You are on page 1of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA


CIVIL DIVISION
INTERNATIONAL RELIEF AND
)
DEVELOPMENT, INC., INTERNATIONAL )
RELIEF AND DEVELOPMENT US, INC., )
INTERNATIONAL RELIEF AND
)
DEVELOPMENT HOLDINGS, INC., IRD )
SOLUTIONS, LLC, INTERNATIONAL
)
RELIEF AND DEVELOPMENT GLOBAL )
INSTITUTE, and INTERNATIONAL
)
RELIEF AND DEVELOPMENT GLOBAL )
SOLUTIONS,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
vs.
)
)
Case No. ________________
UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR
)
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT,
)
ALFONZO E. LENHARDT, in his official )
capacity as Acting Administrator of the
)
United States Agency for International
)
Development, AMAN S. DJAHANBANI, in )
his official capacity as the Suspension and
)
Debarment Official, Director, Office of
)
Acquisition and Assistance, of the United
)
States Agency for International Development )
and THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Defendants.
)
)
PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
AND REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED HEARING
Plaintiff, International Relief and Development, Inc. and its affiliated entities (IRD)1
files this Motion seeking a preliminary injunction to enjoin the enforcement and implementation

IRD consists of International Relief and Development, Inc., International Relief and Development US, Inc.,
International Relief and Development Holdings, Inc., IRD Solutions, LLC, and the International Relief and
Development Global Solutions and International Relief and Development Global Institute, each of which has been
indefinitely suspended from USAID contracting.

4841-0157-3924.1

of a wrongful and illegal suspension notice issued by the Defendants on January 26, 2015 and
continued in place by the Defendants on April 13, 2015 (collectively Suspension Decisions).
The Suspension Decisions disqualify IRD from eligibility for the award of Federal Government
contracts, grants and assistance agreements valued at hundreds of millions of dollars. The
Suspension Decisions were arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of agency power and violated the
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 706et. seq. and applicable government regulations as
is set forth in more detail in Plaintiffs Memorandum of Points and Authorities. It is critical that
the Suspension Decisions be enjoined now to prevent, among other harm, IRD from being
excluded from the entire FY 2016 government contracting cycle for which critical decisions
about new awards are being made by the Defendants and other Federal Government agencies
right now. Therefore, Plaintiffs request expedited consideration of the Motion and an expedited
hearing pursuant to LCvR 65.1(d) and Plaintiffs set forth the following facts in support of the
request.2
IRD is a non-profit, non-governmental organization that specializes in providing aid and
relief programs in the most challenging and evolving international environments such as in
Afghanistan, Syria and the Ukraine and IRD derives approximately 80% of its overall revenue
from contracts, grants and assistance agreements funded by Defendant USAID and other Federal
Government agencies.3 The Suspension Notice had the immediate impact on January 26, 2015
to disqualify IRD from the award of new contracts, grants and assistance agreements with all
Federal Government agencies, including Defendant USAID, and it has had other serious and
lasting, debilitating effects on IRDs business. These debilitating effects include that the
2

See Declaration of Roger Ervin, attached as Exhibit 8 to the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of
Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Ervin Declaration).
3
Ervin Dec. 3, 4 and 56.

2
4841-0157-3924.1

Defendant USAID has, in addition to disqualifying IRD from receiving new awards, facilitated
the transfer of existing IRD business to IRD competitors instead of IRD retaining that business.
IRD has also lost key employees, had its banking relationship terminated, and had its
relationships with non-Federal Government aid partners and donors impaired by the stigma of
being suspended by the Federal Government.4
IRD has spent in excess of $5 million of its own unrestricted funds seeking to challenge
the Suspension Decisions, including by hiring third-party experts to evaluate the internal
financial controls that the Defendants assert are inadequate, hiring third-party monitors to
oversee IRD implementation of enhanced controls and best practices, and conducting a
comprehensive financial review of IRDs past billing to Defendant USAID in response to the
Suspension Decisions.5 However, IRD remains suspended despite extensive and exhaustive
efforts to overturn the suspension including through meetings, negotiations and the continued
submission of relevant financial information as recently as last week.
The impact of the Suspension Decisions is now in its most critical stage, making
expedited consideration of this Motion necessary.

Defendant USAID and other Federal

Government agencies are currently in the bid review process for the fiscal year 2016 contract
cycle and awards are being made by Defendant USAID and other Federal Government agencies
between April August 15, 2015 for that contracting cycle.6 IRD has already lost business
opportunities for new grant and aid assistance awards by USAID and other Federal Government
agencies and has been notified by those agencies in the past three weeks that it was not selected

Ervin Dec. 51-55, 57-58.


Ervin Dec. 61.
6
Ervin Dec. 64.
5

3
4841-0157-3924.1

because of the suspension.7 If the Suspension Decisions remain in effect, IRD will continue to
be excluded from the award of contracts, grants and assistance agreements of at least $200
million on a daily basis because IRD is ineligible for the awards, in addition to IRDs loss of
extensions on its existing aid agreements with Defendant USAID. This exclusion would very
likely put IRD out of business.8
The IRD suspension was imposed in response to political pressure on the Defendants for
their failed oversight of humanitarian relief programs, was imposed in violation of procedural
protections in place to protect contractors from suspension unless it is based on a careful
consideration of all relevant evidence, and because the Defendants completely failed to establish,
as is required by law, that there was an urgent need to suspend IRD in January 2015 and to
continue that suspension in place in April 2015 to protect against imminent risk to the Federal
Government.
IRD has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its claims that the Suspension
Decisions violate the APA and applicable regulations and IRD clearly has suffered and will
continue to suffer substantial and debilitating, irreparable harm. The balance of the harm clearly
favors granting the requested relief because the only claimed harm by the Defendants is
hypothetical since they have not established any urgent risk to the United States. Finally, the
public interest clearly favors issuance of the injunction.
For the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the
Declarations of Roger Ervin and Olga Wall, and the supporting materials, IRD respectfully
requests that the Court expeditiously consider the Motion, schedule a hearing and enter the

7
8

Ervin Dec. 65-66.


Ervin Dec. 51-52, 67.

4
4841-0157-3924.1

Proposed Order enjoining Defendant USAID and all Federal Government agencies from
enforcing, implementing and making any contracting or grant decisions in reliance upon the IRD
Suspension and granting IRD the other requested relief.

Dated: June 9, 2015

Respectfully submitted,

__

Paul R. Monsees /s/

Paul R. Monsees DC Bar No. 367138


pmonsees@foley.com
David T. Ralston, Jr. DC Bar No. 386874
dralston@foley.com
Zachary L. Coffelt, DC Bar No. 1022918
zcoffelt@foley.com (Pro Hac Vice pending)
Foley & Lardner LLP
Washington Harbour
3000 K Street, N.W.
Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20007-5109
202.672.5300
202.672.5399

Lisa M. Noller IL Bar No. 6229957


lnoller@foley.com
Foley & Lardner LLP
321 N. Clark Street
Suite 2800
Chicago, Illinois 60654
312.832.4500
312.832.4700
(Pro Hac Vice motion pending)
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

5
4841-0157-3924.1

6
4841-0157-3924.1