Government Contracts Update April 2008

April 2008

From the editors of CCH's government contracts products, here are summaries of the important recent developments in this practice area for the past month. Complete coverage of these issues, and many more, appear in the Government Contracts Reporter and related products.

If you have comments or suggestions concerning the information provided or the format used, please feel free to contact me directly at aaron.broaddus@wolterskluwer.com.

Hot Topic

House Eyes Unpaid Tax Liabilities of Federal Contractors
Federal contractors with unpaid tax debts would be prohibited from doing business with the U.S. government, under a measure offered by Rep. Brad Ellsworth, D-Ind., that was unanimously approved by House lawmakers on April 14. The House passed the Contracting and Tax Accountability Act (H.R. 4881), a bill that would withhold federal contracts from businesses and organizations that fail to file tax returns and are delinquent on their taxes. A companion measure (S. 2519) has been introduced in the Senate by Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

The bill is largely symbolic, noted Rep. Tom Davis, D-Va., since the Bush Administration currently is finalizing a regulation that would require federal contractors and grantees to certify that they have not been notified by the IRS of liability for delinquent taxes. The proposed regulation also would include the failure to pay taxes as a specific cause for a company to be debarred from receiving federal contracts, Davis noted.

In addition, the federal contractor provision was already signed into law for one year as part of last year's omnibus budget agreement. But, Ellsworth said H.R. 4881 is necessary to make the change permanent for all federal contracts and grants. He noted that according to the GAO, more than $5 billion in unpaid federal taxes are owed by federal contractors.

"I don't think it's too much to ask companies that receive millions, sometimes billions, in taxpayer dollars to pay their federal taxes like ordinary citizens do," Ellsworth said. "Not only do these bad actors cheat our government of tax revenue, they also gain an unfair advantage over businesses that are doing the right thing."

The bill requires contract and grant applicants to give contracting officers permission to check their tax status. The bill would only affect contractors with seriously delinquent tax debts, which is defined as outstanding debts for which a public notice of lien has been filed. The definition also excludes tax debt that is being repaid under an installment agreement and tax debt for which a collection due process hearing has been requested, Ellsworth explained. Government Contracts Reports, 1956, April 30, 2008.

DoD Finalizes Rule on Contractors Accompanying Armed Forces
The Department of Defense has adopted as final, with changes, an interim rule (DFARS Case 2005-D013, ¶70,016.375) amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement to implement DoD policy regarding contractor personnel authorized to accompany Armed Forces deployed outside the United States. The rule addresses the status of contractor personnel as civilians accompanying the U.S. Armed Forces and the responsibilities of the combatant commander regarding the protection of contractor personnel. The interim rule revised DFARS Subpart 225.74, at DFARS 225.7402 through DFARS 225.7402-4, and the clause at DFARS 252.225-7040, to implement the policy in DoD Instruction 3020.41, Contractor Personnel Authorized to Accompany the U.S. Armed Forces, dated October 3, 2005. The interim rule also made a corresponding technical change at DFARS 212.301. The final rule revises the interim rule to address requirements for use of the Synchronized Predeployment and Operational Tracker system for maintaining data on contractor personnel accompanying the Armed Forces. Accordingly, the final rule contains a new DFARS Subpart 225.3 (DFARS 225.301-1, DFARS 225.301-4) to supplement the FAR rule published as Item I of FAC Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-24on February 28, 2008, relating to contracts performed outside the U.S. Corresponding changes were also made to the DFARS companion resource, Procedures, Guidance, and Information at PGI 225.7402-2 through PGI 225.7402-4. For the text of this final rule, which carries a March 31, 2008, effective date, see ¶70,016.473.

