Determinations

---

VALCOM LTD. (OTTAWA)
File No. PR-2002-014

---

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• DETERMINATION OF THE TRIBUNAL
• STATEMENT OF REASONS
• • COMPLAINT
  • PROCUREMENT PROCESS
  • POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
  • • PWGSC's Position
    • Valcom's Position
  • TRIBUNAL'S DECISION
  • DETERMINATION OF THE TRIBUNAL

---

Ottawa, Monday, December 2, 2002

File No. PR-2002-014

IN THE MATTER OF a complaint filed by Valcom Ltd. (Ottawa) under subsection 30.11(1) of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, R.S.C. 1985 (4th Supp.), c. 47;

AND FURTHER TO a decision to conduct an inquiry into the complaint under subsection 30.13(1) of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act.

DETERMINATION OF THE TRIBUNAL

Pursuant to subsection 30.14(2) of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal determines that the complaint is not valid.

Richard Lafontaine
Richard Lafontaine
Presiding Member


Michel P. Granger
Michel P. Granger
Secretary

 

 

Date of Determination and Reasons:	December 2, 2002
Tribunal Member:	Richard Lafontaine, Presiding Member
Investigation Manager:	Daniel Chamaillard
Counsel for the Tribunal:	Marie-France Dagenais
Complainant:	Valcom Ltd. (Ottawa)
Counsel for the Complainant:	Paul Lalonde
Intervener:	Calian Ltd.
Government Institution:	Department of Public Works and Government Services
Counsel for the Government Institution:	David M. Attwater

 

 

STATEMENT OF REASONS

COMPLAINT

On July 18, 2002, Valcom Ltd. (Ottawa) (Valcom) properly filed a complaint with the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (the Tribunal) under subsection 30.11(1) of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act ¹ concerning the procurement (Solicitation No. W2182-02XX04/C) by the Department of Public Works and Government Services (PWGSC) of engineering, management and support services, on behalf of the Department of National Defence (DND), in respect of DND's Maritime Helicopter Project (MHP).

Valcom alleged that the solicitation was conducted in breach of the Agreement on Internal Trade.² In support of its allegation, Valcom submitted that three of the subject matter experts (SMEs) proposed by Calian Ltd. (Calian) did not meet the mandatory qualifications of the Request for Proposal (RFP) in regard to certain critical and selected tasks, as outlined in Annex D to the RFP, which should have rendered the bid technically non-compliant.

Valcom cited three examples. The first concerned the senior project manager (SEM-02). The mandatory requirement is for the resource to have a minimum of five years' experience, within the past seven years, in a project environment, with responsibilities in risk and issues management and scheduling. Valcom claimed that the SME proposed by Calian for this task does not possess five years' experience, in the last seven years, in risk management.

The second concerned the senior logistician (SEM-07). The mandatory requirement is for the resource to have a minimum of five years' experience as a manager/project officer in a project office responsible for developing, specifying, evaluating, procuring, integrating and implementing project management plans, configuration management plans, technical data management plans and electronic engineering data management standard operating procedures. Valcom alleged that the SME proposed by Calian does not possess the required qualifications enumerated for this task.

Finally, the third concerned the senior engineer (SEM-09). The requirement provides that the resource must have a minimum of three years' experience in military helicopter stores systems, military helicopter stores integration, flight dynamics, aero-elasticity, stores separation and ballistics. Valcom argued that the SME proposed by Calian for this task does not have three years' experience in military helicopter stores integration or in stores separation and ballistics.

Valcom submitted that Calian is unable to deliver the complete team of SMEs that formed the basis of the finding of technical compliance and that Calian intends to propose replacement candidates at the onset of the contract award. Valcom further submitted that this would place Calian in default of the conditions of the solicitation, with regard to the availability of resources.

Valcom claimed that, based upon Calian's proposal, the funds attributed to the contract cannot support the requirements described in the RFP in that Calian's bid is artificially low, which, in itself, is insufficient to support the level of effort required under the mandatory criteria for each task.

Valcom requested, as a remedy, that the contract awarded to Calian be cancelled and awarded to it, as the highest-scoring fully compliant bidder. In the alternative, Valcom requested that PWGSC issue a new solicitation for the procurement. In the further alternative, Valcom requested that it be compensated by an amount representing its lost profit opportunity (10 percent of its financial proposal) and that it be awarded its complaint costs.

