part 3 pages 191 +cheeks v fort myer organized crime

7/25/2019 Part 3 Pages 191 +Cheeks v Fort Myer Organized Crime

1/458

CONTENTS Page

SUMMARY 2

3

SELECTED EXHIBTS

Exhibit 1 DOJ Guidance Manual Appendix III-Effect of Boyle vs. US on RICO 23

Exhibit A Affidavit of Ronald J. Bonfilio Documents Examiner:36

Evidentiary Attachments to Exhibit AExhibit A,Attachment 1, Non Collusion Affidavits 42

Exhibit A, Attachment 2, Bid Bonds

69Exhibit A Attachment 3 Public Documents Used to Create Exhibit F 86

Exhibit DR 1Civil Construction, LLC 2 year report Principals 104

Exhibit F, Depiction In Chart Form of RICO Activities. Created by Mr. Bonfilio,rom Public In ormationDocuments Attachment 3, .

107

Exhibit G. Two Recent Contracts wherein CNA Inc was low Bidder109

Exhibit J Table I Factors Establishing RICO Enterprise 114

Exhibit K Table II-Criminal Violations by RICO enterprise 121

Exhibit L Table III Gallardo Sworn Statements-Excerpts 129

Exhibit O Defendant's Affiliation Matrix 133

Exhibit P-1 Police Reports: Mercedes Break in and Threat at DuPont Circle 134

Exhibit S-1 Fort Myer Dept. of Small and Local Business Application Excerpts 139

Exhibit S-2 Anchor Dept. of Small and Local Business Application Excerpts 154

Exhibit S-3 Capital Paving, Dept. of Small and Local Business Application Excerpts 166

Exhibit V- 1 Ball Joint Damage 178

Exhibit V-2 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 2003Mercedes Benz C230 Report from "Safercar" 185


2/458

PART 3

COMPLAINTS FILED BY CHEEKS V. FORT MYER ET AL Associates

John C. Cheeks, pro se v Fort Myer Construction Company et al 1:09-cv-02163Judge Kollar-Kotelly, Colleen, 11/17/2009. Antitrust

194

CNA Corporations v Fort Myer Construction Company et alJudge Kollar-Kotelly, Colleen, 318

CNA Corporations v Fort Myer Construction Company et al DC Superior CourtMarch 28, 2014 CA 001898 transferred to US District Court Judge Lamberth DC1:14-cv-00914-RCL 9/28/15

ToAdd

Proposed Third Amended Complaint 531

OTHER RELATED COMPLAINTS FILED BY JOHN CHEEKS

John C. Cheeks v. DC Board of Elections - Complaint Verified Petition for a

Temporary Restraining Order . Aug 25, 2014 Case 14- 0005272 Reserved

John Cheeks v. Robert Turner - Complaint for Malicious Interference Aug 26, 2014Case 14-0005289

Reserved

ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS AND DOCUMENTS

Unexplained Deaths

Leroy Cook Police Report 577

Leroy Cook WJLA Report and Contact Persons 579

Death Similar to Cook and "Old Mac" Deaths 581

Bribery Doc 103-15 Exhibit Docket Gregorio-Sentencing 582

Associate Companies

Associated Companies: Tessa tobe Added 592

CNA Financial Corporation 601

Rodriguez- Shrensky Donations and Associates. 1

Law Enforcement Associations

FBI Association - FBI Directors Community Leadership Award 2008 602


3/458

FBI Citizens Academy Alumni Form 990s Fort Myer Construction CompanyCharitable Foundations and Washington DC Police Foundation

604

Donations to Religious Organizations - Shrensky Foundation 606

Political Donations and Influence

Defendants Political Contributions from Cheeks of North America Complaint Exhibit 607

Anita Bonds, DC Council Member

AnitaBonds Listed as Fort Myer Employee 627

Associate Companies


Associated Companies CNA Financial Corp 601

Associate Companies


Associated Companies CNA Financial Corp 601

Bonds: DC Candidate focuses on changing demographics in debatePage 630 Said she would step down as a Fort Myer Construction Executive-Article

628

Anita Bonds pulls in heavy corporate donations -Washington Post Article 632

Same as the Old Boss? Loose Lips Article, City Paper 635

Meet an At-Large DC Council Candidate Anita Bonds Washington Post Article byMike DeBonis

637

News Articles

Fort Myer Bribery - Common Denominator ArticleDoc 103-12 Exhibit Bribery Documents

640

Fort Myer Construction Will Pay $900k To Settle DiscriminationAnd Harassment Case Involving 371 Women And Minorities.- US Department of Labor News Release

642

Fort Myer's Friends Washington Post Article and Doc 103-14 Exhibit Bribery andDebarment 2003

646

Firing of Stephen Amos Loose Lips Article 647


4/458194


5/458195


6/458196


7/458197


8/458198


9/458199


10/458200


11/458201


12/458202


13/458203


14/458204


15/458205


16/458206


17/458207


18/458208


19/458209


20/458210


21/458


22/458212


23/458213


24/458214


25/458215


26/458216


27/458


28/458218


29/458219


30/458220


31/458221


32/458222


33/458223


34/458224


35/458225


36/458226


37/458227


38/458228


39/458229


40/458230


41/458231


42/458232


43/458233


44/458234


45/458235


46/458236


47/458237


48/458238


49/458239


50/458240


51/458241


52/458242


53/458243


54/458244


55/458245


56/458246


57/458247


58/458248


59/458249


60/458250


61/458251


62/458252


63/458253


64/458254


65/458255


66/458256


67/458257


68/458258


69/458259


70/458260


71/458261


72/458262


73/458263


74/458264


75/458265


76/458266


77/458267


78/458268


79/458269


80/458270


81/458271


82/458272


83/458273


84/458274


85/458275


86/458276


87/458277


88/458278


89/458279


90/458280


91/458281


92/458282


93/458283


94/458284


95/458285


96/458286


97/458287


98/458288


99/458289


100/458290


101/458291


102/458292


103/458293


104/458294


105/458295


106/458296


107/458297


108/458298


109/458299


110/458300


111/458301


112/458302


113/458303


114/458304


115/458305


116/458306


117/458307


118/458308


119/458309


120/458310


121/458311


122/458312


123/458313


124/458314


125/458315


126/458316


127/458317


128/458

Case 1:10-cv-01746-CKK Document 1 Filed 10/15/10 Page 1 of 213

318


129/458


130/458


320


131/458


321


132/458


322


133/458


323


134/458


324


135/458

1

TABLE OF CONTENTSI. NATURE OF THIS CASE ....................................................................................................................1

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE...........................................................................................................1

III. PARTIES ............................................................................................................................................. 1

IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................................3

V.IMMEDIATE INJUCTIVE RELIEF PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF

CIVIL PROCEDURE ......................................................................................................................19

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF-FEDERAL CLAIMS UNDER TITLE 15 (15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.).... 20

VII. ALLOCATION OF DAMAGE RELIEF REQUESTED............................................................. 20

VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF VIOLATIONS OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LAW,

CONSPIRACY, FRAUD AND COMMON LAW CLAIMS.183................................................ 20

IX. SUMMARY OF DAMAGES: DEFENDANTS JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE.... 20

X. VERIFICATION BY PLAINTIFF ................20

XI. REQUEST FOR TRIAL BY JUDGE ............21

XII. ATTACHMENT I LETTER FROM DCDOT CONTRACT AWARDED TO FORT MYER

CONSTRUCTION CORP, DCKA-2009-C-0025...........................................................................21

First Count: Violation of Section 1 of The Sherman Anti-Trust Act Affiliated Companies BiddingFederally Funded Infrastructure Contracts .................................................................................................. 3

