Government Contracts Update February 2008

February 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 aaron.broaddus@wolterskluwer.com.

Hot Topic

DOD Authorization Bill Includes Contracting Reforms
President Bush has signed H.R. 4986, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. The $696 billion measure includes a 3.5 percent pay raise for military personnel as well as management reforms for the Department of Defense, including the Acquisition Improvement and Accountability Act of 2007.

Some of the reforms included are: establishment of a defense acquisition workforce development fund to ensure that DOD has the people and skills needed to effectively manage its contracts; strengthening of statutory protections for contractor employees who blow the whistle on waste, fraud, and abuse in DOD contracts; and tightening of the rules for DOD acquisition of major weapons systems and subsystems, to reduce the risk of contract overpricing, cost overruns, and failure to meet contract schedules and performance requirements.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, noted that "these and other provisions should go a long way toward addressing the contracting waste, fraud and abuse that we have seen altogether too frequently in recent years." The bill also requires that private security contractors hired by the State Department and other federal agencies to work in a war zone comply with directives and orders issued by military commanders as well as DOD regulations.

Furthermore, the bill requires that the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, and United States Agency for International Development sign a memorandum of understanding relating to contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan. The MOU will clarify the roles and responsibilities in managing and overseeing contracts, including tracking and overseeing contractor personnel and maintaining a set of common databases containing information on such contracts.

It also requires the Secretary of Defense, working with the Secretary of State, to issue detailed regulations for private security contractors mandating the appropriate use of force and accountability. The Government Accountability Office is required to report annually on the handling of contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Meanwhile H.R. 4986 creates a new commission on wartime contracting to develop lessons learned from the contracting problems in Iraq and Afghanistan. In his signing statement, Bush singled out four provisions of the bill, including the one creating the commission, and stated that they could inhibit his ability to execute his authority as commander in chief.

Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., a co-author of the commission provision, noted that the commission is modeled after the Truman Committee which investigated defense contracts during World War II. Webb said he hopes to work with the administration and Congress to ensure that the commission starts operating as quickly as possible.

In the area of whistleblower protections, which Bush also signaled out for criticism in his signing statement, the bill expands the list of government officials to whom whistleblowers can report waste, fraud and abuse. It also expands the kinds of information whistleblowers can provide, beyond violations of law, to gross mismanagement and significant hazards to public safety. The bill provides a private right of action in federal court for defense contractor employees who are subject to reprisal for their efforts to protect taxpayer interests and have exhausted all administrative remedies. Government Contracts Reports, Report Letter No. 1944, February 6, 2008.

Legal News

Court Must Raise Statute of Limitations Despite Government Waiver
Although the government waived its challenge to the timeliness of an action in the Court of Federal Claims, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit properly raised the issue on its own, because the absolute, jurisdictional, nature of the statute of limitations prevented an equitable tolling of the limitations period and could not be waived by the parties, according to the United States Supreme Court. The contractor brought suit in the CFC, alleging various government activities on leased land amounted to an unconstitutional taking of its leasehold rights. The government initially challenged the claims as untimely under the CFC's six-year statute of limitations (28 USC 2501), but subsequently conceded the issue and won on the merits. The contractor appealed the adverse judgment to the Federal Circuit, which addressed the statute of limitations issue sua sponte, finding the action untimely. Generally, the law treats limitations as an affirmative defense the defendant must raise at the pleading stage, and this defense is subject to the rules of waiver. Besides protecting a defendant's case-specific interest in avoiding stale claims, some statutes of limitations seek to achieve a broader system-related goal, such as limiting the scope of a governmental waiver of sovereign immunity. In precedential opinions going back to 1883, the Supreme Court had read the time limits of these statutes as more absolute, requiring a court to decide the timeliness question despite a waiver. In these situations, the statute's limitations period is "jurisdictional" and not susceptible to equitable tolling.

