Government Contracts Update August 2007

August 2007

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

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

Hot Topic

FAC 2005-18 Clarifies SBA Size Standards Reporting
The Civilian Agency Acquisition and Defense Acquisition Regulations Councils have published Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-18, which contains one interim rule amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation. The rule (FAR Case 2006-032) implements the Small Business Administration's final rule published on November 15, 2006 (¶70,425.282), entitled "Small Business Size Regulations; Size for Purposes of Governmentwide Acquisition Contracts, Multiple Award Schedule Contracts and Other Long-Term Contracts; 8(a) Business Development/ Small Disadvantaged Business; Business Status Determinations." The purpose of the SBA rule and this FAR rule is to improve the accuracy of small business size status reporting at the prime contract level over the life of certain contracts, including long-term contracts and those involving novations, acquisitions, and mergers.

Contractors will be required to rerepresent their size status on contracts prior to the end of the fifth year of a contract that is more than five years in duration (long-term contract). Rerepresentation will also be required before exercising any option of a long-term contract and following execution of a novation agreement or a merger or acquisition of the contractor, regardless of whether there is a novation agreement. A change in size status does not change the terms and conditions of the contract, but the agency may no longer include the value of options exercised or orders issued against the contract in its small business prime contracting goal achievements. Although not addressed in the SBA rule, this interim rule strengthens the requirement for a contracting officer to document in the contract file the date the contractor verified its representations in the Government's Online Representations and Certifications Application, or include a paper copy of those representations in the contract file.

To implement these changes, the interim rule: amends FAR 4.602; changes the heading of FAR Subpart 4.12 to read "Rerepresentations and Certifications" and revises the introductory text to FAR 4.1200; adds a new subparagraph to FAR 4.1201; revises FAR 17.207(e); adds a new paragraph (c) to FAR 19.202-5; redesignates FAR 19.301 as FAR 19.301-1, while adding new sections at FAR 19.301, FAR 19.301-2, and FAR 19.301-3; amends FAR 19.302 and FAR 19.308; revises FAR 19.804-6; amends the contract clause at FAR 52.212-5; and adds a new clause at FAR 52.219-28. Comments on the interim rule are due by September 4, 2007. The rule applies to solicitations issued, and contracts awarded, on or after June 30, 2007. For contracts awarded before June 30, 2007, contracting officers must modify existing long-term contracts awarded to small businesses, as defined in the interim rule at FAR 19.301-2(a), to include the clause at FAR 52.219-28, Post-Award Small Business Program Rerepresentation. Contracting officers must also modify contracts awarded to small business concerns, other than long-term contracts, to include the clause at FAR 52.219-28 at the time an option is exercised. For the text of FAC 2005-18, see ¶70,002.90.

Legal News

Related Decision Read With Letter to Establish CDA Jurisdiction
The Court of Federal Claims had jurisdiction over a claim for the unpaid balance under a construction contract, even though the claim had not been certified and presented to the contracting officer, because the CO's final decision awarding the government liquidated damages, in conjunction with a letter to the contractor stating an intent to set off the liquidated damages against the unpaid balance, amounted to a final decision denying the contractor's right to payment. After several disputes involving alleged differing site conditions, constructive changes, government-caused delays, and breaches of contract, the contractor ceased performance and its surety completed the project. Soon after the contractor stopped performing, the CO terminated the contract for default. When the contractor requested an equitable adjustment, the CO declined to respond, and the contractor filed a claim in the Court of Federal Claims seeking an equitable adjustment, breach of contract damages, interest and litigation costs. The CO subsequently issued a final decision assessing liquidated damages against the contractor. On the same date as the final decision, the CO sent the contractor a letter quantifying the remaining balance due under the contract and stating the liquidated damages would be set off against the unpaid balance. The contractor then amended its complaint with the Court of Federal Claims to include a claim for the outstanding contract balance. The government moved to dismiss this portion of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the contractor never filed a certified claim with the CO with regard to the unpaid balance and the amount was never the subject of a final decision.

