Government Contracts Update December 2008

December 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 william.vanhuis@wolterskluwer.com.

Hot Topic

Small Disadvantaged Businesses Preference Ruled Unconstitutional
The 2006 reauthorization of the annual five-percent Department of Defense contracting goal for small disadvantaged business concerns (10 USC 2323) violated the Fifth Amendment's equal protection component, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held, because Congress did not have a strong basis in evidence on which to conclude DoD was a passive participant in pervasive, nationwide racial discrimination to justify remedial measures based on race. After losing a bid for a 1998 telecommunications services contract because a competitor benefitted from the 10-percent price-evaluation adjustment applied to bids of SDBs, the protester challenged the constitutionality of the program. On the second remand from the Federal Circuit, the district court held the SDB program satisfied the strict scrutiny required for explicit racial classifications because statistical and anecdotal evidence before Congress prior to the 2006 reauthorization constituted prima facie proof of nationwide and pervasive discrimination in public and private contracting and was a strong basis for the remedial action, and the SDB program was narrowly tailored (51 CCF ¶78,799). On the protester's third appeal, the Federal Circuit for the first time addressed the constitutionality of the SDB program.

The appellate court reviewed the evidence before Congress and the district court, including six state and local disparity studies, other statistical analyses, and anecdotal evidence, and concluded the evidence did not provide the "strong basis" required to justify remedial action based on race. The disparity studies attempted to calculate the ratio between the expected and actual contract amounts of given race/gender groups. However, the studies generally failed to account for the relative size or capacity of minority-owned businesses, which could affect their volume of business even in the absence of discrimination. Defects in the studies' availability and capacity analyses detracted "dramatically" from their probative value. In addition, the studies, which analyzed data from one state, two counties, and three cities, were too limited geographically to extrapolate their findings of discrimination nationwide. The other statistical evidence was not substantially more probative, and anecdotal evidence was insufficient by itself to support the SDB program. The court noted SDB program amendments had limited the application of preferences based on race, but without the evidentiary basis needed to support a compelling interest in a race-based remedial program, the court could not determine whether the 2006 reenactment was narrowly tailored to a compelling interest.

The Federal Circuit noted it could not predict and did not intend to prejudge whether a reenactment of the SDB program before its expiration in 2009 would be supported by a strong basis in evidence. The court cautioned its assessment of the evidence supporting the 2006 reenactment was based on the particular items of evidence offered by the government and should not be construed as a blanket rule about the reliability of particular types of evidence, such as disparity studies. The court also noted the government had failed to carry out its 1999 intention to develop "new benchmarks and utilization estimates every three years," but solid benchmarks for the minority groups covered by the SDB program were needed to determine whether the five-percent goal was tailored to the capacity of firms owned by members of those groups. (Rothe Development Corp. v. Dept. of Defense, et al., CA-FC, 52 CCF ¶79,022)

Legal News

Tax Injunction Act Barred Suit in District Court
A suit by a contractor seeking a declaratory judgment that its leasehold interest on government land was exempt from local property taxation was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit because, pursuant to the Tax Injunction Act, a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy was available in state court. The matter arose from the government's lease, under the Military Housing Privatization Initiative, of two parcels of land located on an Air Force base. The contractor, which agreed to construct, operate, and maintain rental housing on the base, argued its interest was not subject to property taxes assessed by the local county government. The contractor appealed a federal district court ruling holding the TIA divested the court of subject matter jurisdiction. The TIA provides that "district courts shall not enjoin, suspend or restrain the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under [s]tate law where a plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such [s]tate" (28 USC 1341). Accordingly, the TIA divests district courts of subject matter jurisdiction in "cases in which state taxpayers seek federal-court orders enabling them to avoid paying state taxes."

