July 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 robert.musiala@wolterskluwer.com.

Hot Topic

DOD Reopens Aerial Tanker Competition
The Defense Department will reopen the competition between Boeing and Northrop Grumman to build a new fleet of aerial refueling tankers, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced on July 8. The decision comes less than a month after the Government Accountability Office (GAO) declared that the competition for the $40 billion contract was flawed.

"Following the review of the GAO decision on the initial award of this contract, I've concluded that the contract cannot be awarded at present because of significant issues pointed out" by the GAO, Gates said.

After the Air Force awarded the contract to Northrop Grumman and its partner the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EADS), Boeing challenged the decision. The GAO agreed with Boeing that the process was flawed. Among the significant errors cited by the GAO, the Air Force did not follow its own evaluation criteria when assessing the competing proposals. The Air Force also conducted "misleading and unequal discussions" with Boeing.

Gates said the reopening of the competition would be limited, with the goal of awarding the contract by the end of the year. "It is important to remember that this decision does not represent a return to the first step of a process that has already gone on far too long," Gates said.

The new competition will involve only the areas of concern identified by the GAO. A senior Defense Department official, not the Air Force, will oversee the next phase of the process. John J. Young, Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition will serve as the "source selection authority" and will appoint an advisory committee to oversee the selection.

The competing companies said they welcomed the decision to reopen the competition. "It's encouraging that the Defense Department intends to take steps to ensure a fair and open competition that, among other things, fully accounts for life-cycle costs, such as fuel, to provide the most capable tanker at the best value for the American taxpayer," Boeing said in a statement. Government Contracts Reports, 1967, July 16, 2008.

Tanker Evaluation Did Not Follow RFP Criteria
A contract award for aerial refueling tankers was improper because the selection decision was inconsistent with the solicitation's evaluation scheme and the awardee's proposal was technically unacceptable. The best value request for proposals contained a detailed systems requirement document (SRD) outlining the technical performance requirements for the aircraft. The SRD contained nine key performance parameters (KPPs), which identified minimum performance capabilities. Under the RFP's key systems requirements (KSS) subfactor, which was the most important subfactor of the major technical evaluation factor, mission capability, the government advised it would assess proposals in five areas, including aerial refueling. For a proposal to be found acceptable under the subfactor, it was required to meet certain thresholds for the nine KPPs. The SRD identified numerous key system attributes (KSAs) for the five evaluation areas, as well as numerous "non-KPP/KSA" requirements. Offerors did not have to satisfy the "non-KPP/KSA" requirements, but they were desired and considered part of the offerors' "design trade space." For purposes of the overall evaluation of the KSS subfactor, the RFP stated "evaluation of ... proposed capabilities and approaches against the SRD requirements will be made in the following descending order of relative importance: KPPs, KSAs, and ... non-KPP/KSA requirements." The competition was very close, and both of the submitted proposals received nearly identical technical ratings. In its proposal analysis, a selection advisory team identified "major discriminators," "discriminators offering less benefit," and weaknesses in each of the proposals, and concluded the awardee's proposal was technically superior. The protester argued the government did not evaluate the proposals in accordance with the RFP's evaluation scheme under the KSS subfactor. According to the protester, the source selection decision did not reasonably consider the RFP's weighting of the various SRD requirements and the evaluation did not account for the fact the RFP specifically requested offerors to propose as many "trade space" requirements as possible.

The Comptroller General sustained the protest, finding the government did not assess the relative merits of the proposals according to the assigned levels of importance or account for the fact the protester's proposal was evaluated as satisfying significantly more SRD requirements. Most of the protester's evaluated "major discriminators" were assessed under KPP requirements, while most of the awardee's were assessed under less important "non-KPP/KSA" requirements. However, there were no documents of record showing the selection officials meaningfully considered the weights assigned to the KPP, KSA, and "non-KPP/KSA" requirements, and the selection decision likewise ignored this distinction between the relative merits of the evaluated "major discriminators." Further, the RFP requested that offerors satisfy as many "trade space" requirements as possible, and the selection advisory team identified more "discriminators offering less benefit" for the protester in this area, but there was nothing of record showing this advantage was considered by any of the selection officials. The government also violated an RFP provision stating "no consideration will be provided for exceeding ... KPP objectives" when it recognized, as a key discriminator, the fact the awardee's proposal exceeded a KPP objective relating to aerial refueling.