The Contract Disputes Act requires all claims greater than $100,000 to be certified when submitted to the CO. However, a CO's decision on a government claim which is adverse to a contractor may serve as the basis for a contractor's appeal, even in the absence of a final decision on a certified claim. Here, although the contractor's claim for the unpaid contract balance exceeded $100,000 and was not certified or presented to the CO, the CO effectively issued a final decision denying the claim. While neither the CO's final decision on liquidated damages nor the CO's letter explicitly addressed the contractor's right to the unpaid amount due under the contract, when read together the two documents established the critical elements of liability and damages necessary to construe a final decision in favor of the government. Therefore, the contractor's amended claim for the balance of contract funds was an appeal of the CO's adverse decision on the disposition of those funds, and the Court of Federal Claims properly exercised jurisdiction over the appeal. (Roxco, Ltd. v. U.S., FedCl, 51 CCF ¶78,772)

District Court Had Jurisdiction Over Claim Against Contractors
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a district court's interlocutory order transferring damages claims filed by oyster growers because 28 USC 1497 does not create exclusive jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims over oyster growers' claims against private contractors for damage to oyster beds caused by dredging operations. The dispute arose out of river dredging projects initiated by the government, and designed and implemented by contractors. The oyster growers, who were the owners or beneficial owners of oyster leases in waters affected by the dredging, sued the contractors in federal district court. The oyster growers sued in tort, alleging the contractors' negligent design and implementation of the projects resulted in the discharge of silt, sediments, and other toxic materials onto their leased oyster beds. In response, one of the contractors filed a third-party complaint against the government, asserting a contractual right to contribution and indemnity. On the contractor's motion, the district court transferred the entire case to the Court of Federal Claims, finding the court had exclusive jurisdiction over the third-party complaint pursuant to 28 USC 1497, which grants the court jurisdiction over "any claim for damages to oyster growers...arising from dredging operations..." (see also Fisherman's Harvest, Inc. v. Weeks Marine, Inc., SD TX Nov. 15, 2005). According to the district court, nothing in 28 USC 1497 prohibited transfer of the oyster growers' claims against the contractors, and transfer of the entire case would serve the interests of judicial economy and justice. The oyster growers appealed the district court's transfer order.

The Federal Circuit assumed the transfer order was made pursuant to 28 USC 1631, and therefore exercised jurisdiction over the appeal of the interlocutory order pursuant to 28 USC 1292(d)(4)(A). The court found the transfer improper under 28 USC 1631 because there was no "want of jurisdiction" over the oyster growers' claims. As the growers properly alleged diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000, the necessary want of jurisdiction for transfer pursuant to 28 USC 1631 could only be found if 28 USC 1497 creates exclusive jurisdiction over the oyster growers' claims in the Court of Federal Claims. However, the language of 28 USC 1497 does not create such exclusive jurisdiction or otherwise abrogate jurisdiction in other forums where the oyster growers had the right to bring suit. Contrary to the contractors' assertions, the phrase "any claim" in 28 USC 1497 does not abrogate the federal district courts' jurisdictional grant under 28 USC 1332 with respect to oyster growers. To hold otherwise would conflict with the language of the statute and principles of statutory interpretation. Furthermore, to interpret 28 USC 1497 as vesting the Court of Federal Claims with exclusive jurisdiction over certain private tort actions would raise serious constitutional concerns.

In applying 28 USC 1631 as the relevant statute governing the transfer order, the Federal Circuit found 28 USC 1404(a) does not govern transfers from a district court to the Court of Federal Claims, because the Court of Federal Claims is not a "district or division" as expressed by 28 USC 1404(a). The court acknowledged this ruling was at odds with a decision from the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Hondros v. U.S. Civil Service Commission, 720 F.2d 278, 3d Cir. 1983).

Judge Newman dissented, finding transfer of the oyster growers' claims to the Court of Federal Claims was not forbidden by statute. According to the dissent, 28 USC 1497 "assigns the issues arising from federally authorized dredging to the Court of Federal Claims," and the district court properly transferred the entire case pursuant to 28 USC 1404(a). The dissent did not read the transfer provisions of 28 USC 1404(a) as subordinate to 28 USC 1631. Noting the ultimate liability to the oyster growers fell to the government, and "can be assessed only by the Court of Federal Claims," the dissent stated the majority opinion would result in duplicative litigation and deny the authority of the Court of Federal Claims to decide issues relating to the government's liability under 28 USC 1497. (Fisherman's Harvest, Inc., et al. v. PBS & J, et al., CA-FC, 51 CCF ¶78,771)

Failure to Object to Terms of Solicitation Amounted to Waiver
A decision not to enjoin a contract award was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit because the protester had the opportunity, but failed to object to the terms of the solicitation before the bidding closed and therefore waived its ability to raise the same objection in a protest in the Court of Federal Claims. In a pre-award bid protest, the CFC (50 CCF ¶78,565) granted the government and prospective awardee judgment on the administrative record, denying the protester an injunction. The court held the protester "missed its chance to protest" based on the Service Contract Act because it was attempting to challenge the terms of the solicitation, rather than the evaluation process, and it did not raise the challenge prior to the submission of the proposals. On appeal the protester argued the court erred in its characterization of the government's failure to apply the SCA to the awardee's proposal. However, in deciding an issue of first impression, the Federal Circuit recognized the application of the waiver rule to bid protests brought in the CFC.

