Case 1:19-cv-01610-PEC Document 53 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 2

1(202) 551-1710
charlespatrizia@paulhastings.com

February 20, 2020

CONFIDENTIAL
BY HAND DELIVERY

Hon, Patricia Campbell-Smith

Judge
United States Court of Federal Claims
Howard T. Markey National Courts Building
717 Madison Place, NW
Washington, DC 20439

Re: BHB Ltd Partnership, et al. v. United States, No. 19-1610C

Your Honor:

I am outside counsel to the Public Defender Service of Washington, DC (“PDS”). As the Court is aware
from the complaint and other filings in the above referenced case, PDS is a tenant at the premises owned
by the Plaintiffs and is among the proposed tenant agencies to occupy certain other premises if GSA were
to proceed with an award of lease that we understand is being challenged in the pending case.

I have had the opportunity to review briefs submitted on behalf of the parties in relation to a pending motion
asking the Court to allow additional materials to be included in the record before the Court. As counsel for
PDS I take no position on the motion or on the merits of the case before the Court. However, in reviewing
the briefs, I noted some assertions about the position and views of PDS that do not actually reflect the
position that PDS has given to GSA, and I write to be sure that the Court is informed of the specific position
of PDS.

It is PDS’s position that:

1. Proximity to the District of Columbia courthouse is an essential element in the efficient and
proper performance of PDS’s constitutionally mandated mission. Throughout the process of
solicitation for space, PDS has emphasized that proximity is the most important factor and PDS
has recurrently informed GSA of that view. Prior to the start of the formal solicitation process,
it had been informed by GSA that GSA would use the same delineated area in the solicitation
for PDS and for the relocation of the US Attorneys office, because the justifications for the
delineated area were the same. However, GSA used a wider delineated area for the PDS
solicitation than the US Attorneys office solicitation. We understand that Congresswoman
Eleanor Holmes Norton has identified similar concerns to GSA, and that the DC Attorney
General has expressed these same concerns.

2. Correspondence in which PDS “sought” a delineated area with a radius of 1.1 miles was in a
context in which PDS was informed that GSA would deny PDS’s request for a delineated area
of .5 miles in radius and would instead extend the radius to 1.1 miles. PDS was and is
concerned that a location at the edge of that area would not serve its needs, and PDS has
informed GSA repeatedly of that fact. PDS has reserved its right to terminate any occupancy
agreement if it concludes that a designated premises would not meet its needs.
 Case 1:19-cv-01610-PEC Document 53 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 2

Hon, Patricia Campbell-Smith

February 20, 2020
Page 2

3. PDS does not share back office or other services with the other tenant agencies for which the
solicitation was conducted, and indeed cannot share back offices services with them because
of the inherent conflict between their missions and PDS’s mission. Nor is PDS aware of any
efficiencies to be gained by requiring the three agencies to be co-located. Whether proximity
to the courthouse is similarly important to the other agencies would need to be addressed by
them.

4. PDS does not believe that the survey report in the administrative record is complete. Because
the survey report does not set forth the agencies’ statements, its interpretation of their views
reflects the consultant’s summary, and that summary is at best materially incomplete. PDS did
not seek consolidation with the other agencies. In fact, PDS made clear to GSA that nothing
about PDS’s mission or operations required the three agencies to be in a single location. PDS
told GSA it would accept a two building solution. GSA told PDS that doing so would result in
PDS being moved to a location too far from the Courthouse, because GSA anticipated that a
developer in southwest District of Columbia, would bid very aggressively. PDS accepted
consolidation only as a means of trying to assure that any premises would be in proximity to
the Courthouse. And again, PDS has repeatedly told GSA that it does not need or seek
consolidation, that a two building solution that would separate the other agencies from PDS is
reasonable and appropriate, and that the dominant factor in PDS accepting proposed space is
a location conveniently close to the courthouse to allow PDS to fulfill its mission.

Again, I do not take any position on the motion or the merits of the matters before the Court, but I believe
that the Court should be informed of the facts regarding PDS’s views.

If the Court would like additional information, I of course would be happy to respond.

Very truly yours,

(/s/ Charles A. Patrizia)

Charles A. Patrizia
of PAUL HASTINGS LLP

CAP:er
cc: Geoffrey Long, Esq
Abram Pafford, Esq.

LEGAL_US_E # 146829312.4 08262.00725