Given the precedent, the contractor could succeed only by convincing the Court to overturn prior rulings, which the contractor failed to do. Although the Supreme Court previously applied equitable tolling to a limitations statute governing employment discrimination claims (Irwin v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 498 US 89 (1990)), the limitations period in that case differed from the CFC statute at issue here because the Court had not previously provided a definitive interpretation. In addition, the Irwin court did not overturn prior rulings on the jurisdictional nature of the CFC's statute of limitations. Rather, Irwin recognized a general prospective rule, but it did not imply revisiting past precedents. Despite the contractor's reliance on recent cases that interpreted statutes of limitations in actions against the government as treating the government like other litigants, basic principles of stare decisis required the Court to reject this line of reasoning as the earlier cases did not produce "unworkable" law. According to the Court, a "reexamination of well-settled precedent could nevertheless prove harmful," and a decision overturning a settled matter because it was no longer "right" would "threaten to substitute disruption, confusion, and uncertainty for necessary legal stability."

In dissent, Justice Stevens challenged the majority opinion's reliance on stare decisis, arguing the older cases cited by the Court were "no longer good law," and if there is any ambiguity in those cases, the Court should have resolved the matter in favor of clarifying the law, "rather than preserving an anachronism whose doctrinal underpinnings were discarded years ago." Justice Ginsburg also dissented, contending the majority's decision not to reconcile older rulings with more recent opinions damages "the coherence of the law" by adhering to "outworn precedent" at odds with "more enlightened decisions." According to her, it would have been appropriate to overrule precedent that had become a "positive detriment to coherence and consistency in the law." (John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. U.S., US SCt, 52 CCF ¶78,875)

CFC Enforces Licensed Counsel Requirement for Corporations
A breach of contract claim was dismissed by the Court of Federal Claims because the corporate contractor was represented by its president and sole shareholder, and not by licensed counsel. The dispute arose from a contract to develop a customer service system. The contractor's shareholder filed the complaint but was unable to secure an attorney. The court initially granted the shareholder's request to proceed pro se, even though RCFC 83.1(c)(8) permits a corporation to be represented only by counsel. On reconsideration, however, the court determined it "improvidently" granted the shareholder's request to proceed on behalf of the contractor. The court stayed the case to allow the shareholder an opportunity to obtain counsel. A year passed and the shareholder had still not secured representation by an attorney. The government moved to dismiss, which placed the burden on the shareholder to demonstrate standing.

A shareholder does not have standing to sue under a contract between the government and a corporation because the shareholder lacks contractual privity with the government. Although a prior court opinion held a non-lawyer who was the sole shareholder of a corporate contractor could represent the corporation before the CFC under a "good-cause exception" (U.S. PolyCon Corp. v. U.S., 42 CCF ¶77,424), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit subsequently held RCFC 83.1(c)(8) "is clear and unqualified, and the plain language of the rule does not contemplate exceptions" (Talasila, Inc. and M.R. Mikkilineni v. U.S., 45 CCF ¶77,737). Thus, policy determinations could not overcome the long-standing rule that a corporation must appear in federal court only through a licensed attorney. The CFC was "not free to waive this rule, even in cases of severe financial hardship." (Affourtit v. U.S., FedCl, 52 CCF ¶78,869)

Equitable Adjustment for Flawed Roof Specification Granted
A construction contractor was entitled to an equitable adjustment for costs attributable to a roof failure, according to the Court of Federal Claims, because it reasonably relied on a latent specification defect and the government's misrepresentation regarding the residual camber of joist girders. The parties agreed most of the roof's leaks occurred because endlaps joining the roof panels failed. There also was agreement the failure was the result of the panels' inability to slide freely as they expanded and contracted. The dispute concerned the factors that impeded the panels' movement. The contractor alleged contract drawings misrepresented the dead loads on the joist girders and, because the roof plane was not sufficiently flat, the roof panels could not move smoothly. The government attempted to show compressed insulation and a divergence between the joists' and roof plane's angles created resistance on roof panel movement.

The court found errors in the dead loads indicated in contract drawings constituted a defective design specification. The contractor's unrebutted evidence showed the indicated dead loads were less than half of the actual loads, which caused girders manufactured according to the specification to bow to an excessive degree. Whereas the government's expert did not base his opinions on inspections of the roof, the contractor's expert actually inspected the roof and established the primary cause of endlap failure was residual camber in the joist girders. The specification defect was not obvious, and its consequences were not apparent until the contractor installed the girders and discovered a "roller coaster" effect in the roof plane.

