February 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
Executive Orders Address Labor Issues,
Regulatory Review
President Obama on January 30,
2009, issued three executive orders that directly affect government contractors
and reverse Bush administration labor policies.
Citing a policy of government impartiality in labor-management disputes involving government contractors, Executive Order 13494, "Economy in Government Contracting," makes unallowable for payment costs "of any activities undertaken to persuade employees --whether employees of the recipient of the [f]ederal disbursements or of any other entity --to exercise or not to exercise, or concerning the manner of exercising, the right to organize and bargain collectively through representatives of the employees' own choosing." Such costs must be excluded from any billing, claim, proposal, or disbursement applicable to government contracts. Examples of activities that might incur unallowable costs include costs of preparing and distributing materials; hiring or consulting legal counsel or consultants; holding meetings (including paying the salaries of attendees); and planning or conducting activities by managers, supervisors, or union representatives during work hours. The order affirms that costs are allowable if "incurred in maintaining satisfactory relations between the contractor and its employees." The order directs the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council to adopt implementing regulations within 150 days.
Executive Order 13495, "Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers Under Service Contracts," requires awardees (and their subcontractors) of follow-on service contracts to offer continued employment to employees under the predecessor contract who are qualified and necessary for completion of the contract. The order provides a clause for inclusion in follow-on service contracts that limits the right of first refusal of employment to nonmanagerial and nonsupervisory employees who are service employees under the Service Contract Act, allows successor contractors to retain their own employees who would otherwise lose their jobs, does not require an employment offer to employees who did not perform suitably, and requires contractors to give the contracting officer a certified list of all service employees and their employment history at least 10 days before completion of the contract. The order does not apply to contracts or subcontracts that: do not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, are awarded under the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act, are for certain services provided by sheltered workshops employing the severely handicapped, or are for vending facilities pursuant to preference regulations under the Randolph-Sheppard Act. Also exempt are employees hired to work under a federal and one or more nonfederal service contracts as part of a single job if the employees "were not deployed in a manner that was designed to avoid the purposes of this order." The Secretary of Labor is responsible for enforcing compliance and imposing sanctions for willful violations consisting of debarment from government contracting for up to three years. The order directs the FAR Council to adopt implementing regulations within 180 days and revokes Executive Order 13204, issued February 17, 2001, which revoked a prior EO that required successor contractors to offer jobs to employees under prior contracts for public buildings.
As its name suggests, Executive Order 13496, "Notification of Employee Rights Under Federal Labor Laws," requires government contractors to post a notice describing employees' rights under federal labor laws, as prescribed by rules and regulations to be issued by the Secretary of Labor within 120 days. A contract clause incorporating the notice requirement must be included in all government contracts other than collective bargaining agreements and purchases under the simplified acquisition threshold. The order revokes Executive Order 13201, issued February 17, 2001, which required contractors to post a notice describing the right of nonunion employees to limit payments to unions.
Order Supports Labor Agreements for
Large Construction Projects
President Obama on February
6, 2009, issued Executive
Order 13502, encouraging executive agencies to require project labor
agreements for large-scale construction projects. The stated purpose of
this policy is to promote efficient completion of larger construction
projects by providing structure and stability. A "large-scale construction
project" is defined as having a total cost of $25 million or more,
and a "project labor agreement" is a pre-hire collective bargaining
agreement with one or more labor organizations that establishes the terms
and conditions of employment for a specific construction project and is
an agreement described in 29 USC 158(f). A PLA would be binding on all
project contractors and subcontractors, contain guarantees against strikes
and lockouts, provide binding procedures for resolving labor disputes,
and provide other mechanisms for labor-management cooperation. The order
directs the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council to implement the order
by amending the FAR within 120 days. The Director of the Office of Management
and Budget, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, is directed to
provide recommendations regarding the broader use of PLAs within 180 days.
The order also revokes Executive Order 13202 of February 17, 2001, and
Executive Order 13208 of April 6, 2001.