The CFC's jurisdictional statute requires the court to give "due regard" to "the need for expeditious resolution of the action" (28 USC 1491(b)(3)). Recognition of a waiver rule, which requires a party to object to solicitation terms during the bidding process, furthered this statutory mandate. The patent ambiguity doctrine also supported the application of a waiver rule. Under this doctrine, if a solicitation contains a patent ambiguity, the contractor has a duty to seek clarification from the government or it loses the right to raise the objection in a subsequent action. The appellate court found further support in the Government Accountability Office's bid protest regulations, which contain a similar waiver rule. Thus, while the jurisdictional grant of 28 USC 1491(b) contained no time limit requiring a solicitation to be challenged before the close of bidding, the statutory mandate of 28 USC 1491(b)(3) for courts to give due regard to the need for expeditious resolution of an action favored the application of the waiver rule. (Blue & Gold Fleet, L.P. v. U.S., et al., CA-FC, 51 CCF ¶78,774)

Cover Letter's Noncompliant Acceptance Period Justified Exclusions
A proposal was reasonably rejected as unacceptable because it did not comply with the solicitation's minimum acceptance period. The request for proposals for information technology services instructed offerors the government required a minimum acceptance of 365 calendar days. According to the government, the lengthy acceptance period was necessary because it anticipated receiving numerous proposals and would require additional time for evaluations. After receiving 414 proposals, the government performed an acceptability review and noted the protester's cover letters accompanying its proposals stated its offers were valid for 180 days from the date of submission. The government concluded the protester's proposals failed the acceptability review and did not further evaluate its proposals. The protester argued the language in its cover letter was a clerical error extrinsic to its actual proposals and was insufficient to negate other language in its cover letter and proposals stating the proposals were prepared consistent with the terms of the RFP. Alternatively, contended the protester, the 180-day language only created an ambiguity and should have been addressed through clarifications.

The Comptroller General denied the protest, finding the protester offered no cases supporting its argument the cover letters should not have been read as part of the proposals, and the assertion was contrary to prior decisions holding cover letters are considered part of an offeror's proposal. Further, there was no basis for concluding the government was required to seek clarifications. Under FAR 15.306(a)(2), the government "generally has the discretion to decline to seek clarifications from an offeror, even where [it] has engaged in clarifications with other offerors." Although there may be situations where it would be unfair to request clarifications from one offeror but not another, "the mere fact [the government] requests clarification from one offeror and not another, does not constitute unfair treatment." Finally, the government did not treat the protester unequally by seeking extended acceptance periods from other offerors because it determined those offerors complied with the RFP's requirements, including the minimum acceptance period. (INDUS Technology, Inc., 22 CGEN ¶112,409)

Legislative and Regulatory Activity

CBCA Releases Rules of Procedure
The General Services Administration has issued, as an interim final rule, the rules of procedure of the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals. The CBCA was established within GSA by section 847 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 to hear and decide contract disputes between contractors and certain executive agencies. Effective January 6, 2007, boards of contract appeals that existed at GSA and the Departments of Agriculture, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs were terminated, and their cases were transferred to the CBCA.

The new rules of procedure, which will govern all proceedings before the CBCA, are based on and are substantially similar to the rules of procedure which existed at the predecessor boards. In drafting the CBCA rules of procedure, GSA studied the rules of procedure of all of the civilian agency boards and developed an interim rule which blends those rules. The interim rule maintains most of the rules the former boards had in place.

The Department of Justice has advised GSA the statute that granted subpoena authority to the separate agency boards, and that provides subpoena authority for the CBCA, does not provide the necessary legal authority for a board to enforce a subpoena against a federal agency. Therefore, GSA does not interpret its subpoena authority over a "person," as the term is used in new Rule 16, to include the U.S. or component agencies. The interim rule, which revises 48 CFR Parts 6101 through 6105, is effective July 5, 2007. Comments are due September 28, 2007, and should be identified by CBCA Amendment 2006-01, BCA case 2006-61-1. The board intends to issue final, revised rules after considering all comments on the interim rule. The interim rule appears at 72 FR 36793.