Second Count:Violation of Sherman Anti - Trust Act By A Surety Company; Endorsementand Registrar Issuance of Surety Bid Bond Instrument(s) for Affiliated Defendant Customers orClients ......4

Third Count:Bid-Rigging; Conspiracy of Restraint of Trade, Section 1 of The ShermanAnti - Trust Act .......................................................................................................................................5


325


136/458

2

Fourth Count: Price Fixing ......6

Fifth Count: Monopoly by Defendant Companies................................ 6

Sixth Count: Coercive Monopoly; Owners, Directors, Officers of Companies, Elected PublicOfficials and Appointed Employees by Public Officials.................................................7

Seventh Count:: Contract Steering ..8

Eighth Count: Violation of Non-Collusion Affidavit for District of Columbia Water and SewerAuthority and District of Columbia, Department of Transportation of IFB Solicitations...9

Ninth Count:. Violation of DC Code 28- 4502; Engaging in a Bid-Rigging Conspiracy by Directors,Owners and Officers ...9

Tenth Count: Breached Procurement Regulations . 10

Eleventh Count:Common Law Fraud ........................................................ 11

Twelfth Count: Oversight Failure, Gross Negligence and Fraud of Governance Boards, CorporateBoards and the District of Columbia Government ........16

Thirteenth Count:Tortious Interference with Business Relationships; Plaintiffs Debtors. .................18


326


137/458

3

COMPLAINT

NOTE TO COURT

1. This claim is related to Civil Action Case No.. 1:09-cv-02163 CKK, which had many of the same

Defendants that committed the same violations.

The District Court, incident to the prior dismissal, suggested that in re-filing this case the plaintiff

include in the opening paragraphs, a summary of the several counts with the magnitude of damages

stated separately for each count. The following table attempt to follow the Courts request.


327


138/458

4

Table 1 RELIEF AMOUNT BY COUNTS October 13, 2010

1First Count: Violation of Section 1 of The Sherman Anti-Trust ActAffiliated Companies Bidding Federally Funded Infrastructure Contracts

$ 582,175,180.80

2

Second Count: Violation of Sherman Anti - Trust Act A By SuretyCompany; Endorsement and Registrar Issuance of Surety Bid BondInstrument(s) for Affiliated Defendant Customers or Clients

$ 91,900,488.70

3Third Count: Bid-Rigging; Conspiracy of Restraint of Trade, Section 1 ofThe Sherman Anti - Trust Act

$ 78,248,445.01

4 Fourth Count: Price Fixing $ 25,424,566.02

5 Fifth Count: Monopoly by Defendant Companies$ 15,524,671.48

6

Sixth Count: Coercive Monopoly; Owners, Directors, Officers ofCompanies, Elected Public Officials and Appointed Employees by PublicOfficials

$76,582,273.49

7 Seventh Count: Contract Steering. $ 136,427,637.94

8

Eighth Count: Violation of Non-Collusion Affidavit for District ofColumbia Water and Sewer Authority and District of Columbia, Departmentof Transportation of IFB Solicitations.

$ 255,652,771.79

9Ninth Count: Violation of DC Code 28- 4502; Engaging in a Bid-RiggingConspiracy by Directors, Owners and Officers Constitutes Interference.

$194,658,393.60

10 Tenth Count Breached Procurement Regulations $ 21,425,428.00

11 Eleventh Count: Common Law Fraud$346,198,580.68

12

Twelfth Count: Oversight Failure, Gross Negligence And Fraud ofGovernance Boards, Corporate Boards and The District of ColumbiaGovernment

$ 479,009,724.92

13Thirteenth Count: Tortious Interference with Business Relationships;Plaintiffs Debtors

$ 9,132,084.00

Relief Prayed For Total$2,312,360,246.4

311 Eleventh Count Punitive Damages $250,000,000.00 were included above


328


139/458

5

I. NATURE OF THIS CASE

2. This is an action by a private corporation against four defendant contractors and their surety Company,

pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 15, for violations of restraint of trade, monopoly, bid rigging and fraud

contained in 15 U.S.C. 1 through 35. The violations are contained in the Clayton Anti-trust Act,

and various provisions of District of Columbia code and common law.

3. Defendant(s) unlawful actions have undermined at random, jointly or separately fair business

principles and ethics, which has a direct impact on procurement regulations in the District of Columbia

Government for all independent companies to compete and participate for infrastructure IFB

solicitations without the threat or presence of common law fraud by Defendants

4. Government officials have issued contracts, from $13 to $68 million, on a single IFB DCKA-2009-B-

0025, by fraudulently by-passing statutory procedures, approvals, and oversight (See Exhibit F.7.3 and

Attachment I and Count Eleven, page 119, paragraph 363).

5. The caption of this case is presented in an unusual format with the four principal defendant

corporations and their surety, listed as five principal defendants to the federal claims. In the caption of

this case, each contracting corporation is listed is followed by each affiliated person for that respective

corporations.

6. Each such person listed is alleged to have performed some or part of the actions resulting in bid-rigging

and the obtaining of contracts under circumstances prohibited by 15 U.S.C. 1 et seq. The listings of


329


140/458

6

those corporations and the affiliated persons in the caption are hereby incorporated into this statement

of facts as if fully set forth herein.

7. Plaintiff submits that the presentation of the affiliation and interlocking nature of these four principal

bidders and their affiliates establishes violation of 15 U.S.C. 19 (prohibition against interlocking

directorates) with respect to the five (5) contracts alleged to be unlawful in this case. Put simply, the

collusion and the fraud inherent in the bid rigging on these five contracts is patent on the face of the

facts.

8. When the bidding parties in the purportedly competitive contracts are put side by side with the listing

above, it is clear that the biddings were not competitive and were in fact controlled by the three or four

colluding bidders. Details follow:

9. The four corporations who are alleged to be principal conspiring corporations are: Defendant Fort

Myer Construction Corporation, Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation, Defendant Civil

Construction Corporation, and Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc.

10. Western Surety Company a Subsidiary underwriting Company of CNA Surety (Western). Paul T.

Bruflat, Senior Vice President is also a principal defendant in that the 5 contracts which are the 5

immediate subjects of the complaint could not have been executed and awarded to the defendants

without the unlawful actions committed by Western.

11. Western furnished the Bid Bond for each of the 5 contracts for all of the four colluding co-defendant

construction corporations herein. Western has admitted it knew that the four conspiring corporations

were affiliated, a patent violation of 15 U.S.C. sec 1.


330


141/458

7

12. Therefore, there are five (5) principal defendants in this action, with many colluding governmental

entities and persons. Those persons are included in the caption of this case under the particular entity,

board or committed with which they are affiliated for the convenience of the Court.

13. 15 U.S.C. 35 and 36 prohibit any recovery of damages from any local government or official or

employee thereof acting in an official capacity. Plaintiff alleges that no such employee who

conspired with anyone of the 5 principal defendants, or any official thereof to violate 15 U.S.C. could

possibly have been acting except in a non-governmental capacity when he allowed the bid rigging to

occur. His/her official duty was to prohibit such actions, not to facilitate unlawful acts.

14. Moreover, the District of Columbia is not a state, and is not within the definition of a local

government, therefore this exception to the power of this court to enforce the law, plaintiffs submits,

does not exist.

15. Similarly, the governmental entities and departments named as defendant persons are presented for

purposes of clarity again followed by the persons who allegedly facilitated the frauds, bid-rigging, and

contract acquisitions in violation of 15 U.S.C. sec. 1. The reader should note that the duplication of

names appearing in the caption of this case is intentionally presented for purposes of clarity.

16. Plaintiff Cheeks of North America, Inc.s (CNA) complaint consists of various allegations against

defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation, three more affiliated corporations, and their surety.