The court also found the government's response to the contractor's request for information, submitted after it became apparent the joist's camber would provide an uneven surface for the roof panels, constituted a misrepresentation. The RFI provided the tolerances for variation in the roof plane and requested guidance. According to trial testimony, the RFI implicitly inquired whether, after the anticipated dead loads were applied, the residual camber would fall within the tolerances. The government project engineer did not check dead load information in the specification and replied girders manufactured according to specification "should be at the recommended tolerance level" and shims might be required where tolerances were exceeded. Because joist fabrication issues were rare and the fabricator had confirmed the camber issue would be resolved when the indicated dead loads were applied, it was reasonable for the contractor to interpret the government's response to the RFI as reassurance the residual camber would fall within required tolerances. (Metric Construction Co., Inc. v. U.S., FedCl, 52 CCF ¶78,871)

Government Ordered to Produce Withheld Documents
The Court of Federal Claims ordered the government to produce withheld documents because the government had no basis to assert the deliberative process, attorney-client, or attorney work-product privilege. In a dispute arising from a breach of contract claim involving two contracts intended to facilitate the disposition of the government's equity interests in a petroleum reserve, the government sought to withhold nearly 36,000 pages of documents. The government argued it had a right to withhold certain documents based on the deliberative process privilege, which serves to protect communications of a governmental executive where disclosure will harm the lawful exercise of executive authority or adversely affect the quality of advice the executive receives from subordinates. However, the instant case did not concern any communications of the President, White House staff, or the department Secretary level. Similarly, the communications did not involve issues of national defense, international relations, or law enforcement. In addition, after reviewing the contested documents and applicable precedent, the court considered the government's "continued assertion that factual content is subject to the deliberative process privilege to border on abuse."

The government also asserted the attorney-client privilege. As stated by the United States Supreme Court, "full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients ... promote[s] broader public interests in the observance of law and administration of justice" (Upjohn Co. v. U.S., 449 US 383, 389). Although the privilege merits deference, that deference is not absolute. Here, the court rejected the government's assertion the parties did not intend the prohibition of ex parte communication to apply to the equity process agreement because the agreement's ex parte prohibitions were clear and unambiguous. The court also declined the government's request to extend the attorney-client privilege to attorney communications that did not provide legal advice, but rather concerned technical or factual information. The court rebuked the government's persistence in asserting the attorney-client privilege over contractor documents, stating the government's actions could "only be interpreted as a complete disregard for its duty of candor to the court." The government also raised the attorney work-product privilege, which protects "documents and tangible things" prepared in anticipation of litigation. The government argued the court failed to comprehend the equity finalization process was "litigation" for purposes of the applicability of the attorney work-product privilege. However, the court characterized this assertion as "surreal" and, in any event, the privilege did not apply to factual information, even if embodied in a document prepared in anticipation of litigation. (Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. U.S., FedCl, 52 CCF ¶78,882)

Failure to Achieve Performance Goals Did Not Excuse Payment
According to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, a contractor was entitled to full payment for its late implementation of a performance plan, despite the lack of any formal time extension, because the contracting officer encouraged the contractor to continue its attempts to meet the performance goals and the contractor eventually met the requirements. The contract for materiel distribution services included a contract line item number requiring the contractor to maintain inventory at specified levels over a 12-month period. The CO denied the contractor's payment requests based on its failure to achieve the stated inventory levels, and requested an action plan detailing the steps the contractor would take to comply with the inventory requirements by the time of a future inventory sampling. The contractor submitted an action plan, but it failed to fill the stated inventory amount by the time of the sampling. After submitting another action plan and devoting additional resources, the contractor met the required inventory level, but not until after the date for completion of performance had expired. When the contractor filed a claim for payment, the CO denied the request based on the contractor's failure to meet the performance deadline.

