Civil suit filed against VMI over DEI contract award

&emsp;&emsp;Cadets are all aware of Diversity, Excellence, and Inclusion (DEI) training at the Virginia Military Institute. It's often viewed as simply something that periodically occurs throughout the semester and takes up valuable time that could be used for studying and other extracurricular activities.. However, DEI training is purported by some of the faculty and all the VMI administration to be essential in building the modern citizen soldier by providing resources that enable students to perceive different experiences found throughout the diverse group of cadets. In a recent ABC 13, Lynchburg interview, spokesperson Col. William Wyatt claimed it is actually just meant to train cadets in "Critical Thinking." During the last academic year, The Cadet reported on cadet reactions to the DEI training that were, in many cases, negative. &emsp;&emsp;Unbeknownst to Cadets and parents however, is that as of April 1, 2022, VMI was served with a civil lawsuit in the Rockbridge County Circuit Court for violating the Virginia Public Procurement Act while procuring a contract for DEI training material and services. Filed by the Center for Applied Innovation, LLC (CAI), VMI is accused of violating the VPPA by issuing a Notice of Intention to Award (NOI) the contract to one bidder, NewPoint Strategies, LLC. CAI's lawsuit claims VMI's competition, evaluation and the eventual award was "arbitrary and capricious under Virginia law". CAI's 54-page Protest that includes 245 footnotes and an additional 657 pages of evidentiary exhibits supporting its claims on contracting and other improprieties, will be evaluated in court. Additionally, included in CAI's protest and subsequent lawsuit are allegations that "VMI deliberately denied access to, or concealed, or destroyed documents required by FOIA, VPPA and other applicable policies…with the aim of preventing challenges of any bidder from being successful" and that VMI's scoring system and evaluation method of offerors was arbitrary, and once again, in contravention to the VPPA. &emsp;&emsp;So, what evidence does CAI put forth to support their claims? In VMI's Request for Proposal, the needs stated directly are for offerors to provide training for students and faculty. It required the hired consultants to understand the military underpinnings of VMI. Publicly available Court documents filed by CAI with its protest and complaint include CAI's own evaluation sheet, produced by VMI's evaluation team consisting of MAJ Lynn W. Carmack (VMI Procurement) , LTC Jamica Love (VMI DEI Director), Prof. Tinni Sen (Economics), Prof. Keith Kline (Psychology), and Mr. Ammad Sheikh (Career Services) in which the Virginia-based Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB), that has many VMI alumni and prominent military veterans on their team, was described as a team with potential bias for having VMI alumni and "too much military". While the reported winner of the contract, New Point strategies includes a Naval Academy Graduate, and a retired Marine. The official evaluations, including notes from interviews with the contractor, show NewPoint received positive remarks, scores, and support from Dr. Love during the interviews for a member of the NewPoint staff whose deceased father-in-law was in the VMI Class of 1933. CAI challenges that NewPoint was afforded favorable comments for understanding the military underpinnings of VMI for a deceased alumnus as the father-in-law of a staff member, while its living alumnus participating in the effort were viewed as potentially biased. It is only up to the courts to decide whether or not such an evaluation is arbitrary, however, How much military is "too much military"? Wouldn't New Point strategies then be a cause for potential bias as well given they have a relative of a VMI alumni on their team?. &emsp;&emsp;Another cause for CAI's contention in the procurement process may be involved in the extreme one-sidedness that was provided to NewPoint strategies in the evaluation process. In the notes of VMI, procurement team members embellish NewPoint strategies with multiple points such as "clear answers, supporting CDO [Chief Diversity Officer], sound psychological science, energetic impression, and diversity of people and skills". All while two other competing teams were met with little discussion with points concluding that they were "Polished, biased, staying neutral, or having no substance". The lack of complete deliberation is a fair concern for CAI to have, especially when clear, unbiased deliberation and evaluation are required within the VPPA. &emsp;&emsp;Additionally, when confronted with the lawsuit VMI's response did not dispute the allegations, but rather appears to attempt to dodge the case, unsuccessfully. VMI