The other defendants, both corporate and individual, are listed in the caption of this case (which are

hereby incorporated by this reference). Each of the defendants either violated and/or criminally

undermined Section 1 of the Sherman Anti Trust Act and Clayton Act of 1914 or facilitated the bid-

rigging and monopolistic actions complained of herein (15 U.S.C. sec 1).


331


142/458

8

17. CNA and/or its delegate seek to act as a private Attorney General to the extent the court deems such

action appropriate in this case. Plaintiff submits that extraordinary relief is appropriate in the

cancellation of five(5) contracts as unlawful and re-awarding those contracts to CNA in light of the

obvious breakdown in the District of Columbia bidding process.

18. CNA stands ready to perform whatever part the Court deems necessary in mitigation of the upset and

damages, and reestablishing the services required by the five unlawful contracts.

19. The defendant contractors established interlocking corporate directorships, officers and employees

which gave the appearance of multiple competitive bidders on contracts. In fact however, all contract

bids were in fact essentially one unified combination designed to bring about a competitive edge

resulting in restraint of trade for the benefit of the named defendants.

20. The actions complained of herein facilitated bid rigging, common law fraud, and a resulting

monopolized District of Columbia Government process for infra-structure bidding and contracting.

The named agencies and affiliated persons of DC and WASA including the named employees/officers

and named members of the Board of Directors and committee members facilitated the actions of the

corporate contracts by steering contracts, being negligent in governance and agency oversight, while

failing utterly to perform their duties as Government and fiduciary officials.

21. The defendants used financial surety instruments all issued by the same surety company (Western) to

bid on solicited contracts, to violate Non Collusion Affidavit(s), and to commit fraud through the

securing of US government funded infrastructure American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009


332


143/458


144/458

10

sued in their personal capacities. They are alleged to be participants in the conspiracy, aiding and

abetting the unlawful acts alleged herein. The employees of defendant corporations identified herein

are contracting parties who are named in their personal capacity as actual participants in the conspiracy

in restraint of trade.

27. District of Columbia Government is being sued as a responsible party for the acts of a number of its

own employees and elected officials for violation of federal laws. Plaintiff CNA and its owner, John

C. Cheeks (Cheeks), are the plaintiffs who were and are currently being injured by the unlawful acts

complained of herein. Five (5) contracts for which Plaintiff CNA was the low bidder were subject to

bid-rigging using interlocking directorates through continuing conspiracies between co-bidders. CNA

is totally owned by its stockholder Cheeks and was the original successful low bidder on a number of

the contracts described herein after. For those contracts, the awards were withdrawn by the co-

conspirators through the unlawful acts of the DC contracting officials and of D.C. WASA. a private

non-governmental corporation.

28. At all times relevant hereto, responsible oversight Defendant officials/employees and elected

Defendant officials of DC with ultimate oversight authority, were aware or should have been aware of

the on-going conspiracy to redirect the bids to award contracts. On information and belief they did this

in exchange for various favors and monetary benefits to themselves or co-conspirators.


334


145/458

11

29. On information and belief, the violations described herein apply to infrastructure contracts.

Infrastructure contracting is defined as companies supplying services relating to (below ground

utilities) water, sewer, roads (non-highways or highways), bridges (non-highways or highways),, above

ground utilities, traffic control, sidewalks, and storm water management systems . The total budgetary

contracts in 2009 for DC were estimated at $400 million dollars. ARRA issued infrastructure funding

to the District of Columbia. for fiscal year 2010.

30. The five (5) contracts were wrongfully awarded to the co-conspirators. Those contracts are continuing

with harm to the public because of overpricing and enrichment of the co-conspirators. In addition to

the damages requested herein, which approximates $360 million, plaintiff requests immediate

injunctive relief voiding the (5) contracts and awarding those contracts from this time forward to the

plaintiff CNA as the rightful recipient of award of the contracts.

31. Also, it appears that the oversight function and management of these on-going contracts can notbe

continued with the District of Columbias existing contract managers who were party to the original

unlawful acts. That course of action would merely continue and increase the magnitude of the

unlawful acts.

32. The court is requested to consider assignment of a special master or other managing agency subject to

the control of this court as a substitute for the District of Columbias responsibility for administration

of these contracts.


335


146/458

12

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

33. This Court has jurisdiction to hear the merits of Plaintiffs claims because this action arises under the

Sherman Antitrust Act 15 U.S.C 1 et seq., and jurisdiction over the related state law claims, which

arise out of the same body of facts, is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1367 and the principles of supplemental

jurisdiction. 15 U.S.C. 26 grants the Court the power to award injunctive relief with respect to private

defendants (as here). Federal claims (violations of 15 U.S.C.) grant jurisdiction to provide redress over

those federal violations under 28 U.S.C. 1331.

34. The amount of this controversy far exceeds the jurisdictional requirement for a lawsuit herein ($75,000

minimum).

35. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1391, and 15 U.S.C 4. All references in

this Complaint to specific statutes, codes and regulations include any successors to those statutes codes,

and regulations.

36. All of the unlawful acts occurred in the District of Columbia. Plaintiff is located in the District of

Columbia.

III. PARTIES

37. Plaintiff Cheeks of North America, Inc. (aka CNA) from herein, during the time in question, August

20,2008 to September 25, 2009, is a District of Columbia corporation (See Exhibit

C.1.1) with its principal office located at Suite 350, 1425 K Street NW. Washington D.C. 20005,

CNA is a business engaged primarily in specialized purchasing, contacting, infrastructure contractor,

Strategic business planning or development specialists and consultant of manufacturing facilities


336


147/458

13

(building or infrastructure materials)for economic challenged countries outside the United States.. John

C. Cheeks is the founder and President of the corporation.

38. Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation, during August 20, 2008 to September25, 2009

with Defendant (s)Francisco Rodrigues Neto (Vice President), Jose Rodrigues (President, Owner),

Lewis Shrensky (Treasurer, Secretary and Board of Directors). Defendant Fort Myer Construction

Corporation is a Commonwealth of Virginia corporation registered to conduct business in the District

of Columbia as a foreign corporation and has 12 Affirmative Action points as a District of Columbia

Certified Business Enterprises(CBE) (formerly Local, Small and Disadvantaged Business Enterprises

(LSDBE), or Department of Small and Local Business Development. to compete for District of

Columbia Government and non- District of Columbia Government contracts has a place of business at

2237 33rd Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20018 (See Exhibit C.2.1.).

39. Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation has or had a management level or standard office

employee, George Batista, who participates in contractual or field/assembly estimating and/or pricing

of cost to the public customers or private customers for infrastructure services during time in question:

August 20,2008 thru September 25, 2009.

40. During this time in question, Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation (FMCC) was engaged

in infrastructure construction (See Exhibits D.9,and D.10). Infrastructure is defined as companies

supplying services relating to water, sewer, roads, bridges, traffic control, sidewalks, and other above

or below round utilities..


337


148/458

14

41. Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation, during August 20, 2008 to September 25, 2009, Jose

Rodrigues (Board of Directors), Defendant Francisco Rodrigues (Board of Directors). Defendant

Cristina R. Gregorio, (Board of Directors), Defendant Florentino Gregorio, (aka Flortino Gregorio)

President, Secretary and Board of Directors).

42. Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation is a District of Columbia corporation with 12 Affirmative

Action points as a District of Columbia Certified Business Enterprises(CBE) (formerly Local, Small

and Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (LSDBE). to compete for District of Columbia Government

and non- District of Columbia Government contracts with its principal place of business at 2254 25th

Place, N.E, Washington, D.C.. During the time period in question, Defendant Anchor (Anchor)

Construction Corporation was engaged in general horizontal construction and contracting, including,

but not limited to, residential construction, commercial construction and public works projects(See

Exhibits C.3.1).

