In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No. 21-1765C

(E-Filed UNDER SEAL: August 3, 2022)

(Reissued: August 22, 2022)1

E&L CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE UNITED STATES,

Defendant, 

and

RANDY KINDER EXCAVATING, INC. 

D/B/A RKE CONTRACTORS,

Intervenor-defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Post Award Bid Protest; Small 

Business Administration; ServiceDisabled Veteran Owned Small 

Business; 13 C.F.R. § 125.11; 

Unconditional Ownership.

John B. Dunlap, III, Baton Rouge, LA, for plaintiff. Jennifer A. Fiore and Alexis M. 

Breedlove, of counsel.

Miles K. Karson, Trial Attorney, with whom were Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy

Assistant Attorney General, Patricia M. McCarthy, Director, and Elizabeth M. Hosford, 

Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant. Marcia A. McCree, United States 

Department of Veterans Affairs, and Beverley Hazlewood, United States Small Business 

Administration, of counsel. 

1 This opinion is filed under seal on August 3, 2022. See ECF No. 63. The parties were 

invited to identify source selection, propriety, or confidential material subject to deletion on the 

basis that the matter is protective or privileged. On August 22, 2022, the parties filed a notice 

indicating no proposed redactions. See ECF No. 65. Thus, the sealed and the public versions of 

this opinion are identical, except for the publication date and this footnote. 
2

Meghan F. Leemon, Washington, DC, for intervenor-defendant. Peter B. Ford and

Samuel S. Finnerty, of counsel.

OPINION

CAMPBELL-SMITH, Judge.

Before the court are the parties’ supplemental briefs in support of their crossmotions for judgment on the administrative record (AR) in this case, filed after the 

issuance of the United States Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Office of Hearings 

and Appeals’ (OHA) decision on remand from this court. See ECF No. 60 (plaintiff’s 

supplemental memorandum in support of its motion); ECF No. 61 (intervenordefendant’s supplemental memorandum); ECF No. 62 (defendant’s supplemental brief in 

support of its motion). Because the court has ruled on the parties’ motions for judgment 

on the AR, see ECF No. 47 (sealed opinion and order); ECF No. 51 (opinion and order 

reported at E&L Constr. Grp., LLC v. United States, 159 Fed. Cl. 115 (2022)), the court 

will deem the supplemental briefs to be renewed motions for judgment on the AR.

In ruling on the renewed motions the court has considered: (1) the complaint, 

ECF No. 1; (2) the AR, ECF No. 26; (3) plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the AR, ECF 

No. 35; (4) intervenor-defendant’s cross-motion for judgment on the AR and response to 

plaintiff’s motion, ECF No. 37; (5) defendant’s cross-motion for judgment on the AR and 

response to plaintiff’s motion, ECF No. 39; (6) plaintiff’s reply in support of its motion 

and response to the cross-motions, ECF No. 41; (7) defendant’s reply in support of its 

cross-motion, ECF No. 43; (8) intervenor-defendant’s reply in support of its crossmotion, ECF No. 45; (9) the supplement to the AR, ECF No. 59; (10) plaintiff’s renewed 

motion for judgment on the AR, ECF No. 60; (11) intervenor-defendant’s renewed crossmotion for judgment on the AR, ECF No. 61; and (12) defendant’s renewed cross-motion 

for judgment on the AR, ECF No. 62.

The parties’ motions are now fully briefed, and ripe for decision. The parties did 

not request oral argument, and the court deems such argument unnecessary. The court 

has considered all of the parties’ arguments and addresses the issues that are pertinent to 

the court’s ruling in this opinion. For the following reasons, plaintiff’s renewed motion

for judgement on the AR is DENIED, and defendant’s and intervenor-defendant’s 

renewed cross-motions are GRANTED.
3

I. Background2

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff filed this bid protest challenging the SBA’s decision that it was 

“ineligible for award of the [Veterans Administration’s (VA)] Fort Sill Project, 

Solicitation No. 36C78621B0004, Contract No. 36C78621C0046 . . . and ineligible to 

compete as a Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business [(SDVOSB)] concern.” 

