Government Contracts Update June 2009

June 2009

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

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

Hot Topic

Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Is Enacted
President Obama on May 22 signed into law the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (PL 111-23). Noting cost overruns for 95 major defense projects totalled $295 billion and strong bipartisan support for the measure, the President stated the Act is intended to limit cost overruns "before they spiral out of control," strengthen oversight and accountability by officials charged with monitoring the costs of weapons systems acquisitions, terminate projects whose cost grows without providing needed value, and enhance competition and end conflicts of interest in the weapons acquisitions process.

The Act provides additional oversight by:

requiring reports on each military department's major weapons systems engineering process and strategy and the Department of Defense's system engineering capabilities;
establishing in DoD a Director of Development Test and Evaluation to advise and report on developmental test and evaluation activities of major defense acquisition programs and major automated information system programs;
requiring the Director of Defense Research and Engineering to assess the technological maturity and integration risk of critical technologies of MDAPs;
establishing in DoD a Director of Independent Cost Assessment; and
requiring input from combatant commanders on joint military requirements.

Policy provisions intended to control costs require:

DoD to develop and implement mechanisms to ensure trade-offs between cost, schedule, and performance are considered when developing major weapon systems requirements;
design reviews and a certification that an MDAP demonstrates a high likelihood of accomplishing its intended mission;
every MDAP acquisition plan to include measures, such as competitive prototyping and dual-sourcing, to ensure competition, or the option of competition, at the prime contract and subcontract levels throughout the program's life cycle;
termination of any MDAP that meets or exceeds the program's critical cost growth threshold unless the program is certified to be essential to national security;
amendment of the Defense Supplement to the Federal Acquisition Regulation to address contractors' organizational conflicts of interest in the acquisition of major weapon systems, and establishing in DoD an Organizational Conflict of Interest Review Board;
recognizing excellent performance by armed forces and DoD personnel in acquisition of products and services;
reviewing and, if necessary, supplementing guidance to implement Earned Value Management requirements and reporting for DoD contracts; and
a plan to identify and address weaknesses in operations that hinder the capacity to assemble and assess reliable cost information on systems and assets to be acquired under MDAPs.

Legal News

Court of Federal Claims' OCI Ruling Reversed
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a Court of Federal Claims decision setting aside an award, because the CFC erred in allowing supplementation of the administrative record, reviewing the contracting officer's mitigation of the awardee's organizational conflict of interest without sufficient deference to the government's discretion, and setting aside the award. The Federal Circuit first clarified the circumstances in which parties may supplement the administrative record in protests before the CFC. Citing Esch v. Yeutter, 876 F2d 976 (CA-DC 1989), the CFC had encouraged the parties to supplement the record with "whatever they want" and relied on two expert witness declarations the protester added to the record to evaluate the awardee's OCI mitigation plan. However, the Supreme Court has stated "[t]he task of the reviewing court is to apply the appropriate [Administrative Procedure Act] standard of review ... to the agency decision based on the record the agency presents to the reviewing court" (Florida Power & Light v. Lorion (470 US 729)). Review is limited to the agency record to guard against courts using new evidence to, in effect, convert the APA's "arbitrary and capricious standard" to de novo review. To the extent Esch held otherwise, it was not the law of the Federal Circuit. Thus, the CFC erred when it admitted the protester's extra-record evidence without first determining whether the evidence was necessary for effective judicial review.

The CFC also erred in reviewing the CO's mitigation of the awardee's OCI de novo rather than under the APA's "arbitrary and capricious" standard (5 USC 706(2)(A)). Believing the CO had violated FAR 9.504, the CFC viewed its task as determining whether there had been a violation of law and, if so, whether the mitigation proposal was an actual remedy. However, FAR 9.505 recognizes identifying OCIs and evaluating mitigation proposals are fact-specific inquiries that require considerable discretion. The CFC's conclusion the CO "violated" FAR 9.504 in a way that triggered de novo review therefore was inconsistent with the discretion accorded the government by FAR 9.505 and the APA's underlying principles.

