Government Contracts Update August 2009

August 2009

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 william.vanhuis@wolterskluwer.com.

Hot Topic

FAC 2005-36 Contains Seven Rules
The Civilian Agency Acquisition and Defense Acquisition Regulations Councils have published Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-36, which contains one interim and six final rules amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation. In order of appearance, the rules address the following subjects: Item I, Federal Technical Data Solution (FedTeDS) (FAR Case 2008-038); Item II, Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Act Price Adjustment Clauses (FAR Case 2007-021); Item III, New Designated Country -- Taiwan (FAR Case 2009-014) (Interim); Item IV, Prohibition on Restricted Business Operations in Sudan and Imports from Burma (FAR Case 2008-004); Item V, List of Approved Attorneys, Abstractors, and Title Companies (FAR Case 2006-013); and Item VI, Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) Administration and Associated Federal Acquisition Regulation Clauses (FAR Case 2007-002). This FAC also makes technical editorial changes to FAR 32.503-9, FAR 52.213-4, and FAR 52.244-6, and contains a Small Entity Compliance Guide. For the text of FAC 2005-36, see ¶70,002.113.

The final rule in FAR Case 2008-038 amends FAR 5.102, FAR 5.207, and FAR 7.105, to reflect that Federal Technical Data Solution capabilities have been incorporated into the Governmentwide Point of Entry. The GPE is also known as the FedBizOpps system. The rule replaces references to the FedTeDS system with references to the GPE system, and addresses the availability of technical data through GPE. The FedTeDS system was used to post technical data packages and other items associated with solicitations that required some level of access control. In April 2008, the newest version of the GPE was launched, and it incorporated FedTeDS capabilities, allowing the FedTeDS system to be retired. According to the Councils, this rule will only have a slight impact on government, and does not have a significant impact on any automated systems. The rule carries a September 10, 2009, effective date.

A second final rule, FAR Case 2007-021, amends the FAR to require the incorporation of the clauses at FAR 52.222-43, Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Act -- Price Adjustment (Multiple Year and Option Contracts), and FAR 52.222-44, Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Act -- Price Adjustment, in time-and-materials and labor-hour service contracts that are subject to the Service Contract Act. The rule makes conforming changes to the clause prescription at FAR 22.1006 and the clause at FAR 52.212-5. According to the Councils, there was widespread use of the clauses in T&M and L-H contracts, even though the previous prescriptions did not require the clauses to be used. These changes are designed to achieve consistency throughout the government acquisition community, and resolve potential inequities where the clauses have not been applied. Also, the changes will allow the government to avoid other means of adjusting contract unit price labor rates that may be more costly. This rule finalizes a January 9, 2009, proposed rule (¶70,006.225). The effective date of the rule is September 10, 2009.

FAR Case 2009-014 involves an interim rule that implements the designation of Taiwan under the World Trade Organization Agreement on Government Procurement. Taiwan became a designated country on July 15, 2009, based on its accession to the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement. The rule adds Taiwan to the list of WTO Government Procurement Agreement countries in FAR 22.1503, FAR 25.003, FAR 52.212-5, FAR 52.213-4, FAR 52.222-19, FAR 52.225-5, FAR 52.225-11, and FAR 52.225-23. As a result of the change, contracting officers may purchase goods and services made in Taiwan without application of the Buy American Act, if the acquisition is covered by the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement. The interim rule is effective August 11, 2009. Comments citing FAC 2005-36, FAR Case 2009-014, are due October 13, 2009.

