May 2008

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

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

Hot Topic

Embattled GSA Head Steps Down
The embattled head of the General Services Administration resigned amid long-running allegations of improper activities during her tenure. Lurita Doan, who has headed the government's top contracting and building management agency since May 2006, submitted her resignation on April 30 at the request of the White House.

Doan has been criticized by lawmakers for more than a year regarding allegations that she used the agency to bolster the Republican party, awarded a no-bid contract to a business associate and intervened to keep a company on GSA schedules despite evidence it had defrauded the government. Doan also clashed with the agency's inspector general about whistleblower complaints filed by former agency attorneys. Doan has denied any wrongdoing.

About a year ago, lawmakers began to investigate Doan's attendance at a GSA teleconference in 2007. Also participating was a White House political aide, who reviewed the Republicans' 2006 election results and the party's outlook for 2008. Six GSA aides told a congressional committee that Doan asked what the GSA could do to help Republican candidates. The U.S. Office of Special Counsel conducted its own investigation of the teleconference and concluded that Doan violated the Hatch Act, which forbids using government property for political purposes.

Doan also came under fire for awarding a $20,000 no-bid contract last year to a business associate and intervening in a contract decision to keep Sun Microsystems on GSA schedules when there were serious allegations that Sun defrauded the government. The final straw may have been her feud with the agency's inspector general, Brian Miller. Doan complained that whistleblower claims by former GSA lawyers were not being fully investigated. Miller was cleared of any wrong-doing related to the whistleblower claims.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, a critic of Doan, welcomed her resignation. "In my oversight of the GSA, including the Sun Microsystems contract, it appeared that the taxpayer was not the agency's top concern. Instead we found questionable actions, finger-pointing and stonewalling. I hope that changes will now be made to ensure the taxpayer gets the best possible deal when GSA and other agencies negotiate contracts," Grassley said in a statement. Doan is being replaced by GSA Deputy Administrator David Bibb on an interim basis. Government Contracts Reports, 1957, May 7, 2008.

FAR Councils Issue FAC 2005-25
The Civilian Agency Acquisition and Defense Acquisition Regulations Councils have published Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-25. The Circular contains two interim and four final rules amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation. In order of appearance, the rules address: Item I, Federal Procurement Data System Reporting (FAR Case 2004-038, Interim); Item II, Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (FAR Case 2005-040, Interim); Item III, Revisions to the Defense Priorities and Allocations System (FAR Case 2006-033); Item IV, Use of Products Containing Recovered Materials in Service and Construction Contracts (FAR Case 2005-039); Item V, Representations and Certifications-Tax Delinquencies (FAR Case 2006-011); Item VI, Enhanced Access for Small Business (FAR Case 2006-031); and Item VII, Technical Amendments.

An interim rule (FAR Case 2004-038) amending the FAR revises the process for reporting contract actions to the Federal Procurement Data System. This rule establishes the government's commitment for the FPDS to serve as the single authoritative source of all procurement data for a host of applications and reports, such as the Central Contractor Registration, the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System, the Small Business Goaling Report, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act data. The rule amends FAR Subpart 4.6 to revise the process for reporting contract actions to the FPDS, which will allow agencies to obtain federal procurement reports as well as several workload reports designed specifically for first-line supervisors. The use of the federal reports will alleviate the need for individual agencies to collect, verify, and distribute statistics for a host of requirements. The rule provides questions and answers to facilitate the public's understanding of the changes proposed in the interim for reporting contract actions under FAR Subpart 4.6. In addition to revising FAR Subpart 4.6 (FAR 4.600 through FAR 4.607), the rule amends FAR 1.106, FAR 2.101, FAR 4.805, FAR 12.301, and the contract clauses at FAR 52.204-5 through FAR 52.204-7, and FAR 52.212-1. Comments on the interim rule, which carries an April 22, 2008, effective date, are due by June 23, 2008.