Finally, the Federal Circuit determined the award was not arbitrary or capricious and enforceability of the mitigation plan provided no basis for setting aside the contract. The government's conclusion the plan was sufficient was reasonable, and the awardee was barred from bidding on future requirements in a different category of services. It also was reasonable for the CO to defer evaluating potential unequal access to information conflicts until the awardee bid on future contracts for which it had obtained nonpublic information by performing the contract at issue. As for the enforceability of the mitigation plan, the parties agreed the government had legal recourse to enforce the plan. The CFC's conclusion continuing court oversight was required, based on its belief the CO could not be trusted with enforcement, was not appropriate, because the CO did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in evaluating the mitigation efforts. (Axiom Resource Management, Inc. v. U.S., et al., CA-FC, 53 CCF ¶79,108)

Limitation on Discussions Was Unreasonable and Inappropriate
The government's decision to limit discussions to the qualifications of the offerors' proposed project managers was unreasonable and inappropriate because the protester's price structure constituted a significant weaknesses or deficiency that should have been an additional topic of discussions. In a prior protest of a contract award for working dog services, the protester argued the awardee was not eligible for award because its proposed PM failed to meet the minimum requirements of the request for proposals. The protest was dismissed after the government promised corrective action consisting of reconsideration of the competitive range and certain aspects of the proposals. Subsequently, in a letter to the awardee labeled "Notice of Technical Deficiency," the government advised it noted a deficiency with regard to the proposed PM, and gave the awardee the opportunity to show how the PM conformed to the RFP's requirements. In similar letters to the protester, the government questioned the qualifications of the protester's PM. After receiving responses from both offerors, the government adjusted the technical ratings. In the source selection document, the government concluded the offered prices were approximately equal, but found the protester presented "performance risk." The awardee's lower performance risk was one of the factors cited in the best value determination. The protester argued the government's decision to limit discussions to the project manager issue resulted in the discussions being unfair and not meaningful.

The Comptroller General sustained the protest, finding the limitation imposed by the government failed to account for other significant weaknesses or deficiencies found in the proposals, and resulted in unequal discussions. Under FAR 15.306(d)(3), discussions must, at a minimum, be in sufficient detail to indicate to each offeror whose proposal remains in the competitive range deficiencies, significant weaknesses, or adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not yet had an opportunity to respond. Here, the record showed "the limited discussions were primarily to allow [the awardee] to fix its otherwise unacceptable proposal and did not similarly provide [the protester] with the opportunity to become more competitive through meaningful discussions." For example, the source selection decision document found the protester's price structure represented "performance risk" that had the potential for straining performance in the option years, and referenced this as one of the discriminators in the award decision. However, this was not a subject of discussions with the protester, and discussions cannot be meaningful if an offeror is not advised of the significant weaknesses or deficiencies that must be addressed for its offer to be in line for award. The pricing issue was a significant weakness or deficiency that should have been brought to the protester's attention during discussions, so that it could be given the opportunity to submit a revised proposal. The Comptroller General recommended the government reopen and conduct meaningful discussions with all offerors whose proposals are in the competitive range, obtain final proposal revisions, and make a new source selection. (American K-9 Detection Services, Inc., 24 CGEN ¶112,855)

Government Treated Subcontractor Experience Unequally
The government acted unreasonably in crediting the awardee with the experience of its subcontractor, but not doing likewise for the protester, because the protester's subcontractor had similar, relevant experience. The government issued a request for proposals to operate a motor pool. The past performance evaluation factor was divided into three subfactors, one of which was relative experience in motor pool management. Both the awardee and the protester relied on the motor pool experience of their respective subcontractors. However, the government assigned a strength for this subfactor to the awardee, and a weakness to the protester. According to the government, the awardee's own closely related experience justified combining that experience with the experience of its subcontractor, but the protester's lack of relevant experience created a significant risk, in spite of the experience of the protester's subcontractor. The protester argued the awardee's experience was not relevant to the solicited motor pool operation work.