The rule in FAR Case 2008-004 converts the interim rule in FAC 2005-36 to a final rule, with changes. The interim rule implemented Section 6 of the Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007 (PL 110-174), which requires contractors to certify, in contracts with executive agencies, that they do not conduct certain business operations in Sudan. The restrictions were added in FAR Subpart 25.7 (FAR 25.700 - FAR 25.702-4), in a new prescription at FAR 25.1103(d), and a new clause at FAR 52.225-20. The rule also made corresponding changes to FAR 4.203, FAR 4.1201, FAR 4.1202, FAR 15.102, FAR 52.212-1, FAR 52.212-3, and FAR 52.212-5. In response to comments, the final rule deletes in FAR 25.702-1, FAR 52.212-3, and FAR 52.225-20, the definition of "person," and modifies the definition of "restricted business operations," so that the FAR language tracks more closely the language of the Act. The final rule also makes a change that clarifies the use of the term "offeror" in the certification language of the two clauses. Additionally, the interim rule modified FAR 25.701, and the clause at FAR 52.225-13, to add Burma to the list of countries from which most imports are prohibited, in accordance with Executive Order 13310 (68 FR 44853), Blocking Property of the Government of Burma and Prohibiting Certain Transactions, and Executive Order 13448 (72 FR 60223), Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Burma. No changes were made to the portion of the interim rule addressing Burma. This final rule carries an August 11, 2009, effective date.

Another rule, FAR Case 2006-013, finalizes, with changes, a proposed rule (¶70,006.207) addressing the procedures for accepting a bond with a security interest in real property. FAR Subpart 28.2 provides that when an individual surety secures a bond with an interest in real estate, the surety must provide evidence of title in the form of a certificate of title prepared by a qualified title attorney or abstractor, or a title insurance policy issued by a title insurance company that has been approved by the Department of Justice. Since DOJ no longer maintains a list of approved title insurance companies, contracting officers must now take other steps to ensure the adequacy of the title evidence, or ensure the surety obtains a title insurance policy for the full amount of the government's lien interest from a qualified title insurance company. This rule revises FAR 28.203-3 to include mortgagee title insurance as acceptable evidence of title. Other evidence of title consistent with Section 2 of the DOJ Title Standards 2001, located at http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/2001__Title__Standards.html, is also acceptable. The clause at FAR 52.228-11, Pledges of Assets, is updated with this new reference. In response to a comment, the final rule deletes the qualifier "depending on the value of the property" from language stating COs should request the assistance of agency legal counsel in determining if title evidence from individual sureties is consistent with the DOJ Standards. The rule is effective September 10, 2009.

The FAR Case 2007-002 rule adopts as final, with no changes, an interim rule issued with FAC 2005-27, which amended the FAR to revise the contract clauses related to the administration of the Cost Accounting Standards to maintain consistency between the FAR and CAS. The CAS Board had previously published a final rule (¶70,055.18) revising the contract clauses related to CAS administration. This CAS rule amended the CAS applicability threshold to be the same as the threshold for compliance with the Truth in Negotiations Act as required by section 822 of the 2006 National Defense Authorization Act (PL 109-163). The TINA threshold is currently $650,000. The CAS rule also changed the effective dates of CASB 9903.201-3 and CASB 9903.201-4(a), (c), and (e) from April 2000 and June 2000, respectively, to June 2007. In addition, the CAS Board had published an earlier final rule (¶70,055.14), which specified that the interest rate for overpayments by the government under CASB 9903.201-4(a), (c), and (e) shall be computed at the annual rate established under section 6621(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 USC 6621(a)(2)). To maintain consistency between the FAR and CAS as they relate to CAS administration, the FAR interim rule amended the following provisions: FAR 30.201-4, and the contract clauses at FAR 52.230-1 through FAR 52.230-5. This final rule has an August 11, 2009, effective date.

Legal News

Federal Circuit Affirms Use of IDIQ Construction Contracts
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of a protest challenging use of indefinite-quantity, indefinite-delivery contracts to design and construct military housing, because no statute or regulation prohibited using IDIQ contracts to procure construction, it was within the government's discretion to conclude IDIQ contracts best served its interests, and the procurement did not violate provisions furthering small business participation. The solicitation contemplated selection of two or more contractors to design and construct housing at military bases in eight states under a multiple-award task order contract. The protester, a small business contractor, contended the use of IDIQ contracts to procure construction services violated FAR Subpart 16.5 and the anti-bundling provisions of the Small Business Act, the government should have requested a waiver of the statutory limitation on set-asides for non-disadvantaged small businesses, and the procurement was inconsistent with statutory and regulatory provisions aiding small business participation in government procurement.