Executive Order Addresses Lobbying,
Gifts, Revolving Door
President Barack Obama has issued
Executive
Order 13490, "Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel."
The order, dated January 21, 2009, requires certain executive agency employees
to sign an ethics pledge. The pledge requirement applies to new full-time,
non-career Presidential and Vice-Presidential appointees, non-career appointees
in the Senior Executive Service and similar SES-type systems, and appointees
to positions exempt from the competitive service as confidential or policymaking.
Covered appointees must pledge not to accept gifts from registered lobbyists or lobbying organizations during their appointment, or to participate, for a period of two years from the date of appointment, in any matter involving specific parties that was directly and substantially related to a former employer or former clients, including regulations and contracts. Appointees that were registered lobbyists may not participate in any particular matter on which they lobbied within the two years before the date appointment or in the specific issue area in which that particular matter falls, or seek or accept employment with any executive agency they lobbied within the two years before the date of appointment. Upon leaving government, appointees may not lobby certain senior officials for the remainder of the Obama administration, or, if the appointee is covered by the post-employment restrictions at 18 USC 207(c), communicate with employees of the former executive agency for a period of two years. The pledge also requires covered appointees to make their employment decisions on the basis of candidates' qualifications, competence, and experience.
A pledge may be enforced only by the federal government, by any legally available means, including debarment proceedings within any affected executive agency, or judicial civil proceedings for declaratory, injunctive, or monetary relief. A former appointee who violates the pledge may be barred from lobbying a government officer or employee for up to five years, plus the time period covered by the pledge. In an enforcement action, the government may also seek to establish a constructive trust for the benefit of the United States, that would require an accounting and payment to the Treasury of all money and other things of value received by, or payable to, the former employee arising out of any breach or attempted breach of the pledge.
The order also directs the Director of the Office of Government Ethics to report the steps the executive branch can take to expand the revolving door ban applicable to appointees leaving government to lobby, to all executive branch employees who are involved in the procurement process, so that they may not, for two years after leaving government service, lobby any government official regarding a government contract that was under their official responsibility in the last two years of their government service.
Legal News
Government Released Proprietary Contractor
Information
The Court of Federal Claims
found the government liable for breach of contract because it released
contractor information that was protected under a Cooperative Research
and Development Agreement. The parties entered into the CRADA to share
information concerning improvements to a conveyor system used to assemble
aerial bombs. According to the contractor, the government disclosed proprietary
contractor information to competitors and unauthorized government personnel,
in violation of the CRADA, which enabled a competitor to win a contract
award for a redesigned conveyer system.
After a three-day trial, the court concluded it was clear the government repeatedly breached its confidentiality obligations under the CRADA. The government did not comply with a provision requiring it to obtain written agreements of confidentiality from its employees and contractors. As a result, many government employees released the contractor's proprietary information while unaware of the CRADA's requirements. Also, the government violated a provision requiring it to limit disclosure of proprietary information to employees and contractors with a need to know, and by sharing information with contracting officials involved with the procurement for the redesigned system, and with others who did not need the information. Many government officials who obtained information were not involved with the CRADA, and personnel who had worked on the CRADA were also assigned to the procurement.
Further, government officials requested proprietary information from the contractor under false pretenses, knowing the information would be incorporated into briefing materials and a solicitation, which led to the violation of a provision requiring the parties to confer and consult with each other prior to making a public disclosure. The government also supplied protected information to outside contractors in a draft solicitation and at a pre-solicitation conference where government personnel and contractors discussed the draft and the procurement. Damages were to be determined in a later proceeding. (Spectrum Sciences and Software, Inc. v. U.S., FedCl, 53 CCF ¶79,044)
Protest of FedBizOpps Procurement Dismissed
A claim alleging the government
violated FAR 1.102(b)(3) and FAR 1.102-2(c)(1) was dismissed by the Court
of Federal Claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because neither
provision imposes a substantive obligation on the government. Following
two successful protests (50 CCF ¶78,616, 52 CCF ¶78,907) of
contract awards for the development and management of the FedBizOpp.gov
website, the protester sought damages for costs incurred "in pursuing"
the solicitation. In the first count of its complaint, the protester alleged
the government violated FAR 1.102 and FAR 1.102-2 by failing to conduct
business with integrity, fairness, and openness, by failing to consider
the protester's proposal fairly and honestly, and by awarding the contract
on a sole source basis. The government moved to dismiss under CFC Rule
12(b)(1), arguing the sections provide only implementing guidance and
judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act was not available.