The Comptroller General sustained the protest, finding the awardee's motor pool experience was significantly different than the experience sought under the RFP. The awardee's experience involved providing 8.5 of 16.5 full time equivalent workers for managing supply operations. However, the solicited work involved managing over 390 vehicles and numerous other activities, including training and licensing 2,000 to 3,000 vehicle operators. As a result, there was no reasonable basis in the record for the unequal treatment of the awardee and the protester. Further, contrary to the assertions of the government and the awardee, the protester was prejudiced by this disparate treatment, which interfered with its otherwise substantial chance of receiving the award. The Comptroller General recommended the government reevaluate both proposals under the past performance factor, and include, at a minimum, an independent assessment of the relevance of each offeror's past performance information. (Ahtna Support and Training Services, LLC, 24 CGEN ¶112,860)

Deficiency Finding for Missing Percentages Was Unreasonable
The government unreasonably rejected a proposal for failing to provide the percentage of staff with third-party certification, because the proposal provided the actual number of certified employees available to fulfill the government's task orders, which was more meaningful than a mere percentage. The request for proposals for business support services contemplated the award of multiple indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts on a best value basis. Offerors were required to submit a management plan that included proof of organizational-level accreditation or certification, and a staffing plan that included the percentage of staff with third-party certification. The protester's proposal received two deficiencies and was deemed unacceptable for failing to provide proof of organizational-level accreditation, or a percentage of staff with third-party certification. In its report on the protest, the government, acknowledging error, withdrew the finding of deficiency regarding proof of organizational-level accreditation, but it did not withdraw the other finding. The protester argued the other deficiency finding was also erroneous, asserting it gave the evaluators a much more comprehensive understanding of the proposed staff by providing the actual number of employees with third-party certification.

The Comptroller General sustained the protest, finding the request for third party certification information could only reasonably be interpreted as an inquiry regarding how many certified staff would be available to perform any task orders received. Unlike the numbers provided by the protester, providing the percentage of employees with the required certification did not provide any information as to the number of employees actually available to do the work. In addition, there was no indication in the record that a particular percentage was needed for a proposal to be deemed acceptable. Accordingly, the protester's furnishing of actual numbers could only reasonably be viewed as meeting the requirements for identifying staff with third-party certifications. Further, there was a reasonable possibility the evaluation error prejudiced the protester. The protester received a higher rating than some of the awardees for past performance/past experience, the most important evaluation factor under the RFP, and at a minimum, a new price/technical trade-off was required. The Comptroller General recommended the government reevaluate the protester's proposal and make an award to the protester if the proposal were found to represent a "best value" under the RFP. Such an award might lead the government to terminate one of the other awardees for the convenience of the government. (Engineering Management & Integration, Inc., 24 CGEN ¶112,858)

Regulatory News

Three Rules Finalized in Connection with GSAM Rewrite Initiative
The General Services Administration has issued three final rules that revise the GSA Acquisition Regulation. The rules are a result of the GSA Acquisition Manual rewrite initiative undertaken by GSA to revise the GSAM to maintain consistency with the Federal Acquisition Regulation, and to implement streamlined and innovative acquisition procedures that contractors, offerors, and GSA contracting personnel can use when entering into and administering contractual relationships. The GSAM incorporates the GSAR, as well as internal agency acquisition policy. The rules revise GSAR Part 513, Simplified Acquisition Procedures (GSAR Case 2007-G502), GSAR Part 546, Quality Assurance (GSAR Case 2008-G514), and GSAR Part 547, Transportation (GSAR Case 2006-G518).

The GSAR Case 2007-G502 rule updates GSA's implementation of Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 13, Simplified Acquisition Procedures, by removing GSAR Part 513. GSAR Part 513 implemented three FAR Part 13 subparts, and had no supplementary subparts or associated clauses. GSA concluded GSAR Part 513 contained no regulatory material, and has relocated the content, with modifications, to the GSAM. The rule finalizes, without change, an August 1, 2008, proposed rule. For the text of the final rule, effective May 28, 2009, see ¶70,030.128.