ECF No. 1 at 2. Plaintiff explains that “[a]s a result of this determination, the VA, 

through [the Center for Verification Evaluation (CVE)] removed [plaintiff] from its 

Vendor Information Pages [(VIP)] database,” which “precludes [plaintiff] from 

competing for any VA SDVOSB set-aside procurements.” Id. 

The parties filed cross-motions for judgment on the AR, see ECF No. 35, ECF No. 

37, ECF No. 39, and the court issued a decision on the motions on March 4, 2022, see

ECF No. 47; ECF No. 51. In its opinion, the court determined that the OHA failed to 

adequately explain its legal position in its decision regarding plaintiff’s status. See ECF 

No. 51 at 8-10. Specifically, the court determined that the OHA’s explanation for its 

application of Wexford Grp. Int’l, Inc., SBA No. SDV-105, 2006 WL 4726737 (Jun. 29, 

2006), the legal standard for determining whether ownership is unconditional, known as 

the Wexford standard, was inadequate. See id. at 8. As a result, the court was unable to 

evaluate the OHA’s conclusion and remanded the case to the OHA for further 

explanation on three issues: 

First, the document to which the OHA cites in support of its contention that 

the 2018 version of 13 C.F.R. § 125.11 added several exceptions, “but did 

not otherwise disturb the Wexford definition,” discusses neither the Wexford

definition nor the effect of the new regulation on existing caselaw. In its 

August 17, 2021 decision, the OHA did not explicitly articulate why it 

believes the cited rule-making document supports its conclusion that the 

Wexford definition remains largely undisturbed. Absent such an articulation, 

it is unclear to the court how the OHA arrived at this conclusion, and the 

court is unable to evaluate the same.

Second, the authority upon which the OHA relies, in addition to Wexford, is 

equally flawed. The OHA issued its decision in Veterans Contracting Group, 

Inc., SBA No. VET-265, 2017 WL 4124865 (Aug. 21, 2017), prior to the 

2 The court detailed the factual background of this case in its March 4, 2022 opinion and 

will not repeat that background here. For a recitation of the factual background underlying the 

dispute in this case see ECF No. 47 at 3-5 (sealed opinion and order), and ECF No. 51 (opinion 

and order reported at E&L Constr. Grp., LLC v. United States, 159 Fed. Cl. 115, 117-19 (2022)).
4

issuance of the new regulation. As a result, the holding in that decision 

cannot provide insight into the continued applicability of pre-2018 SBA 

decisions to the new regulation that mirrors the pre-2018 VA language.

And third, in 2018, the [United States Court of Appeals for the] Federal 

Circuit dismissed as moot an appeal that was filed just before the new 

regulations took effect . . . . It appears to the court that the Federal Circuit 

chose to dismiss the case, at least in part, due to the effect of the new 

regulations on the Wexford standard. As such, the effect of the regulations 

was an operative part of the Circuit’s decision. 

Id. at 9-10 (footnote and citations omitted).

The OHA issued a decision in response to the remand on June 13, 2022, once 

again finding that plaintiff is not an eligible SDVOSB. See ECF No. 59-2 at 47-69 (OHA 

decision reported at Randy Kinder Excavating, Inc. d/b/a RKE Contractors, SBA No. 

CVE-232, 2022 WL 2384609 (June 13, 2022)). The parties then requested that the court 

permit them to submit “supplemental briefing addressing only SBA OHA’s explanation 

in response to the remand order,” because they understood the OHA’s decision to be a 

“supplement to its original decision,” rather than a new decision requiring plaintiff to file 

amended pleadings. ECF No. 57 at 1 (joint status report). The court agreed that no 

amended pleadings were required and ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs 

addressing the SBA OHA’s remand decision. See ECF No. 58 (order). Because, 

however, the court has ruled on the parties’ cross-motions for judgment on the AR, the 

court deems the supplemental briefs to be renewed motions for judgment on the AR.

B. The OHA’s Decision on Remand

In its June 13, 2022 decision on remand, the OHA determined that plaintiff was 

not eligible to compete as a SDVOSB because it was not unconditionally owned by a 

service-disabled veteran. See Randy Kinder Excavating, 2022 WL 2384609 at *1. In its 

first decision, the OHA had explained, in pertinent part: 

OHA has consistently applied the Wexford standard. In Matter of Veterans 

Contracting Group, Inc., SBA No. VET-265 (2017), OHA explicitly rejected 

the Court of Claims reasoning in Miles and AmBuild, because those cases 

were based upon a different Department of Veterans Affairs regulation. 