A party who seeks to surmount the TIA's jurisdictional bar bears the burden of demonstrating the insufficiency of the remedy available in the state court system. The contractor argued the state court remedy was not efficient because it required it to pursue two separate administrative challenges --the exemption application and the valuation protest. However, the requirements at issue here were "a far cry from the onerousness and inefficiency "inherent in the available remedies addressed in the case cited by the contractor. Importantly, the contractor would not have to litigate the same claims in the valuation proceeding as in the exemption one. While a remedy that would allow the contractor to assert its exemption and valuation challenges to a tax assessment in one proceeding would be more efficient, the TIA is not so exacting that it requires a state remedy to be the best one conceivable. Moreover, state law clearly indicated that taxpayers would be able to litigate their constitutional and other federal-law challenges to state tax matters in the state's administrative and judicial system. (Scott Air Force Base Properties, LLC v. County of St. Clair, Illinois, CA-7, 52 CCF ¶79,027)

Cancellation and Reissuance of Set-Aside Was Reasonable
The cancellation of a request for proposals that was set aside for service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses was not arbitrary, capricious, or unlawful, according to the Court of Federal Claims, because the government complied with the Federal Acquisition Regulation and reasonably determined none of the offerors possessed sufficient past performance experience. The government rejected all proposals and canceled the guard services RFP after determining none of the SDVOSB offerors had sufficient relevant past performance experience unless their proposed teaming arrangements were considered. According to the government's Determination and Findings, FAR 52.219-27 required the SDVOSB concerns to spend at least 50 percent of the cost of personnel for contract performance on their own employees and "fully attributing the experience of subcontractors to a prime with little or no experience that is responsible for the majority effort, [was] an extreme risk" to the government. The D&F also withdrew the SDVOSB set-aside and set aside the requirement for small business concerns. Seeking injunctive relief, the protesters argued the rejection of all proposals was a responsibility determination that should have been resolved through Small Business Administration Certificate of Competency procedures.

However, once the government determined the original RFP did not produce any proposals that met its needs, it was within its rights to cancel the RFP and resolicit using a different acquisition strategy. Under FAR 15.305(b), the government may reject all proposals received in response to a solicitation if it is in the government's best interests, and case law grants the government "a great degree" of discretion in canceling solicitations in negotiated procurements. In light of this discretion, it was not irrational for the government to decide it was necessary for the SDVOSB prime contractors to demonstrate "they would be able to shoulder the responsibilities of this large, complex security contract by submitting their own relevant past performance." Furthermore, the SDVOSBs were to be the ultimate guarantors of contract performance, so the risk assessment and cancellation was supported by FAR 9.604(e), which provides the government may "[h]old the prime contractor fully responsible for contract performance, regardless of any team arrangement between the prime contractor and its subcontractors." The court's conclusion was reinforced by Government Accountability Office decisions finding the government may reasonably require prime contractors to demonstrate the relevance of their own past performance. Finally, the cancellation decision was consistent with FAR 15.308, which requires the source selection authority to exercise independent judgment, FAR 19.1405(c), which mandates SDVOSB set-asides to be withdrawn and the requirement to be set aside for SBCs if no acceptable offers are received from SDVOSB concerns, and FAR 15.206(e), which requires solicitations to be canceled and reissued if an amendment would involve a change so substantial that additional sources would have likely submitted offers. (DCMS-ISA, Inc., et al. v. U.S., FedCl, 52 CCF ¶79,029)

No Contractual Basis to Recover for Destroyed Property
A claim to recover the value of property lost as a result of hostile action during the performance of a supply contract in a war zone was dismissed by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals because the claim did not provide any colorable basis for contract jurisdiction. The dispute arose from a blanket purchase agreement to procure, transport, and deliver bottled water to designated locations in Iraq. While the contractor was traveling with a military-escorted convoy to make a water delivery, its truck was damaged by rifle fire, forcing it to abandon the vehicle and the cargo, which were subsequently destroyed. The contractor submitted a claim for the value of the truck, a trailer, and the cargo, alleging the government would not let it proceed with a delivery without a convoy escort. The claim, however, cited no contract or indemnification provision that was allegedly breached by the government and no other contractual basis for relief. The contractor then appealed the contracting officer's deemed denial and the government moved to dismiss.