However, as the Court of Federal Claims properly concluded (52 CCF ¶78,988), not only was there was no prohibition against using IDIQ contracts to procure construction, but the procurement "represent[ed] the sort of innovation envisioned by [FAR 1.102(d)]," which gives the government discretion to select a procurement strategy that is in its best interests. The procurement's innovative approach sought a substantial reduction of construction cost and time by emphasizing standardization and economies of scale. In addition, the government conducted extensive market research before determining consolidation of the procurement requirements was "necessary and justified," as required by 15 USC 644(e)(2)(A); the government did not abuse its discretion by not seeking a waiver of the small business limitation because a waiver would have been inconsistent with its determination to consolidate the procurement; and the procurement's 20-percent small business set-aside and subcontracting goals furthered small business participation to the extent practicable. (Tyler Construction Group v. U.S., CA-FC, 53 CCF ¶79,132)

Negligence Claims Raised Nonjusticiable Political Questions
A dismissal of negligence claims against a contractor and its employee was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit because the action presented nonjusticiable political questions. The plaintiff was the spouse and guardian of a soldier who suffered severe brain injuries when a fuel tanker overturned while traveling in a military convoy through a war zone in Iraq. The tanker driver was an employee of a contractor that provided logistical services to the military. The federal district court dismissed the plaintiff's negligence claims against the driver and contractor for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, after concluding the action raised political questions.

The political question doctrine excludes from judicial review actions that raise policy choices and value determinations made by Congress and the executive branch. The district court correctly found two of six factors set forth in Baker v. Carr (369 US 186) applied to the suit. A finding of any one factor indicates the presence of a political question. First, there was "a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department." Decisions requiring expertise and judgment entrusted to the military in a time of war governed the planning and execution of virtually every aspect of the convoy. The contractor played no role in any of the decisions, which ranged from balancing risk and efficiency in deciding to use a civilian contractor, and balancing the risks against the need for fuel in deciding to organize the convoy, to tactical decisions regarding the convoy's time of departure, speed, route, quantity of fuel transported, number of vehicles, distance between vehicles, and security measures. Decisions "concerning how to safely deliver vital military supplies through hostile territory in war time ... [are] essentially professional military judgments." Second, the case presented issues that were not susceptible to resolution by "judicially discoverable and manageable standards." In determining whether the standard of care had been breached, the district court correctly framed the appropriate question as "what a reasonable driver subject to military control over his exact speed and path would have done." However, courts "lack standards with which to assess whether reasonable care was taken to achieve military objectives while minimizing injury and loss of life." In addition, the dangerousness of the circumstances made it problematic to answer basic questions about duty and breach, and it would be impossible to determine the driver's liability without determining the military's liability. (Carmichael v. Kellogg, Brown & Root Service, Inc., et al., CA-11, 53 CCF ¶79,137)

Fraud Justified Revocation of Acceptance of Construction Work
The government was entitled to revoke its acceptance of a design/build contract for military housing, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals ruled, because the contractor's concealment of compaction test reports and egregious workmanship defects amounted to gross mistakes constituting fraud. Shortly after the work was completed, slabs heaved and structures on foundation backfill settled, causing widespread damage to the housing units. These problems were never resolved and the contracting officer eventually revoked the government's acceptance and terminated the contract for default. On appeal, the contractor admitted its workmanship was defective, but argued the deficiencies were caused by the government's specification of slab-on-grade construction in an area underlain by fat clay, or the revocation was improper because the government had actual knowledge of the noncompliant construction methods. The government responded the contractor's design choices and "shoddy" construction practices caused the damage.