OHA’s definition was upheld in Veterans Contracting Group, Inc. v. United 

States, 135 Fed. Cl. 316, 321 (2017). The court found that although it felt 

that Wexford “produces draconian and perverse results in a case such as this 

one”, it had to uphold OHA’s interpretation of the regulation. Veterans 

Contracting, at 328.
5

. . .

Thus, SBA later defined unconditional ownership at 13 C.F.R. § 125.11, 

adding the exceptions for death, incapacity, and pledges of stock as collateral 

if the terms follow normal commercial practices, but did not otherwise 

disturb the Wexford definition. 83 Fed[.] Reg. 48908, 48909 (Sep. 28, 2018). 

OHA has further held that provisions of an Operating Agreement dealing

with the bankruptcy of an owner do not render that ownership conditional. 

Matter of Veterans Contracting Group, Inc., SBA No. VET-265, at 8 (2017).

The definition of unconditional ownership is therefore clear. The ServiceDisabled Veteran’s ownership of the challenged concern must be unlimited, 

with no restrictions whatever on their ownership, or their ability to dispose 

of their [s]hares in anyway they choose.

Randy Kinder Excavating, Inc. d/b/a RKE Contractors, SBA No. CVE-198, 2021 WL 

4071503 at *21-22 (August 17, 2021). 

The OHA expanded upon its original reasoning in the June 13, 2022 decision. See

Randy Kinder Excavating, 2022 WL 2384609 at *17-20. The OHA reviewed the 

rulemaking: 

Although the VA and the SBA 8(a) [Business Development (BD)] program 

had nearly identical definitions prior to 2018, the interpretations diverged. 

SBA clearly states in the preambles of both, the proposed and final rules, that 

the source for the regulation is the definition of unconditional ownership 

from SBA’s 8(a) BD program found at 13 C.F.R. § 124.3. See 83 Fed. Reg. 

4005, 4006 (January 29, 2018). SBA said nothing about abandoning the 

longstanding Wexford definition. The final rule did not alter the proposed 

rule on this issue, emphasizing that SBA was adopting the definition from 

the 8(a) BD program, and rejecting a comment that the definition should be 

subject to the same conditions as “extraordinary circumstances” because 

SBA did not want to conflate ownership and control requirements. SBA, 

thus, signaled its intention to limit exceptions only to those specifically 

mentioned in the definition under 83 Fed. Reg. 48908, 48909 (September 28,

2018).

The definition of unconditional ownership was thus taken from SBA’s 8(a) 

BD program. SBA’s [Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)] on the 8(a) BD 

program discusses unconditional ownership in more detail:

(1) In reviewing the ownership structure of an applicant firm, 

the BOS [Business Opportunity Specialist] must verify that 
6

there are no conditions on the interests held by the firm’s 

disadvantaged owners. The interests of the disadvantaged 

owners cannot be subject to any executory agreements, voting 

trusts, restrictions on or assignments of voting rights, or any 

other arrangements or conditions that could result in the 

transfer of their interests to other parties. This restriction does 

not include arrangements for the transfer of ownership interests

in the event of the holder’s death or incapacity.

(2) If an applicant has pledged or encumbered his or her stock 

or other ownership interest as collateral on a loan or other 

obligation, this does not violate the requirement of 

unconditional ownership. However, the terms of the loan or 

obligation must follow normal commercial practices and the 

disadvantaged owner must retain control over the firm unless 

and until there is a default on the loan or obligation.

SBA SOP 80 05 5, Chapter 2D, § 8(b), emphasis supplied.