filed a motion to have the case dismissed, stating an exemption to the VPPA on the basis of the Institute not being a party to a Management Agreement, but having entered a "Memorandum of Understanding" with The Virginia Association of State College and University Purchasing Professionals (VASCUPP) . This exemption argument was denied by the court who stated that an MOU does not appear to bestow the status of a "covered institution," which would provide VMI an exemption to the requirements of the VPPA. VMI then responded by citing evidence from an amendment to the Va. Code § 23-38.90 that was repealed in 2016. Considering the specific MOU in which VMI certifies that "VMI is in full compliance with the requirements of the VPPA," the mention of this exemption appears to have no basis of fact in the first place. Furthermore, VMI attempted to claim sovereign immunity from being subject to any civil court action. While in correct standing according to Va. Code § 2.2-4301, this plea was overruled. &emsp; &emsp;&emsp;The case is gathering attention from many groups, including the Spirit of VI Political Action Committee (SOVP) that issued a press release calling for a full inquiry, not only into the alleged contract irregularities, but into the funding of DEI at VMI itself. According to a September 4th Press Release by the SOVP, following the appropriation of additional funding to the Virginia Military Institute during the last General Assembly session, Governor Youngkin directed the Institute to avoid spending any of that allocation on DEI initiatives. The SOVP states that when a high-ranking VMI official was asked if DEI funding was coming from the state appropriations by SOVP Chairman Matt Daniel '85, the direct response was that the DEI funding comes from Cadet Tuition and Fees. SOVP notes that, "in concert with another directive from the Governor, in-state tuition was not increased at VMI this year. And the VMI Superintendent directly stated to an alumnus recently that DEI funding is being expended from the General Assembly's forbidden appropriation." &emsp;&emsp;Other documents in the public Court filings are also raising questions as reported by the Roanoke Star and other media outlets. &emsp;&emsp;In notes from the interviews and other evaluation committee actions one evaluation panel member from the VMI faculty is noted as stating, "We [VMI] really aren't military. I have a bird on my shoulder [indicating Colonel rank] – doesn't mean anything – just I am a field professor, So – compare us more to University of Maryland than a military academy." &emsp;&emsp;According to the complaint, records also allegedly show VMI developing a campaign to lobby or otherwise influence the Youngkin administration in Richmond, and a plan to deal with persons who criticize the Chief Diversity Officer. According to one VMI Professor on the evaluation Panel in a question posed to one of the offerors: "How to assist VMI with new government [i.e., then-new Youngkin administration]? Critical Race Theory. Collective Regard – Governor tends to respond to criticism and complaints" and "how will you support the CDO – people who do not support her?" This selection committee member also commented, " Youngkin CRT/Va Policies. Cannot ignore collective regard. Constituency complaints – won't do anything. CHAOS – is where they intervene. They only go where there is a FIRE. They don't believe there is a fire here." &emsp;&emsp;The procurement file notes also include comments regarding VMI developing a media engagement plan to "Control who talks to the press. Shared understanding of what information is shared with the press" Finally in an email from VMI's Attorney-General appointed Legal Counsel, who wrote "We are getting a great deal of consternation on the subject of procurement. I expect that the probability is high that this procurement will be protested." &emsp;&emsp;VMI's intent to dodge a lawsuit is questionable, however not an unexpected response from an Institution hoping to avoid any legal conflict. With this being said, The Cadet is prepared to stay up to date with the current situation and to continue providing cadets and the community with relevant information from the case. Editor's note: The company filing the lawsuit, CAI, is owned by one of the alumni advisors to The Cadet. This in no way influenced writing or publication of this article. The Cadet editorial staff retains complete editorial control of the newspaper's contents. As such, we use other sources and, mostly, public documents posted with the article in this reporting and we post the full documents filed by both parties we obtained from the public record both for full disclosure and also to ensure our readers have all the original documents to review and form their own opinions based on facts.