Under the contract's Inspection of Construction clause (FAR 52.246-12), acceptance was final and conclusive except for latent defects, fraud, gross mistakes amounting to fraud, or the government's rights under any warranty or guarantee. For gross mistakes to amount to fraud, there must be "a major or great or serious mistake" that occasioned the acceptance of the work. There must be a false representation or misrepresentation of a material fact, but it can "be by words or conduct or by false or misleading allegations or by the concealment of, i.e., failure to disclose, facts that should have been disclosed in the circumstances." Here, the contractor did not follow specifications when it used unsuitable material as fill, which caused heave, and when it used lifts exceeding eight inches, which caused undercompaction. It did not comply with a 92-percent compaction standard, which caused significant settlement and negative drainage toward most of the units. Also, a subcontractor did not follow a specification requiring excavations to be dewatered and prohibiting standing water in the excavations, and the contractor used unsuitable fill under overexcavated footings, and backfill with liquid that exceeded the limits in the earthwork specification.

Further, the contractor performed only a fraction of the backfill compaction tests required by the quality control plan, and there were a significant number of failing tests. The contractor then concealed the reports by disregarding a specification requiring it to "promptly" submit copies of each day's inspections and tests to the CO, and it affirmatively directed its independent testing laboratory to stop sending reports and letters to the government. Without the compaction test reports, the government could not evaluate the contractor's compliance with the compaction requirements or make a reasoned decision regarding the acceptability of the work. Finally, at the time of acceptance, the government relied on the contractor's representation that the units were complete and ready for occupancy. Given the facts and circumstances, ten and a half months constituted a reasonable amount of time for the government to revoke its acceptance. However, the government's default termination of a second, similar contract was set aside. The government waited 22 months before revoking its acceptance, which constituted an unreasonable amount of time. As a result, the government's acceptance of the second contract was final. (American Renovation and Construction Co., ASBCA, ¶92,633)

Government Violated RFP's Late Proposal Clause
A protest of a contract award for radiation therapy services was sustained because the government allowed the awardee to submit additional technical information after the deadline for submission of proposals, which violated the late proposal clause and constituted improper discussions with a single offeror. Following the closing date, the awardee submitted information regarding "additional quality performance evaluations," and asked for the materials to be forwarded to the evaluators. After reviewing the evaluators' ratings, the contracting officer calculated the technical scores and assigned the protester a score that was 12 percent higher than the awardee's. Nevertheless, the CO concluded the proposals were essentially equal under the technical and past performance factors, and the awardee's lower-priced proposal represented the best value to the government. The protester argued the awardee's post-deadline submission constituted a late proposal modification and the evaluators should not have considered it.

In sustaining the protest, the Comptroller General found the additional materials were late and could not properly be considered by the evaluators. The request for proposals incorporated FAR 52.212-1(f), Instructions to Offerors -- Commercial Items, which generally provides that an offer, modification, or revision of a proposal may not be considered if it is received after the exact time specified for receipt of offers. Since the awardee's additional materials were submitted after the closing time, the government should not have accepted them. Also, exchanges of proposal revisions that permit an offeror to materially modify a proposal generally constitute discussions, and when the government permits one offeror to revise its proposal, it must provide all competitive range offerors with the same opportunity. Here, the protester was not given the opportunity to revise its proposal, so the government's consideration of the awardee's late materials constituted improper discussions. Although the record did not indicate the extent to which the government actually considered the information, the government did not address the issue in its response to the protest, and it never maintained the evaluators did not consider the materials.

Further, the technical evaluation was inadequately documented, and therefore the CO's finding of technical equality was unreasonable. The evaluation record consisted of the evaluators' adjectival ratings for the subcriteria, their narrative comments, and the CO's scoring of the proposals, which was based on the adjectival ratings. The evaluators did not provide the CO with a comprehensive assessment of strengths and weaknesses, and there was no evidence the CO ever considered the actual merits of the proposals in calculating the scores, or in determining, notwithstanding the protester's higher technical score, the proposals were technically equal. The record contained only the "conclusory" statement that "after performing the evaluation, it was determined that the offers were equal both technically and in past performance." The Comptroller General recommended the government obtain revised proposals, reevaluate the proposals, and make a new selection decision. (Radiation Oncology Group of WNY, PC, 24 CGEN ¶112,895)