Another final rule, GSAR Case 2008-G514, revises GSAR Part 546, Quality Assurance. The rule renames GSAR 546.302-70 to read "Source Inspection by Quality Approved Manufacturer for fixed-price supply contracts," and revises the provision to add a cross-reference and to make the provision applicable to the Stock, Special Order, and Wildfire programs. Also, the rule makes technical revisions to GSAR 546.302-71 and the clauses at GSAR 552.246-70 and GSAR 552.246-71; adds a prescription for a new GSAR 552.246-78 clause at GSAR 546.302-72, Destination inspection; and revises GSAR 546.710, Contract clause, to add a prescription for a new clause at GSAR 552.246-77 and delete the prescriptive language in (b), (c), and (d). The rule deletes GSAR 546.470-2, Certification Testing, and the clauses at GSAR 552.246-17, Warranty of Supplies of a Noncomplex Nature; GSAR 552.246-74, Reserved; GSAR 552.246-75, Guarantees; and GSAR 552.246-76, Warranty of Pesticides. The language in GSAR 546.708, Warranties of data, is revised to place emphasis on the role of the contracting officer, while new clauses are added at GSAR 552.246-77, Additional Contract Warranty Provisions for Supplies of a Noncomplex Nature, to provide for GSA-unique rights and remedies, and GSAR 552.246-78, Inspection at Destination, to provide for inspection by government personnel at destination. Finally, the rule relocates the clause at GSAR 552.246-73, Warranty --Multiple Award Schedule, to GSAR Part 538. This rule finalizes a August 5, 2008, proposed rule, with changes. The final rule is effective June 1, 2009, and the text appears at ¶70,030.130.

The GSAR Case 2006-G518 rule finalizes, without change, a June 6, 2008, proposed rule, by deleting and reserving GSAR Part 547, Transportation. GSAR Part 547 consisted only of GSAR Subpart 547.3, Transportation in Supply Contracts. The rule also deletes the related clauses at GSAR 552.247-70, Placarding Railcar Shipments, and GSAR 552.247-71, Diversion of Shipment Under f.o.b. Destination Contracts. GSA found the information in GSAR Part 547 was specific to the Federal Acquisition Service organization and the related FAR coverage was sufficient. The final rule is effective June 29, 2009. For the text of the rule, see ¶70,030.129.

Proposed GSAR Part Addresses Acquisition of Utility Services
The General Services Administration has issued a proposed rule addressing requirements for the acquisition of utility services. The rule would add a new GSAR Part 541, entitled "Acquisition of Utility Services," and create two new clauses. The new GSAR Part 541 would consist of GSAR 541.501, which prescribes the use of the new clauses. The new clause at GSAR 552.241-XX, Availability of Funds for the Next Fiscal Year or Quarter, would be used in all utility acquisitions, in place of FAR 52.232-19, while the new clause at GSAR 552.241-YY, Disputes (Utility Contracts), would be used in solicitations and contracts for utility services subject to the jurisdiction and regulation of a utility rate commission. Proposed GSAR 552.241-YY supplements the clause at FAR 52.233-1 to provide that matters involving the interpretation of tariffs are subject to the jurisdiction and regulation of the utility rate commission having jurisdiction. The rule is proposed in connection with the GSA Acquisition Manual rewrite initiative. For the text of the proposed rule, see ¶70,033.61.

Rule Proposes Revised Criteria for Sole Source SDVOSB Acquisitions
The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation to clarify the criteria for conducting a sole source acquisition involving a Service-disabled Veteran-owned Small Business concern. A Government Accountability Office decision identified a potential inconsistency between FAR 19.1406 and the Veterans Benefit Act of 2003 (PL 108-183), as well as the Small Business Administration regulations that implement that Act. The Councils reviewed the language in question, FAR 19.1406(a)(1), and to lessen the possibility of misinterpretation are revising FAR 19.1406 to mirror the VBA (15 USC 657f) more closely. In addition, the language in FAR 19.1306(a)(1), which deals with sole source awards to HUBZone small business concerns, currently contains the same language as in FAR 19.1406(a)(1). Accordingly, the Councils determined the language in FAR 19.1306(a)(1) should be revised in the same manner as FAR 19.1406(a)(1) because the intent in both cases is to specify that one criterion for making a sole source award is that the contracting officer does not reasonably expect to receive offers from two or more concerns. Comments on the proposed rule, identified by FAR Case 2008-023, are due July 20, 2009. For the text of the rule, see ¶70,006.228.