A second interim rule (FAR Case 2005-040) amends the FAR to require that small business subcontract reports be submitted using the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System, rather than Standard Form 294-Subcontract Report for Individual Contracts and Standard Form 295-Summary Subcontract Report. The eSRS is a web-based system managed by the Integrated Acquisition Environment. The eSRS is intended to streamline the small business subcontracting program reporting process and provide the data to agencies in a manner that will enable them to manage the program more effectively. This rule amends FAR Subpart 19.7 and related clauses to clarify existing small business subcontracting program requirements. Specifically, this rule amends FAR 1.106, FAR 4.402, FAR 4.403, FAR 19.701, FAR 19.704, FAR 19.705-2, FAR 19.705-6, FAR 19.705-7, and the contract clauses at FAR 52.212-5, FAR 52.219-9, and FAR 52.219-25. The rule also revises FAR 53.219 and removes the forms at FAR 53.301-294 and FAR 53.301-295. This interim rule is effective April 22, 2008, and comments are due by June 23, 2008.

A FAC 2005-25 final rule (FAR Case 2006-033) amends the FAR to reflect the President's delegation of the Defense Production Act's priorities and allocations authorities in Executive Order 12919, and the current provisions of the Defense Priorities and Allocations System regulations of the Department of Commerce in 15 CFR Part 700. FAR changes incorporated in parts 2, 11, 18, 52, and 53 benefit both the government and industry in the receiving of timely and proper delivery of industrial resources. Contracting officers should take note of the changes in the FAR, especially the changes to the Standard Form 26, Award/Contract and SF 1447, Solicitation/Contract, and use the revised SF 26 and SF 1447 that reflects the 15 CFR 700 citation and 2008 edition date change. The rule revises FAR 11.600 through FAR 11.603, and FAR 18.109, as well as the forms at FAR 53.301-26 and FAR 53.301-1447. Corresponding amendments are made at FAR 2.101, FAR 11.604, FAR 52.211-14, FAR 52.211-15, FAR 53.214, and FAR 53.215-1. This rule has an April 22, 2008, effective date.

A final rule (FAR Case 2005-039) amends the FAR to clarify language within the FAR regarding the use of products containing recovered materials, pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, and Executive Order 13101, "Greening the Government Through Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Federal Acquisition." The rule (see 70,006.212 for proposal) prescribes a new clause at FAR 52.223-17 for use in service or construction contracts, to ensure that contractors deliver and make maximum use of products containing recovered material. The rule also provides for consistency when referring to products containing recovered materials, and clarifies that the requirement for products containing recovered materials applies when agencies require the delivery or specify the use of Environmental Protection Agency-designated items and when agencies award contracts for services or construction unless the service or construction contract will not involve the use of such items. To implement these changes, the rule also amends FAR 4.1202, FAR 12.301, FAR 13.006, FAR 23.000, FAR 23.401, FAR 23.405, FAR 23.406, and the contract clauses at FAR 52.212-5, FAR 52.223-4 and FAR 52.223-9. This rule goes into effect May 22, 2008.

The final rule associated with FAR Case 2006-011 (see 70,006.209 for proposed rule) amends the FAR to add new certification requirements regarding refusal to pay delinquent federal taxes to standards of contractor responsibility, causes for suspension and debarment, and the certifications regarding debarment, suspension, and proposed debarment. The changes are intended to clarify the specific circumstances under which tax delinquencies are so serious that suspension or debarment should be considered. The changes originated in response to a request from the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which stated that: "To identify noncompliance with tax law ... the Government should be asking potential contractors, not whether they have been indicted or convicted of tax evasion, but whether they have had any criminal tax law violation in the last three years, whether they have any outstanding tax indebtedness more than one year old, or whether they have any outstanding unresolved federal or state tax lien." The rule adds new regulations at FAR 9.104-5 and FAR 9.104-6, amends FAR 4.1202, FAR 9.105-1, FAR 9.406-2, FAR 9.407-2, FAR 9.409, FAR 52.209-5 and FAR 52.212-3, and removes and reserves FAR 9.408. This final rule carries a May 22, 2008, effective date.

A final rule (FAR Case 2006-031; see 70,006.213 for proposed rule) amends the FAR to create a higher dollar ceiling enabling small businesses to use the small claims procedure for appealing a contracting officer's final decision. Section 857 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (PL 109-364) changed the ceiling under the Contract Disputes Act from $50,000 or less to $150,000 or less for small businesses. The ceiling remains at $50,000 or less for other types of businesses. The change to 41 USC 608 is a ceiling change only. The rule makes this amendment by revising FAR 33.211. This rule is effective May 22, 2008.