Two decisions of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit were dispositive. In the first case (402 F3d 1345), the Federal Circuit held that another guidelines regulation, 19 CFR 113.13(b), provides only standards for government officials and does not impose specific requirements. FAR 1.102, entitled "Statement of guiding principles for the federal acquisition system," is similar in that it only indicates appropriate courses for government officials to follow, and subsection (b)(3) imposes no specific substantive obligations and is not therefore judicially enforceable. Another case (46 CCF ¶77,978), concluding FAR 216.104 and FAR 35.006(c) provide only internal government direction and impose no mandatory, judicially enforceable requirements, was also instructive. FAR 1.102-2(c)(1) also provides only internal government direction, stating "each member of the [t]eam is responsible and accountable for the wise use of public resources as well as acting in a manner which maintains the public's trust … [f]airness and openness require open communication among team members, internal and external customers, and the public." Moreover, FAR 1.102(b)(3) and FAR 1.102-2(c)(1) were originally drafted to serve as a preface to the Federal Acquisition Regulation's substantive sections, which supported the view they did not impose enforceable obligations.
The second count of the complaint, which alleged the government breached its implied-in-fact contract with the protester by encouraging the protester to submit a proposal and then granting a sole source contract to the awardee, was also dismissed. Prior to the enactment of the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996, the CFC reviewed bid protests under 28 USC 1491(a)(1) based on an implied-in-fact contract theory. The ADRA explicitly provided protesters have an independent cause of action to "object[] to a solicitation by a [f]ederal agency for bids or proposals for a proposed contract or to a proposed award or the award of a contract or any alleged violation of statute or regulation in connection with a procurement or proposed procurement" (28 USC 1491(b)(1)). However, the judges of the CFC disagree whether the implied-in-fact contract theory survived the enactment of the ADRA, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has twice declined to resolve the issue. The more persuasive view is the ADRA divested the CFC of jurisdiction over common law claims in bid protest cases. The legislation introduced a new standard of review under 28 USC 1491(b), while making no change to 28 USC 1491(a)(1). If the right to bring an implied-in-fact contract claim under 28 USC 1491(a)(1) survived, these claims would be evaluated under a different standard than claims brought under the express bid protest jurisdiction of 28 USC 1491(b), and the legislative history suggests the ADRA sought to eliminate this situation. Further, the first count of the protester's complaint invoked bid protest jurisdiction under 28 USC 1491(b)(1), while the second count cited the 28 USC 1491(a)(1) standard. In other cases where a contractor presented claims under both sections, the claims based on an implied-in-fact contract theory have been dismissed. (Information Sciences Corp. v. U.S., FedCl, 53 CCF ¶79,049)
Defense Costs Allowable Despite Liability
for Some FCA Claims
A claim for defense costs was
summarily granted by the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals because a
contract clause did not disallow the contractor's costs of defending itself
on counts and claims where it prevailed in a fraud or similar proceeding.
The contractor, as successor in interest to a contractor under a nuclear
weapons plant operation and maintenance contract, sought to recover its
predecessor's defense costs for False Claims Act claims and other fraud
and nonfraud counts on which the predecessor was found not liable or prevailed.