The extended discussion in the 8(a) BD SOP thus emphasizes that there can 

be no conditions on the interests held by the owners of the firm upon whom 

the firm’s claim of eligibility is based. It also further clarifies that the 

exception for terms which follow “normal commercial practices” is limited 

to pledges or encumbrances of an ownership interest as collateral. Thus, the 

only circumstance in which the “normal commercial practices” standard can

be used to find that a provision does not compromise an SDV’s unconditional 

ownership is in the case of a pledge or other encumbrance of an ownership 

interest. This is in contrast to the course taken by the COFC in Miles and 

AmBuild, which measured other terms of a challenged concern’s ownership 

agreement by whether they followed “normal commercial practices”. Under 

the SBA regulations, that standard can only be considered in evaluating a 

pledge or encumbrance of the ownership interest of the individual upon 

whom a concern’s claim of eligibility is based. The “normal commercial 

practices” standard cannot be used to determine whether any other provision 

renders an individual’s ownership conditional.

Id. at *19 (emphasis in original). The OHA then noted that the SBA’s Office of General 

Counsel “emphasize[s] that SBA continues to adhere to the interpretation of 

‘unconditional ownership’ that the term requires that the Service-Disabled Veteran owner 

immediately and fully own his or her ownership interest and be able to dispose of it as 

they want without any restrictions.” Id. at *20. It held that because SBA has 

“consistently maintained this interpretation over the years . . . [d]eference to SBA’s 

interpretation is [ ] warranted here.” Id.
7

The OHA further stated that, although the Federal Circuit “did state that the 2018 

regulations overturned Wexford,” that statement was “dicta because the case was 

dismissed as moot.” Id. (citing Veterans Contracting Grp., Inc. v. United States, 743 F. 

App’x 439 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). The OHA concluded that because the “SBA regulations did 

not invalidate Wexford,” the Federal Circuit’s dismissal on the grounds of mootness 

“does not compel a rejection of SBA’s interpretation of the regulation.” Id.

The OHA thus confirmed that “the Wexford standard remains undisturbed.” Id. It 

therefore reaffirmed its prior decision that plaintiff “is not at least 51% unconditionally 

owned by an SDV.” Id. at *21. 

II. Legal Standards

In its complaint, plaintiff invokes this court’s bid protest jurisdiction. See ECF 

No. 1 at 1. This court’s bid protest jurisdiction is based on the Tucker Act, which gives 

the court authority:

to render judgment on an action by an interested party objecting to a 

solicitation by a Federal agency for bids or proposals for a proposed contract 

or to a proposed award or the award of a contract or any alleged violation of 

statute or regulation in connection with a procurement or a proposed 

procurement . . . . without regard to whether suit is instituted before or after 

the contract is awarded.

28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1). The Tucker Act also states that the court may grant “any relief 

that the court considers proper . . . including injunctive relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(2). 

To establish jurisdiction, a plaintiff must therefore demonstrate that it is an 

“interested party.” 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1). The Federal Circuit has held that the 

“interested party” requirement “imposes more stringent standing requirements than 

Article III.” Weeks Marine, Inc. v. United States, 575 F.3d 1352, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009). 

Though the term “interested party” is not defined by the statute, courts have construed it 

to require that a protestor “establish that it ‘(1) is an actual or prospective bidder and (2) 

possess[es] the requisite direct economic interest.’” See id. (quoting Rex Serv. Corp. v. 

United States, 448 F.3d 1305, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2006)) (alteration in original). 

Once jurisdiction is established, the court’s analysis of a “bid protest proceeds in 

two steps.” Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2005). First, 

the court determines, pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act standard of review, 

5 U.S.C. § 706, whether the “agency’s action was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of 

discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with [the] law.” Glenn Def. Marine (ASIA), 

PTE Ltd. v. United States, 720 F.3d 901, 907 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing 28 U.S.C. 
8

§ 1491(b)(4) (adopting the standard of 5 U.S.C. § 706)). If the court finds that the agency 

acted in error, the court then must determine whether the error was prejudicial. See

Bannum, 404 F.3d at 1351. 

To establish prejudice, “the protester must show ‘that there was a substantial 

chance it would have received the contract award but for that error.’” Alfa Laval 

Separation, Inc. v. United States, 175 F.3d 1365, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting 

Statistica, Inc. v. Christopher, 102 F.3d 1577, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). “In other words, 

the protestor’s chance of securing the award must not have been insubstantial.” Info. 