On July 22, 2002, pursuant to subsection 30.13(2) of the CITT Act, the Tribunal informed the parties that the complaint had been accepted for inquiry, under subsection 30.11(1) of the CITT Act and subsection 7(1) of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Procurement Inquiry Regulations.³

On August 12, 2002, Calian requested leave to intervene in the proceedings. On August 13, 2002, the Tribunal granted Calian leave to intervene as requested. On August 16, 2002, PWGSC filed a Government Institution Report (GIR) with the Tribunal in accordance with rule 103 of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Rules.⁴

On September 5, 2002, Valcom filed its comments on the GIR with the Tribunal. On September 12, 2002, PWGSC requested leave from the Tribunal to file further submissions in respect of the comments made by Valcom on the GIR. On September 18, 2002, the Tribunal accepted the additional comments made by PWGSC and informed the parties accordingly.

As the parties filed no further submissions and given that there was sufficient information on the record to determine the validity of the complaint, the Tribunal decided that a hearing was not required and disposed of the complaint on the basis of the information on the record.

PROCUREMENT PROCESS

The procurement for engineering, management and support services, on behalf of DND, for its MHP was originally advertised on August 10, 2001, through MERX (Solicitation No. W2182-02XX04/A).

A contract was awarded to Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) on November 16, 2001. However, SAIC was unable to deliver the necessary SMEs for the tasks required by DND. The contract with SAIC was terminated by mutual consent on December 14, 2001.

DND's procurement was re-tendered on February 20, 2002 (Solicitation No. W2182-02XX04/C). The following excerpts from the RFP are relevant to this case.

Section 3, "Proposal Preparation Instructions", of Part 2, "Proposal Preparation Instructions & Evaluation Procedures" of the RFP reads, in part:

SECTION III: CERTIFICATIONS

In order to be awarded a contract, the certifications attached in Annex "E" [to the RFP] will be required.

Section 3.0, "General Conditions", of Part 3, "Resulting Contract Clauses", -of the RFP states the following:

General Conditions DSS-MAS 9676 - Services (2001/12/10) shall apply.

General Conditions DSS-MAS 9676 - Services (2001/12/10) read, in part, as follows:

9676 08 (04/01/94) Replacement of Personnel

1. When specific persons have been named in the Contract as the persons who must perform the Work, the Contractor shall provide the services of the persons so named unless the Contractor is unable to do so for reasons beyond its control.

2. If, at any time, the Contractor is unable to provide the services of any specific persons named in the Contract, it shall provide a replacement person who is of similar ability and attainment.

3. The Contractor shall, before replacing any specific person named in the Contract, provide notice in writing to the Minister containing:

(a) the reason for the removal of the named person from the Work;

(b) the name, qualifications and experience of the proposed replacement person; and

(c) proof that the person has the required security clearance granted by Canada, if applicable.

Annex D, "Evaluation Procedures and Criteria", to the RFP reads, in part:

D.1 EVALUATION PROCEDURES

Selection of successful bidder

To be considered responsive, a bid must meet all of the mandatory requirements of this solicitation. Bids not meeting all of the mandatory [requirements] will be given no further consideration. The lowest priced responsive bid will be recommended for award of a contract.

D.2 TECHNICAL EVALUATION

1st Step - Evaluation of Corporate Expertise and Experience of The Bidder

2nd Step - Critical Tasks

The Bidder shall propose one different resource for each of the following critical tasks which meets the evaluation criteria identified for the specific task under Appendix 2 to Annex D.

SEM-07 Configuration and Technical Data Management Support Services

SEM-09 Armament and Stores Engineering Support Services

3rd Step - Selected Tasks

Only bids which are responsive under the 1st and 2nd [steps] will be evaluated against all mandatory criteria identified under Appendix 3 to Annex D Selected Tasks.

The Bidder shall propose one different resource for 12 tasks selected by the Bidder out of the 15 tasks listed below.

SEM-02 Risk Management and Scheduling Support Services.