The contractor argued several grounds for jurisdiction, including a constructive/cardinal change, government acceptance of the cargo by requiring the truck to join the military controlled convoy, a putative War Risk indemnification clause, and mutual mistake. However, none of the cited grounds constituted a colorable basis for contractual jurisdiction. The hostile rifle fire that damaged the truck was not an act of the government. The requirement for the truck to proceed in the military controlled convoy and the decision to abandon the truck were acts of the government in its sovereign capacity as the military occupation authority in Iraq. With respect to the cargo, these sovereign acts did not change the risk of loss provision in the contract's F.O.B. Destination clause and therefore the risk remained with the contractor. Moreover, there was no War Risk or other indemnification provision in the contract, and the contractor cited to no statute or regulation requiring such a clause be included in the contract. Also, neither the claim nor the complaint alleged any facts constituting a mutual mistake for which reformation could be granted. Reformation is not available for a mutual mistake in failing to anticipate future events affecting contract performance. (Piril Insaat Tic. Bilgisayar Elek. Buro Donanim Ltd. Sti., ASBCA, ¶92,444)

Analysis of Incumbent Personnel Capture Plan Was Flawed
The government unreasonably concluded a protester's proposed labor rates were too low considering incumbent employees because the government's analysis was not based on the incumbent's actual labor rates. The request for proposals for programmatic support services contemplated the award of a cost-plus-award-fee indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract. Under the management plan subfactor, "incumbent capture and the basis for this rate" would be evaluated for reasonableness and consistency. Proposals were to be evaluated for reasonableness and cost realism under the cost factor, and offerors were to complete a cost model in which they proposed direct rates for 18 specified non-management labor categories. Offerors were provided with "library rates," which purported to "reflect the incumbent's current direct labor categories and ... hourly rates for those categories being used under the incumbent contract." However, the incumbent's actual labor rates were not disclosed because, according to the government, they were proprietary to the incumbent. The evaluators attributed a significant weakness to the protester under the management plan subfactor, finding some of its proposed labor rates were below the library rates, which created "significant risk" regarding the protester's ability to achieve its proposed 98-percent incumbent capture rate.

The Comptroller General sustained the protest, finding no support for the assessment of a significant weakness. As the RFP did not disclose the incumbent's actual labor rates, the evaluators had no basis for determining whether the library rates or the proposed rates were closer to the incumbent's direct labor cost. Further, the protester and the other offeror proposed different high and low rates within a labor category, and in some instances proposed different numbers of levels of subcategories, and different percentages of effort for each sublevel, so it was unclear whether one of them would be more or less likely to attract the incumbent workforce in any given labor category. "Given the meaninglessness of the library rates as a criterion for retaining the incumbent workforce, the conclusion drawn by the [government] in assessing [the protester's] ability to retain that workforce was unreasonable, especially where [the protester] committed to paying incumbents their current wages, at a minimum."

Further, the past performance evaluation was unreasonable. The RFP stated the past performance evaluation would "consider the degree of similarity in size, content, and complexity" between an offeror's past performance information and the RFP requirements. However, the evaluators deemed a prior contract to be relevant if it met a $2 million minimum threshold established by the RFP. Therefore, the government essentially used a pass/fail analysis and did not evaluate the degree to which the size of the awardee's prior contracts was similar to that of the RFP requirements, which was inconsistent with the evaluation scheme. The Comptroller General recommended the government reevaluate proposals by removing the significant weakness improperly assigned to the protester and reconsidering the relevance of the awardee's past performance. (ASRC Research & Technology Solutions, LLC, 23 CGEN ¶112,724)