Item VII of FAC 2005-25 implements technical amendments. The final rule makes an editorial change at FAR 1.603-1. This rule has an immediate effective date of April 22, 2008. Also, a Small Entity Compliance Guide, which gives notice that a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has been prepared for Item IV, accompanies FAC 2005-25. For the text of FAC 2005-25, see ¶70,002.99.

Legal News

Software Selection Decision Was Improper Sole Source Award
According to the Court of Federal Claims, the government's selection of two software products as its baseline for a consolidation initiative was improper because it constituted a sole source procurement that violated the Competition in Contracting Act's full and open competition requirements. The dispute arose following the government's issuance of a Brand Name Justification selecting two financial management software applications as the baseline for a software consolidation initiative. After the government issued a task order under an existing indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract for software migration services to integrate the software, the protester filed its complaint, arguing the baseline software should have been selected through an open competition. The government moved to dismiss the protest for lack of jurisdiction, arguing its actions amounted to a decision to standardize software, not a procurement. The government based its argument on a recent decision, Ezenia!, Inc. v. U.S. (52 CCF 78,870), which held a software standardization decision was not a procurement decision within the CFC's bid protest jurisdiction. The government also asserted there was no CICA violation because the task order was issued under the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act, which excludes task orders from being challenged in a bid protest as long as "the task or delivery order contract itself has been obtained through full and open competition." Finally, the government asserted the protester was not an interested party and therefore lacked standing to raise the protest.

On the protester's motion for judgment on the administrative record, the CFC sustained the protest and enjoined the task order, finding the government's selection of the software was an improper sole source procurement. The protester was a supplier of financial management software that was based on one of the selected software platforms, which was sufficient to establish its status as an interested party. The contents of the justification suggested the government was using it to avoid CICA's full and open competition requirements, and the government's use of at least three other financial software systems suggested there were at least three additional responsible sources. As the protest focused on the selection of the baseline software, as opposed to the ID/IQ solicitation, the FASA exception to CICA's mandate of full and open competition was inapplicable. The award was arbitrary and capricious because all of the reasons cited by the government in its justification applied with equal force to the software offered by the protester, and the government offered no reasonable basis for its selection of the baseline software. The government's reliance on Ezenia! was unfounded because the standardization decision in that case was made through a competitive process. (Savantage Financial Services, Inc. v. U.S., FedCl, 52 CCF ¶78,923)

Hundreds of Change Orders Impacted Contractor's Work
A construction contractor's cumulative impact claim was granted by the Court of Federal Claims because the government's multiple change orders affected the contractor's performance of unchanged work. The dispute arose from a fixed-price contract to construct a laboratory. During performance, the government executed over 200 contract modifications with extra work orders, including adding a new floor to the building, which delayed project completion by nearly two years and increased the contract price by more than one-third. Although the government paid the contractor for performing most of the changed work, the contractor asserted an impact claim for the cumulative effect of the changes on the contractor's overall performance.

The record showed the government could not prevent the scientists who would occupy the building from demanding changes. In particular, the addition of the new floor after construction had begun required many mechanical and electrical changes after the work already had been installed. Also, as changes and delays mounted, the government's quality management contractor made matters worse by directing the contractor to perform extra work without time extensions or authorizing accelerated performance. The contractor's expert quantified the cumulative impact of the government's changes by using the contractor's historical productivity data and project records for measuring earned and unearned hours. The expert determined approximately 25 percent of the contractor's labor hours were due to lost productivity caused by the government's changes. The court found the expert's estimate to be reasonable when considering the number of changes, the amount of replacement of previously completed work, and the overall deteriorated project environment. Thus, the court was satisfied the contractor established a reasonable basis for its cumulative impact claim, while the government failed to show the claim should be denied or reduced in any respect. (Bell BCI Co. v. U.S., FedCl, 52 CCF ¶78,926)

Partial Cancellation Violated Option to Extend Clause
According to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, a contractor was entitled to increased costs for performing a facilities management contract because the government's cancellation of a portion of the work while exercising a contract option violated the Option to Extend Services clause. The dispute arose out of a regional base operating support contract, which called for "all labor including supervision, management, security escorts, tools, materials, equipment, transportation, and other items" at various government facilities. The contract contained an Option to Extend Services clause that allowed the government to extend the contract for six one-year terms. Over the course of performance, the government added several new facilities to the contract through modifications and extended the contract for three option years. At the close of the third option year, the government sent the contractor a letter stating its intention both to exercise the fourth option year and to cancel services at two facilities. The contractor sought increased costs resulting from the cancellation of services through an equitable adjustment request, and then in a certified claim to the contracting officer, but the government denied the costs.