Final Rule Amends Export Policy for People's Republic of China
The Bureau of Industry and Security has published a final rule amending the Export Administration Regulations to revise and clarify licensing requirements and policy with regard to the export and reexport of items to the People's Republic of China. BIS published a proposed rule (¶72,755.18) on July 6, 2006, to reflect more precisely the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States in facilitating U.S. exports to legitimate civilian end-users in the PRC, while preventing exports that would enhance the PRC's military capability. For the text of the final rule implementing these changes, effective June 19, 2007, see ¶72,750.121.

The overall policy to approve exports for civil end-uses, but deny exports that will make a direct and significant contribution to Chinese military capabilities, is set forth in amended EAR 742.4(b)(7). A non-exhaustive list of major weapons systems specifically identified as military capabilities sought to be impeded by the new export controls appears in a newly added Supplement No. 7 to EAR 742. Further revisions clarify that BIS will review license applications to export or reexport to the PRC items controlled due to concerns over chemical and biological weapons proliferation, nuclear proliferation, and missile technology, under amended EAR 742.2, EAR 742.3, and EAR 742.5, in accordance with the policies in paragraph (b) of the applicable section and the revised licensing policy in EAR 742.4(b)(7).

The rule adds EAR 744.21, which establishes a control, based on knowledge (as defined in EAR 772.1) of a "military end-use," on exports and reexports to the PRC of certain items listed in new Supplement No. 2 to EAR Part 744 that otherwise do not require a license. The list of items subject to the "military end-use" restriction covers approximately 20 products and associated technologies, as described in the entries of 31 full or partial Export Control Classification Numbers. Applications to export, reexport, or transfer items controlled under the "military end-use" restriction will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Additionally, the rule creates a new authorization for "validated end-users," to which specified items may be exported or reexported without a license. A validated end-user authorization will allow the export, reexport, and transfer of eligible items to specified end-users in an eligible destination, initially the PRC. Validated end-users must meet a number of criteria, including a demonstrated record of engaging only in civil end-use activities. The procedures for requesting validated end-user authorization, criteria to be used for evaluating requests, applicable timelines, and related information and procedures, are explained in amendments to EAR 743.1, EAR 748.3, EAR 750.2, EAR 758.1, and the newly added EAR 748.15 and Supplement Nos. 7-8 to EAR Part 748.

Finally, the rule revises the circumstances in which End-User Statements, issued by the PRC Ministry of Commerce, must be obtained, requiring the statements for all exports to the PRC of items on the CCL over a specific value, which for most exports will be $50,000. This revision, and related changes, are effectuated by amendments to EAR 748.9, EAR 748.10, EAR 748.12, Supplement No. 4 to EAR Part 748, and the addition of Supplement No. 9 to EAR Part 748.

CASB Rule Exempts T&M/LH Commercial Item Contracts
The Cost Accounting Standards Board, Office of Federal Procurement Policy, has released a final rule to provide an exemption for Time and Material and Labor Hour contracts for commercial items. The rule, which adopts a proposed rule issued January 4, 2006 (¶70,058.06), amends CASB 9903.201-1(b)(6) to exempt T&M/LH from CAS coverage. The Board's action is consistent with its previous work to exempt contracts for the acquisition of commercial items. In 1996, the Board issued an interim rule (¶70,055.09) implementing the Federal Acquisition Reform Act by providing an exemption from CAS for contracts for the acquisition of commercial items that are firm fixed-price and fixed-price with economic price adjustment. Effective February 12, 2007, FAC 2005-15 amended the Federal Acquisition Regulation to add T&M/LH contracts as an acceptable contract type for acquiring commercial items. This final rule makes the CAS regulations consistent with that FAR amendment. For the text of the final rule, which has a July 3, 2007, effective date, see ¶70,055.19.