CFC Enjoins Second FedBizOpps Contract Award, Orders New RFP
A best value analysis did not comply with FAR 15.308 or FAR 15.101, according to the Court of Federal Claims, because it incorrectly assumed two offerors had received equal technical ratings and ignored evaluation criteria assigning lesser weight to price. In a prior decision (50 CCF ¶78,616) reviewing the procurement for the development and management of a new electronic procurement system for the FedBizOpps.gov website, the court found the contracting officer did not consider price when establishing the competitive range and the source selection authority did not exercise independent judgment. The court set aside the contract award and ordered the government to appoint a new SSA to review the proposals and make a new best value decision. In the new best value analysis, the SSA reviewed evaluation reports from the majority of the technical evaluators, the minority of the technical evaluators, and an unaffiliated contractor technical advisor, and determined the initial awardee offered the best value to the government. The protesters argued the new selection decision and re-award did not comply with the RFP's selection criteria.

The court sustained the protest, finding the best value analysis incorrectly assumed one of the protesters and the awardee had received equal technical ratings. Two of the technical evaluator groups had assigned the awardee and the protester equal adjectival and confidence ratings, but the third group rated the protester's technical proposal as "marginal" with "little confidence," and the awardee's proposal as "unacceptable" with "little confidence." Therefore, the protester's proposal was rated higher. The new SSA, however, erroneously concluded the protester and the awardee "both received similar technical adjectival ratings" and essentially changed the ratings of the technical team. The error tainted the best value analysis because the tradeoff among price and noncost factors assumed the protester's and awardee's technical ratings were equal.

Further, by according equal or greater weight to price, the best value analysis disregarded solicitation criteria placing significantly more weight on all technical evaluation factors. The RFP stated all "technical evaluation proposals, when combined, are significantly more important than price," but the selection decision recited "a trade-off for the non-cost factors does not justify [the technically superior protester's] price premium whether compared to [the other protester's] or the [awardee's ] proposal" and "the strengths of [the other protester's] proposal do not outweigh the strengths, innovative approach, and lower price of the [awardee's] proposal." The awardee also did not meet minimum requirements for transition to the new system. Finally, both protesters were prejudiced by the errors. If the SSA had weighed the risks and technical ratings, as required by the RFP, the awardee would likely have been eliminated and the protesters, as the two remaining offerors, would have had a substantial chance of winning the contract award. The court concluded by enjoining the award and ordering the government to issue a revised solicitation and award a new contract as soon as possible. Information Sciences Corp., et al. v. U.S., et al., FedCl, 52 CCF ¶78,907.

Legal News

Government Contractor Defense Barred Agent Orange Claims
A district court's grant of summary judgment denying product liability claims against contractors that supplied the government with the defoliating agent, Agent Orange, was affirmed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals because the claims were barred by the government contractor defense. The plaintiffs sustained injuries from exposure to Agent Orange during the Vietnam war. The district court denied their liability claims based on the government contractor defense, which protects government contractors from state tort liability when they provide defective products to the government (304 F Supp 2d 404, 410-14 (ED NY 2004)). In Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 34 CCF ¶75,489, the Supreme Court outlined three requirements for establishing the defense: the government approved reasonably precise specifications for the alleged defective equipment; the equipment conformed to those specifications; and the contractor who supplied the equipment warned the government about dangers in the use of the equipment that were known to the supplier but not to the government. The plaintiffs argued the contractors were unable to establish any of the elements.

The component of the Agent Orange alleged to be defective was "2, 4, 5-T," which contained a high concentration of the toxic chemical dioxin. The plaintiffs argued 2, 4, 5-T and the other herbicides used to create Agent Orange were commercially available "stock" products or devised without government input, and therefore the government did not approve "reasonably precise specifications." However, the record showed 2, 4, 5-T was never commercially available in the high concentration used in Agent Orange, and the government exercised significant discretion over the precise composition of chemicals used in Agent Orange. The specifications displayed the requisite conflict between the duty of care required by state tort law and the government's requirements, even though 2, 4, 5-T could have been produced using a method that did not produce dioxin, because the government analyzed the available toxicology data on 2, 4, 5-T and determined it did not pose an unacceptable health hazard. Given the government's approval, the method the contractors used to produce 2, 4, 5-T was appropriate.

