4841-0157-3924.1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CIVIL DIVISION

INTERNATIONAL RELIEF ANDDEVELOPMENT, INC., INTERNATIONALRELIEF AND DEVELOPMENT US, INC.,INTERNATIONAL RELIEF ANDDEVELOPMENT HOLDINGS, INC., IRDSOLUTIONS, LLC, INTERNATIONALRELIEF AND DEVELOPMENT GLOBALINSTITUTE, and INTERNATIONALRELIEF AND DEVELOPMENT GLOBALSOLUTIONS,

Plaintiffs,vs.

UNITED STATES AGENCY FORINTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT,ALFONZO E. LENHARDT, in his officialcapacity as Acting Administrator of theUnited States Agency for InternationalDevelopment, AMAN S. DJAHANBANI, inhis official capacity as the Suspension andDebarment Official, Director, Office ofAcquisition and Assistance, of the UnitedStates Agency for International Developmentand THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendants.

))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Case No. ________________

PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONAND 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

1 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 andDevelopment Global Solutions and International Relief and Development Global Institute, each of which has beenindefinitely suspended from USAID contracting.

24841-0157-3924.1

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 ofPlaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Ervin Declaration).3 Ervin Dec. 3, 4 and 56.

34841-0157-3924.1

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

4 Ervin Dec. 51-55, 57-58.5 Ervin Dec. 61.6 Ervin Dec. 64.

44841-0157-3924.1

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 Ervin Dec. 65-66.8 Ervin Dec. 51-52, 67.

54841-0157-3924.1

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. 367138pmonsees@foley.comDavid T. Ralston, Jr. DC Bar No. 386874dralston@foley.comZachary L. Coffelt, DC Bar No. 1022918zcoffelt@foley.com (Pro Hac Vice pending)Foley & Lardner LLPWashington Harbour3000 K Street, N.W.Suite 600Washington, D.C. 20007-5109202.672.5300202.672.5399

Lisa M. Noller IL Bar No. 6229957lnoller@foley.comFoley & Lardner LLP321 N. Clark StreetSuite 2800Chicago, Illinois 60654312.832.4500312.832.4700

(Pro Hac Vice motion pending)

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

64841-0157-3924.1