[Emphasis added]

Appendix 2, "Critical Tasks", to Annex D to the RFP reads, in part, as follows:

TASK 2002 SEM-07

2) Tasking requirements:

II. a minimum of five (5) years experience as a manager/project officer in a project office responsible for developing, specifying, evaluating, procuring, integration and implementation of Project Management Plans, Configuration Management (CM) Plans, Technical Data (TD) Management Plans and electronic engineering Data Management Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs).

TASK 2002 SEM-09

2) Tasking requirements:

II. a minimum of three (3) years experience in military helicopter stores systems, military helicopter stores integration, flight dynamics, aero-elasticity, stores separation and ballistics.

Appendix 3, "Selected Tasks", to Annex D to the RFP reads, in part:

TASK 2002 SEM-02

2) Tasking requirements:

I. The resource shall have a minimum of five (5) years experience within the past seven (7) years in a project environment, with responsibilities in risk and issues management and scheduling.

Annex E, "Conditions Precedent to Contract & Certifications", to the RFP provides, in part:

E.2 CERTIFICATIONS

E.2.3 AVAILABILITY AND STATUS OF RESOURCES

The Bidder certifies that, should it be authorized to provide services under any contract resulting from this solicitation, the persons proposed in its bid shall be available to commence performance of the Work as required by the Project Authority and at the time specified herein or agreed to with the Project Authority.

More specifically, of the nineteen (19) proposed [resources] meeting the mandatory requirements; a minimum of eleven (11) of the proposed resources shall be available to commence work within fifteen (15) calendar days from the date of contract award, and a minimum of eight (8) of the remaining proposed resources shall be available to commence work within 30 calendar days of contract award.

The solicitation had an original closing date of March 22, 2002. However, two extensions were granted, the last one being on April 12, 2002, extending the bid closing date to April 29, 2002. Three bids were found to be technically responsive, including those of Valcom and Calian. Calian, the lowest bidder, was awarded the contract on June 28, 2002.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

PWGSC's Position

PWGSC submitted that the evaluation team followed the evaluation methodology and applied the evaluation criteria specified in the RFP in determining that Calian's proposal was fully compliant with the requirements of the RFP. It further submitted that the contract terms, as identified in the RFP, allowed for the replacement of personnel.

PWGSC alleged that Valcom's knowledge about the three SMEs "is deficient and otherwise wrong". It also alleged that Valcom did not identify the relevant dates of the résumés that it filed, the circumstances under which they came into its possession and the purpose for which they were prepared.

According to PWGSC, pursuant to Annex D to the RFP, the contents of a bid were evaluated against the criteria of the RFP. It submitted that Calian's proposal was evaluated using the information contained therein and that Calian's proposal was not evaluated against the documentation in Valcom's possession. PWGSC further submitted that the résumés submitted by Valcom were different from those included in Calian's proposal.

PWGSC submitted that, under article E.2.2 of Annex E to the RFP, bidders have to certify "that all the information provided in the résumés and supporting material submitted with the bid, particularly as this information pertains to education achievements, experience and work history, has been verified by the Bidder to be true and accurate." According to PWGSC, Calian provided such certification with its proposal.

PWGSC stated that, with respect to the proposed candidate for the SEM-02 position, Valcom alleged that the résumé in its possession does not demonstrate that the proposed candidate has five years' experience within the last seven years in a project environment, with responsibilities in risk and issues management and scheduling. PWGSC submitted that the evaluation team found that the proposed candidate had sufficient experience in the areas of risk and issues management.

According to PWGSC, Valcom alleged that the proposed candidate for the SEM-07 position is qualified to the QL7 military category. PWGSC noted that, on this basis, Valcom submitted that the proposed candidate does not have five years' experience as a manager/project officer in a project office with certain responsibilities. According to PWGSC, the evaluation team found that the proposed candidate's résumé clearly demonstrates that he is qualified to the higher QL8 military category. As such, PWGSC noted, his role would be that of a project officer within a major Crown project.

According to PWGSC, Valcom alleged that the proposed candidate for the SEM-09 position does not have three years' experience in certain areas relating to military helicopters. PWGSC further alleged that, based on the résumé included in Calian's proposal, the evaluation team was satisfied that the proposed candidate possessed the necessary experience. PWGSC noted that the employment history of the proposed candidate, filed by Valcom, reveals significant experience with military helicopters in several areas. PWGSC submitted that this supports the evaluation team's findings.