Moreover, at the time of production, the contractors sufficiently informed the government about the known danger of Agent Orange, which was the risk of the skin disease chloracne. Although the Boyle decision "was silent as to what types of risks rise to the level of dangers that must be disclosed," "[i]t would be impractical to require that a manufacturer compile and present to the government in advance a list of each and every risk associated with a product ...." There was no evidence the contractors knew the risks associated with 2, 4, 5-T included carcinogenic and long-term effects of dioxin. In re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation, CA-2, 52 CCF ¶78,899.

Contaminated Vaccine Did Not Excuse Supplier's Default
A board of contract appeals' decision upholding the default termination of a contract to supply flu vaccine was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit because Food and Drug Administration approval of the vaccine was not a condition precedent to the contractor's delivery obligation, and the manufacturer's production failure did not excuse the contractor's failure to supply vaccine. The contractor was unable to make timely delivery of vaccine after the manufacturer discovered certain lots were contaminated by bacteria and the FDA banned import and distribution of its vaccine. On appeal to the Federal Circuit, the contractor renewed its contention it did not default under the terms of the contract because its obligation to perform was conditioned on the FDA's approval of the vaccine.

However, the FDA withheld approval because the manufacturer had produced contaminated vaccine and, by agreeing to act as a wholesaler to the government, the contractor was responsible for its supplier's failure. The board correctly concluded the FDA's decision to withhold approval of the vaccine was simply a consequence of the contractor's failure to provide acceptable vaccine (06-2 BCA ¶33,401). The Federal Circuit also agreed the default was not excused by FAR 52.212-4(f), which excuses nonperformance caused by events outside a contractor's reasonable control. The manufacturer was a subcontractor, and FAR 52.212-4(f) had to be read in light of the common law rule that contractors are liable for production failure by subcontractors. The manufacturer's failure to deliver acceptable vaccine, therefore, could not be excused as being beyond the manufacturer's reasonable control. General Injectables & Vaccines, Inc. v. Gates, CA-FC, 52 CCF ¶78,905.

Contractor Liable for Employees' False Claims Act Violations
Summary judgment holding a corporate contractor liable for its employees' False Claims Act violations was granted by the District Court for the District of Massachusetts, because the contractor put the employees in a position to fraudulently benefit from providing technical advice to the government, and the government's reliance on an employee's apparent authority to make recommendations was reasonable. Two of the contractor's employees pled guilty to criminal charges for implementing elaborate schemes to defraud the government by recommending products and services under a contract to provide technical support and advice to procure, develop and deploy a defense computer system. The government moved for summary judgment on the contractor's FCA liability with respect to contractor claims for alleged overcharges for installation services, allegedly inflated prices for computer memory, and computer-based training the government contended was not provided.

Although the contractor contended the claims were neither false nor fraudulent because they reflected payment for goods and services actually provided at prices the government deemed "fair and reasonable," the court found the employees knowingly caused false claims to be presented to the government. The claims' alleged facial accuracy would not preclude FCA liability because a claim may be considered false if it is the result of a fraudulent process that compromises its reliability and trustworthiness. The contractor was under an obligation to recommend, without any conflicts of interest, products and services with the best value. The employees' conflicts of interest in reaping substantial hidden profits by recommending government procurements through various intermediaries undermined the claims' legitimacy.