The government contended no defense costs were allowable because the predecessor
was found liable on three FCA claims and a contract provision reflecting
section 1534 of the Department of Defense Authorization Act of 1986 disallowed
"[c]osts incurred in defense of any civil or criminal fraud proceeding
... brought by the [government] where the contractor ... is found liable
...." Relying on the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's interpretation
of "proceeding" as used in section 2324(k) of the Major Frauds
Act (Rumsfeld v. General Dynamics Corp., 48 CCF ¶78,212), the government
contended the term should be defined broadly to include all claims or
causes of action within a case, action, or proceeding.
However, the board determined the word "proceeding" is vague and subject to multiple definitions depending on the circumstances. Section 2324(k) addressed the allowability of defense costs when the proceeding was resolved by consent or compromise, and the Federal Circuit found it necessary to look to the MFA's wording, related provisions, and legislative history and Black's Law Dictionary for its definition. The board found no reason to apply this definition because the instant case did not involve a proceeding resolved by consent or compromise and the Department of Defense Authorization Act was enacted before the MFA. The absence of any contrary legislative intent and the general rule that penal statutes should be strictly construed favored a more restrictive definition. Moreover, case law suggested no predisposition against apportionment of defense costs, and a final rule implementing section 1534 permitted differentiation and separate accounting for defense costs. Although the rule was promulgated after the clause was added to the contract and therefore was not binding, it demonstrated the government interpreted section 1543 as disallowing costs only if the charges involved fraud or similar offenses and the contractor was convicted. (Boeing Co. v. Dept. of Energy, CBCA, ¶92,460)
Splitting Orders to Stay Below $100,000
Is Prohibited
The government acted improperly
in using a simplified acquisition procedure to purchase brand-name products
because it split orders to stay below the $100,000 threshold for simplified
acquisitions. The government conducted a brand-name procurement for four
types of fluid filters by issuing four requests for quotations as simplified
acquisitions under $100,000 in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation
2.101, which defines the simplified acquisition threshold. The fourth
RFQ contained estimates indicating the government would likely spend well
over $100,000 for the filters covered by this request, over the two- year
term of the indefinite delivery purchase order. The protester argued FAR
11.104(b) barred the government from conducting a brand name procurement
"without setting forth salient characteristics that would permit
broader competition." The government contended "its use of brand-name
purchase descriptions [was] permitted by the FAR where the brand-name
items are essential to the government's needs, market research supports
the lack of an alternative item and ... the basis [for a simplified acquisition]
is documented in the contracting file."
The Comptroller General dismissed the protest with respect to the first three RFQs, but sustained it for the fourth, finding the government had demonstrated a reasonable basis for limiting the solicitations to brand-name items, but only if there was a reasonable expectation the value of the items being solicited did not exceed the $100,000 simplified acquisition threshold. The first three RFQs were all under $100,000, and the government did not have sufficient data to consider brand-name alternatives. Under these circumstances FAR 10.001(a)(2)(iii) permits a streamlined approach to procuring these items. With respect to the fourth RFQ, however, the government could not evade the threshold by using multiple IDPOs, each under $100,000, when the estimated quantity needed was far greater than this amount. FAR 13.003(c)(2) expressly prohibits splitting orders "into several purchases that are less than the applicable threshold merely to ... [p]ermit use of simplified acquisitions procedures." The Comptroller General recommended "the IDPO and the order be terminated for the convenience of the government, if feasible." Further, if review by the government confirms that its requirements exceed the $100,000 threshold, it "should procure this requirement using full and open competition, or properly justify any decision not to do so." (Critical Process Filtration, Inc., 24 CGEN ¶112,768)
Regulatory News
Rewrite of GSAR Federal Supply Schedule
Provisions Proposed
The General Services Administration
has issued a proposed rule that would make extensive revisions to GSAR
Part 538, Federal Supply Schedule Contracting. The rule is issued in connection
with the GSA Acquisition Manual rewrite initiative undertaken by GSA to
maintain consistency with the Federal Acquisition Regulation and implement
streamlined and innovative acquisition procedures that contractors, offerors,
and GSA contracting personnel can use when entering into and administering
contractual relationships. The GSAM incorporates the GSA Acquisition Regulation
as well as internal agency acquisition policy. Comments referencing GSAR
Case 2006-G507 are due March 27, 2009. For the text of the proposed rule,
see ¶70,033.58.