Also, the government's acceptance of the awardee's proposal was improper. In its evaluation, the government assessed a weakness after recognizing the awardee did not commit to providing the necessary planning and support to achieve an initial depot-level maintenance capability within the two-year period required by the RFP. However, the selection advisory team concluded the refusal to provide the commitment was an "administrative documentation oversight" because the awardee had stated it would resolve the issue at or after contract award, and its cost/schedule documentation was consistent with the requirement. However, the awardee's refusal to commit to the required two-year time frame could not "be reasonably viewed as an administrative or documentation oversight." Rather, it was an exception to a material solicitation requirement, and as a result, the awardee's proposal was technically unacceptable and could not form the basis for an award. The Comptroller General found additional errors in both the technical and cost evaluations, and determined the government conducted misleading and unequal discussions. Cautioning that its decision "should not be read to reflect a view as to the merits of the [offerors]' respective aircraft," the Comptroller General concluded the protester would have had a substantial chance of receiving the award but for the errors, and recommended the government reopen discussions, obtain revised proposals, and make a new source selection decision. (The Boeing Co., 23 CGEN 112,629)

Legal News

Employee Background Checks Raised Privacy Concerns
On appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a district court's denial of a preliminary injunction was reversed and remanded because contractor employees challenging government background check requirements were likely to succeed on the merits of their informational privacy claims, the background investigations would result in irreparable harm, and the balance of hardships favored the employees. The government modified the contract to operate the Jet Propulsion Laboratory to require "low-risk" contractor employees to submit to in-depth background checks that asked whether in the past year they had "used, possessed, supplied, or manufactured illegal drugs," and if so, to provide information regarding "any treatment or counseling received" for drug abuse. Forms to be filled out by personal references asked the references to disclose "any adverse information" about the employees. The contractor's employees challenged the background questionnaire and examination, contending the investigations violated the Administrative Procedure Act, their constitutional right to informational privacy, and the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches. The district court denied the employees' request for a preliminary injunction, finding the employees were unlikely to succeed on the merits, failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, and would not prevail in a balance of hardships. After vacating its prior ruling (52 CCF 78,876), the Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court's conclusion the background investigations complied with the APA, finding the investigations were authorized by the Space Act of 1958. The court also affirmed the district court's conclusion the investigations were unlikely to be considered "searches" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

However, the district court erred in finding the employees were not likely to succeed on their constitutional informational privacy claim. Although the questions regarding past involvement with illegal drugs passed constitutional scrutiny, the requirements for employees to disclose "any treatment or counseling received" for drug abuse, and for personal references to provide "any adverse information" about the employees, were not narrowly tailored to further a legitimate government interest. Furthermore, the district court erred in judging the harm to the employees and in weighing the balance of hardships. The contractor's policy of deeming employees who did not complete the questionnaire to have voluntarily resigned would cause the employees irreparable harm because there was no adequate remedy for improperly denying their employment. Constitutional violations cannot be adequately remedied through damages, and the emotional damage resulting from loss of employment cannot be compensated by mere back payment of wages. The relative lack of harm to the government weighed in favor of granting the preliminary injunction. (Nelson., et al. v. NASA, CA-9, 52 CCF 78,957)

Consent Judgment Does Not Trigger EAJA Application Deadline
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a Court of Federal Claims ruling that denied an application for Equal Access to Justice Act fees on timeliness grounds, because the CFC erroneously concluded the order of the Federal Circuit granting the contractor's motion to voluntarily withdraw its appeal became a "final and not appealable judgment" for purposes of the EAJA application deadline as of the date of entry. The contractor filed its application for EAJA fees 112 days after the Federal Circuit issued its mandate granting the voluntary withdrawal motion. Under the EAJA, an application must be submitted "within thirty days of final judgment," and a "final judgment" is "a judgment that is final and not appealable." A judgment is "not appealable" only after the time for filing an appeal has elapsed (28 USC 2412(d)). The contractor argued to the CFC that its application was timely filed "within thirty days of final judgment" because the Federal Circuit's mandate did not become a "final judgment" until after the 90-day period for filing a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court had expired. The CFC rejected the contractor's argument, finding the judgment of the Federal Circuit granting the voluntary dismissal motion was final and not appealable and the deadline for filing an EAJA application was 30 days later. (50 CCF 78,641). Although the Supreme Court had ruled the EAJA's filing period starts to accrue only after the time to appeal has expired for all parties (Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 US 89 (1991)), it had not addressed the circumstance where a final judgment has been entered as a result of a voluntary dismissal.

