UNITE D STATES DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO

N FEDERA L AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON , D.C . J&B ENTERPRISES , INC. , d/b/a / RHYTH M SHINE , Complainant , METROPOLITA

N NASHVILL

E AIRPOR

T AUTHORITY , Respondent . Docke t No. : 16-08-07

c- > COMPLAINANT' S RESPONS E T O RESPONDENT' S MOTIO N T O SUPPLEMEN T TH E RECOR D O N APPEA L • C D c 5 Complainan

t J&B Enterprises , Inc. , d^/a / Rhyth mShine (hereafte

r "Complainant " or "J&B") , b y it s counsel , hereb y respond s to th e motio n o f Respondent , Metropolita

n Nashvill e Airpor t Authorit y ("MNAA" ) to supplemen t th e recor do n appeal . 1 . I n considerin g MNAA' s Motion th e Assistan t Administrator

shoul db e awar

e tha t th e material s no t

previously apar

t of th e recor dtha t i t seek s to admit

ar e largely irrelevan

t to th e issue s presente d i n thi s appeal : 1 ) whethe r MNA A discriminate dagains t

J&B in administerin g it s shoeshine concession , includin g b y retaliatin g agains t J& B afte r it complaine dtha

t MNA A wa s violatin g ACDB E regulation s by failing to mak e goo do n it s promis e t

o restor e J&B' s direc t concession ; 2 ) whethe

r th e recor d contain s evidenc e tha

t MNA A undertook

th e analyse s require d t o determin e whethe

r th e Hudso n Grou

p actually satisfie dFA

A join t ventur e requirement s necessar y to suppor

t th e Director' s Determinatio n tha t th e Hudson Grou

p me t Respondent' s ACDB E goal ; and 3 ) whethe r MNAA' s conduc t

wa s contrar

y to th e administrative , genera l and complianc e requirement s o f 4 9 C.F.R . Part s 2 3 and2 6 an dFedera l Gran t Assurance s Nos . 3 0 an d 37 .2 . To th e exten t th e propose dsupplementa l materia l ha s relevance , it

doe s no t suppor t MNAA' s position . Instead , examinatio n o f th e RFP s reinforce s MNAA' s admissio n and th e uncontradicte d evidenc e tha t i t retaliate dagains t

J&B . No t

only di dMNA

A terminat

e J&B' s concessio n and put

i t out t o bid , but

i n issuin g th e RF

P MNA A change dth e term s of

th e concessio n fromwha

t i t previously ha

dagree dwit

h J& B wouldb e term s of th e direc t concession . Thus , th e RF

P followed andwa s aresult o f MNAA' s primar

y ac t o f retaliation—it s decisio n t o terminat

e th e existin g direc t

concessio n agreemen

t andt o refiis e to actually ente r int o th e agreed-upo n continue d direc t concessio n agreemen

t wit h J&B . Bu

t i n formulating th e RFP , MNA A di d no t simpl y offe r J&B th e sam

e opportunit

y fo r tha t direc t concessio n throug h a competitiv e bid ; instead , MNA A changedandworsene dth e term s o f propose dsho e shine concessio n mth e RFP . The RF P specifieddifferen

t an dles s desirabl e location s tha n thos e agreed t o wit

h J&B , provide d smalle

r spac e tha n agree dto wit

h J&B , andno t

onl y eliminate d th e financial assistanc e i n buildin g out th e spac e it

ha dpromise dJ&B , but

imposedsubstantia

l upfron t financial barrier s t o operatin g th e concession . Ramse y Affidavi t a t Tj f 7 , 8 ; Declaratio n o f Jame s Druet

t a t ^ I 4 & exhibit s (attached) . An dMNA A refiisedt o alte

r thes e ne w and worsened term s fo

r th e concessio n i n th e RF

P even afte

r J& B identifiedthemfo

r MNA A in th e first RFP . Ramse

y Affidavi t a t If f 7-9 ; Druet

t Declaratio n a

t ^ 4 , 5 . Thus , MNAA' s changed an d worsened term s o f

th e concessio n i n th e RF

P fiirthered it s retaliatio n agains t J&B fo r it s April 15,200 8 lette

r statin g tha

t MNA A an dHudson wer

e violatin g ACDB E regulation s andstatin g it s intentio n to file aforma

l complain t i f matter s wer

e no t resolved . DD Ite

m10 , Ex . 29. '