43. Defendant Civil Construction, L.L.C.during August 20, 2008 to September 25, 2009; employed

Lewis Shrensky, (Board of Directors), Jose Rodriguez (Board of Directors).

44. Defendant Civil Construction L.L.C. is a Maryland corporation licensed to conduct business in the

District of Columbia as a foreign corporation, and has 12 Affirmative Action points as a District of

Columbia Certified Business Enterprises(CBE) (formerly Local, Small and Disadvantaged Business

Enterprises (LSDBE) or Department of Small and Local Business Development. It purportedly

competes for District of Columbia Government and WASA contracts. It has a place of business at

2413 Schuster Drive, Cheverly, MD 20781. During this time in question, Defendant Civil Construction

L.L.C. (Civil) was engaged in the construction business (See Exhibit C.4.1).


338


149/458

15

45. Defendant Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc.(Capital Paving of D.C. Inc), during August 20, 2008to

September 25, 2009, Defendant Francisco R. Neto, (President, Treasurer and Board of Directors).

Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc., (See Exhibit C.5.1)is a District of Columbia corporation, and has 12

Affirmative Action points as a District of Columbia Certified Business Enterprises(CBE) (formerly

Local, Small and Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (LSDBE) or Department of Small and Local

Business Development. to compete for District of Columbia Government and non- District of

Columbia Government contracts with its principal place of business at 2211 Channing Street, N.E.,

Washington, D.C. 20018. During the time period in question, Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc., (Capitol)

was engaged in general and specialty construction contract business (See Exhibit C.5.4 and C.5.3.

46. Defendant A&M Concrete Corp. during September 25, 2009 until December 5, 2009 was a

Commonwealth of Virginia corporation and contractor bidding on District of Columbia Government

infrastructure, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009(ARRA) funded projects (IFB

DCKA-2009-B-0193 by the United States Government..

47. Defendant Joe Alvesis the Executive Vice President (See Exhibit M .7.1) of A&M Concrete Corp.(A

and M) located at 43760 Trade Center Pl. , Suite #160,Dulles, VA 20166.

48. Defendant Alexandra Batistais the Administrative Assistant (See Exhibit M .7.1 ) of A & M

Concrete Corporation..

49. Defendant Western Surety Company(Western), is a commercial fidelity surety bond company.

50. Defendant Paul T. Bruflat, is a Senior Vice President of Western. (See Exhibit J.3). Western is

located at 101 South Phillips Avenue , Sioux Falls, SD 57104, (See Exhibit J.4), during August 20,

2008 to June 20, 2009 (See Exhibit J.3).


339


150/458

16

51. Defendant District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority(DCWASA) and its General Counsel,

during the period August 20, 2008 through March 25, 2009, had its principal place of business at 5000

Overlook Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20032.

52. Defendant District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, Procurement Department;

(hereinafter referred to as DCWASA-PD), during the period August 20, 2008 through March 25,

2009, was part of an non-government independent private utilities company funded by US Government

agencies and the government of the District of Columbia with its principal place of business located at

5000 Overlook Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20032.

53. During the time period in question D.C.WASA-PD was engaged in managing water and sewage

projects for residential, commercial, government and institutional et al use in the District of Columbia.

Key employees, current or past of DCWASA were or are: Jerry Johnson, former General Manager, and

Carlo Enciso, Senior Construction, Contract Administrator (See Exhibit F.1.9).

54. Current or past Chairman, William M. Walkerand Neil Albert, Member of the Board of Directors of

the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (hereinafter referred to as DCWASA-BOD), a

non-governmental utility company, are sued in their individual capacity for unlawful actions for the

period of August 20, 2008 through March 25, 2009.

55. DCWASA-BODis an independent private utility company funded by US Government agencies and

the government of the District of Columbia with its principal place of business located at 5000

Overlook Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20032. During the time period in question, DCWASA-BOD

was engaged in voting on water and sewage projects for residential, commercial, government and


340


151/458

17

institutional and other use in the District of Columbia, These actions are alleged to be contrary to the

bylaws of DCWASA-BOD, 34-2202.05(See Exhibits F.1.2 and G.1.3)

56. Defendant District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, Retail Services Committee,

(hereinafter referred to as DCWASA-RSC), a private non-governmental utility company, (See

Exhibit G.3.8) during the period August 20, 2008 through March 25, 2009 were part of an independent

private utility company funded by US Government agencies and the government of the District of

Columbia with its principal place of business located at 5000 Overlook Avenue, SW, Washington,

D.C. 20032. During the time period in question, DCWASA-RSC was engaged in final voting of water

and sewage projects for residential, commercial, government and institutional et al use in the District of

Columbia. Article V 5.01, (viii) of the bylaws of DCWASA. The actions of the Retail Services

Committee violated 15 U.S.C. sec. 1. The (current or past) members responsible for these violations

are: Joseph Cotruvo, Chairmen (See Exhibits G.1.1,G.1.3, G.1.5, G.2.1, G.3.1, and G.3.2). These

persons are sued in their individual capacity.

57. DCWASA-PD, DCWASA-BOD and DCWASA-RSC, (collectively hereinafter referred to as

DCWASA, a non-governmental utility company), during the period August 20, 2008 through March

25, 2009, was an independent private utility company funded by US Government agencies and the

government of the District of Columbia with its principal place of business located at 5000 Overlook

Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20032. During the time period in question, DCWASA was engaged in

managing water and sewage projects for the District of Columbia (See Exhibits F.2.1 and E.1.7).

58. Defendant District of Columbia, Department of Public Works, Office of Contracting and

Procurement, 2000 14thSt. NW, Sixth floor, Washington, D.C. 2009, a District of Columbia


341


152/458

18

government agency, during the period December 20, 2008 through December 30, 2008, James

Roberts, Contracting Officer (See Exhibit H.5.1).

59. Defendant Government of the District of Columbia, Department of Transportation, during

October 20, 2008 to September 25, 2009; Jerry M. Carter, Contracting Officer (See Exhibit D.20.1);

Gabe Klein, District Department of Transportation Director (See Exhibit F.7.1) (Time in Question:

January 29,2009 through June 22, 2009 ; and David P. Gragan, Chief Procurement Officer (See

Exhibit F.7).

60. Defendant District of Columbia Council Committee on Public Works and Transportation (See

Exhibit F.4.1), 1350 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 116, Washington D.C. 2004, during, Oct 20, 2008 to

September 25, 2009.

61. Defendant Jim Graham, Chairperson(Ward 1 Council Member) (See Exhibit F.5.1)District of

Columbia Council Committee on Public Works and Transportation; 1350 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite

116, Washington D.C. 2004, during, Oct 20, 2008 to September 25, 2009

62. Defendant Ted G. Loza, Chief of Staff for Jim Graham, District of Columbia Council Member of

Ward 1 and Chairperson of District of Columbia Council, Committee on Public Works and

Transportation, during time in question, October 20,2008 to September 24,2009, at 1350 Pennsylvania

Ave NW, Suite 116, Washington D.C. 20004.

63. Defendant Steven Hernndez, (Legislative and Budget Director), District of Columbia Council of

Public Works and Transportation 350 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 116, Washington D.C. 2004,

during, Oct 20, 2008 to September 25, 2009.


342


153/458

19

64. Defendant, The Executive Office of the Mayor, (See Exhibits F.8.28, F.8.29)1350 Pennsylvania Ave

NW, Suite 316, Washington, D.C. 20004, during tine in question August 20, 2008 through October 7,

2009, is the executive office and governance authority of the District of Columbia.