The Federal Circuit explained "the regional circuits have generally applied the principle that for EAJA purposes a consent judgment of dismissal is subject to the same appeal accrual rules as other judgments." The First, Third, Ninth, and District of Columbia Circuits have held consent judgments are not "final judgments" for purposes of the EAJA, and have expressed preference for "a uniform rule whereby the time for filing an EAJA request would run from the expiration of the time for appeal, without consideration of whether the particular final judgment would have or could have been appealed." In distinction, the Fifth and Tenth Circuits have adopted a "case by case" or "functional" approach, where they generally find the 30-day EAJA filing period begins to run from the grant of a voluntary motion for dismissal.

The Federal Circuit agreed with the former approach, finding it was consistent with the legislative intent to "give both courts and litigants clear guidance" on the time for filing an EAJA application. It therefore adopted "a uniform rule for EAJA petitions in the [CFC], whereby appeal rights from voluntary dismissals are presumed unless expressly disclaimed or specifically prohibited." Accordingly, the Federal Circuit found the contractor's EAJA application, submitted 112 days after the Federal Circuit granted its motion for voluntary withdrawal, but within 30 days of the expiration of the time for filing a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court, was timely filed. The CFC's decision was reversed and remanded for a determination of the merits of the contractor's EAJA application. (Impresa Construzioni Geom. Domenico Garufi v. U.S., CA-FC, 52 CCF 78,959)

Independent Contractor Exception Did Not Bar FTCA Suit
A district court incorrectly held the independent-contractor exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act barred a tort claim, because the plaintiffs sought to hold the government liable for the conduct of its employees and therefore the exception did not apply, according to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The plaintiffs' suit under the FTCA alleged the government was responsible for the death of a subcontractor employee who was killed when highly pressurized air ejected him from a manhole where he was performing maintenance work on an aircraft support system. The plaintiffs averred the government failed to provide proper safety training for workers and that government employees acted negligently in failing to warn the workers it was unsafe to enter a manhole while the system was pressurized. The district court determined the independent-contractor exception to the FTCA barred the plaintiffs' suit because the deceased worker was a contractor employee, and the government did not have sufficient control over the project or the contractor to convert the worker's status into that of a de facto government employee.

However, the Fifth Circuit concluded the status of the deceased worker's employer was irrelevant because applicability of the independent-contractor exception depends on whether the tortfeasor was an employee of the government or an independent contractor. Also, the plaintiffs were not seeking to hold the government vicariously liable for the acts of its contractors but instead sought to hold the government directly liable for the death because federal employees allegedly failed to adequately warn, train, and supervise the deceased worker and abate dangerous conditions on federal property. The mere fact independent contractors might also have caused the death did not implicate the independent-contractor exception. The appellate court nevertheless affirmed the lower court's summary dismissal of the FTCA claims on the basis the government did not have control over the aspect of the project that gave rise to the worker's death. (Linn, et al. v. U.S., CA-5, 52 CCF 78,952)