Although it was undisputed the contractor failed to meet the performance requirements by the time specified in the CLIN, the performance deadline was effectively extended by virtue of the CO's actions. "When a contractor fails to perform a fixed price contract by the specified date, the government generally has the alternatives to permit continued performance subject to payment of liquidated damages, to terminate the portion of the contract for default, or to extend the completion date for such work." Here, the CO did not terminate the CLIN or any other part of the contract. Rather, in two different letters, the CO notified the contractor of its deficiencies and simultaneously urged it to attempt to successfully fill the inventory requirement. These letters were sufficient to authorize an extension of the completion date until the time the contractor attained the proper inventory levels. Therefore, the contractor was entitled to the full fixed price for the work. (LABAT-Anderson, Inc., ASBCA, 08-1 ¶33,761)

Regulatory News

Rule Requires Compliance with FAR Commercial Item Definition
The Department of Defense has issued a final rule (DFARS Case 2007-D005) amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement to address requirements for DoD contracting officers to ensure that an item meets the definition of "commercial item," as specified in the Federal Acquisition Regulation, when using commercial item procedures for acquisitions exceeding $1 million in value. FAR Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items, applies to the acquisition of supplies or services that meet the definition of "commercial item" in FAR 2.101. To emphasize the applicability of FAR Part 12, this DFARS rule specifies that, when using FAR Part 12 procedures for acquisitions exceeding $1 million in value, the contracting officer must determine in writing that the acquisition meets the commercial item definition in FAR 2.101 and include the written determination in the contract file. Accordingly, the rule adds a new policy provision at DFARS 207.102, with corresponding text at PGI 212.102. The rule also adds a new DFARS Subpart 212.1, consisting of one provision at DFARS 212.102. For the text of this final rule, which is effective January 24, 2008, see ¶70,016.466.

CAS Board Considering Revision of Home Office Thresholds
The Cost Accounting Standards Board, Office of Federal Procurement Policy, has issued a staff discussion paper on potential revisions to Cost Accounting Standard 403, "Allocation of Home Office Expenses to Segments." The SDP addresses whether the current thresholds that require use of the three-factor formula for allocating residual home office expenses should be revised. CASB 9904.403-40(c)(2) requires the allocation of home office residual expenses to segments using the three-factor formula if the residual expenses exceed:

3.35 percent of the first $100 million of operating revenue;
.95 percent of the next $200 million of operating revenue;
.30 percent of the next $2.7 billion of operating revenue; and
.20 percent of all amounts over $3 billion of operating revenue.

The threshold was promulgated in December 1972, and the Board is considering whether operating revenue thresholds should be raised by 400 percent to reflect changes in the consumer price index from 1973 to 2003. The SDP also addresses a recommendation from the Department of Defense to obtain actual statistics of various companies and for the Board to conduct a staff study similar to that performed by the original CAS Board. DoD's proposal recommends that the study update the thresholds to reflect the impact that economic changes, industry changes, and the advent of acquisition reform have had in the years since the thresholds were established. The CAS Board invites public comments on the SDP. Written comments are due by April 14, 2008. For the text of the STD, see ¶70,061.05.

Major Contract Awards

Multiple Firms - $3 Billion. The Air Force is awarding an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract with a maximum of $3,000,000,000. There will be twenty-five contracts awarded under Architecture-Engineer selection procedures to the following contractors: Battelle, of Columbus OH, CH2M Hill, Inc,. of Englewood, CO, Engineering-Environmental Management, Inc., (E2M) of Englewood CO, Jacobs of Pasadena, CA, Metcalf & Eddy of Wakefield, MA, Parsons Infrastructure & Technology Group of Pasadena, CA, Shaw of Knoxville, TN, TN & Associates of Milwaukee, WI, Weston Solutions of West Chester, PA, North Wind, Inc., of Idaho Falls, ID, Advent Environmental, Inc., of Mt. Pleasant, SC, Geo-Marine, Inc., of Plano, TX, Prudent Technologies, Inc., of Kansas City, MO, Black & Veatch of Overland Park, KS, Earth Tech of Long Beach, CA, HydroGeoLogic of Reston, VA, J. M. Waller of Burke, VA, MWH Americas of Broomfield, CO, SAIC of San Diego, CA, Shaw, of Knoxville, TN, TN & Associates of Milwaukee, WI, Weston Solutions of West Chester, PA, North Wind, Inc., of Idaho Falls, ID, Advent Environmental, Inc., of Mt. Pleasant, SC, Geo-Marine, Inc., of Plano, TX, Prudent Technologies, Inc., of Kansas City, MO, Tetra Tech, of Pasadena, CA, URS Group Inc. of Austin, TX, Aerostar Environmental Services, Inc., of Jacksonville, FL, LATA Merrick of Albuquerque, NM, BEM Systems of Chatham, NJ, and Merrick & Co. of Aurora, CO. This contract action will provide for Professional Architect-Engineer services to perform Title I, Title II, and other Architect-Engineer services to administer, coordinate, and technically support environmental, military construction, military family housing, and facility sustainment, restoration, and modernization programs of interest to the government worldwide. The ordering period for this contract shall be 60 months. At this time $2,500 (each contractor) has been obligated. AFCEE/ACV, Brooks City-Base, TX, is the contracting activity. Please contact the contract activity agency for specific contract numbers. Government Contracts Reports, Report Letter No. 1946, February 20, 2008.