Regulatory News

DoD Finalizes Rule on Specialty Metal Restrictions
The Department of Defense has issued a final rule that amends the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement to address statutory restrictions on the acquisition of specialty metals not melted or produced in the United States. The rule implements Section 842 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (PL 109-364), and Sections 804 and 884 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (PL 110-181). Section 842 of the FY 2007 Act added new provisions at 10 USC 2533b to address requirements for the purchase of specialty metals from domestic sources. Section 804 of the FY 2008 Act also made amendments to 10 USC 2533b with regard to its applicability to commercial items, electronic components, items containing minimal amounts of specialty metals, items necessary in the interest of national security, and items not available domestically in the required form. In addition, Section 884 added a requirement for DoD to publish a notice on the Federal Business Opportunities Web site (http://www.FedBizOpps.gov) before making a domestic nonavailability determination. The rule removes the previous specialty metals policy from DFARS 225.7002-1 through DFARS 225.7002-3, and adds the new policy at DFARS 225.7003-1 through DFARS 225.7003-5. The policy currently at DFARS 225.7003, addressing waiver of 10 USC 2534, is relocated to DFARS 225.7008, with no substantive changes to content. New clauses are added at DFARS 252.225-7008 through DFARS 252.225-7010, and at DFARS 252.225-7029.

DoD received extensive comments in response to the proposed rule (¶70,020.251) and has made a number of changes to the final version. The definition of "electronic component" in the clause at DFARS 252.225-7009 has been clarified to specifically exclude high performance magnets, and the substance of the clause must now be included in subcontracts, for items containing specialty metals, to the extent necessary to ensure compliance of the end products to be delivered to the government. Also, a change to paragraph (e) of the clause clarifies that flowdown is required to the extent necessary to comply with contract requirements. In addition, the commercial derivative military article exception at DFARS 225.7003-3(c)(1)(i) and DFARS 252.225-7010 has been reworded for consistency with 10 USC 2533b, and the reporting requirements of the clause at DFARS 252.225-7029 have been amended. In connection with the rule, DoD has also made changes to the DFARS companion resource, Procedures, Guidance, and Information, at PGI 225.7002, PGI 225.7002-1, PGI 225.7002-2, PGI 225.7002-3, PGI 225.7003-2, and PGI 225.7003-3. For a complete listing of the provisions impacted by this final rule, see the regulation table below. The rule is effective July 29, 2009, and the full text of the rule appears at ¶70,016.524.

Rule on Government Property Held by DoD Contractors Finalized
The Department of Defense has issued a final rule updating Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement provisions on managing government property in the possession of contractors. The rule was issued in connection with Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-17, which implemented a policy to foster efficiency, flexibility, innovation and creativity while continuing to protect the government's interest in its property. Consistent with changes to the Federal Acquisition Regulation, the rule simplifies procedures, clarifies language, and eliminates obsolete requirements related to the management and disposition of government property in the possession of contractors by moving, clarifying, and deleting definitions; establishing a life-cycle approach to property management; and sanctioning the use of consensus standards and/or industry-leading standards and practices for property management. Specifically, the rule adds a new section at DFARS 236.275 and a new subpart at DFARS 237.75 (consisting of DFARS 237.7501 and DFARS 237.7502); amends DFARS 204.7003, DFARS 236.275, DFARS 237.7003, and DFARS 239.7402; revises DFARS Subpart 245.1 and DFARS Subpart 245.3; removes DFARS Subpart 245.4 and DFARS Subpart 245.5; and updates the clauses at DFARS 252.217-7005, DFARS 252.217-7010, DFARS 252.242-7004, and DFARS 252.245-7000. DoD previously issued a proposed rule on the same subject (¶70,020.253). For the text of the final rule, effective July 29, 2009, see ¶70,016.528.