Concerning Valcom's submission that Calian is in default of a condition precedent to the contract, in that Calian is "unable to deliver the complete team that formed the basis of the finding of technical compliance", PWGSC argued that, in Part 3 of the RFP, under "General Conditions", reference is made to DSS-MAS 9676 - Services (2001/12/10). PWGSC submitted that article 8 of these general conditions, entitled "Replacement of Personnel", provides that Calian is allowed to replace a specific person named in the contract where the person is unable to perform the work for reasons beyond its control. PWGSC noted that, following the submission of its proposal, Calian informed PWGSC that the proposed candidate for the SEM-07 position had obtained alternative employment. According to PWGSC, Calian, by e-mail correspondence on July 16, 2002, proposed a replacement for the SEM-07 position and provided PWGSC with a résumé of the proposed replacement SME and the necessary certification. PWGSC then reviewed the résumé of the proposed replacement and, by e-mail correspondence dated July 19, 2002, advised Calian that it found the replacement SME to be acceptable.

PWGSC submitted that the complaint should be dismissed with costs.

Valcom's Position

Valcom submitted that PWGSC awarded the contract to Calian despite the non-compliance of Calian's bid. Valcom alleged that three of the candidates proposed by Calian did not satisfy the mandatory requirements of the positions for which they were proposed.

Concerning the proposed candidate for the SEM-02 position, Valcom submitted that Appendix 3 to Annex D to the RFP provides that the resource shall have experience in risk management. It further submitted that the Project Management Institute,⁵ recognized as the foremost authority on project management, including risk management, defines risk management as comprised of the following elements:

Valcom claimed that the proposed candidate does not meet the minimum requirement of five years' experience. In fact, none of the proposed candidate's experience can be considered to constitute risk management experience, as his only experience is in risk identification. Risk identification is only one element of risk management. Valcom also claimed that the résumé, submitted by Calian on the proposed candidate's behalf, does not indicate experience in any of the other elements that constitute risk management. Valcom submitted that Calian's proposed candidate for this position did not meet the requirement of the RFP. Valcom also submitted that PWGSC's acceptance of Calian's non-compliant bid constitutes a violation of Articles 501, 504(3)(g) and 514(2) of the AIT.

Regarding the proposed candidate for the SEM-07 position, Valcom alleged that the proposed candidate did not meet the mandatory technical requirements of the RFP. Valcom also alleged that it was evident, in the résumé submitted by Calian in support of its proposal, that the proposed candidate did not meet the requirements of the SEM-07 position.

Valcom claimed that the proposed candidate's experience indicates that his role was to support the relevant manager. Valcom, therefore, alleged that the proposed candidate would not have been responsible for the required functions enumerated in Appendix 3 of Annex D to the RFP. Valcom further alleged that, given that the responsibilities attributed to the SEM-07 position are commensurate with the responsibilities of a manager, the proposed candidate, and therefore Calian's bid, should have been deemed non-compliant.

Valcom submitted that the résumé of the proposed candidate provided in Calian's bid does not meet the requirements of the SEM-07 position. Valcom further submitted that the evaluation team, being intimately conversant with the duties and responsibilities of the various positions within the organizational structure of the Project Management Office, must have known that the proposed candidate's work experience did not meet the technical requirements of the RFP and should have rejected Calian's bid.

With respect to the SEM-09 position, Valcom disagreed with PWGSC's evaluation of the proposed candidate's résumé, in that PWGSC found evidence that his professional experience met the mandatory technical experience of the RFP.

Valcom alleged that the résumé of the proposed candidate for the SEM-09 position does not meet the technical requirements of three years' experience in military helicopter stores integration, stores separation and ballistics, while PWGSC points to the period of 1985 to 1988 as satisfying this requirement. Valcom claimed that the proposed candidate's résumé for the SEM-09 position does not indicate that he has the required experience, as specified in the RFP.

Valcom argued that PWGSC's acceptance of Calian's non-compliant bid constitutes discrimination, in violation of Articles 501, 504(3)(g) and 514(2) of the AIT.

Valcom disputed the veracity of PWGSC's assertion that Calian met its obligations under article E.2.3 of Annex E to the RFP because 12 of its SMEs commenced work on July 15, 2002, and the remaining 7 commenced work by July 22, 2002.