Regulatory News

DoD Finalizes Item Identification Rule
The Department of Defense has adopted as final, with changes, an interim rule (¶70,016.453) amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement to update requirements for reporting of government property in the possession of DoD contractors. The interim rule replaced the existing DD Form 1662 reporting requirements with requirements for DoD contractors to submit to the Item Unique Identification Registry, in electronic form, data on government property in the contractor's possession. In response to comments received on a proposed rule on the subject (¶70,020.225), the interim rule clarified the definition of "equipment" and the types of property that must be reported in the IUID Registry. The rule excluded items under $5,000 from reporting, unless otherwise specified in the contract, and provided more specific procedures for electronic data submission. The interim rule revised DFARS 211.274, DFARS 211.274-4, and DFARS 252.211-7003, added DFARS 211.274-5 and DFARS 252.211-7007, and removed DFARS 245.505-14 and DFARS 252.245-7001. In response to comments to the interim rule, DoD made additional changes in the final rule. Specifically, the clause at DFARS 252.211-7007 no longer contains a marking requirement. The clause now only addresses reporting requirements. The final rule also removes paragraph (b)(4) from DFARS 252.211-7007 and clarifies the types of property (i.e., equipment, special tooling, and special test equipment) that require reporting to the IUID Registry. The final rule also makes conforming amendments to DFARS 211.274-4 and DFARS 211.274-5. The objective of the final rule remained the same: to improve accountability and control of DoD assets. The rule carries a November 24, 2008, effective date. For the text of the final rule, see ¶70,016.494.

Rule Updates Cargo by Vessel Evaluation Criteria
The Department of Defense has finalized, with changes, an interim rule (¶70,016.443) amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement to implement Section 1017 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (PL 109-364). Section 1017 requires DoD to establish an evaluation criterion, for use in obtaining carriage of cargo by vessel, that considers the extent to which an offeror has had overhaul, repair, and maintenance work for covered vessels performed in shipyards located in the United States or Guam. The interim rule addressed the statutory requirements in a new solicitation provision at DFARS 252.247-7026, and corresponding prescriptive language in amended DFARS 212.301, DFARS 212.602, DFARS 215.304, DFARS 247.570, and DFARS 252.247-7022 - DFARS 252.247-7025, amended DFARS 247.572, DFARS 247.573-1, DFARS 247.573-2 and DFARS 247.574, which were redesignated from DFARS 247.571, DFARS 247.572-1, DFARS 247.572-2, and DFARS 247.573, and new sections DFARS 247.571, DFARS 247.573, and DFARS 247.573-3. In response to comments on the interim rule, DoD made further changes in the final rule. Specifically, the final rule revises DFARS 247.573-2(c) to replace the term "evaluation factor or subfactor" with "evaluation criterion," consistent with the language in Section 1017(a). In addition, the text at DFARS 247.573-2(c)(3) has been amended to clarify that the definition of "covered vessel" includes all covered vessels in an offeror's fleet, and not just those offered under a specific solicitation. This definition of "covered vessel" reflects the current statutory references. Also, the clause at DFARS 252.247-7026 has been revised so that the time period for work categorized as "overhaul, repair, and maintenance work" is five calendar days, instead of the 15 days specified in the interim rule. DoD also revised the definition of "shipyard" at DFARS 247.571 to mean a facility capable of performing overhaul, repair, and maintenance work. Similarly, the final rule revises DFARS 247.571 to add the definitions of "U.S. shipyard" and "foreign shipyard, "consistent with the definitions in Section 1017. In conjunction, the reporting requirement, DFARS 252.247-7026(c) has been revised to address work performed both in U.S. and foreign shipyards. For the text of this final rule, which is effective November 24, 2008, see ¶70,016.495.

DoD Rule Addresses Review Requirements for T&M Contracts
A Department of Defense final rule amends the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement to address review and documentation requirements pertaining to the use of time-and-materials contracts for the acquisition of non-commercial services. The rule, which finalizes the prior proposed rule (¶70,020.249) without change, provides for the same level of review for both commercial and non-commercial DoD time-and-materials contracts. The Federal Acquisition Regulation, at FAR 16.601(d), requires that, before using a time-and-materials contract, the contracting officer must prepare a determination and findings that no other contract type is suitable. For time-and-materials contracts for commercial services, FAR 12.207(b)(2) specifies the minimum content for the determination and findings, and FAR 12.207(c) contains additional requirements with regard to the use of indefinite-delivery contracts priced on a time-and-materials basis. To provide the same level of oversight in the award of all DoD time-and-materials contracts, this final rule amends DFARS 216.601 to establish determination and findings requirements for DoD non-commercial time-and-materials contracts, similar to those required by FAR 12.207 for commercial services contracts. The rule is effective November 24, 2008. For the text of the final rule, see ¶70,016.496.