The court then turned to whether the contractor could be held liable for its employees' misconduct. Based on the record, the court declined to impute the employees' knowledge of the fraudulent conduct to the contractor. In order for the employees' knowledge to be imputed to the contractor, they must have acted within the scope of their employment, which in turn depended on whether the employees were at least partially motivated by an intent to benefit the contractor. The contractor presented evidence the employees actively concealed their schemes and ensured they took place entirely outside of the contractor's internal processes. In addition, the employees held important positions as vice-presidents but were not the "apex of power" that would make their actions indistinguishable from the contractor's actions. The record also suggested the employees were wholly motivated by self-interest. Nevertheless, the court held the contractor was liable under the doctrine of apparent authority because it put its agents in a position to do harm. A significant part of one employee's job was to be the contractor's interface with the government and provide technical advice. The employee misused his position to divert significant government funds to himself and the other employee. The contractor argued against vicarious liability on grounds it did not benefit from the fraud and the government's reliance on the employee's authority was unreasonable. However, intent to benefit the contractor was not required under the apparent authority doctrine. In addition, although there was evidence the government improperly ceded procurement authority to one of the employees, there was no evidence the employees fully disclosed the facts underlying the fraudulent schemes to negate the falsity of the claims, and the government's reliance on the employee's apparent authority to make technical recommendations was reasonable. The court also held the contractor liable under the Anti-Kickback Act and for breach of contract, but concluded factual and legal questions precluded summary judgment as to damages. U.S. v. Dynamics Research Corp., DC MA, 52 CCF ¶78,915.

Regulatory News

GAO Proposes Amendments to Bid Protest Regulations
Proposed revisions to the Government Accountability Office's bid protest regulations would implement recent legislation impacting the bid protest rights of federal employees and make administrative changes. The proposed amendments to the definitions at GAO 21.0 implement provisions of Section 326 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 and address Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76. The Act expanded the bid protest rights of federal employees in A-76 competitions by granting "any one individual" who represents the majority of affected employees the status of an "interested party" to file a protest at GAO, or the status of an intervenor to participate in a protest filed at GAO. The Act also removed restrictions limiting protests of A-76 competitions to those competitions affecting 65 or more full-time equivalent employees of an agency, and allowed protests of decisions converting functions performed by federal employees to private sector performance without a competition.

Among the proposed administrative amendments, GAO 21.3 would be revised to provide that, in appropriate circumstances, one party to a protest may request that another party produce documents that are not in the government's possession and not currently in the record. GAO does not expect these requests to arise often, and would retain the discretion to determine the appropriateness of granting such a request. Also, GAO 21.4 would be amended to reflect that a dismissal, or a prohibition from participating in a protest as an intervenor, is a sanction GAO will consider in response to violations of GAO protective orders. To clarify the requirements of a request for reconsideration and to emphasize that repetitive arguments will be summarily dismissed, GAO 21.14 would be revised to state a request for reconsideration must show the prior decision contains errors of fact or law, or must present information not previously considered that warrants reversal or modification of the prior decision, and would also state GAO will not consider requests based on the repetition of arguments previously raised. The other regulations impacted by the proposed rule are: GAO 21.1, GAO 21.5, GAO 21.6, and GAO 21.12. Comments are due April 21, 2008. For the text of the proposed rule, see ¶70,520.32.

OPM Designates CBCA as Contract Appeal Board
The Office of Personnel Management has issued two proposed rules to remove the designation of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals from the Federal Employees Health Benefits Acquisition Regulation and the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance Federal Acquisition Regulation. The Contract Disputes Act (41 USC 601-613) allows government contractors, including carriers participating in the FEHB Program and the FEGLI Program, to appeal official decisions made by a contracting officer to an agency board of contract appeals. Before the creation of the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals by the National Defense Authorization Act of 2006, the ASBCA served as the board of contract appeals for appeals between FEHB and FEGLI carriers and OPM. The 2006 NDAA dismantled most existing boards, creating as a replacement the CBCA, which has authority over most civilian agencies, including OPM. Thus, the CBCA has now replaced the ASBCA as the venue for claims brought under the CDA for the FEHB and FEGLI programs. Accordingly, OPM has proposed to update the FEHBAR by removing FEHBAR Part 1633. Similarly, the other proposed rule removes LIFAR Part 2133. Comments are welcome for these two rules, both of which carry a May 7, 2008, effective date. The text of the FEHBAR rules appears at ¶70,285.02 and the text of the LIFAR rule is found at ¶71,425.02.