Major Contract Awards

Capy Machine - $2.28 Billion. Capy Machine, Melville, N.Y., a small business, is being awarded a maximum $2,227,505,000 firm fixed price, total set aside, indefinite delivery and indefinite quantity contract for nacelle thrust fittings for A-10 aircraft. There are no other locations of performance. Using service is Air Force. There were originally three proposals solicited with two responses. The date of performance completion is Jun. 10, 2012. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency (DSCR Ogden), Hill AFB, Utah (SPRHA4-09-D-0003). Government Contracts Reports 2013, June 17, 2009.

Lockheed Martin - $2.11 Billion. Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $2,106,525,040 modification to definitize the previously awarded Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) air system low rate initial production Lot III advance acquisition contract (N00019-08-C-0028) to a cost-plus-incentive-fee/award-fee contract. This modification provides for the procurement of 7 Air Force conventional take off and landing (CTOL), 7 Marine Corps short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL); 1 CTOL for the Netherlands, and 2 STOVLs for the United Kingdom. In addition, this modification provides for the associated ancillary mission equipment and technical/financial data. Work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas, (35 percent); El Segundo, Calif., (25 percent); Warton, United Kingdom, (20 percent); Orlando, Fla., (10 percent); Nashua, N.H., (5 percent); and Baltimore, Md., (5 percent), and is expected to be completed in December 2011. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract combines purchases for the U.S. Air Force ($857,116,227; 40.7 percent); the U.S. Marine Corps, ($877,797,887; 41.7 percent); and the Governments of the Netherlands, ($119,666,120; 5.7 percent) and United Kingdom, ($251,944,806; 11.9 percent). The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity. Government Contracts Reports 2012, June 10, 2009.

Lockheed Martin - $1.49 Billion. Lockheed Martin Space Systems Co., Sunnyvale, Calif., is being awarded a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for an amount not-to-exceed $1,487,400,000. This contract action is for the production of the 3rd Space Based Infrared Systems Geosynchronous Earth Orbit satellite 3, the production of Highly Elliptical Earth Orbit payload 3 and modification of the Space Based Infrared Systems Ground systems to accommodate operations of three payloads simultaneously. At this time, $1,115,550,000 has been obligated. SMC/ISSW, El Segundo, Calif., is the contracting activity (FA8810-08-C-0002, P00002). Government Contracts Reports 2011, June 3, 2009.

Multiple Contractors - $1.03 Billion. Lockheed Martin Integrated Systems, Inc., Bethesda, Md., (N00189-09-D-Z042); General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems, Suffolk, Va., (N00189-09-D-Z043) and N00189-09-D-Z045); Science Applications International Corp., Suffolk, Va., (N00189-09-D-Z044); and Northrop Grumman Space and Mission Systems Corp., Virginia Beach, Va., (N00189-09-D-Z046), are each being awarded a cost-plus-fixed-fee, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity multiple award contract to provide core mission and business sustainment support services to the U.S. Joint Forces Command's Joint Concept Development and Experimentation Directorate. For Lockheed Martin Integrated Systems, the base amount is $25,630,821, and the estimated value if all options are exercised is $135,330,781. For General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems, the base year amount is $23,294,517 and the value if all options are exercised is $122,799,339. For General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems, the base year amount is $42,722,271 and the value if all options are exercised is $224,709,611. For Science Applications International Corp., the base amount is $54,081,703, and the estimated value if all options are exercised is $283,968,495. For Northrop Grumman Space and Mission Systems Corp., the base amount is $50,147,494, and the estimated value if all options are exercised is $262,821,754. Work will be performed in Suffolk, Va., and work is expected to be complete July 2010. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the fiscal year. This requirement was awarded competitively through Navy Electronic Commerce Online, with six offers received. The Fleet and Industrial Supply Center Norfolk, Contracting Department, Philadelphia Division, is the contracting activity. Government Contracts Reports 2012, June 10, 2009.