DFARS Change Sets Requirements for Undefinitized Contract Actions
A Department of Defense final rule amends the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement to address requirements for DoD management and oversight of undefinitized contract actions, consistent with Section 809 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (PL 110-181). Section 809 required DoD to issue guidance to ensure the implementation and enforcement of requirements applicable to undefinitized contract actions. This final rule amends the DFARS to address the requirements of an August 29, 2008, memorandum issued by the Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy, in accordance with Section 809. The rule addresses requirements for DoD departments and agencies to submit semi-annual reports regarding undefinitized contract actions exceeding $5 million; for obligation of funds for the undefinitized period consistent with the contractor's proposal for that period; and for compliance with existing DFARS policy relating to profit computation for undefinitized contract actions. The rule affects DFARS 217.7404-4, DFARS 217.7404-6, DFARS 217.7405, which has been redesignated as DFARS 217.7406, a new provision, DFARS 217.7405, and the clause at DFARS 252.217-7027. DoD has also added a related provision to the DFARS companion resource, Procedures, Guidance, and Information, at PGI 217.7405. The rule carries an effective date of July 29, 2009. For the text of the rule, see ¶70,016.530.

Major Contract Awards

Boeing - $1.16 Billion. Boeing Co., Long Beach, Calif., was awarded a $1,155,052,014 modified contract for the C-17 Globemaster III sustainment partnership fy09 to provide the total system support for the C-17 weapon system to include program management, sustaining logistics, material and equipment management, sustaining engineering, depot level aircraft maintenance, engine management, long term sustainment planning, air logistics center partnering support, depot activation, and support of Air Force and FMS Operators of the C-17. At this time, $1,147,859,462 has been obligated. 330th Aircraft Sustainment Wing contracting flight is the contracting activity (FA8614-04-C-2004, P00514). Government Contracts Reports 2023, August 26, 2009.

Oshkosh Corp. - $1.06 Billion. Oshkosh Corp., Oshkosh, Wis., is being awarded a $1,064,463,100 firm-fixed-priced delivery order #0002 modification 02 under previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract W56HZV-09-D-0111 to exercise an option for 1,700 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) All Terrain Vehicles (M-ATVs), Field Service Representative Support, and associated parts support packages to include Authorized Stockage Lists (ASL), Prescribed Load Lists (PLL), Deprocessing Spares, Battle Damage Repair parts (BDR) and Basic Issue Items (BII). Vehicles and parts support packages will be fielded to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. Field Service Representatives will be providing support in Kuwait and Afghanistan. This order is for Marine Corps, Army, Special Operations Command and some test vehicles. Work will be performed in McConnellsburg, Pa., and work is expected to be completed by July 31, 2010. Contract funds in the amount of $15,000,000 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The US Army TACOM Life Cycle Management Command, Warren, Mich., is the contracting activity. Government Contracts Reports 2020, August 5, 2009.

Oshkosh Corp. - $1.06 Billion. Oshkosh Corp., Oshkosh, Wis., was awarded on July 31, 2009, a $1,063,700,000 firm-fixed-price for 1,700 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) All Terrain Vehicles (M-ATV's), Field Service Representative Support, and associated parts support packages to include Authorized Stockage Lists (ASL), Prescribed Load List (PLL), Reprocessing Spares, Battle Damage Repair parts (BDR) and Basic Issue Items (BII). Work is to be performed in McConnellsburg, Pa., with an estimated completion date of July 31, 2010. U.S. Army TACOM LCMC, Warren, Mich., is the contracting activity (W56HZV-09-D-0111). Government Contracts Reports 2020, August 5, 2009.

Multiple Contractors - $900 Million. AMEC-Nan Joint Venture, LLC, Honolulu, Hawaii, (N62742-09-D-1171); dck/TtEC, LLC, Honolulu, Hawaii (N62742-09-D-1172); Environmental Chemical Corp., Burlingame, Calif., (N62742-09-D-1173); and URS Group, Inc., San Antonio, Texas (N62742-09-D-1174), are being awarded a cost reimbursement and firm-fixed-price with award fee, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity multiple award construction contract for construction projects at DOD installations worldwide. The work to be performed provides for new construction, repair, and renovation projects at various DOD installations worldwide. Types of projects include, but are not limited to: new construction, repair, demolition, and renovation including utilities and waterfront work, and construction of medical facilities (hospitals, medical clinics, and/or dental clinics). Work may also include energy and water conservation projects. The maximum dollar value for all four contracts combined is $900,000,000. Work will be performed at various DOD installations worldwide, and work is expected to be completed July 2014. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online with 10 proposals received. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, is the contracting activity. Government Contracts Reports 2020, August 5, 2009.