65. Defendant Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, (D) (See Exhibits F.8.19,F.8.20, F.8.21 and F.8.115)of 1350

Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 316, Washington, D.C. 20004, during time in question August 20, 2008

through October 7, 2009. The Mayor, Adrian M. Fenty has the executive authority and oversight

approval of all District of Columbia agencies, which are funded by the U.S. Government (See Exhibit

F.8.116).

66. Defendant District of Columbia Office of the Attorney General, 441 4th Street, NW, Suite 1145S,

Washington, DC 20001 during time in question August 20, 2008 through October 7, 2009. The Office

of Attorney General has the authority for oversight and enforcement laws of the District of Columbia

agencies and citizens.

67. Defendant District of Columbia ,Peter Nickles, Attorney General of the District of Columbia , 441

4th Street, NW, Suite 1145S, Washington, DC 20001 during time in question August 20, 2008 through

October 7, 2009. The Office of Attorney General has the authority for oversight and enforcement laws

of the District of Columbia

68. Upon information and belief at all times herein relevant, Defendant Jose Rodriguez (aka Jose

Rodrigues) was Director of Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation during the time period in

question. Upon information and belief Jose Rodriguez (aka Jose Rodrigues)was the principal owner,

president, and director of FMCC during the time period in question. Upon information and belief Jose


343


154/458

20

Rodriguez was a Principal Manager of Defendant Civil Construction, L. L. C. during the time period in

question.

69. Upon information and belief at all times herein relevant, Defendant Florentino Gregorio was President

and a member of the Board of Directors of Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation during the

time period in question.

70. Upon information and belief at all times herein relevant, Defendant Cristina R. Gregorio was a member

of the Board of Directors of Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation during the time period in

question.

71. Upon information and belief, Defendant Lewis Shrensky during the time period in question during,

August 20, 2008 to September 25, 2009 was the Secretary, Treasurer, Director, and Registered Agent

of FMCC during the time period in question. Upon information and belief, Defendant Lewis Shrensky

was the Principal Manager, Owner or Acting Director of Defendant Civil Construction, L.L. C during

the time period in question (See Exhibit C.4.10).

72. Upon information and belief, Defendant Executive Office of the Mayor, also Defendant, Adrian M.

Fenty, Mayor of the District of Columbia (Dem.) during the time period in question, August 20, 2008

through September 25, 2009.

73. Upon information and belief, Defendant Francisco Rodriquez Neto during the time period in question,

August 20, 2008 to September 25, 2009, was the Vice President and a Director of FMCC which

became Civil Construction L.L.C. (See Exhibit C.4.3) during the time period in question.


344


155/458

21

74. Upon information and belief, Defendant Francisco Rodriquez Neto (aka Francisco Rodrigues Neto,)

was a Director of Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation during the time period in question,

August 20, 2008 to September 25, 2009. Upon information and belief, Defendant Francisco Rodriquez

Neto was the President, Treasurer and a Director of Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc. Inc. during the time

period in question.

75. Upon information and belief, Defendant Jerry N. Johnson (Past Employee) was the General Manager

for DCWASA (See Exhibits G.1.3, G.1.8 and G.3.8), a non-government independent utility company,

during the time period in question, August 20, 2008 to June 20, 2009.

76. Defendant Western Surety, Co./CNA, Surety Claims (Western) at 101 South Phillips Avenue, Sioux

Falls, SD 57104, during the time period in question: August 20, 2008 to September 25, 2009 was the

underwriter for the defendants bid bonds: Fort Myer Construction Corporation, Anchor Construction

Corporation and Civil Construction L.L.C..

77. Upon information and belief Defendant William M. Walker, of the Defendant (s) District of Columbia

Water and Sewer Authority Chairman of the Board of Directors of DCWASA-BOD (See Exhibits

G.3.1, G.3.4 and B.3.6), a non-government independent utility company, and member of the Retail

Services Committee during the time period in question: August 20, 2008 to June 20, 2009 and was the

person ultimately responsible for DCWASAs part of the unlawful actions.

78. Upon information and belief Defendant Neil Albert, of the District of Columbia was a principal

member of the Board of Directors of DCWASA-BD (See Exhibits F.1.1. and F.1.2), a non-

government independent utility company, during the time period in question: August 20, 2008 to June

20, 2009.


345


156/458

22

79. Upon information and belief Defendant District of Columbia Department of Small and Local Business

Development officials endorsed and registered primary Defendant (s) Fort Myer Construction

Corporation, Anchor Construction Corporation, Civil Construction L.L.C. and Capitol Paving of D.C.

Inc with affirmative action preference points to bid on District of Columbia and non - District of

Columbia Government IFB soliciitations for a point or percentage of price reduction on final bid price

on all sealed IFB s, during the time period in question: August 20, 20008 through September 25,

20009.

80. Upon information and belief Defendant Joseph Cotruvo, was or is Chairman of the Retail Services

Committee of DCWASA-RSC (See Exhibits F.2.9, G.1.12, G.2.1, G.3.4 and G.3.12), a non-

government independent utility company, during the time period in question from August 20, 2008 to

May 15, 2009.


346


157/458


158/458

24

85. Plaintiff was the lowest bidder participating in IFB solicitations for Defendant (s) District of Columbia

Water and Sewer Authority, District of Columbia Department of Transportation and District of

Columbia Department of Public Works.

86. Plaintiff CNA is listed on recorded Bid Tabulations for IFB solicitations for Defendant (s) District of

Columbia Water and Sewer Authority, District of Columbia Department of Transportation and District

of Columbia Department of Public Works as follows:

i. DCWASA IFB # 080020 CNA bid $11,154,500.00 (lowest bidder)

ii. DCWASA IFB # 090080 CNA bid $5,040,000.00 (corrected filed lowest bidder)

iii. DCWASA IFB # 090020 CNA bid $2,817,600.00 (2nd

lowest bidder)

iv. DOT DCKA-2009-B-0025 CNA bid $54, 252,805.00 (lowest corrected bidder)

v. DOT DCKA-2009-B-0193 CNA bid $2,376,095.90 (4th lowest corrected bidder)

vi. DPW DCKT-2009-B-0003 CNA bid $3,639,901.00 (lowest bidder)

i. See Exhibit D.9.1ii. See Exhibit D.9.2iii See Exhibit D.9.3iv. See Exhibit D.10.3v. See Exhibit D.11.1vi. See Exhibit D.11.3

87. Plaintiff CNAs project estimator, John C. Cheeks has the authority of assembling and estimating all

costs for IFB solicitations for competitive sealed bids, submitted to DCWASA: IFB # 080020

Replacement of Small Diameter Priority Water Mains for 2008 Construction, IFB # 090080 Sewer

Liner Replacement, and IFB # 090020 Fire Hydrant Replacement.


348


159/458

25

88. Plaintiff s project estimator, John C. Cheeks has the authority of assembling bids from subcontractors

and vendors for estimating all costs for IFB solicitations for competitive sealed bids, submitted to

District of Columbia Department of Transportation: DCKA-2009-B-0025, Pavement Restoration City-

Wide and District of Columbia Department of Public Works solicitation IFB DCKT-2009-B-0003,

On-Site Preventive Maintenance Services.

89. Plaintiff CNA uses fair business practices competing for Defendant (s) District of Columbia Water and

Sewer Authority, District of Columbia Department of Transportation, and District of Columbia

Department of Public Works IFB solicitations. (See Exhibit C.1.10)

90. Plaintiff CNA, as an independent company, assigned one individual as lead project estimator (John C.

Cheeks) to compete against named Defendants; Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation,

Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation, Defendant Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc, Defendant Civil

Construction L.L.C. and other companies herein alleged to be working in concert (See Exhibit M.1.2,

M.5.5, and M.6.6)on various IFB solicitations for DCWASA and DCDOT in the time period in

question, August 20, 2008 through March 28, 2009, AD.