Multiple Contractors - $400 Million. Ace Builders, LLC, Barrigada, Guam, (N40192-09-D-2700); AIC International, Inc., Hagatna, Guam, (N40192-09-D-2701); BME & Sons, Inc., Barrigada, Guam, (N40192-09-D-2702); Fargo Pacific, Inc., Hagatna, Guam, (N40192-09-D-2703); Keum Yang Corp., Tamuning, Guam (N40192-09-D-2704); Modern International, Inc., Tamuning, Guam (N40192-09-D-2705); Overland Corp., Ardmore, Oklahoma (N40192-09-D-2706); Reliable Builders, Inc., Tamuning, Guam, (N40192-09-D-2707) ; Serrano Construction and Development Corporation, Dededo, Guam, (N40192-09-D-2708); and Tumon Corp., Tamuning, Guam, (N40192-09-D-2709) (all small businesses), are each being awarded an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, design build multiple award construction contract for new construction, renovation/modernization and routine repair/maintenance of government shore-based facilities in Guam. The dollar value for all 10 contracts combined is $50,000,000. The contract contains four unexercised option periods, which if exercised, would increase cumulative contract value to $400,000,000. Work will be performed in Guam, and work is expected to be completed in June 2010. Contract funds will expire at the end the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online website, with 20 proposals received. These 10 contractors will compete for task orders under the terms and conditions of the awarded contract. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command Marianas, Guam, is the contracting activity. Government Contracts Reports 2014, June 24, 2009.

ITT Corp.- $363 Million. ITT Corp., Fort Wayne, Ind., was awarded on Jun. 4, 2009 a $363,120,648 24-month-base-firm-fixed-price contract for a single channel ground Airborne Radio System Baseline Systems Control, system enhancements and logistics support to ITT. The base year quantities are 58,000 receiver transmitters, 34,800 VAA/INCs and 34,800 radio frequency amps. Work is to be performed in Fort Wayne, Ind., with an estimated completion date of Jun. 04, 2011. Bids were solicited on IBOP with two bids received. CECOM Acquisition Center, Fort Monmouth, N.J., is the contracting activity (W15P7T-09-C-J002). Government Contracts Reports 2013, June 17, 2009.

Northrop Grumman - $360 Million. Northrop Grumman Systems Corp., Bethpage, N.Y., is being awarded a $360,464,709 modification to definitize the previously awarded E-2D Advanced Hawkeye advance acquisition contract for two Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) aircraft (N00019-08-C-0027) to a fixed-price-incentive fee contract. In addition, this contract provides long lead material and related support for the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye LRIP Lot 2 aircraft. Work will be performed in Bethpage, N.Y., (31.27 percent); Syracuse, N.Y., (23.57 percent), various locations within the United States (19.06 percent); St. Augustine, Fla., (16.36 percent); Menlo Park, Calif., (3.81 percent); Indianapolis, Ind., (3.76 percent); and Rolling Meadows, Ill., (2.17 percent), and is expected to be completed in October. 2011. 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 Reports 2014, June 24, 2009.

Multiple Contractors - $250 Million. Sound & Sea Technology, Inc., Lynnwood, Wash., (N62583-09-D-0064); PCCI, Inc., Alexandria, Va., (N62583-09-D-0065); Truston Technologies, Inc., Annapolis, Md., (N62583-09-D-0066); GPA Technologies, Inc., Ventura, Calif., (N62583-09-D-0067); and MAR, Inc., Rockville, Md., (N62583-09-D-0068), are each being awarded a cost-plus-fixed-fee, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract in support of the Naval Ocean Facilities Engineering Program (NOFP) at Navy and Marine Corps Installations worldwide. The work to be performed provides for support of the NOFP requirements managed by the Engineering Service Center, Port Hueneme. Projects may involve incidental construction work or equipment fabrication and primarily include: ocean cable systems, ocean work systems, waterfront facilities, hyperbaric facilities, offshore structures, moorings, and ocean construction equipment. This work will be performed in environmental conditions ranging from arctic to tropic and at all water depths where equipment installation or removal, maintenance, inspection, repair, and salvage operations may be required. The maximum dollar value, including the base period and four option years, for all five contracts combined is $250,000,000. Work will be performed at various Navy and Marine Corps facilities and other government facilities worldwide, and the expected completion date is May 2014. Contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. These contracts were competitively procured as a 100 percent small business set-aside via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online website, with six proposals received. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Specialty Center Acquisitions, Port Hueneme, Calif., is the contracting activity. Government Contracts Reports 2011, June 3, 2009.

