court will dismiss 

plaintiff’s Complaint. No costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Robert H. Hodges, Jr.

 Robert H. Hodges, Jr. 

 Senior Judge