NASA Rule Clarifies Award Fee Evaluation Factors
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has issued a final rule amending the NASA FAR Supplement to clarify the requirements for award fee evaluation factors and to add a requirement for a documented cost/benefit analysis when an award fee contract is used. The Government Accountability Office report entitled "NASA Procurement: Use of Award Fees for Achieving Program Outcomes Should Be Improved" (GAO-07-58), dated January 2007, included recommendations for improving NASA award fee policy. The GAO recommended NASA require cost/benefit analysis documentation when using an award fee contract and also recommended NASA reemphasize the importance of tying award fee criteria to desired outcomes and limiting the number of evaluation subfactors. NASA agreed with both GAO recommendations and, accordingly, has revised NFS 1816.405-270 and NFS 1816.405-274. For the text of the final rule, effective June 29, 2007, see ¶70,047.197.

Major Contract Awards

McDonnell Douglas Corp. - $2 Billion. McDonnell Douglas Corp., A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of Boeing, St. Louis, MO, is being awarded an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity, firm-fixed-price with economic price adjustment contract for $2,015,000,000. This contract provides for Engineering Services of an Enhanced A-10 Wing. Minimum guarantee is Engineering Services and one each First Article. The maximum contract limitation is Engineering Services plus 242 Wings. Estimated order dates for the ordering period is 7 June 2007 through 30 September 2011. Estimated order date for one additional optional ordering period is 1 October 2011 through 30 September 2016. To date, $74,181,576 has been obligated. Solicitations began November 2006 and negotiations were completed May 2007. This work will be complete September 2018. PA POC can be reached at (801) 777-2284. PA POC can be reached at (937) 255-2350. Headquarters Ogden Air Logistics Center, Hill Air Force Base, UT, is the contracting activity (FA8202-07-D-0004). Government Contracts Report Letter No. 1916, July 11, 2007.

Lockheed Martin - $1 Billion. Lockheed Martin Simulation, Training and Support, Orlando, FL, is being awarded indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity with firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee, cost-reimbursable no fee and labor hour arrangements contract for $1,070,000,000. This action provides for Aircrew Training and Rehearsal Support (ATARS) II program that sustains and supports mission qualification training and rehearsal system hardware, software and courseware (including instructors) for Special Operations Forces (SOF) and Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) schoolhouse training. This contract will provide total training solution to include as a minimum support of Program Flying Training (PFT), Mission Rehearsal and Exercises at the 19 SOS, 58 TRS, 193 SOW, and additional CONUS/OCONUS sites as well as within the Joint Synthetic Battle Space. To date, $1,279,510 has been obligated. Solicitations began October 2006 and negotiations were completed June 2007. This work will be complete June 2017. PA POC can be reached at (801) 777-2284. Headquarters Ogden Air Logistics Center, Hill Air Force Base, UT, is the contracting activity (FA8223-07-D-0001). Government Contracts Report Letter No. 1916, July 11, 2007.

Stewart & Stevenson Tactical Vehicle Systems - $518.5 Million. Stewart & Stevenson Tactical Vehicle Systems, LP, a division of Armor Holdings, Inc., is being awarded $518,543,584 for firm-fixed-priced delivery order #0002 under previously awarded indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract (M67854-07-D-5030) for the purchase of 1,154 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Category I vehicles, and 16 MRAP Category II vehicles. Work will be performed in Sealy, TX, and work is expected to be completed February 2008. Contract funds will not expire by the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured. The Marine Corps Systems Command, Quantico, VA, is the contracting activity. Government Contracts Report Letter No. 1917, July 18, 2007.

Centurum, Inc. and Scientific Research Corp. - $420 Million. Centurum, Inc., Marlton, NJ, and Scientific Research Corp., Atlanta, GA, were each awarded an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, cost-plus-incentive-fee/cost-plus-fixed-fee/fixed- priced multiple award contracts on July 10, 2007, for network centric services. These two contractors may compete for the task orders under the terms and conditions of the awarded contract. The aggregate value of all task orders awarded over the life of these two contracts will be approximately $420,000,000. The government's guaranteed minimum amount is $100,000 for each contractor. Services that may be ordered under these contracts include engineering and technical support services in development, test and evaluation, and life cycle support of communications systems, subsystems and equipment. These contracts include a one-year base period and four one-year options and two one-year award terms, making the total potential period of performance seven years. Work will be performed in Charleston, SC, and is expected to be completed by July 2008 (July 2014 if all options are exercised). Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The multiple award contracts were competitively procured by full and open competition via the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command E-commerce web site and the Federal Business Opportunities web site, with two offers received. The Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, Charleston, SC, is the contracting activity (N65236-07-D-5883; 07-D-5882). Government Contracts Report Letter No. 1917, July 18, 2007.