FMR Final Rule Implements eFAS Initiative
The General Services Administration has finalized, with changes, a proposed rule (¶72,550.15) implementing the Federal Asset Sales e-government initiative. The goal of the eFAS initiative is to maximize the value the government receives from selling its real and personal property assets by improving the visibility of the assets to prospective buyers. The initiative seeks to create transparency in the sales process to make agencies aware of the costs and performance of their sales alternatives, inform prospective buyers of the terms and conditions of the items offered for sale, and make information on sales activities and results more accessible to the general public. The initiative also aims to collect and report governmentwide data on the volume, proceeds, costs, and other performance characteristics of sales of government property. The amendment to FMR Part 102-38 includes a requirement for agencies to sell their property through designated sales centers, defines terms related to how agencies must implement the eFAS initiative, and makes changes intended to strengthen the terms and conditions of sale by specifically including requirements to dispose of assets in accordance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations.

In response to comments suggesting the initiative could make agencies choose less effective sales solutions, proposed FMR 102-38.360 has been revised to emphasize that agencies should identify sales solutions that are more effective than those solutions offered by approved sales centers by submitting a waiver to the eFAS Planning Office. GSA foresees granting temporary waivers for more effective solutions until either the sales solutions are approved as sales centers, or the agency migrates to an approved sales center. Proposed FMR 102-38.360 has also been revised to reference the eFAS initiative milestones developed by the Office of Management and Budget, the eFAS Planning Office, and agency representatives. The final rule amends FMR 102-38.20 - FMR 102-38.50, FMR 102-38.60 - FMR 102-38.75, FMR 102-38.120, FMR 102-38.295, and FMR 102-38.300, and adds a new Subpart H consisting of FMR 102-38.360 - FMR 102-38.370. Agencies already tasked by OMB to meet e-government milestones related to this eFAS initiative must comply by April 17, 2008. All other agencies must comply with the e-government milestones identified in FMR 102-38.360 by July 17, 2009. For the text of the final rule, see ¶72,500.45.

Major Contract Awards

Federal Express Charter Programs Team Arrangement - $1.67 Billion. Federal Express Charter Programs Team Arrangement of Memphis, Tenn., is being awarded an estimated $1,676,857,474 (revised) firm fixed-price contract for international airlift services with a minimum guarantee of $158,493,329. Team members include: Air Transport International LLC of, Little Rock, AR; ATA Airlines, Inc., of Indianapolis, IN; Atlas Air, Inc., of Purchase, NY; Federal Express Corp., of Memphis, TN; Northwest Airlines, Inc., of St. Paul, MN; Omni Air International, Inc., of Tulsa, OK; and Polar Air Cargo Worldwide, Inc., of Purchase, NY. This is a revision to the original announcement to include dollars associated with urgent missions to move Mine Resistant, Ambush Protected vehicles. The United States Transportation Command Acquisition Directorate, Scott Air Force Base, IL, is the contracting activity (HTC711-07-D-0021). Government Contracts Reports, 1956, April 30, 2008.

Northrop Grumman Corp. - $1.16 Billion. Northrop Grumman Corp., Integrated Systems, Bethpage, NY, is being awarded a cost-plus-award-fee contract with an estimated value of $1,164,011,648 for the system development and demonstration of Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS). The System Development and Demonstration (SDD) Phase includes the design, fabrication, and delivery, of two unmanned aircraft with mission payloads and communications suites; one Forward Operating Base Mission Control System; one Systems Integration Laboratory; and one Main Operating Base Mission Control System. The BAMS UAS will provide persistent Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) data collection and dissemination capability to the Fleet. BAMS UAS will deliver capability enabling the Maritime Patrol and Reconnaissance Force (MPRF) Family of Systems to meet the Navy's maritime ISR requirements. Work will be performed in Bethpage, NY, (30 percent); San Diego, CA, (25 percent); various locations throughout the United States (13 percent); W. Salt Lake City, UT (9 percent); Rolling Meadows, IL, (7 percent); Falls Church, VA, (6 percent); Baltimore, MD, (5 percent); and Norwalk, CT, (5 percent), and work is expected to be completed in Sep 2014. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured through a request for proposals; three firms were solicited and three proposals were received. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, MD, is the contracting activity (N00019-08-C-0023). Government Contracts Reports, 1956, April 30, 2008.