Tech. & Applications Corp. v. United States, 316 F.3d 1312, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 

(citations omitted). The substantial chance requirement does not mean that plaintiff must 

prove it was next in line for the award but for the government’s errors. See Sci. & Mgmt. 

Res., Inc. v. United States, 117 Fed. Cl. 54, 62 (2014); see also Data Gen. Corp. v. 

Johnson, 78 F.3d 1556, 1562 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“To establish prejudice, a protester is not 

required to show that but for the alleged error, the protester would have been awarded the 

contract.”). But plaintiff must, at minimum, show that “had the alleged errors been 

cured, . . . ‘its chances of securing the contract [would have] increased.’” Precision Asset 

Mgmt. Corp. v. United States, 125 Fed. Cl. 228, 233 (2016) (quoting Info. Tech., 316 

F.3d at 1319).

Given the considerable discretion allowed contracting officers, the standard of 

review is “highly deferential.” Advanced Data Concepts, Inc. v. United States, 216 F.3d 

1054, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 2000). As the Supreme Court of the United States has explained, 

the scope of review under the “arbitrary and capricious” standard is narrow. See

Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 419 U.S. 281, 285 (1974). “A 

reviewing court must ‘consider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the 

relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment,’” and “‘[t]he court 

is not empowered to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.’” Id. (quoting 

Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416 (1971)); see also Weeks 

Marine, 575 F.3d at 1368-69 (stating that under a highly deferential rational basis review, 

the court will “sustain an agency action ‘evincing rational reasoning and consideration of 

relevant factors’”) (citing Advanced Data Concepts, 216 F.3d at 1058).

III. Analysis

In the court’s view, the OHA’s June 13, 2022 decision addresses the concerns 

outlined in the court’s remand opinion and order, see ECF No. 51 at 9-10, and the 

decision provides the necessary reasoned basis for the OHA’s determination. 

Plaintiff argues in its renewed motion that the OHA’s decision to defer to the 

SBA’s interpretation of the regulation was flawed because of the SBA’s “illogical 

reliance on Wexford and the inconsistencies inherent in interpreting identical language 

differently for various programs.” ECF No. 60 at 10. According to plaintiff, “the basic 
9

tenets of statutory interpretation dictate that newly enacted regulations and statutes 

supersede prior jurisprudence on that point.” Id. at 7. Plaintiff therefore concludes that 

the OHA’s determination that the SBA’s regulation was silent on Wexford and, therefore, 

did not abandon it, was “not persuasive.” Id. 

Defendant responds that the “OHA has articulated a well-reasoned legal basis for 

the continued application of the Wexford standard in conjunction with Section 125.11.”3 

ECF No. 62 at 12 (capitalization and bolding removed). According to defendant, “[s]ince 

2018, OHA has interpreted Section 125.11 as being consistent with the Wexford

standard,” and the “SBA did not intend for the judicially-created . . . standard from 

Am[B]uild and Miles to be applied to any contract provision.” Id. at 13 (emphasis in 

original). 

Plaintiff further argues that the OHA contradicted its own conclusions when it 

both held that the VA’s SDVOSB program regulation and the SBA’s 8(a) program 

regulation defining unconditional ownership should be interpreted in the same manner 

“as outlined in the SBA’s SOP on the 8(a) program,” and held that the Wexford standard

should be applied for SDVOSB program evaluation. ECF No. 60 at 7. Plaintiff thus 

contends that the court should rely instead on “federal jurisprudence,” id. (capitalization 

and bolding removed), and follow this court’s interpretation of unconditional ownership 

in Miles Constr., LLC v. United States, 108 Fed. Cl. 792 (2013), and AmBuild, LLC v. 

United States, 119 Fed. Cl. 10 (2014), see id. 

Defendant, however, responds that the OHA’s analysis of the SBA’s conduct in 

the rulemaking process—not explicitly abandoning the Wexford standard and rejecting a 

comment suggesting that the 2018 definition be subject to the conditions applied to a 

service-disabled veteran’s control of a business—was a sufficient legal basis for the 

decision. See ECF No. 62 at 14-18. Defendant contends that the court should defer to 

the OHA’s interpretation of the regulation. See id. at 18.