GSA Finalizes Rule on Protests, Disputes, and Appeals
The General Services Administration has finalized, with minor changes, a proposed rule (¶70,033.36) revising GSAR Part 533, Protests, Disputes, and Appeals. The final rule deletes the prescription at GSAR 533.103-72, and the clause at GSAR 552.233-70, Protests Filed Directly with the General Services Administration, because they repeat much of a related FAR clause. A portion of the GSAR 552.233-70 clause is, however, retained at GSAR 533.103-1 to clarify GSA's rules in the context of the FAR process. The rule also deletes the clause at GSAR 552.233-71, Disputes (Utility Contracts), and its prescription at GSAR 533.215, pursuant to a request by GSA's Public Buildings Service. Editorial changes are made to GSAR 533.211, Contracting officer's decision, to avoid repeating FAR 33.211 prescription information, to clarify GSA-unique requirements, and to recognize the creation of the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals. Finally, a new provision at GSAR 533.209 states the Office of Inspector General is the GSA official responsible for investigating fraud. The rule is part of GSA's Acquisition Manual Rewrite Initiative. For the text of the final rule, effective January 8, 2009, see ¶70,030.115.

BIS Final Rule Adds 15 Additional Persons to Entity List
The Bureau of Industry and Security has published a final rule which amends the Export Administration Regulations to add 15 additional persons to the Entity List (Supplement No. 4 to EAR Part 744) on the basis of EAR 744.11. These additional persons have been determined by the U.S. Government to be acting contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. The Entity List provides notice to the public that certain exports and reexports to parties identified on the list require a license from BIS, and that the availability of License Exceptions in such transactions is limited. This is the second rule to add persons to the Entity List on the basis of EAR 744.11. The first was published on September 22, 2008 (¶72,750.150). For the text of this final rule, effective December 5, 2008, see ¶72,750.159.

Major Contract Awards

Multiple Awardees - $5.3 Billion. The U.S. Navy is awarding indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity multiple award contracts to contractors that will provide for their competition for service requirements solicited by Naval Sea Systems Command, Naval Air Systems Command, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, Naval Supply Systems Command, Military Sealift Command, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Strategic Systems Programs, Office of Naval Research, Defense Threat Reduction Agency and the United States Marine Corps. The twenty-two functional service areas within the scope of the contracts include 1. Research and Development Support, 2. Engineering System Engineering and Process Engineering Support, 3. Modeling, Simulation, Stimulation, and Analysis Support, 4. Prototyping, Pre-Production, Model-Making, and Fabrication Support, 5. System Design Documentation and Technical Data Support, 6. Software Engineering, Development, Programming, and Network Support, 7. Reliability, Maintainability, and Availability (RM&A) Support, 8. Human Factors, Performance, and Usability Engineering Support, 9. System Safety Engineering Support, 10. Configuration Management (CM) Support, 11. Quality Assurance (QA) Support, 12. Information System (IS) Development, Information Assurance (IA), and Information Technology (IT) Support, 13. Inactivation and Disposal Support, 14. Interoperability, Test and Evaluation, Trials Support, 15. Measurement Facilities, Range, and Instrumentation Support, 16. Logistics Support, 17. Supply and Provisioning Support, 18. Training Support, 19. In-Service Engineering, Fleet Introduction, Installation and Checkout Support, 20. Program Support, 21. Functional and Administrative Support, and 22. Public Affairs and Multimedia Support. These contracts are in addition to the existing 1,605 contracts previously awarded under the SeaPort Enhanced (SeaPort-e) acquisition program for services procurements. The Government estimates a maximum of $5,300,000,000 of services will be procured per year via orders issued under the SeaPort-e multiple award contracts. The awards have a three month base period with one five-year option and one four-year nine month award term option. These contracts were competitively procured via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online, with 209 offers received and 199 contracts awarded. Contract funds will be obligated at the time of task order award and as such, multiple funding types (with varying expiration dates) may be used, consistent with the purpose for which the funds were appropriated. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division, Dahlgren, Va., is the contracting activity (N00178-09-D-5652 - N00178-09-D-5851). Government Contracts Reports 1989, December 24, 2008.