Shell Oil Products US - Deer Park - $882.8 Million. Shell Oil Products US - Deer Park, Houston, TX is being awarded a maximum $882,846,124.00 fixed price with economic price adjustment, indefinite delivery and indefinite quantity contract for aviation fuel. Other location of performance is Deer Park, TX. Using service is Defense Energy Support Center. There were 48 proposals originally solicited with 23 responses. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Date of performance completion is April 30, 2009. The contracting activity is Defense Energy Support Center (DESC), Fort Belvoir, VA (SP0600-08-D-0470). Government Contracts Reports, No. 1953, April 9, 2008.

ExxonMobil Fuels Marketing Co. - $782.9 Million. ExxonMobil Fuels Marketing Co., Fairfax, VA, is being awarded a maximum $782,972,706 fixed price with economic price adjustment, indefinite delivery, and indefinite quantity contract for jet fuel. Other locations of performance include Baytown, TX, and Baton Rouge, LA. Using service is Defense Energy Support Center. There were 48 proposals originally solicited with 23 responses. Contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Date of performance completion is Apr. 30, 2009. The contracting activity is Defense Energy Support Center, Fort Belvoir, VA (SP0600-08-D-0472). Government Contracts Reports, No. 1952, April 2, 2008.

Lockheed Martin Integrated Systems and Solutions - $766 Million. Lockheed Martin Integrated Systems and Solutions of Chantilly, VA, is being awarded a contract for $766,178,419. The design and development of tactical radio systems for aircraft, ships and fixed installations. The system is modular and capable of operating on several different waveforms currently in use by the armed forces and adaptable to future waveforms and vehicles. The contractor shall develop 42 engineering development models of the small airborne configured system. While the initial engineering development models for the maritime sets will be configured for destroyers and the small airborne sets generically configured, there are options for additional sets configured for additional waveforms and weapons system platforms. The system is intended for the following weapons system/platforms: ch47 helicopter, Blackhawk family of helicopters, apache helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicle class IV, Hercules family of aircraft, USMC operated helicopters and fixed wing aircraft; USN aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers, and submarines; USAF fixed and deployable ground command and control systems. The contract includes an option for low rate initial production of 45 maritime/fixed stations sets and 104 small airborne sets. Additional options allows for additional sets configured for additional waveforms and other weapons systems/platforms. At this time $75,248,162 has been obligated. Hanscom AFB, MA, is the contracting activity (FA8726-08-C-0008). Government Contracts Reports, No. 1952, April 2, 2008.

Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. - $695.5 Million. Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc., Metairie, LA, was awarded on Apr. 3, 2008, a $695,489,766 cost-reimbursable-plus-award-fee contract for the design and construction for improvement of hurricane protection of the inner harbor navigation canal. Work will be performed in New Orleans, LA, and is expected to be completed by Jun. 1, 2011. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Four bids were solicited on Jul. 2, 2007, and three bids were received. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, LA, is the contracting activity (W912P8-08-C-0038). Government Contracts Reports, No. 1954, April 16, 2008.

AM General, LLC - $650 Million. AM General, LLC, South Bend, IN, was awarded on April 11, 2008, a $650,079,405 firm-fixed price contract for 4,526 high mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicles. Work will be performed in Mishawaka, IN, and is expected to be completed by Dec. 31, 2009. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. One bid was solicited on March 17, 2006. TACOM, Warren, MI, is the contracting activity (DAAE07-01-C-S0001). Government Contracts Reports, No. 1955, April 23, 2008.