The court agrees with defendant that the OHA’s decision is sufficiently reasoned 

and explained. In the court’s view, the OHA’s review of the SBA’s precedent and 

rulemaking process and application of that background to the interpretation of the 

regulation constitutes a sufficient legal basis for its decision. The OHA pointed to 

specifics in the regulatory history and the SBA’s procedures to explain its position that 

the regulation left the Wexford standard undisturbed. See, e.g., Randy Kinder 

Excavating, 2022 WL 2384609 at *19 (discussing the proposed and final rules); id.

(discussing the SBA standard operating procedures). The OHA also reviewed the SBA’s 

interpretation of the regulation over time by reviewing comments from the SBA’s Office 

3 Because intervenor-defendant’s arguments track closely with defendant’s, the court does 

not separately discuss intervenor-defendant’s arguments because they are neither different from 

the arguments made by defendant nor pertinent to this decision.
10

of General Counsel, and explained why the SBA’s interpretation outweighs court 

precedent. See id. at *20 (discussing the SBA’s comments and prior precedent). Finally, 

the OHA addressed the Federal Circuit case in which the court dismissed as moot an 

appeal that was filed just before the new regulations took effect. See id. (citing Veterans

Contracting Grp., 743 F. App’x at 440). The OHA noted that, while the Federal Circuit 

stated that the new regulations overturned Wexford, it concluded that language was dicta 

and not binding because the appeal was dismissed as moot because of a lack of 

remedies—not because of any change in law. See id. 

“Reversal is limited to those situations where OHA has acted irrationally or has 

erroneously applied relevant procurement law.” Team Waste Gulf Coast, LLC v. United 

States, 135 Fed. Cl. 683, 687 (2018) (citing Eagle Design & Mgmt., Inc. v. United States, 

57 Fed. Cl. 271, 273 (2002)). The OHA has not done so here, and the court, therefore, 

must defer to the OHA’s decision. See LB & B Assocs., Inc. v. United States, 68 Fed. 

Cl. 765, 771 (2005) (quoting Ceres Envt’l Servs., Inc. v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 23, 33 

(2002)) (noting that the court gives “special deference” to the OHA’s decisions “because 

of the SBA’s ‘quasi-technical administrative expertise and [its] familiarity with the 

situation acquired by long experience with the intricacies inherent in a comprehensive 

regulatory scheme’”). Further, “[t]he court is not empowered to substitute its judgment 

for that of the agency.” Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, 401 U.S. at 416. The court 

will, therefore, “sustain an agency action ‘evincing rational reasoning and consideration 

of relevant factors.’” Weeks Marine, 575 F.3d at 1368-69 (citing Advanced Data 

Concepts, 216 F.3d at 1058). Review of the OHA’s decision and explanation reveals the 

necessary “rational reasoning and consideration of relevant factors.” Id.

The court thus finds that the OHA’s decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious. 

Plaintiff’s motion must, therefore, be denied.

IV. Conclusion

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons: 

(1) The clerk’s office is directed to DEEM plaintiff’s supplemental brief, ECF 

No. 60, as plaintiff’s renewed motion for judgment on the AR;

intervenor-defendant’s supplemental brief, ECF No. 61, as intervenordefendant’s renewed cross-motion for judgment on the AR; and 

defendant’s supplemental brief, ECF No. 62, as defendant’s renewed 

cross-motion for judgment on the AR;

(2) Plaintiff’s renewed motion for judgment on the AR, ECF No. 60, is 

DENIED;
11

(3) Intervenor-defendant’s renewed cross-motion for judgment on the AR, ECF 

No. 61, is GRANTED;

(4) Defendant’s renewed cross-motion for judgment on the AR, ECF No. 62, is 

GRANTED; 

(5) The clerk’s office is directed to ENTER final judgment in defendant’s and 

intervenor-defendant’s favor DISMISSING plaintiff’s complaint with 

prejudice; and

(6) On or before August 24, 2022, the parties are directed to CONFER and 

FILE a notice attaching the parties’ agreed upon redacted version of this 

opinion, with all competition-sensitive information blacked out.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Patricia E. Campbell-Smith

PATRICIA E. CAMPBELL-SMITH

Judge