Proposal Did Not Comply With Trade Agreements Act
A contract award for the delivery of large field refrigeration systems was arbitrary and capricious, according to the Court of Federal Claims, because the awardee's proposal did not comply with the certification requirement of the Trade Agreements Act. The request for proposals required each offeror to certify, for purposes of the TAA (19 USC 2501, et seq.) and DFARS 252.225-7020, that its proposed LFRS was "a U.S.-made, qualifying country, or designated country end product." Under the awardee's initial proposal, it would ship the first LFRS component, the refrigeration unit, from Singapore, a designated country, to China, which was not a qualifying or designated country. There, the other component, the container, would be built and the two components would be joined. During discussions, the awardee explained further that, after manufacture of the refrigeration unit in Singapore, it would be shipped to China where it would be "mechanically and electrically integrated within the basic ... container structure." After that, the containers were to be shipped to the U.S., where additional manufacturing processes, quality assurance testing, and preparation for shipment would occur. In its final proposal revisions, the awardee replaced its original TAA certification, which stated its LFRS was a product of Singapore, with a certification that the "place of end item manufacture" was the U.S. The Comptroller General subsequently rejected the protester's challenge to the awardee's TAA compliance (23 CGEN 112,619). The protester then sought injunctive relief in the CFC, where the court remanded the case to the government for further development of the procurement record. The contracting officer found the awardee was TAA-compliant "by virtue of the substantial transformation that takes place at the [awardee's] manufacturing facility in [the U.S.]," and that "the mere bolting of the Singapore refrigeration unit into the Chinese ... container for shipment to the U.S. does not ... make [the awardee] noncompliant with the TAA."

The court sustained the protest, finding the awardee's representations of compliance were inconsistent and therefore the government improperly accepted the awardee's proposal. To comply with the TAA, the article to be acquired must either be manufactured or produced, or undergo a substantial transformation, in a qualifying or designated country (19 USC 2518(4)(B)). Here, it was apparent the item would be "substantially transformed" in China, as the production schedule submitted with the awardee's initial proposal indicated final assembly of the containers and testing of the systems would occur there. The fact that a percentage of the manufacturing process would occur in Singapore and the U.S. was irrelevant to the TAA's "substantial transformation" inquiry. By the time an LFRS arrived in the U.S., it would have been "mechanically and electrically integrated," "finally assembled," and "functionally tested." It was only during the remand proceedings when the awardee offered to make the LFRS in the U.S. that the government could have treated the proposal as TAA-compliant, and it would be improper to consider that late offer as part of the awardee's proposal.

In addition to succeeding on the merits, the protester met the three other remaining requirements for injunctive relief: it would not have the opportunity to have its proposal fairly and lawfully considered, so it would suffer irreparable injury; the same RFP could be used to procure the item and any harm to the government was of its own making, so the harm to the protester outweighed the harm to the government; and the public interest weighed in favor of injunctive relief on the basis of procurement integrity concerns. The court enjoined further performance and directed the government to terminate the contract. (Klinge Corp. v. U.S., et al., FedCl, 52 CCF 78,953)

Regulatory News

E.O. Calls for New Procedures to Determine Contractor Fitness
Executive Order 13467, issued June 30, 2008, is entitled "Reforming Processes Related to Suitability for Government Employment, Fitness for Contractor Employees, and Eligibility for Access to Classified National Security Information." The policy underpinning the order states procedures relating to contractor employee fitness "shall be aligned using consistent standards to the extent possible, provide for reciprocal recognition, and shall ensure cost-effective, timely, and efficient protection of the national interest." E.O. 13467 defines "contractor" as "an expert or consultant (not appointed under section 3109 of title 5, United States Code) to an agency; an industrial or commercial contractor, licensee, certificate holder, or grantee of any agency." This definition encompasses "all subcontractors; a personal services contractor; or any other category of person who performs work for or on behalf of an agency (but is not a [f]ederal employee)". The order also provides a definition for "contractor employee fitness" as meaning "fitness based on character and conduct for work for or on behalf of the [g]overnment as a contractor employee." The order seeks to ensure an "efficient, practical, reciprocal, and aligned system" for investigating and determining whether a contractor employee is fit to perform work for the government. The aligned system will "employ updated and consistent standards and methods, [and] enable innovations with enterprise information technology capabilities and end-to-end automation to the extent practicable." Also, the system is intended to "ensure that relevant information maintained by agencies can be accessed and shared rapidly across the executive branch, while protecting national security, [and] protecting privacy-related information." E.O. 13467 revokes E.O. 13381 ("Strengthening Processes Relating to Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified National Security Information") of June 27, 2005, as amended.