Multiple Contractors - $750 Million. Souza Construction, Inc., Farmersville, Calif., (N62473-09-D-1652); Bilbro Construction Co., Inc., San Diego, Calif., (N62473-09-D-1653); Allen Engineering Contractor, Inc., San Bernardino, Calif., (N62473-09-D-1654); K.O.O. Construction, Inc., West Sacramento, Calif., (N62473-09-D-1655); RMA Land Construction, Inc., Brea, Calif., (N62473-09-D-1656); I.E.-Pacific, Inc., San Diego, Calif., (N62473-09-D-1657); A&D GC Inc., Santee, Calif., (N62473-09-D-1658); and San Juan Construction, Inc., Montrose, Colo., (N62473-09-D-1659), are each being awarded a firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity multiple award construction contract small business set-aside for new construction and renovation of general building construction at various locations within the NAVFAC Southwest area of responsibility. The work to be performed provides for the design, new construction, renovation and repair for industrial, commercial type and institutional buildings, systems and infrastructure. The work may include civil, structural, mechanical, electrical, and communication systems and will include supervision, equipment, materials, and labor, to provide complete and usable facilities. The maximum dollar value for all eight contracts combined is $750,000,000. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Work will be performed at various federal sites within the NAVFAC Southwest AOR including but not limited to Calif., (83 percent), Ariz., (12 percent), Nev., (2 percent), Utah, (1 percent), Colo., (1 percent), and N.M., (1 percent), and work is expected to be completed July 2014. This contract was competitively procured via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online website, with 46 proposals received. These eight contractors may compete for task orders under the terms and conditions of the awarded contract. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, San Diego, Calif., is the contracting activity. Government Contracts Reports 2021, August 12, 2009.

BP West Coast Products LLC dba Arco - $517 Million. BP West Coast Products LLC dba Arco, La Palma, Calif., is being awarded a maximum $516,830,010 fixed-price with economic price adjustment, indefinite-delivery and indefinite-quantity contract for aviation fuel. Other location of performance is Ferndale, Washington. Using service is Defense Energy Support Center. There were originally 72 proposals solicited with 19 responses. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The date of performance completion is October 30, 2010. The contracting activity is the Defense Energy Support Center, Fort Belvoir, Va. (SP0600-09-D-0512). Government Contracts Reports 2022, August 19, 2009.

Multiple Contractors - $500 Million. Allen Engineering Contractor, Inc., San Bernardino, Calif., (N62473-09-D-1644); Granite Construction Co., Watsonville, Calif., (N62473-09-D-1645); Hal Hays Construction, Inc., Riverside, Calif., (N62473-09-D-1646); Kiewit Pacific Co. Vancouver, Wash., (N62473-09-D-1647); Reyes Construction, Inc., Pomona, Calif., (N62473-09-D-1648); Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc., San Diego, Calif., (N62473-09-D-1649); Sundt Construction, Inc., Tempe, Ariz., (N62473-09-D-1650); T.B. Penick & Sons, Inc., San Diego, Calif., (N62473-09-D-1651), are each being awarded a firm-fixed price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite quantity multiple award construction contract for heavy horizontal and civil engineering construction at various locations within the NAVFAC Southwest area of responsibility (AOR). The work to be performed provides for the design, construction, supervision, equipment, materials, labor, and all means necessary to provide complete and usable facilities. The total contract amount for all eight contracts is not to exceed $500,000,000 for all contracts combined. Work will be performed in the Southwest AOR, including but not limited to California (80 percent), Arizona (12 percent), Nevada (5 percent), New Mexico (1 percent), Utah (1 percent), and Colorado (1 percent), and work is expected to be completed July 2014. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online website, with 21 proposals received. These eight contractors may compete for future task orders under the terms and conditions of the awarded contract. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, San Diego, Calif., is the contracting activity. Government Contracts Reports 2021, August 12, 2009.