Lockheed Martin Corp. - $595 Million. Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems of Marietta, GA, is being awarded a modified contract for $595,800,000. This contract modification is an Undefinitized Contract Action (UCA) for the procurement of six Indian Foreign Military Sales (FMS) C-130J aircraft pursuant to Letter of Offer and Acceptance (LOA) IN-D-SAA. In addition to aircraft, this UCA provide for C-130J Spares, Support Equipment, Logistics Support, and Development/Integration of Indian-unique capabilities. At this time $297,900,000 has been obligated. Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, is the contracting activity (FA8625-06-C-6456 P00044). Government Contracts Reports, No. 1952, April 2, 2008.

Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Newport News - $453.3 Million. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding - Newport News, Newport News, VA, is being awarded a $453,263,184 cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for the accomplishment of the fiscal year 2008 Extended Drydocking Selected Restricted Availability (EDSRA) of USS Enterprise (CVN 65). The CVN 65 FY08 EDSRA is a ship depot availability of approximately 16-month duration. EDSRAs are similar to overhauls in that they restore the ship, including all subsystems that affect combat capability and safety, to established performance standards. Additionally, an EDSRA provides an opportunity to perform hull inspections and recoating, radiological surveys, and other maintenance related evolutions below the waterline that cannot be accomplished while the ship is waterborne. The EDSRA provides sufficient time to perform more extensive propulsion plant repairs and testing than is possible during an Extended Selected Restricted Availability (ESRA). Work will be performed in Newport News, VA, and work is expected to be completed by August 2009. Contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington Navy Yard, DC, is the contracting activity (N00024-08-C-2100). Government Contracts Reports, No. 1954, April 16, 2008.

Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems - $400 Million. Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems of Woburn, MA, is being awarded a $400,000,000 (maximum) indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract to support the design, development, and activation of a European-based mid-course radar. The effort will be accomplished through task orders, each with distinct scope and pricing. The first task order will obligate $5,283,817 and will be limited to site surveys, studies, analysis, planning, design, and similar activities specifically permitted in section 226(d) of the FY08 National Defense Authorization Act. Additional activities necessary to this deployment will be conducted by or through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Work will be performed at the contractor's facility and Europe and is expected to be complete by Feb. 2013. This is a sole source award. The contract funds will not expire at the end of the fiscal year. The Missile Defense Agency, Huntsville, AL, is the contracting activity (HQ0147-08-D-0001). The first task order will use FY 08 research and development funds of $5,283,817. Government Contracts Reports, No. 1955, April 23, 2008.

Valero Marketing & Supply Co. - $397.4 Million. Valero Marketing & Supply Co., San Antonio, TX is being awarded a maximum $397,444,621.88 fixed price with economic price adjustment, indefinite delivery and indefinite quantity, partial set-aside contract for aviation fuel. Other location of performance is Texas City, TX. Using service is Defense Energy Support Center. This proposal was originally Web solicited with 23 responses. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Date of performance completion is Apr. 30, 2009. The contracting activity is Defense Energy Support Center, Fort Belvoir, VA (SP0600-08-D-0480). Government Contracts Reports, No. 1953, April 9, 2008.

General Dynamics C4 Systems - $375 Million. General Dynamics C4 Systems, Taunton, MA, is being awarded a ceiling $375,000,000 firm-fixed-priced, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for the Tactical Data Network Data Distribution System - Modular (TDN DDS-M). Delivery of the production quantities of TDN DDS-M is expected to begin in Sep. 2008. Work will be performed in Taunton, MA, and work is expected to be completed March 2013. Contract funds in the amount of $692,327 will expire at the end of the fiscal year. This contract was competitively awarded under a full and open, best value competition, with four offers provided. The Marine Corps Systems Command, Quantico, VA, is the contracting activity (M67854-08-D-7036. Government Contracts Reports, No. 1952, April 2, 2008.