BIS Amends EAR to Implement Australia Group Agreements
The Bureau of Industry and Security has published a final rule amending the Export Administration Regulations to implement the understandings reached at the April 2008 plenary meeting of the Australia Group. The AG is a multilateral forum, consisting of 40 countries, that maintains export controls on a list of chemicals, biological agents, and related equipment and technology that could be used in a chemical or biological weapons program. The AG periodically reviews items on its control list to enhance the effectiveness of participating governments' national controls and to achieve greater harmonization among those controls. This final rule reflects changes to the AG "Control List of Biological Agents" agreed upon at the April 2008 annual plenary meeting by amending EAR 745.1, EAR 745.2, Supplement No. 2 to EAR Part 745, and Export Control Classification Number 1C352 of the Commerce Control List (Supplement No. 1 to EAR Part 774). For the text of the rule, effective July 8, 2008, see 72,750.145.

SBA Makes 18.2% Inflationary Increase to Size Standards
The Small Business Administration has finalized an interim rule (70,425.251) that increased SBA's monetary-based small business size standards for inflation. In the December 2005 interim rule, SBA increased by 8.7 percent most of its monetary-based size standards to account for inflation that had occurred since the prior February 2002 inflationary adjustment. Since then, the United States economy has experienced additional inflation, due in part to significant increases in the price of crude oil. To account for the rapid rate of inflation, and in accordance with its policy of maintaining the value of size standards in inflation-adjusted terms, SBA is now adjusting the interim rule's size standards by an additional 8.7 percent, for a total increase of 18.2 percent. This additional increase, which impacts standards such as receipts, net income, net worth, and financial assets, restores the eligibility of businesses that may have lost small business status due solely to price level increases, as opposed to increases in business activity. SBA will also conduct a comprehensive review of all of its small business size standards over a two-year period to meet its objective of establishing the size standards at appropriate levels. This rule also adopts the interim rule's two-step process for determining eligibility for SBA's Business Loan and Economic Injury Disaster Loan Programs and the revised date used for determining size status for EIDL applications for businesses located in Hurricane Katrina, Rita, and Wilma disaster areas. The rule amends the table of size standards in SBA 121.201, as well as SBA 121.301, SBA 121.302, SBA 121.502, SBA 121.512, and SBA 123.300. For the text of the final rule, effective August 18, 2008, see 70,425.331.

GAO Issues Rules of Procedure for Appeals Board
The Government Accountability Office has issued, as an interim rule, the rules of procedure of the Government Accountability Office Contract Appeals Board. The GAO CAB was established by section 1501 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 (PL 110-161) to hear and decide contract disputes between contractors and legislative branch agencies. Before the new board was created, appeals were decided by ad hoc boards created under direct appointment by congressional committees or by agreement with the Architect of the Capital.

The new board will decide appeals filed on or after October 1, 2007. Legislative branch agencies with whom disputes are appealable to the board are defined to include the Architect of the Capitol, United States Botanic Garden, GAO, Government Printing Office, Library of Congress, Congressional Budget Office, and United States Capitol Police. Appeals filed with the board are subject to the Contract Disputes Act of 1978, with the certain exceptions. The most notable exceptions are that contractors do not have a right to appeal a decision of a contracting officer directly to the Court of Federal Claims, and the threshold for certifying claims is $50,000, not $100,000 as provided by the CDA. The new rules of procedure are based on rules previously issued by the GAO to govern procedures of the various ad hoc boards and the rules promulgated by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals and Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, with adaptations to achieve greater efficiency in case management and resolution. The interim rule, which adds 4 CFR Part 22, is effective June 26, 2008, and applies to appeals filed on or after October 1, 2007. Comments are due August 25, 2008. The interim rule appears at 73 FR 36257, and a correction adding the effective date appears at 73 FR 36789. Government Contracts Reports, 1967, July 16, 2008.

Major Contract Awards

General Dynamics - $3.1 Billion. The Air Force is modifying an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract for a maximum of $3,100,000,000 ($850,000,000 increase in total ceiling amount) with General Dynamics Network Systems, Incorporated of Needham, Mass. The Intelligence Information, Command and Control, Equipment and Enhancements (ICE2) contract provides worldwide information technology (IT) sustainment and technical support. The contractor provides computer equipment support consisting of preventive and remedial maintenance of hardware and inventory management. The option period of the contract expires 30 Jun. 2008. This increase will allow task orders to continue to Jun. 2008. At this time no funds have been obligated. Warner-Robins Air Logistics Center, 330 Aircraft Sustainment Wing, 560 Aircraft Sustainment Group, Contracting Division, Robins AFB, Ga., is the contracting activity (F09603-03-D-0095-P00008). Government Contracts Reports, 1966, July 9, 2008.