SupplyCore - $4.4 Billion. SupplyCore, Rockford, Ill. is being awarded a maximum $4,400,000,000 fixed price with economic price adjustment, partial set aside, indefinite quantity contract for support of tactical and non-tactical wheeled vehicle fleets. There are no other locations of performance. Using services are Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps. There were originally 4 proposals solicited with 3 responses. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract has a four year base and includes three two-year option periods. The date of performance completion is December 17, 2012. The contracting activity is the Defense Supply Center Columbus (DSCC), Columbus, Ohio (SPM7LX-09-D-9003). Government Contracts Reports 1989, December 24, 2008.

Multiple Awardees - $3 Billion. The Air Force is awarding an indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract to a variety of contractors for $3 Billion. This contract is primarily for environmental requirements that include completion of a conceptual design, construction, implementation, demolition, repair, and operation and maintenance of installed systems prior to delivery to the government. At this time $60,000 has been obligated. AFCEE/ACV, Brooks City-Base Texas is the contracting activity (FA8903-08-R-8348). Government Contracts Reports 1987, December 10, 2008.

General Dynamics - $940 Million. General Dynamics, National Steel and Shipbuilding Company, San Diego, Calif., is being awarded a $940,378,173 modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-02-C-2300) for two construction options (T-AKE 11 and T-AKE 12) which includes design and construction; technical manuals; special studies, analyses, and reviews; engineering and industrial services; and data and two options for Long Lead Time Material for T-AKE 13 and T-AKE 14. T-AKE is a new Combat Logistics Force Underway Replenishment Naval vessel intended to replace the current capability of the Kilauea-Class (T-AE 26) Ammunition Ship, Mars-Class (T-AFS 1) Combat Stores Ships, and when operating in concert with a Henry J. Kaiser-Class (T-AO 187) Oiler ship, the Sacramento-Class (AOE 1) Fast Combat Support Ship. As an auxiliary support ship, T-AKE will directly contribute to the ability of the Navy to maintain a forward presence. Work will be performed in San Diego, Calif., and is expected to be completed by Feb. 2012 for T-AKE 11, Jan. 2013 for T-AKE 12, Dec. 2013 for T-AKE 13 and Nov. 2014 for T-AKE 14. Contract funds will not expireat the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity. Government Contracts Reports 1988, December 17, 2008.

McDonnell Douglas - $905 Million. McDonnell Douglas Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Boeing Co., St. Louis, Mo., is being awarded an cost-plus-incentive-fee, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract with an estimated value of $905,344,762 for support services required to enhance the F/A-18A/B, C/D, E/F, and EA-18G aircraft with a series of System Configuration Sets (SCSs). These enhancements will support F/A-18 aircraft operated by the U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, and the Governments of Canada, Australia, Spain, Kuwait, Switzerland, Finland and Malaysia. Work will be performed in St. Louis, Mo. (95 percent) and at the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division, China Lake, Calif. (5 percent), and is expected to be completed in Dec. 2013. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division, China Lake, Calif., is the contracting activity (N68936-09-D-0002). Government Contracts Reports 1989, December 24, 2008.

Sikorsky - $813 Million. Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., Stratford, Ct., was awarded on Dec 17, 2008 a, $812,786,103 firm fixed price contract for funding of third program year of multi-year contract for army Lot 33 consisting of 51 UH-60M and 12 HH-60M Black Hawk Helicopters, and also tooling; program systems Management and technical publications. Work will be performed in Stratford, CT., with an estimated completion date of December 12, 2012. One bid was solicited and one bid was received. US Army Contracting Command, Aviation & Missile Command, Arsenal, Ala., is the contracting activity (W58RGZ-08-C-003). Government Contracts Reports 1989, December 24, 2008.