International Military and Government LLC - $413.8 Million. International Military and Government LLC, Warrenville, IL, is being awarded $413,869,860 for firm-fixed-priced, delivery order #0004 under previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5032) for an additional 755 Category I (CAT I) Mine Resistance Ambush Protected (MRAP) Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) vehicles. The CAT I is an MRAP vehicle provided for the Marine Corps and other Joint Forces that is needed in convoy operations. The MRAP vehicles are required to increase survivability and mobility of troops operating in a hazardous fire area against known threats such as small arms fire, rocket propelled grenades, and improvised explosive devices. Work will be performed in WestPoint, MS, and work is expected to be completed by February 2008. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured. The Marine Corps Systems Command, Quantico, VA, is the contracting activity. Government Contracts Report Letter No. 1918, July 25, 2007.

Northrop Grumman - $407.9 Million. Northrop Grumman Systems Corp., Bethpage, NY, is being awarded a $407,992,320 modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-award-fee contract (N00019-03-C-0057) for the procurement of three E-2D Advanced Hawkeye Pilot Production aircraft. Work will be performed in Bethpage, NY, (26.5 percent); at various locations across the United States, (25.88 percent); Syracuse, NY, (23.57 percent); St. Augustine, FL, (18.63 percent); and Menlo Park, CA, (5.42 percent) and is expected to be completed in August 2010. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, MD, is the contracting activity. Government Contracts Report Letter No. 1916, July 11, 2007.

AM General - $378.3 Million. AM General L.L.C., South Bend, IN, was awarded on July 3, 2007, a $378,341,704 modification to a firm-fixed-price contract for High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicles. Work will be performed in Mishawaka, IN, and is expected to be completed by Dec. 31, 2009. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This was a sole source contract initiated on March 17, 2006. The U.S. Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command, Warren, MI, is the contracting activity (DAAE07-01-C-S001). Government Contracts Report Letter No. 1917, July 18, 2007.

Minacorp Ltd. - $367 Million. Minacorp Ltd., Gibraltar, is being awarded a maximum $367,298,266.00 fixed price with economic price adjustment contract for fuel. Using services are Air Force. Other locations of performance are Biskek, Kyrgyzstan. The original proposal was web solicited with 4 responses. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Date of performance completion is May 30, 2009. Contracting activity is Defense Energy Support Center (DESC), Fort Belvoir, VA, (SP0600-07-D-1007). Government Contracts Report Letter No. 1915, July 3, 2007.

GM GDLS Defense Group LLC - $256 Million. GM GDLS Defense Group L.L.C. (Joint Venture), Sterling Heights, MI, was awarded on June 26, 2007, a delivery order amount of $256,887,103 as part of a $5,410,884,329 firm-fixed-price contract for Stryker vehicles. Work will be performed in Sterling Heights, MI (60 percent), and London, Ontario, Canada (40 percent), and is expected to be completed by Jan. 31, 2010. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. There were an unknown number of bids solicited via the World Wide Web on April 6, 2000, and 17 bids were received. The U.S. Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command, Warren, MI, is the contracting activity (DAAE07-00-D-M051). Government Contracts Report Letter No. 1916, July 11, 2007.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. - $248 Million. McDonnell Douglas Corp., A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of Boeing, Long Beach, CA, is being awarded a firm-fixed-price and cost-plus-incentive-fee contract modification for $248,425,655. This contract action funds the FY07 fourth quarter option for the C-17 sustainment-labor/engine CLS and material. This effort supports foreign military sales to Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF), Commonwealth of Australia and Canadian Forces. To date, total funds have been obligated. Headquarters Aeronautical Systems Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH, is the contracting activity (FA8614-04-C-2004/P00191). Government Contracts Report Letter No. 1916, July 11, 2007.

Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. - $235.6 Million. Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., Stratford, CT., is being awarded a maximum $235,657,972.57 firm fixed price contract for spare parts supplied as support to numerous aircraft platforms. Using services are Army, Navy Air Force, and Marine Corps. There was 1 sole source proposal originally solicited with 1 response. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This is the 2nd option year being exercised. Date of performance completion is July 7, 2008. Contracting activity is Defense Supply Center Richmond (DSCR), Richmond, VA, (SPM400-05-D-9413). Government Contracts Report Letter No. 1916, July 11, 2007.