' Th e right to file acomplaint , a s described i n J&B' s April 15 , 200 8 letter , i s protecte d b y th e FAA' s regulations , including 4 9 C.F.R . § 26.109(d) . Thi s i s no t acas e i n whic h th e allege d retaliatio n i s i n respons e to adisput

e ove r a contract matte r tha t i s unrelate d to an

y ACDB E regulations . Se

e Walle r v . Wichit aAirpor t Authority , FA

A Docke t No . 16-98-1 3 a

t 5 Director' s Determination issued Marc h 12 , 1999 ("Cony)lainan

t allege s 'apparent

retaliation ' a s a resul t of refusin g t o do wor

k no t included i n the Purchas e Order, " whic h obviousl y doe s no t "interfere! ] wit

h arigh t o r privileg e secured by Par

t 23.") . 23 . Moreover , th e affidavi t andRF P tha t MNA A seek s t o addt o th e recor

dfail t o suppl

y a legitimat e basi s fo r th e reversa

l o f MNAA' s positio n befor

e th e lette r of agreeing t o ente

r int o a direc t concessio n agreemen

t wit h J&B o n agreed-upo n term s to it s positio n afte r th e lette r of terminatin g it s existin g concessio n agreemen t wit h J&B , refiising t o ente

r int o th e agreed-upon direc t concessio n an

d decidin g t o issu e aRF

P fo r tha t concessio n o n differen

t terms . Ramse

y Affidavi t a t *|f f 3 , 9 . J&B originally won th e concessio n throug h acompetitiv e proces s and faithfiill y performed o n th e concessio n agreemen t it earned . Druet

t Declaratio n a

t J ^ 2-3 . Th

e recor d make s clea

r tha t th e direc t concession s retaine dunde

r MNAA' s maste

r pla n wer e no t put ou t fo r RFPs , and tha

t th e RF P fo r J&B' s sho e shine concessio n wa s targete da t asingl e concessionaire—^a

n Afiica n American-owne dACDB E tha t ha dcomplaine dtha

t MNA A wa s violatin g ACDB E regulation s i n no t finalizing arestoratio n o f

it s direc t concessio n relationship . Nor ca n MNAA' s unlawfiil retaliatio n b e justifie db y apos t ho c argumen

t tha t th e retaliatio n ma y result in mor e fiuids fo r MNAA . Ramse

y Affidavi t a t | | 15-19 . Discriminatio n caimo t b e justifie d becaus e it

ma y b e mor e profitabl e fo

r th e part y discriminating . 4 . Finally , i f

th e Assistan

t Administrator

grant s MNAA' s motion , sh e als o shoul d supplemen t th e recor d wit h th e attache dDeclaratio n o f Jame s Druett , i n orde

r tha t th e recor d reflect s bot

h parties ' statement s regardin g th e subject matte r of th e supplementation . Respectfiill

y submitted . Thoma s J . Henderso n Henderson La

w Firm , PLL

C 1425 K Street , NW , Suit

e 35 0 Washington , D C 2000 5 (202 ) 587-568 7 Telephone (202 ) 587-560 1 Facsimil e Counsel fo r

Complainan

t J& B Enterprises , Inc .UNITC D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

WASHINGTON , D.C .