Lockheed Martin - $784 Million. The Air Force is exercising an option with Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Tx., for $784,122,174. This action will exercise an option for CY 2009, for F-22 Weapon System Sustainment Pre-Priced Options. The location of performance is Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Marietta, Ga. Government Contracts Reports 1989, December 24, 2008.

Lockheed Martin - $720 Million. The Lockheed Martin Space Systems Co., Space and Strategic Missiles, Sunnyvale, Calif., is being awarded $720,086,268 modification (PZ0001) to previously awarded cost-plus-incentive-fee, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract (N00030-08-C-0100) to provide TRIDENT II (D5) and TRIDENT I (C4) missile subsystem. Specific tasks may include: Missile body, re-entry body, D5 instrumentation systems and support equipment production (D5 only); D5 Production Continuity Hardware (D5 only); Procurement of components and requalification activities in support of D5 life extension requirements; Critical components in support of D5 life extension requirements; Field Processing; Engineering and operational support services; Training material development and maintenance; Trainer design and operational support; Spares and integrated logistics support; Flight Test Analysis and Range Support; Safety Assurance including Nuclear Weapon Security (NWS); Missile and support equipment repair; Flight Test Planning and Flight Test Data Acquisition and Processing (D5 only); Development, production and installation of SPALTs/PADs/Sers [Special Projects Alterations, POMF (POLARIS Missile Facility) Alteration Documents, and Support Equipment Requirements]; Develop and produce an Alteration Release Assembly; Develop an Enhanced Telemetry System; Technical services in support of the C4/D5 Ballast System and Test Instrumentation Mast program; Technical services in support of all requirements associated with TRIDENT I(C4) related to asset dispositions and disposal. In addition to TRIDENT II (D5), and TRIDENT I (C4) missile subsystem requirements, there is also a requirement to: Provide storage and maintenance for the Tomahawk Land Attack Missile, Nuclear (TLAM-N) at the Strategic Weapons Facilities; Perform processing and provide technical services in support of the SSGN Attack Weapon System (AWS) at SWFLANT; Provide TRIDENT SWS Missile Training; Develop technology applicable to global strike objectives that integrates with existing TRIDENT missile and/or the platform, and the missile processing and TRIDENT operations infrastructure; Provide Options for Flight Test Data Acquisition and Analysis for the Air Force and the Missile Defense Agency. Work will be performed in California (42 percent); Georgia (11 percent); Utah (16 percent); Florida (9 percent); Washington (8 percent); Virginia (3 percent); Tennessee (2 percent); New Jersey (1 percent); Massachusetts (1 percent); Illinois (1 percent); Maryland (1 percent); other (5 percent), and work is expected to be completed September 2012. Contract funds in the amount of $285,470,128 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Navy's Strategic Systems Programs, Arlington, Va., is the contracting activity. Government Contracts Reports 1987, December 10, 2008.

Sikorsky - $620 Million. Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., Stratford, Ct., was awarded on Dec. 15, 2008 a, $619,903,014 firm fixed price contract for funding of second program year of multi-year contract for Navy Lot 7 consisting of 24 each MH-60R Sea Hawk Helicopters. Third program year for Navy Lot 11 consisting of 18 each MH-60S Sea Hawks Helicopter and also Tooling; Program Systems Management and Technical Publications. Work will be performed in Stratford, Ct., with an estimated completion date of Dec. 31, 2012. One bid was solicited and one bid was received. US Army Aviation & Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal, Ala., is the contracting activity (W58RGZ-08-C-0003). Government Contracts Reports 1989, December 24, 2008.

Lockheed Martin - $526 Million. Lockheed Martin, Maritime Systems and Sensors, Saint Paul, Minn., is being awarded a $ $525,600,000 modification to previously awarded contract for AN/UYQ-70(V) Advanced Display Systems. Work will be performed in Johnstown, Pa. (60%), Clearwater, Fla. (30%), and St. Paul, Minn. (10%), and is expected to be completed by August 2010. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division Keyport, Keyport, Wash., is the contracting activity (N00024-05-D-5130). Government Contracts Reports 1989, December 24, 2008.