Northrop Grumman - $1.4 Billion. Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Pascagoula, MS, is being awarded a $1,402,539,861 modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-06-C-2304) for DDG 1000 Zumwalt Class Destroyer construction and Class Services. The mission of the DDG 1000 Zumwalt Class of Destroyers is to provide affordable and credible independent forward presence/deterrence and to operate as an integral part of the Naval, Joint, or Combined Maritime Forces. The effort includes construction of the DDG 1001 Zumwalt Class Destroyer and construction of the DDG 1000 Superstructure and Hangar under a work share agreement with Bath Iron Works. The DDG 1000 Class Ship will provide advanced land attack capability in support of the ground campaign and contribute Naval, Joint, or Combined battle-space dominance in littoral operations. Work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS, (34 percent); Gulfport, MS, (12 percent); Pittsburgh, PA, (7 percent); Burns Harbor, IN, (4 percent); McLean, VA (4 percent); Walpole, MA (1 percent); Seattle, WA (1 percent) and various other locations (37 percent), and work is expected to be completed by July 2014. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington Navy Yard D.C., is the contracting activity. Government Contracts Reports, Report Letter No. 1946, February 20, 2008.

Bath Iron Works, Inc. - $1.3 Billion. Bath Iron Works, Inc., Bath, ME, is being awarded a $1,395,382,679 modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-06-C-2303) for DDG 1000 Zumwalt Class Destroyer construction and DDG 1000 Class Services. The mission of the DDG 1000 Zumwalt Class of Destroyers is to provide affordable and credible independent forward presence/deterrence and to operate as an integral part of the Naval, Joint, or Combined Maritime Forces. The effort includes construction of the DDG 1000 Zumwalt Class Destroyer, construction of the DDG 1001 mid forebody under a work share agreement with Northrop Grumman Ship Systems (NGSS). The DDG 1000 Class Ship will provide advanced land attack capability in support of the ground campaign and contribute Naval, Joint, or Combined battle-space dominance in littoral operations. Work will be performed in Bath, ME (83 percent); Pittsburgh, PA, (5 percent); Milwaukee, WI, (4 percent); and various other locations (8 percent), and work is expected to be completed by Jun. 2013. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington Navy Yard, D.C., is the contracting activity. Government Contracts Reports, Report Letter No. 1946, February 20, 2008.

Raytheon Missile Systems - $1 Billion. Raytheon Missile Systems of Tucson, AZ, is being awarded a $1,015,601,310 cost-plus-incentive-fee sole source contract modification to manufacture seventy-five (75) Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) block IA for the United States, and twenty-seven (27) SM-3 Foreign Military Sales Block IA missiles in support of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System. The principle place of performance is Tucson, AZ. Work will also be performed in Elkton, MD, by a major subcontractor, Alliant Techsystems, Incorporated and is expected to be complete by Feb. 2012. The FY 07 research and development contract funds will expire at the end of the fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C. is the contracting activity (N00024-07-C-6119). FY 07 research and development and Japanese Foreign Military Sales funds will be used for the initial funding. The contract modification will be incrementally funded and at award will obligate $92,790,383 ($85.9M FMS and $6.9 FY 07). Government Contracts Reports, Report Letter No. 1946, February 20, 2008.