Raytheon Co. - $222 Million. Raytheon Company, Tucson, AZ, is being awarded a $222,987,079 firm-fixed-price modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-07-C-5431) to procure 294 Evolved SEASPARROW Missiles (ESSM), 68 shipping containers and spares for the NATO SEASPARROW Consortium. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ (45 percent); Andover, MA (10 percent); Camden, AR (2 percent); Australia (11 percent); Germany (8 percent); Canada (7 percent); The Netherlands (6 percent); Norway (5 percent); Spain (3 percent); Denmark (1 percent); Greece (1 percent); Turkey (1 percent), and is expected to be completed by February 2010. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The contract was not competitively procured. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity. Government Contracts Report Letter No. 1915, July 3, 2007.

BAE Systems - $212 Million. BAE Systems Land & Armaments, LP. Ground Systems Division, York, PA, is being awarded $212,423,188 for firm-fixed-priced delivery order #0003 under previously awarded contract (M67854-07-D-5025) for the purchase of 271 Mine Resistant and Ambush Protected (MRAP) Category (CAT) I vehicles, 16 MRAP CAT II Ambulances Variant, and 154 MRAP CAT I U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) Variant, and Sustainment Integrated Logistics Support (ILS). The Sustainment ILS will consist of 90 day consumables, forward deployment blocks, maintenance workshop blocks, field service representatives, and operator and maintenance training. Work will be performed in York, PA, and is expected to be completed by July 2008. Contract funds will not expire by the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured. The Marine Corps Systems Command, Quantico, VA, is the contracting activity. Government Contracts Report Letter No. 1915, July 3, 2007.

Harris Corp. - $211 Million. Harris Corp., RF Communications Division, Rochester, NY, is being awarded a $211,724,850 firm-fixed-priced, General Services Administration (GSA) Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) contract for the Tactical Hand-Held Radio (THHR), Dual Vehicle Adapter (DVA), and antennas. The BPA will have a 3-year ordering period with a contract maximum of 14,141 DVAs equipped with two THHRs, and 28,282 antennas. Work will be performed in Rochester, NY, and work is expected to be complete June 2010. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured utilizing the GSA Ebuy website, with 17 proposals solicited and two offers received. The Marine Corps Systems Command, Quantico, VA, is the contracting activity (M67854-07-A-7063). Government Contracts Report Letter No. 1915, July 3, 2007.

EDO CCS - $209.8 Million. EDO Communications & Countermeasures Systems (EDO CCS), Thousand Oaks, CA, is being awarded a $209,884,759 modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-07-C-6311) to exercise options for the production and support of 3,000 vehicle-mounted, Counter- Radio Controlled Improvised Explosive Device (RCIED) Electronic Warfare (CREW) systems to meet urgent Department of Defense requirements in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. Vehicle Mounted CREW systems are one element of the DoD's Joint Counter RCIED Electronic Warfare program. Spiral 2.1 CREW systems are vehicle mounted electronic jammers designed to prevent the initiation of RCIED. Work will be performed in Thousand Oaks, CA (87 percent); and Lancaster, CA (13 percent), and is expected to be completed by August 2008. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity. Government Contracts Report Letter No. 1918, July 25, 2007.

Raytheon Co. - $201 Million. Raytheon Co., Tucson, AZ, is being awarded a $201,010,722 firm-fixed-price modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-06-C-5350) for FY07 STANDARD Missile-2 production requirements. This modification will provide for procurement of 190 missiles, 121 shipping containers, spares and associated data for the U.S. (73.12 percent) and the Governments of Japan (22.17 percent); Germany (3.28 percent); Spain (1.10 percent); and Canada (.33 percent) under the Foreign Military Sales Program. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ (83 percent); Andover, MA (14 percent); Camden, AR (2 percent); and Farmington, NM (1 percent), and is expected to be completed by September 2009. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity. Government Contracts Report Letter No. 1918, July 25, 2007.

BAE Systems - $183 Million. BAE Systems, Lexington, MA, was awarded on June 26, 2007, a delivery order amount of $183,249,165 as part of a $2,191,036,916 firm-fixed-price contract for thermal weapons sights with associated testing. Work will be performed in Lexington, MA (70 percent), and Manassas, VA (30 percent), and is expected to be completed by June 30, 2012. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. There were an unknown number of bids solicited via the World Wide Web on March 9, 2007, and three bids were received. The U.S. Army Research, Development, and Engineering Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, is the contracting activity (W91CRB-07-D-0030). Government Contracts Report Letter No. 1916, July 11, 2007.