91. Defendants Fort Myer Construction Corporation, Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation,

Defendant Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc., Defendant Civil Construction L.L.C. during time period

August 20, 2008 through March 25, 2009 participated in the (15) afore-listed IFB solicitations. In those

solicitations, officers, directors, owners, and managers engaged all of these companies in strategizing

and colluding schemes against Plaintiff.


349


160/458

26

92. DCWASA IFB # 080020

On August 20, 2008, Plaintiff CNA submitted a bid in response to DCWASAs IFB for Bid # 080020

entitled: Replacement of Small Diameter Priority Water Mains for 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the

IFB). Plaintiff proposed to furnish all plant, labor, materials, and equipment to perform the work set

forth in the IFB in consideration for payment from DCWASA of the total sum of $11,154,500. 00 (See

Exhibit D.9.1).

93. Submitted with the above CNA bid was a bid bond of $557,725.00 representing 5% of the bid (See

Exhibit D.7). The bond was submitted in the form of a company check (See Exhibit D.7.5).

94. Simultaneously, Defendant Western issued guaranteed bid bonds on behalf of the Defendant

construction companies for the beneficial interest of DCWASA. Upon information and belief,

Defendant construction companies were all guaranteed under the same surety bond company.

95. On August 20, 2008 at approximately 2:19 p.m. at the bid room located at Central Operations Facility,

5000 Overlook Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. the bids for the IFB were opened by DCWASA

procurement officer, Carlo Enciso.

96. According to the bid call the seven competing companies; bids were announced as follows:

i. $12,263,000.00 Sagres Construction

ii. $18,780,139.00 Flippo Construction

iii $13,012,300.00 Civil Construction L.L.C.

iv. $11,154,500.00 CNA, Inc.

v. $11,997,930.00 Anchor Construction Corporation

vi. $23,735,830.00 Corinthian Contractors


350


161/458

27

vii. $12,850,422.99 Fort Myer Construction Corporation

viii. $13,277,000.00 Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc.

97. Immediately following the bid call, CNA was announced as the lowest bidder. On September 9,

2008, nearly three weeks after being awarded he bid, Plaintiff received a letter from DCWASA,

informing CNA that: The District of Colombia Water and Sewer Authority (DCWASA) has

declared that your bid submitted on August 20, 2008 to be Non-Responsive and therefore not

eligible for award. An element considered in this decision was that your bid did not include a

completed Bid Bond with sureties or certified check(s) for 5% of the bid amount (See Exhibit

H.1.1).

98. On September 28, 2009, CNA filed a Bid Protest on the grounds of bid-rigging, discrimination,

failure to give adequate notice and failure to give time to cure compliance issues. In its protest,

CNA requested an equitable allotted time to reissue the bid bond to DCWASA and requested

DCWASA reinstate the award to CNA (See Exhibit K.1.1).

99. On November 6, 2008, the approval to execute Contract # 080020 was granted to Defendant

Anchor Construction Corporation (See Exhibit G.1.11). At no point in time was CNA provided the

opportunity to rectify the minor deficiency in its bid as required by The DCWASA Procurement

Regulations 5321(See Exhibit E.1.17). Plaintiff has taken all reasonable approaches and methods

to mitigate damages by suspending all work , refraining from submitting bids to other construction

bidding process, and seeking the appropriate administrative remedies. Since those remedies are

now exhausted, Plaintiff has no recourse but to file this action.


351


162/458

28

Other Bid Results

100. DCWASA IFB # 090080

Sewer Liner Replacement March 25, 2009, DCWASA IFB # 090080.

101. DCWASA failed to respond to CNAs bid protest, (See Exhibits, K.2.1 and K.2.2).

Company Bid Amount

i. Fort Myer Construction Corporation* $ 7,484,160.00

ii. Anchor Construction Corporation* $ 7,784,704.00

iii. Flippo Construction Company Inc.** $ 6,605,360.00iv. Civil Construction, L.L.C.* $ 7,974,540.00

v. Corinthian Construction Corporation** $ 6,424,140.00

Vi Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc.* $ 7,675 200.00

Vii CNA*** $ 5,040,000.00

* Affiliated Companies** Others in question, affiliated with Defendants

*** filed Protest to correct bid contingency items by DCWASA.

102. DCWASA IFB # 090020

Fire Hydrant Replacement, BOD 5/7/09

DCWASA allowed several of the bidders listed below to violate the Non-Collusion Affidavit

Company Bid Amount

i. Fort Myer Construction Corporation* $ 3,126,150.00

ii. Civil Construction, L.L. C.* $ 3,251,880.00

iii. Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc.* $ 3,323,760.00

iv. Flippo Construction Company, Inc.** $ 4,199,370.00

v. Corinthian Contractors, Inc.** $ 3,328,400.00

Vi Sagres Construction Corporation** $ 3,376,550.00

Vii Anchor Construction Corporation* $ 3,301,775.00Viii Nastos Construction** $ 2,703,160.00

Ix CNA $ 2,817,600.00

X ODonnell Construction Company $ 3,108,000.00



352


163/458

29

103. DOT DCKA-2009-B-0025

Pavement Restoration City-Wide

The D.C. Department of Transportation allowed companies to violate the Non-Collusion

Agreement.

Company Bid Amount

i. Fort Myer Construction Corporation* $ 68,568,650.40ii. Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc.* $ 78,882,475.00

iii. Senate Asphalt** $ 88,911,499.55

iv. CNA $ 54,651,150.00


104. In addition See Eleventh Count

105. DOT DCKA-2009-B-0193 Safe Routes to Schools

Company Bid Amounti. Omni Excavators** $ 2,315,830.00

ii. Potomac Construction Co.** $ 2,249.280.00

iii. CNA $ 2,376,095.901

iv. Fort Myer Construction Corporation* $ 2,338,405.00

v. Capitol Paving of D.C * $ 2,341,770.00

Vi Civil Construction, L.L. C.* $ 2,415,255.00

Vii Anchor Construction Corporation* $ 2,161,446.00

Viii A & M Concrete ** $ 2,682,519.351

Ix Prince Construction, Co.** $ 2,440,235.00

* corrected bid

* Affiliated Companies** Others in question, affiliated with Defendants1Corrected bid


353


164/458

First Count30

FIRST COUNT: VIOLATION OF SECTION 1 OF THE SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST

ACT, AFFILIATED COMPANIES BIDDING FEDERALLY FUNDED

INFRASTRUCTURE CONTRACTS

First Count Defendants:

Fort Myer Construction Corporation;2237 33rdSt. N.E.Washington, D.C. 20018

Anchor Construction Corporation2254 25

thPlace. N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20018 ;

Civil Construction, L.L.C.2413 Schuster Drive,Cheverly, MD, 20781

Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc.2211 Channing St. N.E.Washington, D.C. 20018

106. In pursuant of Section 1 of the Sherman Anti- Trust ,Act 15 U.S.C. 1 Plaintiff asserts

the following:

107. Time in question August 20, 2008 through September 25, 2009.

108. Plaintiff reasserts all prior allegations as though they were stated herein.

109. Plaintiff sustained damages when Defendants engaged in a bid-rigging conspiracy.

110. Plaintiff asserts that the bid-rigging conspiracy violates section 1 of the Sherman Anti-Trust

Act, 15 U.S.C. 1.


354


165/458

First Count31

111. Defendants actions in this counts are defined as:

i. Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise or conspiracy, in restraint

of trade or commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, is declared to

be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or

conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and , on

conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine, not exceeding $100,000,000.00 if a

corporation, or if any other person, $1,000,000.00, or by imprisonment not exceeding

10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court

Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00000001----000-.html. Cornell

University Law School quoting US Code Title 15, 15 U.S.C.A. 1.