Graybar Electric Co. - $660 Million. Graybar Electric Co., St. Louis, Mo. is being awarded a maximum $660,000,000.00 fixed price with economic price adjustment, indefinite delivery and indefinite quantity contract for maintenance, repair and operations for supplies. There are no other locations of performance. Using services are Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Federal Civilian Agencies. This proposal was originally Web solicited with six responses. This contract is exercising third one-year option. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The date of performance is July 28, 2009. The contracting activity is Defense Supply Center Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pa. (SPM500-04-D-BP11). Government Contracts Reports, 1969, July 30, 2008.

Canadian Commercial Corp. - $552 Million. Canadian Commercial Corp., General Dynamics Land Systems, Canada, Ontario, Canada, is being awarded $552,081,274 for delivery order #0004 under previously awarded firm-fixed-priced, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract (M67854-07-D-5028) for the purchase of 773 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles with Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) upgrades and associated Non-Recurring Engineering (NRE) costs. Work will be performed in South Africa (57 percent); Lansing, Mich. (22 percent) and Anniston, Ala. (21 percent), and work is expected to be completed no later than Dec. 2009. Contract funds will not expire by the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured with nine offers received via Navy Electronic Commerce Office. The Marine Corps Systems Command, Quantico, Va., is the contracting activity. Government Contracts Reports, 1968, July 23, 2008.

Northrop Grumman - $324.6 Million. The Air Force is modifying a fixed price incentive firm contract not to exceed $324,600,000 with Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation, Integrated Systems Air Combat Systems of San Diego, Calif. This contract will provide 2 RQ-4B Block 301 Global Hawk air vehicles, 3 RQ-4B Block 40 air vehicles with MP-RTIP sensor, 1 mission element, 1 launch and recovery element, and associated equipment; option for 4 EISS sensor payloads. At this time $180,351,181 has been obligated. 303 AESG/PK, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, is the contracting activity (FA8620-07-C-4015 P00008). Government Contracts Reports, 1967, July 16, 2008.

SupplyCore, Inc. - $320 Million. SupplyCore, Inc., Rockford, Ill.* is being awarded a maximum $320,000,000.00 fixed price with economic price adjustment, prime vendor, indefinite delivery and indefinite quantity contract for Maintenance, Repair and Operations (MRO). There are no other locations of performance. Using services are Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps. This proposal was originally Web solicited with 6 responses. This contract is exercising third option year. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The date of performance is July 28, 2009. The contracting activity is Defense Supply Center Philadelphia (DSCP), Philadelphia, Pa. (SPM500-04-D-BP10). Government Contracts Reports, 1969, July 30, 2008.

Raytheon Co. - $232.7 Million. Raytheon Co., Fullerton, Calif., is being awarded a cost-plus-incentive-fee contract with award fee provisions for a total estimated value of $232,767,343 for the System Development and Demonstration of the Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS), including the delivery of eight fully functional Ship System Engineering Development Models and four Aircraft System Test Avionics Sets. Work will be performed in Fullerton, Calif., (45 percent); Cedar Rapids, Iowa, (38 percent); Indianapolis, Ind., (7 percent); Long Beach, Calif., (5 percent); Richardson, Texas, (3 percent); Woodland Hills, Calif., (1.8 percent); and Virginia Beach, Va. (0.2 percent), and work is expected to be completed in Sept. 2014. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via an electronic request for proposals, with two offers received. The Naval Air Systems Command is the contracting activity (N00019-08-C-0034). Government Contracts Reports, 1968, July 23, 2008.

AeroVironment, Inc. - $200 Million. AeroVironment, Inc., has been awarded a Not to Exceed $200,000,000.00, one year (four option year periods), indefinite delivery indefinite quantity contract for all environment capable variant small unmanned aircraft systems in support of the U.S. Special Operations Command Program Executive Office - Fixed Wing. The work will be performed in Simi Valley, Calif., and is for one year from date of contract award. This contract was awarded through full and open competition. This contract number is H92222-08-D-0048. Government Contracts Reports, 1966, July 9, 2008.