Docke t No. : 16-08-0 7 J& B ENTERPRISES , INC. , d/b/a / RHYTH M SHINE , Complamant , METROPOLITA N NASHVILL E AIRPOR T AUTHORITY , Respondent . DECLARATIO NO F JAME S DRUET T I , Jame s Druett , unde r

penah y o f

perjury , hereb y mak e th e following statement s base d upo n my persona

J knowledge : 1 . I a ma n owne r

o f J& B Enteiixises , Inc. , d/b/a / Rhyth mShin e (hereafte r "J&B") , an d acompeten t

adu h wh o i s mor e tha n 1 8 year s o f age . 2 . J& B b^a n it s sho e shin e concessio n wit h MNA A a t th e Nashvill e Airpor t

b y successfull y submittin g apn^X)sa l i n response t o a n RF P i n 1992 . 3 . I n di e year s afte r

winnin g th e sho e shin e c(Micessi<Ma . J& B craisistentl y pofonne d it s oblig8ti<Mi s unde r

Uta t concessio n agreemen t

wit h MNAA . 4 . Th e sho e shin e CMicession describe d i n di e 200 9 RFP s issue d b y MNA A differe d fiomth e term s o f

th e direc t

concessio n MNA A agree d t o wit h J& B Enteipiise s i n lat e 200 7 an d earl y 200 8 i n tha t

di e location s wer e differen t tha n thos e w e ha d agree d tt> with MNAA , di e location s wer e smalle r

i n squar e foet

tha n thos e t o ^i^iich w e agree d wid i MNAA , an d rathe r tha n MNA A agreein g t o advanc e Ifa e cos t o f buildin g ou t

th e spac e fix' th e omcession , th e RFP ^require d th e bidde r t o mak e a n iqvfiront

investmen t

o f $75.0 0 pe r

squar e foot

o f space . Tli e location s an d spac e a s mth e RFP s ar e indicate d i n th e attache d exhibits . 5 . Aldious ^ J& B mfcmne d MNA A o f dies e proUem s wifl i di e RFPs , MNA A di d no t chang e an y o f

th e term s i n th e RFPs . I declare unde r

penalt y o f

pegui y tha t

th e foregoin g i s tru e an d correc t Dated : Sq)tanberI3,200 9 Jame s Druet tL i J



# o Q ct : 

## e n o O 0 0 A 4 Q : O 

# o L U ^ ^



# o o



# F " P i 

# i it . 

# oc o OOcN j

## § 

# C i

D p

o o m o

CX3 0 O 

### o O

# o o 7 ^ 

## m : ^ 

### -|C/ ) h o \ 

## o < cjir n 

## cn Z CD O 

# z

>

— 1 ^ ^ -

& > ; > • < 

# C a o o z z m 

# o -H- i NJ O O ^ -1 ^ 

## oo o 

# o X I X I 

# o o X I

# ^Isi l

J-ti

ff 

# I f

?

fcj

? « 3 flt 

### a 

# iL i

I

I 

# ICERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E

I hereby certif

y tha t I hav e thi s da

y serve dth e foregoing Complainants ' Respons e to Respondent' s Motio n to Supplemen t th e Recor

do n Appea

l andth e attache dDeclaratio n of Jame s Druet

t o n th e following person s a t th e following addresses , b y first clas s mail thi s 14t

h da y o f September , 2009 : Arthu r P . Ber g Kapla n JCirsc h & Rockwell LL

P 64 1 Lexingto n Ave. , Suit

e 1409 New York , New Yor

k 10022 Thoma s R . Devine Kapla n Kirsch & Rockwell LL

P 100 1 Connecticut

Ave. , N.W . Suit e 800 Washington , D.C . 2003 6 Lis aReynold s Kapla n Kirsch & Rockwell LL

P 167 5 Broadway , Suit

e 230 0 Denver , C O 8020 2 Rober t Watson MNA A On e Termina l Drive , Suit

e 50 1 Nashville , T

N 3721 4 

# hj

Thoma s J . Henderso n Counsel fo r

Complainan

t J& B Enterprises , Inc .