Proposed GSAR Subpart 538.12, Acquisition of Commercial Items, would be added to outline solicitation provisions and clauses. In addition to making individual prescriptions, the rule would add an overarching prescription at GSAR 538.1203, which directs the contracting officer to insert appropriate provisions and clauses, when applicable. 96 provisions/clauses are proposed for inclusion throughout GSAR Subpart 552.2. Some are new, some are retained, and others are relocated from other GSAM parts.
GSAR Subpart 538.2 would be removed, but its content would be retained and redistributed to more appropriate subparts. New GSAR Subpart 538.15, Negotiation and Award of Contracts, would provide clarity to FSS COs regarding contract evaluation and award. The provision currently at GSAR 538.270, Evaluation of multiple award schedule (MAS) offers, would be revised to clarify the CO's role, moved to GSAR 538.1504, and renamed Evaluation of commercial pricing practices. GSAR 538.272, MAS price reductions, would be moved to GSAR 538.1508, and then revised by changing the term "eligible ordering activity" to "Government" to bring clarity to the relationship between the government and the contractor, and to ensure the contractor understands the importance of maintaining this correlation of price relationship for the duration of the contract.
New GSAR Subpart 538.9, Contractor Qualifications, would be added to define roles and responsibilities under teaming agreements, which would be known as Contractor Partnering Arrangements. Proposed GSAR Subpart 538.25, Requirements for Foreign Entities, advises contractors to submit commercial price lists in English and to allow for payments in local currency, while proposed GSAR Subpart 538.42, Contract Administration, advises contractors to abide by the terms and conditions of the Industrial Funding Fee and Sales Reporting Requirements when entering into teaming agreements, and explains the process and procedures that should be followed for cancelling a contract at the contractor's request. New GSAR Subpart 538.43, Contract Modifications, would provide guidance on initiating modification requests to the government.
SBA Intends to Terminate Waiver of
Nonmanufacturer Rule
The Small Business Administration
has issued a notice of intent to terminate a waiver of the Nonmanufacturer
Rule for Product Service Code 3930, Warehouse Trucks and Tractors, Self-Propelled,
on the basis of its recent discovery of small business manufacturers.
Section 8(a)(17) of the Small Business Act (15 USC 637(a)(17)) authorizes
SBA to waive the nonmanufacturer rule (SBA 121.406(b)) for any "class
of products" for which there are no small business manufacturers
or processors available to participate in the federal market. SBA defines
classes of products based on the Office of Management and Budget's North
American Industry Classification System codes and the General Services
Administration's Product and Service Code Directory. Within each six-digit
NAICS code, SBA uses the PSC directory to identify particular products
to which a waiver would apply. SBA granted the waiver in 1990 for PSC
3930 under NAICS code 333319, and recently learned of small business manufacturers
within this class of product. Terminating this waiver will require recipients
of contracts set aside for small businesses, service-disabled veteran-owned
small businesses, or participants in SBA's 8(a) Business Development Program,
to provide the products of small business manufacturers or processors.
For the text of the notice, see ¶70,425.353.
Postal Service Proposes Revised Board
Rules of Procedure
The Postal Service has proposed
revised rules of procedure for the Postal Service Board of Contract Appeals.
The revised rules update the current rules, are more comprehensive, and
are intended to reflect actual practice in board proceedings more precisely.