Eagan, McAllister Associates, Inc. and ManTech Systems Engineering Corp. - $206 Million. Eagan, McAllister Associates, Inc., Lexington Park, Md., (N65236-09-D-3806), and ManTech Systems Engineering Corp., Fairfax, Va., (N65236-09-D-3807) are each being awarded an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, multiple award, cost-plus-fixed-fee, performance-based contract to provide tactical command and control integration and improvement support services required by multiple Department of Defense and other federal agencies. Eagan, McAllister Associates, Inc., will receive $36,968,507 and ManTech Systems Engineering Corp., will receive $38,808,905. These contracts include option periods which, if exercised, would bring the total cumulative value to an estimated amount of $205,683,274. These two contractors may compete for the task orders under the terms and conditions of the awarded contracts. Work will be performed in Charleston, S.C., (80 percent), and Lexington Park, Md., (20 percent), and is expected to be completed by June 2010. If all options are exercised, work could continue until June 2014. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the fiscal year. The multiple award contracts were competitively procured using full and open competitive procedures via SPAWAR Systems Command e-commerce website, with four offers received. The Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Atlantic, Charleston, S.C., is the contracting activity. Government Contracts Reports 2014, June 24, 2009.

Multiple Contractors - $197 Million. Adept Process Services, Inc., Imperial Beach, Calif., (N55236-09-D-0003); Delphinus Engineering, Inc., Eddystone, Pa., (N55236-09-D-0005); Epsilon Systems Solutions, Inc., San Diego, Calif., (N55236-09-D-0006); Fraser's Boiler Services, Inc., San Diego, Calif., (N55236-09-D-0007); Integrated Marine Services, Inc., Chula Vista, Calif., (N55236-09-D-0008); Marine Group Boat Works, Inc., Chula Vista, Calif., (N55236-09-D-0009); Miller Marine, Inc., National City, Calif. (N55236-09-D-0010); Nielsen Beaumont Marine, Inc., San Diego, Calif., (N55236-09-D-0011); South Bay Boiler Repair, Inc., National City, Calif., (N55236-09-D-0012), are each being awarded a indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity multiple award contract - Lot I, for marine boatyard services and industrial support for boats, craft, lighterage or service craft less than 50 feet in length. Al Larson Boat Shop, Inc., Terminal Island, Calif., (N55236-09-D-0004); Epsilon Systems Solutions, Inc., San Diego, Calif., (N55236-09-D-0013); Fraser's Boiler Services, Inc., San Diego, Calif., (N55236-09-D-0014); Marine Group Boat Works, Inc., Chula Vista, Calif., (N55236-09-D-0015); Miller Marine, Inc., National City, Calif., (N55236-09-D-0016); South Bay Boiler Repair, Inc., National City, Calif., (N55236-09-D-0017), are each being awarded a indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract - Lot II, for marine boatyard services and industrial support for boats, craft, lighterage or service craft greater than 50 feet in length. Each contractor shall furnish the necessary management, material support services, labor, supplies, and equipment deemed necessary to provide marine boatyard and industrial support which includes specific modifications, upgrades, service life extension and repairs to non-commissioned boats, craft, lighterage and service craft and their associated systems and periodic maintenance primarily in support of San Diego area Naval Facilities boats, craft, lighterage, and service craft custodians. The maximum value for each contract under Lot I is $58,300,000. The maximum value for each contract under Lot II is $139,000,000. Each contract has four additional option years to be exercised. Work will be performed in San Diego, Calif., or contractor's facility along the west coast. Work is expected to be completed June 2010. Contract funds in the amount of $27,000 for Lot I and $18,000 for Lot II and contract funds in the amount of $3,000, for minimum obligation for each contract, will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The contract was competitively procured and advertised via the Federal Business Opportunities website, with 20 proposals solicited and 15 offers received. The Southwest Regional Maintenance Center, San Diego, Calif., is the contracting activity. Government Contracts Reports 2012, June 10, 2009.