The relevant portion of article E.2.3 of Annex E to the RFP reads as follows:

[O]f the nineteen (19) proposed resources meeting the mandatory requirements; a minimum of eleven (11) of the proposed resources shall be available to commence work within fifteen (15) calendar days from the date of contract award, and a minimum of eight (8) of the remaining proposed resources shall be available to commence work within 30 calendar days of contract award.

Valcom submitted that, as Calian's bid was comprised of the minimum number of SMEs, the loss of a single SME, unless replaced by a compliant candidate, would result in Calian being in default of its obligations under the terms of the RFP. Valcom alleged, in conclusion, that the fact that Calian would not be able to deliver the SMEs in accordance with the RFP was, or should have been, apparent to PWGSC at the time of the bid evaluation, at which time it should have declared Calian non-compliant. Valcom claimed that, by not doing so, PWGSC favoured Calian at the expense of the other bidders, in contravention of Articles 501, 504(3)(g) and 514(2) of the AIT. Valcom also alleged that PWGSC might also have violated Article 506(6) of the AIT.

TRIBUNAL'S DECISION

Section 30.14 of the CITT Act requires that, in conducting an inquiry, the Tribunal limit its considerations to the subject matter of the complaint. Furthermore, at the conclusion of the inquiry, the Tribunal must determine whether the complaint is valid on the basis of whether the procedures and other requirements prescribed in respect of the designated contract have been observed. Section 11 of the Regulations further provides that the Tribunal is required to determine whether the procurement was conducted in accordance with the applicable trade agreements.

There are three issues before the Tribunal in this complaint:

The Tribunal is of the view that, unless the evaluators have not applied themselves in evaluating a bidder's proposal, have ignored vital information provided in a bid, have wrongly interpreted the scope of the requirement or have based their evaluation on undisclosed criteria, it will not substitute its judgement for the one of the evaluators.⁶ In this case, the Tribunal is of the view that PWGSC properly discharged its responsibilities in relation to evaluating Calian's proposal.

In considering the first issue, the Tribunal carefully reviewed the requirements of the SEM-07 and SEM-09 positions, as outlined under "Critical Tasks" in Appendix 2 to Annex D to the RFP, and the requirements of the SEM-02 position, as provided for under "Selected Tasks" in Appendix 3 to Annex D. Then, it considered what was before the evaluation committee in the form of Calian's proposal and the mandatory criteria described in Appendices 2 and 3 to Annex D for the above critical and selected tasks.

The Tribunal notes that, within the mandatory criteria of the SEM-07 position, the second tasking requirement states that the proposed resource shall have "a minimum of five (5) years experience as a manager/project officer in a project office responsible for developing, specifying, evaluating, procuring, integration and implementation of Project Management Plans, Configuration Management (CM) Plans, Technical Data (TD) Management Plans and electronic engineering Data Management Standard Operating Procedures (SOPS)". PWGSC's interpretation that this requirement means that the proposed candidate need only have a minimum of five years' experience in an office responsible for these activities is consistent with the wording. Furthermore, within the description of this task, under Appendix 1 to Annex A to the RFP, entitled "Task Description", there is no specific managerial or supervisory responsibility enumerated in the services to be provided by the SME. The Tribunal is, therefore, satisfied that the evaluators reasonably applied the mandatory criteria listed in this particular critical task.

The second tasking requirement of the SEM-09 position in Appendix 2 to Annex D to the RFP requires that the proposed resource possess "a minimum of three (3) years experience in military helicopter stores systems, military helicopter stores integration, flight dynamics, aero-elasticity, stores separation and ballistics."

Within the task description for this particular provision, as provided in Appendix 1 to Annex A to the RFP, the Tribunal notes that the SME is to provide engineering support for military helicopter/stores clearance from a military helicopter. This includes the effects on structural integrity, flight dynamics and performance, and stability and control issues related to the integration of armament and stores to the basic vehicle and marine helicopter. In light of the above, the Tribunal is of the view that PWGSC's assessment that the primary object of the service to be performed by the SME under "Task 2002 SEM-09" is in regard to how a rotary wing vehicle would operate under the integration of stores on board a helicopter is consistent with the wording of this requirement and that its interpretation was reasonable. Accordingly, the Tribunal is of the view that the evaluators properly applied the mandatory criteria to the proposed candidate's overall experience in connection with this particular position.