Boeing - $335 Million. The Boeing Co., Seattle, Wash., is being awarded a $334,690,630 modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-award-fee contract (N00019-04-C-3146) for one P-8A multi-mission maritime aircraft Stage II test aircraft with mission systems and recurring and non-recurring tasks in support of three test aircraft to make them production representative assets. In addition this modification includes spares to support these three aircraft. Work will be performed in Seattle, Wash., (82.4 percent); Norwalk, Conn., (4.6 percent); Oklahoma City, Okla., (4.3 percent); McKinney, Texas, (3.4 percent); Greenlawn, N.Y., (3 percent); and North Amityville, N.Y., (2.3 percent), and is expected to be completed in April 2013. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River Md., is the contracting activity. Government Contracts Reports 2020, August 5, 2009.

Honeywell International - $255 Million. Honeywell International, Inc, Phoenix, Ariz. was awarded on July 31, 2009 a $255,076,495 firm-fixed-price contract to provide parts and support for the overhaul of 1,000 SAGT (Automotive Gas Turbines) 1500 engines of equivalents per year for Program year 4 (PY4) and the potential Program Year 5 (PY5) of the Total InteGrated Engine Revitalization (TIGER) program in support of Abrams tank production, Abrams derivative vehicles and Army stock spares. The engine equivalents will support the Anniston Army Depot (ANAD) turbine value stream (TVS) AGT 1500 engine overhaul line. This action is required as soon as possible but no later than the end of the 3rd quarter fiscal year 2009 to ensure a continuous flow of engines through the engine overhaul line to meet the tank production line requirements at the Joint Systems Manufacturing Center (JSMC) and to meet field spare requirements. The TIGER program is an Army initiative to revitalize the Automotive Gas Turbine (AGT) 1500 (horsepower) engine fleet which supports the Abrams tank and derivation vehicles (M1A1 tank, M1A2 tank and the Heavy Assault Bridge (HAB)). The TIGER program will increase the reliability of the AGT 1500 engine by improving the overhaul processes to a "near" new engine standard, including durability based design improvements and will provide the support to Anniston Army Depot (ANAD) for the overhaul of up to 1000 each AGT 1500 engine equivalent per year. This approach will foster a long-term partnership between PM Heavy Brigade Combat Team (configuration management), TACOM Heavy Combat Products Support Integration Directorate (forecasting oversight), Anniston Army Depot (ANAD) (depot facilities, workforce, warranty support) and Honeywell Int'l (technical support, overhaul process expertise, demand management, supply chain management, inventory control and field service/ warranty support). Work is to be performed in Anniston, Ala., (13 percent), Phoenix, Ariz., (66 percent), Greer, S.C. (19 percent), and Rocky Mountain, N.C., (2 percent) with an estimated completion date of December 31, 2010. One bid solicited with one bid received. U.S.A. TACOM- Warren, Mich., is the contracting activity (W56HZV-06-C-0173). Government Contracts Reports 2021, August 12, 2009.

Graybar Electric Co. - $250 Million. Graybar Electric Co., Inc., St. Louis, Mo., is being awarded a maximum $250,000,000 fixed-price with economic price adjustment, indefinite-delivery and indefinite-quantity, maintenance, repair and operations, prime vendor contract. There are no other locations of performance. Using services are Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and federal civilian agencies. The original proposal was web-solicited with seven responses. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract is exercising the fourth option year period. The date of performance completion is August 17, 2010. The contracting activity is the Defense Supply Center Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pa. (SPM500-04-D-BP14). Government Contracts Reports 2023, August 26, 2009.

Science Application International Corp. - $250 Million. Science Application International Corp., Fairfield, N.J., is being awarded a maximum $250,000,000 fixed-price with economic price adjustment, maintenance, repair and operations, prime vendor contract. There are no other locations of performance. Using services are Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and federal civilian agencies. The original proposal was web-solicited with five responses. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract is exercising the fourth option year period. The date of performance completion is August 17, 2010. The contracting activity is the Defense Supply Center Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pa. (SPM500-04-D-BP15). Government Contracts Reports 2023, August 26, 2009.