112. In order to bring a private claim under section 1 of the Sherman Act, a Plaintiff must

show three elements: (1) an agreement, conspiracy, or combination among two or more

persons or distinct business entities; (2) which is intended to harm or unreasonably restrain

competition; and (3) which actually causes injury to competition, beyond the impact on the

claimant, within a field of commerce in which the claimant is engaged (i.e., an antitrust

injury'). McGlinchy v. Shell Chem. Co., 845 F.2d 802, 811 (9th Cir. 1988).

113. Under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, "every contract, combination in the form of trust or

otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce is declared to be illegal. 15

U.S.C. 1

.


355


166/458

First Count32

114. Therefore, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act prohibits concerted action in "unreasonable"

restraint of trade, and, some concerted actions are considered so presumptively and

perniciously anti-competitive as to constitute "per se" violations of the antitrust statute. In

that case the court may curtail its review of the relevant industry and the impact of the

alleged restraint, and effectively reduces the evidence required to prove an antitrust violation.

"Bid-rigging," as alleged by Plaintiff in the instant action, is a per se violation. United States

v. Sergeant Elec. Co., 785 F.2d 1123, 1127 (3d Cir. 1986).

115. Defendant Construction Companies engaged in a bid-rigging conspiracy (See Exhibit

A.3)by submitting collusive bids to make the winning bid on the IFB submitted by

Defendant Anchor appear competitive and reasonable.

116. Defendants DCWASA-BOD, DCWASA-PD, and DCWASA-RSC, District Department

of Transportation (DDOT) Committee on Public Works and Transportation (CPWT), of the

D.C. Council, aided and abetted such conspiracy by accepting and ultimately awarding the

bid on the IFB to one of the conspiring companies, when DCWASA, DDOT, D.C. Council,

and Defendant Western Surety had actual knowledge that Defendant companies shared

common ownership and/or interlocking Directors.

117. Defendant Western engaged in the bid-rigging conspiracy by securing the bid bond(s) for

all of the Defendant Construction Companies on a separate or single bond when they knew or

should have known that the Defendant Construction Companies were engaged in collusive

anti-competitive practices made possible by Defendant Westerns bond guarantees to District


356


167/458

First Count33

of Columbia Department of Transportation and Defendant (s) District of Columbia Water

and Sewer Authority Contract Officers.

118. Jose Rodriquez is a Director of Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation (See, Exhibit

C.3.8 ). Jose Rodriquez is also the Principal Owner of FMCC (See Exhibit C.4.10), as well

as the President and a Director of FMCC(See Exhibit C.4.10). Additionally, Jose Rodriquez

is one of the principal managers of Defendant Civil Construction L.L.C. (See Exhibit C.4.10).

119. Upon information and belief, G&G Development and Paving Company changed its name to

C&F Construction Company (See Exhibit C.3.12). C&F Construction then became

Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation (See Exhibits C.3.1 and C.3.2).

120. Defendant Lewis F. Shrensky is the Secretary, Treasurer, Director and Registered Agent of

FMCC(See, Exhibits C.4.9 and C.4.10). Additionally, Defendant Lewis F. Shrensky is one of

the principal managers of Defendant Civil Construction L.L.C. (See Exhibit C.4.10).Upon

information and belief, Defendant Lewis Shrensky was an equitable owner of Flippo

Construction during the time period in question.

121. Defendant Francisco Rodriguez Neto is a Director of Defendant Anchor Construction

Corporation (SeeExhibit C.3.8). Defendant Francisco Rodriquez Neto is also the Vice

President and a Director of Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation (See Exhibit

C.2.4). Furthermore, Defendant Francisco Rodriguez Neto is the President, Treasurer and a

Director of Defendant Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc.. (See Exhibit C.5.3).

122. Defendant Florentino Gregorio is President and member of the Board of Directors of

Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation/


357


168/458

First Count34

123. Defendant Cristina R. Gregorio is a member of the Board of Directors of Defendant Anchor

Construction Corporation and the daughter of Jose Rodrigues (aka Jose Rodriguez See

Exhibit C for companies)

124. On August 20, 2008, Plaintiff CNA submitted a bid in response to the IFB. Plaintiff proposed

to furnish all plant, labor, materials, and equipment to perform the work set forth in the IFB

in consideration for payment from DCWASA of the total sum of $11,154,500.00 (See Exhibit

D.9.1)Note, that upon request by Plaintiff, this was the most current Two Year Report

provided by the Government of the District of Columbia, Department of Consumer and

Regulatory Affairs.

125. At no point in time, Plaintiff CNA was provided the opportunity to rectify the minor

deficiency in its bid as required by the Regulation.

126. As a result of the Defendants conduct described above, competition in the relevant market

has injured CNA. Plaintiff has sustained monetary damages, damage to its reputation, and

loss of goodwill, and taxpayers have lost the benefit of competition in the relevant market.

127. The Defendants, through their bid-rigging conspiracy, prevented Plaintiff CNA from winning

the IFB that the Defendants had evidently allocated to themselves, by submitting the bids as

if they were from separate entities when, in fact, the so-called competing bids were submitted

by companies with overlapping and common equity interest.

Summary of Contracts Obtained by Illegal Means

and Joint and Several Liability by Principal Defendant Corporations

128.


358


169/458

First Count35

A. DCWASA IFB # 080020Plaintiff's IFB Contract Bid,$11,154,500.00 times 3.

i. Fort Myer Construction ,Corp. $33,463,500.00

ii. Anchor Construction Corp $33,463,500.00

iii. Civil Construction, LLC $33,463,500.00

iv. Capitol Paving of D.C, Inc. $33,463,500.00

B. DCWASA IFB # 090080

Plaintiff's IFB Contract Bid,$5,040,000.00 times 3.



iii. Civil Construction, LLC $15,120,000.00iv. Capitol Paving of D.C. Inc. $15,120,000.00

C. DCWASA IFB # 090020




iii. Civil Construction, LLC $8,452,800.00iv Capitol Paving of D.C, Inc. $8,452,800.00

D. DOT IFB #DCKA-2009-B-0025



ii Capitol Paving of D.C., Inc. $162,758,415.00

E. DOT IFB #DCKA-2009-B-0193


Fort Myer Construction Corporation $7,128,287.70Capitol Paving of D.C $7,128,287.70

Civil Construction, L.L. C. $7,128,287.70Anchor Construction Corporation $7,128,287.70

Conclusion


359


170/458


171/458

First Count37

135. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1 and 15, relief stated, Plaintiff prays for amount of damage award

to be paid all or in part by each Defendant named on this Count, in the amount of $

582,175,180.80.

136. All of foregoing requests for damage awards and relief are requested or in such other sum as

the court determines is just and equitable in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 1 through 15, or

as otherwise just and equitable pursuant the other claims and counts in this case.


361


172/458

Second Count38

SECOND COUNT: VIOLATION OF SHERMAN ANTI - TRUST ACT BY A SURETY

COMPANY; ENDORSEMENT AND REGISTRAR ISSUANCE OF SURETY BID BOND

INSTRUMENT(S) FOR AFFILIATED DEFENDANT CUSTOMERS OR CLIENTS .