Multiple Firms - $491 Million. CVG, Incorporated, Chantilly, VA, RSI Maryland, Inc., Duluth, GA, Globecomm Systems, Inc. (GSI), Hauppauge, NY, L-3 Communications Corporation - Communications Systems West, Salt Lake City, Utah, L-3 Communications Corporation - Narda Microwave-East, Hauppauge N.Y., ND Satcom, Inc., Richardson, TX, and Swe-Dish Satellite Systems, Inc., Reston, VA, are being awarded an estimated $76,766,268 multiple award, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, firm-fixed price, performance-based contract for portable Satellite Communications (SATCOM) Terminals. Each contractor will be awarded a minimum guarantee per lot awarded to the offeror. These contracts include a one-year base period and four one-year option periods, making the total potential period of performance five years. When combined, the aggregate value of all delivery orders awarded over the life of these seven contracts will be approximately $491,200,000. These seven contractors may compete for the delivery orders under the terms and conditions of the awarded contract. Work will be performed in Chantilly, VA; Duluth, GA; Hauppauge, NY; Salt Lake City, UT; Richardson, TX and Reston, VA, and work is expected to be completed Feb. 2009 (February 2013 with all options exercised). Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The multiple award contracts were competitively procured under full and open competition via the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Business Opportunity Page, e-Commerce website, and the Federal Business Opportunities site, with seven offers received. The Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, Charleston, SC, is the contracting activity (N65236-08-D-2101 through N65236-08-D-2107). Government Contracts Reports, Report Letter No. 1947, February 27, 2008.

General Dynamics - $459.7 Million. General Dynamics, National Steel and Shipbuilding Co. San Diego, CA is being awarded a $459,780,045 modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-02-C-2300) to exercise an option for construction of T-AKE 10, including technical manuals, special studies, analyses and reviews; engineering and industrial services, and data; and long lead time material for T-AKE 11. T-AKE is a new Combat Logistics Force Underway Replenishment Naval vessel intended to replace the current capability of the Kilauea-Class (T-AE 26) Ammunition Ship, Mars-Class (T-AFS 1) Combat Stores Ships, and when operating in concert with a Henry J. Kaiser-Class (T-AO 187) Oiler ship, the Sacramento-Class (AOE 1) Fast Combat Support Ship. As an auxiliary support ship, T-AKE will directly contribute to the ability of the Navy to maintain a forward presence. 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. In its secondary mission, the T-AKE may be required to operate in concert with a Henry J. Kaiser-Class (T-AO 187) Oiler as a substitute station ship to provide direct logistics support to the ships within a Carrier Battle Group. In its Maritime Prepositioning Force (Future) role T-AKE will contribute to the accomplishment of the seabasing mission area. Work will be performed in San Diego, CA, and work is expected to be completed by Feb. 2012. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington Navy Yard, D.C., is the contracting activity. Government Contracts Reports, Report Letter No. 1944, February 6, 2008.

Global Security and Engineering Solutions - $326.3 Million. Global Security and Engineering Solutions, a Division of L-3 Services, Inc., Chantilly, VA, is being awarded a ceiling value $326,318,075 firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity requirements contract to design, fabricate, install, and test the Tactical Video Capture System (TVCS) for various Marine Corp bases worldwide. The Marine Air Ground Task Force Training Command (MAGTFTC) staff and personnel will use the TVCS for Real-Time Visualization (RTV) and Situational Awareness (SA) while Marine Units are conducting Military Operation in TVCS to conduct After Action Reviews (AAR) of the just completed training exercise. The contractor will perform system design, development, integration, installation, logistics, engineering, and training of the TVCS. Work will be performed at government sites worldwide, and the work is expected to be completed Feb. 2011. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This effort was competitively procured as a full and open competition procurement, with one offer to the solicitation received. The Marine Corps Systems Command, Quantico, VA, is the contracting activity (M67854-07-D-8000). Government Contracts Reports, Report Letter No. 1947, February 27, 2008.