Raytheon/Lockheed Martin Javelin - $172 Million. Raytheon/Lockheed Martin Javelin (Joint Venture), Tucson, AZ, was awarded on June 29, 2007, a $172,206,845 modification to a firm-fixed-price contract for Javelin FY07 production and remanufacture option exercise and Command Launch Unit supplemental hardware. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ (60 percent), and Orlando, FL (40 percent), and is expected to be completed by Feb. 28, 2008. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This was a sole source contract initiated on May 22, 2003. The U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal, AL, is the contracting activity (W31P4Q-04-C-0136). Government Contracts Report Letter No. 1916, July 11, 2007.

Freightliner LLC - Awarded $165.9 Million. Freightliner L.L.C. Portland, OR, was awarded on June 27, 2007, a delivery order amount of $165,939,183 as part of a $725,283,624 firm-fixed-price contract for M916A3 Light Equipment Transporters. Work will be performed in Portland, OR, and is expected to be completed by Oct. 17, 2008. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. There were an unknown number of bids solicited via the World Wide Web on April 21, 2000, and two bids were received. The U.S. Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command, Warren, MI, is the contracting activity (DAAE07-00-D-S022). Government Contracts Report Letter No. 1916, July 11, 2007.

Global PCCI - $130 Million. Global PCCI (GPC), Irvine, CA, is being awarded an estimated $130,000,000 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, cost-plus-award fee contract for services to manage, maintain and operate the U.S. Navy's Emergency Ship Salvage Material (ESSM) system bases. The primary purpose of this contract is to provide for management, maintenance and operation of the U.S. Navy's ESSM bases in support of the Director of Ocean Engineering, Supervisor of Salvage and Diving, in the conduct of salvage, diving, pollution response and underwater ship husbandry. Work will be performed in Williamsburg, VA (80 percent); Port Hueneme, CA (10 percent); Pearl Harbor, HI (5 percent); Irvine, CA (3 percent) and Fort Richardson, AK (2 percent), and is expected to be completed by June 2012. Contract funds in the amount of $50,000, will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured and was advertised via the Internet, with two proposals received. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity (N00024-07-D-4130). Government Contracts Report Letter No. 1915, July 3, 2007.

Electric Boat Corp. - $116.3 Million. Electric Boat Corp., Groton, CT, is being awarded a $116,369,994 modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-05-C-2103) for lead yard services, and for development studies and design efforts, related to Virginia-Class submarines. The Lead Yard Services will maintain, update, and support the design and related drawings and data for each submarine, including technology insertion, throughout its construction and Post-Shakedown Availability (PSA) period. The contractor will also provide all engineering and related Lead Yard Services necessary for direct maintenance and support of Virginia Class Ship Specifications. In addition, the contract provides Development Studies and Design efforts related to the submarine design and design improvements, preliminary and detail component and system design, integration of system engineering, design engineering, test engineering, logistics engineering, and production engineering. The contractor will continue development studies and design efforts related to components and systems to accomplish research and development tasks and prototypes and engineering development models required to fully evaluate new technologies to be inserted in succeeding Virginia Class Submarines. Work will be performed in Groton, CT (97 percent); Newport, RI (2 percent); and Quonset, RI (1 percent), and is expected to be completed by October 2007. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity. Government Contracts Report Letter No. 1918, July 25, 2007.

General Dynamics, National Steel and Shipbuilding Co. - $100 Million. General Dynamics, National Steel and Shipbuilding Company, San Diego, CA, is being awarded a $100,000,000 fixed-price-incentive modification under previously awarded contract (N00024-02-C-2300) to exercise an option for long lead time material and associated labor for the 10th ship of the T-AKE 1-Class (T-AKE 10). The contractor will perform material sourcing, material ordering, vendor interface, and material quality assurance. 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. In its primary mission role, the T-AKE will provide logistic lift from sources of supply such as friendly ports, or at sea from specially equipped merchant ships by consolidation, and will transfer cargo (ammunition, food, limited quantities of fuel, repair parts, ship store items, and expendable supplies and material) at sea to station ships and other naval warfare forces. Work will be performed in San Diego, CA, and is expected to be completed by September 2009. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C, is the contracting activity. Government Contracts Report Letter No. 1918, July 25, 2007.