DefendantWestern Surety Company a Subsidiary WritingCompany of CNA Surety101 South Phillips AvenueSioux Falls, SD 57104

137. Time in Question August 20, 2009 through September 25, 2009.

138. Plaintiff reasserts all prior allegations as though they were stated herein.

139. Violations of law by Western Surety Company defined as:

i. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act in 1890 passed to combat anticompetitive practices,reduce market domination by individual corporations, and preserve unfetteredcompetition as the rule of trade.

ii. Surety Insurance Company A company that employs the use of guaranty insurance(a.k.a. surety insurance):Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), insurance guaranty insurance.

iii. Obligee one who is protected by a Surety bond (Source: Merriam-webster.com..

iv. Surety - A person who is primarily liable for the payment of another's debt or the

performance of another's obligation. Source: Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004),

surety.

v. Principal - the party that requires the bond and on whose behalf the bond is written for.

vi. Customer one that purchase a commodity or serviceSource: Merriam- webster.com


362


173/458

Second Count39

vii. Client- a person who engages the professional advice or service of anotherSource:Merriam-webster.com

viii. Endorsement the act of endorsing the signature on a check, contract, instrument, orother document endorsement.

ix. Approbation - an act of approving formally or officiallySource:Merriam-webster.com

x. Registrar A person who keeps official recordsSource:. Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), registrar

xi. .Bid Bond A bond filed in public construction projects to ensure that the bidding

contractor will enter into the contract. The bid bond is a type of performance bond..

Source: Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), bond bid bond

140. Defendant Western Surety Company a Subsidiary Writing Company of CNA Surety

(Western Surety) a surety insurance company (See Exhibits J.4, J.5 and J.6)in the United

States of America and registrar of an endorsed financial instrument (Bid Bond) to (3)

Companies: Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation; Defendant Anchor

Construction Corporation; Defendant Civil Construction, L.L.C., (See Exhibit J.5) and

other companies in question, owned or affiliated by financial relationships and/or control

by one or more of the same persons, parties, directors, officers, and/or/owners known as

customers.


363


174/458

Second Count40

141. Western Surety is the registrar issuer and endorser of a separate bid bond or single bid

bond(s) to the Defendants named, Defendant Fort Myer Construction; Defendant Anchor

Construction Corporation; Defendant Civil Construction, L.L.C. unilateral antitrust activity

by its customers at DCWASA (See Exhibit J.1), and DCDOT. Since Western surety was

the insurer for all four of the colluding companies, Western, through its underwriters and

officers knew, or should have known that it was insuring all of the bidders upon each of the

contracts.

142. Western therefore, knew or should have known, as a matter of established fact that the

companies were associated and had interlocking directorates. Therefore, the liability of

Western is inherent in the nature of its own duties (to investigate and prevent the very

unlawful acts in which Western participated and facilitated. Western was therefore a key

actor in the frauds committed which are described herein.

143. Western Surety gave customers/clients, (Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation;

Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation; Defendant Civil Construction, L.L.C., and

others in question) authority to compete with improper tactics to attain or maintain

monopoly status that violates US Antitrust monopoly and market power control with use of

their fidelity surety instrument(s), (bid bond(s)).

144. Western Surety fueled Defendants named (Defendant Fort Myer Construction Corporation;

Defendant Anchor Construction Corporation; Defendant Civil Construction, L.L.C.) with

fidelity surety bonds to control nearly 100 percent during time in question, August 20, 2008


364


175/458

Second Count41

through September 25, 2009. Actions committed by Western Surety paralyzed, crippled

and created financial hardship(s) to Plaintiff in the following areas described:

i.Loss of goodwill to current employees and consultants for future earnings of wages or

contracts,

ii.Loss of goodwill and ability to repay investors, creditors, lien holders and operational

company agreements (See Exhibits N.1.6 and N.1.7),

iii. Loss of salary to sustain personal financial commitments by Executive Officer of

Plaintiff.

145. In Pursuant of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (SEA) Plaintiff and Title 15,

Chapter 14B, Subchapter IV-A part B, 694b and 694c Resolving fund for Surety Bond

Guarantees Plaintiff states the following:

Loss of Profit and Earnings

146. A. Western Surety Company/CNA Surety : Plaintiffs Loss of Contract Profit

Earnings by joint monopoly tactics from customers/clients.

i. DCWASA IFB # 080020, $ 892,360.00 8% of Plaintiffs bid of $11,154,500.00

1. Fort Myer Construction Corporation $ 892,360.00

2. Anchor Construction Corporation $ 892,360.00

3. Civil Construction L.L.C. $ 892,360.00

4. Western Surety Company $ 892,360.00

Total $3,569,440.00


365


176/458

Second Count42

ii. DCWASA IFB # 090080 $ 403,200.00 8% of Plaintiffs bid of $ 5,040,00.00





Total $1,612,800.00

iii. DCWASA IFB # 090020 $ 225,408.00, 8% of Plaintiffs bid of $ 2,817,600.00.





Total $ 901,632.00

Total Requested for A $ 5,633,242.20


366


177/458

Second Count43

Non-Collusion Affidavit Violation

147. B. Western Surety/CNA: Non-Collusion Affidavit (See Exhibit D.12) Violation of

Defendant Customer(s) and or Client(s) awarded contract through use of Fidelity Surety

Bond Instrument (s)

i. DCWASA IFB # 080020 (Anchor Construction Corporation) $11,997,930.00

ii. DCKA-2009-B-0025 (Fort Myer Construction Corporation) $68,568,650.40

iii. DCKA-2009-B-0193 (Anchor Construction Corporation) $2,161,473.00

Total Requested for B $ 82,728,053.40

Bid Bond Issuance to Defendant Customers

148. C. Western Surety/CNA: for the Issuance of Surety Bond(s) or Surety Bond to each

Defendant customer/ client for participation and use of Surety Bond Instrument to bid on

IFB solicitations: Damages in the amount of 5% of Bid Bond of each contract.

i. DCWASA IFB # 080020

a.. Fort Myer Construction Corporation 5% of $12,850,422.99 = $642,521.15

b. Anchor Construction Corporation 5% of $11,997,930.00 = $599,896.50

c. Civil Construction, L.L.C. 5% of $13,012,300.00 = $650,615.00

Total 5% of $ 37,860,652.99 = 1,893,032.65

ii. DCWASA IFB # 090080

a. Fort Myer Construction Corporation 5% of $7,484,160.00 = $374,208.00

b. Anchor Construction Corporation 5% of $7,784,704.00 = $389,235.20


367


178/458

Second Count44

c. Civil Construction, L.L.C. 5% of $7,974,540.00 = $398,727.00

Total 5% of $ 23,243,404.00= $1,162,170.20

iii. DCWASA IFB # 090020

a. Anchor Construction Corporation 5% of $3,301,775.00 = $165,088.75

b. Civil Construction, L.L.C. 5% of $3,251,880.00 = $162,594.00

c. Fort Myer Construction Corporation 5% of $3,126,150.00 = $156,307.50

Total 5% of $ 9,679,805.00= $483,990.25

Total for C: $3,539,193.10

Conclusion

149. Defendant Western Surety Company/CNA and Defendant Paul T. Bruflat, Senior Vice

President jointly endorsed and registered all bid bonds for primary Defendant and affiliated

Defendant companies to violate United States Anti Trust laws which injured Plaintiff

severely financially, interfered with Plaintiffs economic gainful growth and destroyed

Plaintiffs financial growth.

150. Plaintiffs injury can be repaired by means of financial restitution from all Defendants

Western Surety Company and Defendant Paul T. Bruflat and by injunctive relief as to the

discontinuation of the subject unlawful contracts..


368


179/458

Second Count45

Plea for Damage Awards

151. Plaintiff requests joint and several damages from Defendant Western Surety Company,

CNA Surety for profit loss of contract earnings by joint monopoly tactics from

customer/clients (A above) in the amount of $ 5,633,242.20.

152. Plaintiff requests joint and several damages from Defendant Western Surety Company,

CNA Surety