The proposed rules would formalize board precedent permitting notices
of appeal to be filed either with the contracting officer or directly
with the board. Other substantive changes would:
- allow the board to consider the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence for guidance in construing its rules and processing appeals;
- require a party requesting an extension of time to indicate whether the opposing party consents to the extension and to justify a late request;
- require the filing party to serve complaints and answers, but not simultaneous briefs, on the opposing party;
- allow for filing by fax, but not electronic filing;
- require Postal Service counsel to file the appeal file within 30 days from receipt of the board's docketing notice (current rules require filing within 30 days from the contracting officer's receipt of the notice of appeal);
- require the appellant to file the complaint within 45 days after receipt of the notice of docketing (current rules allow 30 days);
- formalize board practice allowing the board to order the Postal Service to file the complaint in appeals involving affirmative claims by the Postal Service;
- provide for summary judgment motions;
- formalize the board's discovery practices, requirements, and limitations;
- clarify hearings may be held at the board's hearing room or another location convenient to the parties and witnesses;
- formalize the board's practices regarding exclusion of witnesses at hearings;
- provide both parties will receive transcripts or copies of proceedings without charge;
- require an attorney who wishes to withdraw from a case to file a motion or notice identifying the person who will assume responsibility for the party; and
- detail the board's sanction powers over
parties and attorneys.
Comments on the proposed rules, found at 74 FR 6844, are due March 13, 2009.
Major Contract Awards
McDonnell Douglas - $2.95 Billion. The Air Force is awarding a firm-fixed-price contract to McDonnell Douglas Corporation of Long Beach, CA, for an amount not to exceed $2,950,000,000. This is an undefinitized contract action for the procurement of 15 C-17 aircraft. At this time, $114,550,000 has been obligated. 516 AESG/SYK, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH is the contracting activity. (FA8614-06-D-2006). Government Contracts Reports 1995, February 11, 2009
AM General - $511 Million. AM General, LLC, South Bend, IN, was awarded on January 30, 2009, a $510,781,157 firm-fixed-price contract to add 3,401 each High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV) to contract. Work is being performed at Mishawaka, IN, with an estimated completion date of December 31, 2009. One bid was solicited and one bid received. U.S. Army Tank & Automotive Command, Warren, MI, is the contracting activity (DAAE07-01-C-S001). Government Contracts Reports 1995, February 11, 2009
L-3 Services - $400 Million. L-3 Services of Tampa, FL, is being awarded a $400,000,000 maximum order amount modification to increase the contract ceiling on the current indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity contract for information technology support to USSOCOM Headquarters, its component commands, theater special operation commands and the military departments (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps) that have or provide direct support to Special Operations Forces. The work will be performed in Tampa and other locations and will expire March 31, 2011. The ceiling increase will be accomplished by issuing modification P00047 to contract number USZA22-02-D-0017 on an "other than full and open" competition basis. Government Contracts Reports 1996, February 18, 2009
Cardinal Health 200 Inc. - $396 Million. Cardinal Health 200 Inc., McGaw Park, IL, is being awarded a maximum $396,081,495 firm-fixed-price, indefinite-quantity and indefinite-delivery, prime vendor contract for medical and surgical supplies. Other locations of performance are MD, NY, NC, OH, TN, IL, MO, MA, NJ, MN, IN, KY, and MI. Using services are Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, federal civilian agencies, Coast Guard, and other non-DoD agencies. The original proposal was FedBizOps solicited with two responses. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract is exercising the second option period. The date of performance completion is October 19, 2011. The contracting activity is the Defense Supply Center, Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA (SPM200-05-D-7001). Government Contracts Reports 1996, February 18, 2009
Owens & Minor - $396 Million. Owens & Minor, Mechanicsville, VA, is being awarded a maximum $396,081,495 firm-fixed-price, indefinite-quantity and indefinite-delivery, prime vendor contract for medical and surgical supplies. Other locations of performance are PA, MI, TN, VA, IL, NJ, KY, IN, NC, MD, and WI. Using services are Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Federal Civilian Agencies, Coast Guard, and other Non-DoD Agencies. The original proposal was FedBizOps solicited with two responses. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract is exercising the second option period. The date of performance completion is October 19, 2011. The contracting activity is the Defense Supply Center, Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA (SPM200-05-D-7000). Government Contracts Reports 1996, February 18, 2009