The first tasking requirement of the SEM-02 position in Appendix 3 to Annex D to the RFP provides that the proposed "resource shall have a minimum of five (5) years experience within the past seven (7) years in a project environment, with responsibilities in risk and issues management and scheduling". Under the work description for this particular position, the proposed resource is to provide "project-wide and systems engineering focussed project management support to the Systems Engineering Manager . . . and . . . staff", which will include, in part, interfacing with the project risk manager. The Tribunal accepts PWGSC's position that, in line with the task requirement, the evaluation team found evidence of experience in risk management over five years and eight months in the proposed candidate's work experience. In the Tribunal's view, a reasonable interpretation of the requirement need not encompass all areas of risk management.

Turning to the second issue, concerning Calian's intention to propose replacement candidates for those initially included in its bid, the Tribunal notes that, within the RFP, as outlined in section 3.0 of Part 3, entitled "Resulting Contract Clauses", article 8 of General Conditions DSS-MAS 9676 - Services provides for the replacement of personnel. Therefore, the determination of whether Calian's bid was in default of compliance with the above clause is a matter for PWGSC to resolve, in terms of contract administration, which is beyond the scope of the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

Concerning the third issue, whether Calian's financial proposal is sufficient to support the requirements of the solicitation, the Tribunal notes, in this regard, that Annex D to the RFP, entitled "Evaluation Procedures and Criteria", "Selection of successful bidder", provides that the lowest-priced responsive bid will be recommended for award of a contract. Therefore, the Tribunal is of the view that PWGSC had the authority to award the contract to whichever was the lowest-priced responsive bidder and, consequently, to resolve any contentious issue arising thereupon. The Tribunal, as discussed above, will generally not substitute its judgement for that of the evaluators and sees no reason to do so in this case.

In its comments on the GIR, Valcom submitted that PWGSC violated Chapter Five of the AIT in several areas as follows: Article 501 (equal access), Article 504(3)(g) (unjustifiable exclusion) and Article 514(2) (fair, open and impartial procurement). Valcom believed that PWGSC may have violated Article 506(6) as well.

In light of the above conclusions, the Tribunal is not persuaded that PWGSC violated Article 501 of the AIT. There is no evidence that Valcom was not given equal access to the procurement, nor is there any evidence demonstrating a lack of transparency in this case.

The Tribunal is also of the view that the evidence on record does not reveal that Valcom was unjustifiably excluded from tendering, contrary to Article 504(3)(g) of the AIT. In the Tribunal's view, Valcom was afforded every opportunity to submit its proposal and was equally evaluated by PWGSC as fully compliant with the requirements of the RFP.

Article 514(2) of the AIT relates to the establishment by the Federal Government of bid protest procedures to promote fair, open and impartial procurement procedures. The Tribunal is of the view that Valcom has not established that the Federal Government has failed to meet its obligations under this article. Moreover, the Tribunal is not convinced that the procurement at issue was not open or not evaluated fairly and impartially.

Finally, on the basis of the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not convinced that PWGSC violated Article 506(6) of the AIT, which stipulates, in part, that the tender documents shall clearly identify the requirements of the procurement, the criteria that will be used in the evaluation of bids and the methods of weighting and evaluating the criteria. In any event, the Tribunal notes, in this connection, that the issue was not raised in the complaint in a timely manner.

In light of the foregoing, the Tribunal finds that the complaint is not valid, and does not award costs to either party.

DETERMINATION OF THE TRIBUNAL

Pursuant to subsection 30.14(2) of the CITT Act, the Tribunal determines that the complaint is not valid.

---

1 . R.S.C. 1985 (4th Supp.), c. 47 [hereinafter CITT Act].

2 . 18 July 1994, C. Gaz. 1995.I.1323, online: Internal Trade Secretariat <http://www.intrasec.mb.ca/eng/it.htm> [hereinafter AIT].

3 . S.O.R./93-602 [hereinafter Regulations].

4 . S.O.R./91-499.

5 . Established in 1969 and headquartered in Newtown Square, Pennsylvania.

6 . See Re Complaint Filed by ACMG Management (5 June 2002), PR-2001-056 (CITT).