Sameena Inc. v. United States Air Force

147 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 1998)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Mirza Ali was Chief Executive Officer of USI. USI submitted a proposal to the SSA in April 1992. USI's bid was deemed competitive, and USI provided the SSA with samples of its products for further evaluation. It was discovered that two USI officers had submitted a fraudulent letter to the SSA. The SSA consequently eliminated USI from consideration for the workstation contract. Debarment' proceedings against USI and four of its officers, including Mirza Ali were started. SSA sought to disqualify them from submitting government contract proposals for three years. On February 2, 1994, USI, Mirza Ali, and the other USI officers were debarred from government contracting through February 18, 1996. Mirza Ali's wife, Sameena Ali (P), is president and sole director of P, which was incorporated in February 1993 by Keith Griffen (P), a USI officer. Each of the Ps uses aliases: Sameena Ali sometimes goes by 'Sameena Ikbal.' Mirza Ali sometimes goes by 'Zulfiqar Eqbal.' Sameena Inc. operates under the assumed name 'Samtech Research, Inc.' (Samtech). Samtech supplied computer workstations to government agencies. Samtech submitted a proposal and included in Samtech's proposal was a certification that neither Samtech nor any of its principals was debarred or proposed for debarment at that time. The certification defined 'principals' as 'officers; directors; owners; partners; and persons having primary management or supervisory responsibilities within a business entity.' Because the Air Force solicitation required that bidders have at least three years of experience as a government contractor, Samtech's proposal also included a list of 'Government Contract Awards.' Among them was a contract with the United States Department of Energy (the 'DoE contract') that P had obtained in 1994 through a novation from USI. In response to a query, P sent a letter explaining that Samtech 'started doing business with the Federal Government by acquiring a contract for the supply of ADP equipment to the United States Department of Energy in 1992.' It was discovered that the contract actually had been awarded to USI in 1992 and had only been novated to P in 1994. Bank documents were also obtained indicating that 'Sameena Ikbal' and 'Zulfiqar Eqbal' were authorized to make withdrawals from P's accounts and were, respectively, 'President/Secretary' and 'Vice President' of the corporation. This information appeared to contradict the statements made in P's contract proposal. P was deemed ineligible for the Air Force contract. A recommendation was submitted that P be debarred. On December 26, 1995, Ps were notified that they had been proposed for debarment (and, in Mirza Ali's case, an 'extension' of debarment). It set forth the grounds for the proposed debarments. The notices also invited Ps to submit information and argument in opposition to the debarment. Ps responded, and a letter from P's bank was included. That letter stated that Zulfiqar Eqbal was not a Vice President of Samtech and that a bank signature card had been 'corrected' after the bank was informed 'that Eqbal was not a corporate officer' of P or Samtech. Evidence was produced that a number of checks were signed by 'Zulfiqar Eqbal' and were made out to a variety of payees, including physicians, a sports club, and Eqbal (Mirza Ali) himself. P requested an evidentiary hearing on the issue of Mirza Ali's role at P. Without an evidentiary hearing, the Air Force issued a final decision in June 1996 to debar Ps - and to extend Mirza Ali's debarment - until December 2010. The debarment was based on findings that the appellants had (1) made false statements regarding P's experience as a contractor, (2) provided false certifications that none of P's principals was debarred, and (3) participated in a scheme to avoid the effects of USI's debarment. Ps sued Ds. The district court dismissed the claims against the individual defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction and, alternatively, on the grounds that Ds had failed either to plead conspiracy with sufficient particularity or to comply with the Federal Tort Claims Act. The court also granted summary judgment to the Air Force on the APA claims. Ps appealed.