Maritime Helicopter Support Co. - $327 Million. Maritime Helicopter Support Company, Woodbridge, Va., is being awarded a $326,596,424 firm-fixed-price, definite-delivery, definite-quantity Performance Based Logistics (PBL) contract for support for Navy H-60 weapons repairables assemblies (WRAs) and shop replaceable assemblies covering various airframes and avionics systems in support of the H-60 series helicopters. Work will be performed at Stratford, CN (83 percent) and Owego, NY (17 percent), and work is expected to be completed by January 2010. Contract funds will not expire before the end of the current fiscal year. This announcement combines purchases with the U.S. Navy (98 percent), the U.S. Coast Guard (1 percent) and the Governments of Australia, Greece, Spain, Thailand, and Taiwan - 1 percent). This contract was not awarded competitively. The Naval Inventory Control Point is the contracting activity (N00383-09-D-010F). Government Contracts Reports 1994, February 4, 2009
Lockheed Martin - $300 Million. The Air Force is modifying a fixed-price economic price adjustment contract with Lockheed Martin Corporation of Marietta, GA for $299,848,783. This action exercise options for Lot 3 for the C-5M reliability enhancements and re-engining program. At this time $25,272,726 has been obligated. 716 AESG/PK, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH is the contracting activity (FA8625-07-C-6471, P00011). Government Contracts Reports 1995, February 11, 2009
Boeing - $250 Million. The Boeing Co., Integrated Defense Systems (Global Services and Support Division), St. Louis, MO, is being awarded $249,937,154 for a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for operations and sustainment support for the fielded portions of the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) System for calendar year (CY) 2009 with an option for CY 2010. The principal places of performance are the contractor's facility in Huntsville, AL, and Missile Defense Agency facilities at Schriever Air Force Base, CO, Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA, and Fort Greely, AK. This sole source contract is awarded pursuant to 10 USC 2304(c)(1), as implemented by FAR 6.302-1. Specifically, as provided in the Justification and Approval for Other Than Full and Open Competition, Boeing, as the incumbent prime contractor for the operations and sustainment of the GMD Weapon System, is the only qualified source to perform this effort without unacceptable delay to critical program schedules and unaffordable duplication of costs. The MDA, Huntsville, AL, is the contracting activity (HQ0147-09-C-0007). The period of performance is from January 2009 through December 2009 with a one year option to continue work from January 2010 through December 2010. The contract will be incrementally funded for $133,429,130 at award. Fiscal year (FY) 09 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation funds (RDT&E) will be used for the primary operations and sustainment support activities. FY09 Army Operation and Maintenance (O&M) funds will be used for training of Army soldier-operators. The RDT&E funds will not expire at the end of the fiscal year. The O&M funds will expire at the end of the fiscal year. This award is an interim measure which will continue essential O&S support to the GMD system in the near-term while MDA acquires and verifies necessary technical data and develops its strategy for competitive acquisition of follow-on GMD O&S support. On January 29, 2009, MDA published a formal announcement of its intent relative to follow-on GMD O&S efforts subsequent to effort covered by this current award. The purpose of the January 29, 2009 FEDBIZOPPS announcement is to initiate immediate dialogue with industry regarding a competitive acquisition strategy for follow-on GMD O&S support requirements, with a stated intent to make a competitive award for such requirements no later than calendar year 2011. Government Contracts Reports 1995, February 11, 2009
Metals USA d/b/a I-Solutions Group - $230 Million. Metals USA, (DBA) I-Solutions Group, Fort Washington, PA, is being awarded a maximum $230,100,000 fixed-price with economic price adjustment, prime vendor contract for metals. Other locations of performance are in Pennsylvania. Using services are Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and federal civilian agencies. There were originally five proposals Web-solicited with three responses. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract has a two year base period and three one-year option periods. The date of performance completion is February 13, 2011. The contracting activity is the Defense Supply Center Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA (SPM8EG-09-D-0001). Government Contracts Reports 1997, February 25, 2009