Bechtel Plant Machinery Inc. - $312.5 Million. Bechtel Plant Machinery Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, is being awarded a $312,584,222 modification to previously awarded cost-plus-fixed fee contract (N00024-08-C-2118) for Naval nuclear propulsion components. Work will be performed in Pittsburgh, PA, (68.3 percent), and Schenectady, NY, (31.7 percent). Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. No completion date or additional information is provided on Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program contracts. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington Navy Yard, DC, is the contracting activity. Government Contracts Reports, Report Letter No. 1947, February 27, 2008.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. - $307.5 Million. McDonnell Douglas Corp. doing business as Boeing Aerospace Operations, Inc. of San Antonio, TX, is having a fixed-price contract option exercised for $307,500,000. This action will exercise option IX/KC-10 and option J/KDC-10 contractor logistics support for Feb. 1, 2008, through Jan. 31, 2009. At this time no funds have been obligated. 727 ACSG/PKA, Tinker Air Force Base, OK, is the contracting activity (F34601-98-C-0125/P00258). Government Contracts Reports, Report Letter No. 1944, February 6, 2008.

Boeing - $287.9 Million. Boeing Launch Services of Huntington Beach, CA, is being awarded a contract modification for $287,997,350. The purpose of this modification is to modify the scope of undefinitized contract action (UCA) P00011 of contract FA8816-06-C-0001, by adding an additional 4 months. This increase in scope will result in an increase of $287,997,013 to the not-to-exceed (NTE) amount. As a result of this change the NTE amount is increased from $294,300,000 to $582,297,350. This action is necessary to maintain uninterrupted support of the Delta IV Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Capability contract. At this time $215,998,013 has been obligated. SMC/LRK, Los Angeles Air Force Base, CA, is the contracting activity (FA8816-06-C-0001, P00017). Government Contracts Reports, Report Letter No. 1946, February 20, 2008.

Oshkosh Truck Corp. - $272.6 Million. Oshkosh Truck Corp., Oshkosh, WI, was awarded on Feb. 5, 2008, a $272,682,027 firm-fixed price contract for the purchase of a Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles. Work will be performed in Oshkosh, WI, and is expected to be completed by Dec. 31, 2008. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. One bid was solicited on Oct. 23, 2006, and one bid was received. The U.S. Army TACOM Life Cycle Management Command, Warren, MI, is the contracting activity W56HZV07-C-0248. Government Contracts Reports, Report Letter No. 1945, February 13, 2008.

BAE Systems - $242 Million. BAE Systems Technology Solutions & Services, Rockville, MD, is being awarded an estimated $242,064,229 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, cost-plus-incentive fee, firm-fixed-priced, performance-based contract to provide integration, engineering, procurement, fabrication, assembly, test, inspection, delivery, and limited installation of integrated C4I capabilities aboard new construction ships. Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command is awarding this Enterprise Platform Integration Contract on behalf of its organizational partner, the Navy's Program Executive Office for Command, Control, Communication, Computers and Intelligence systems. This contract includes three one-year options which, if exercised, would bring the cumulative value of this contract to an estimated $344,411,364. Work will be performed in North Charleston, SC, (75.5 percent); New Orleans, LA, (4.7 percent); Pascagoula, MS, (4.2 percent); San Diego, CA, (3.7 percent); Mobile, AL, (3.6 percent); Green Bay, WI, (3.5 percent); Norfolk, VA, (2.4 percent), and Washington, D.C., (2.4 percent), and work is expected be completed by Feb. 2013. If all options are exercised, work will continue until Feb. 2016. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the year. This contract was competitively procured with an unlimited number of proposals solicited via the Commerce Business Daily's Federal Business Opportunities website and the SPAWAR e-Commerce Central website, with three offers received. The Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, San Diego, CA, is the contracting activity (N00039-08-D-0002). Government Contracts Reports, Report Letter No. 1945, February 13, 2008.

Lockheed Martin - $210.4 Million. Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company of Littleton, CO, is being awarded a contract modification for $210,429,500. The purpose of this modification is to modify the scope of undefinitized contract action (UCA) P00055 of contract FA8816-06-C-0002, by adding an additional 4 months of performance. This increase in scope will result in an increase of $210,429,500 to the not-to-exceed (NTE) amount. As a result of this change the NTE amount is increased from $248,829,000 to $459,258,500. This action is necessary to maintain uninterrupted support of the Atlas-V Evolved Expendable Launch Capability contract. At this time $157,822,075 has been obligated. SMC/LRK, Los Angeles Air Force Base, CA, is the contracting activity (FA8816-06-C-0002, P00075). Government Contracts Reports, Report Letter No. 1946, February 20, 2008.