On the contractor's motion for summary judgment, the board found no facts in dispute regarding whether the government's deletion of work constituted a deductive change or a partial termination for convenience. The Option to Extend Services clause did not permit the government to extend the term of only part of the contract, and the government's attempt to read the language of the Federal Acquisition Regulation's Option to Extend Services clause (FAR 52.217-8) into the clause lacked merit. The government incorrectly argued the contract's Option clause should be interpreted in the same manner as the FAR clause to allow it to extend the term of some services and not others. While the FAR clause expressly stated the government may require the continued performance "of any services," the Option clause here did not include similar language. The contractor was therefore entitled to compensation under either the contract's Changes clause (FAR 52.243-1) or the Termination for Convenience clause (FAR 52.249-2). The record was sufficient to establish the contractor in fact incurred increased costs as a result of the discontinued work. Consequently, the dispute was remanded to the parties for a determination of quantum. (Wackenhut Services, Inc., ASBCA, ¶92,265)

Regulatory News

Interim Rule Addresses Excessive Pass-Through Charges
The Department of Defense has issued an interim rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement to implement Section 852 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, which requires DoD to prescribe regulations to ensure that pass-through charges on contracts or subcontracts are not excessive in relation to the cost of work performed by the relevant contractor or subcontractor. DoD had previously issued an interim rule (70,016.432) implementing Section 852. That prior rule included a solicitation provision and a contract clause requiring offerors and contractors to identify the percentage of work that will be subcontracted and, when subcontract costs will exceed 70 percent of the total cost of work to be performed, to provide information on indirect costs and profit and value added with regard to the subcontract work. Public comments received on the first interim rule indicated an immediate need to amend DFARS policy on this subject to eliminate significant misunderstandings that could cause contracting problems. The current rule is intended to protect the government from situations where there appears to be an agreement with a contractor to perform the contract scope of work, including "managing" subcontractors, then after award, the contractor subcontracts substantially all the effort without providing the required value-added subcontract management functions that were expected.

To ensure the government can determine whether there are excessive pass-through charges, the interim rule incorporates a reporting threshold that enables the contracting officer to understand what functions the contractor will be performing and whether the contractor will be providing "added value," or if the contractor subsequently decides to subcontract substantially all of the effort. This interim rule provides a recovery mechanism for situations where a contractor subcontracts all or substantially all the performance of the contract and does not perform the subcontract management functions, or other value-added functions, that were charged to the government through indirect costs and related profit. The intent of the reporting threshold is for the CO to make a determination that excessive pass-through charges do not exist at the time of award when at least 70 percent of the work will be subcontracted, based on contractor demonstrated functions, and to not address this determination again during contract performance. To that end, this interim rule includes an Alternate I to the clause at DFARS 252.215-7004 to address those instances in which the CO has made a determination prior to contract award. This rule also incorporates a requirement for the contractor to notify the CO in writing if the contractor decides, after award, to subcontract more than 70 percent of the total cost of the work to be performed, and to verify in that document that the contractor will add value consistent with the definition in the contract clause. The 70-percent reporting threshold is meant to capture contracting situations where there is a higher risk that substantially all of the effort could be subcontracted without providing the required subcontract management or other value-added functions. Excessive pass-through charges are unallowable on any subcontracting effort when the contractor or subcontractor does not provide subcontract management consistent with its policies and procedures or does not otherwise provide value to the contract or subcontract. The rule is to be applied consistent with existing Cost Accounting Standard and Federal Acquisition Regulation requirements related to subcontract management, indirect cost allocation, and profit analysis. Accordingly, this interim rule amends DFARS 215.408 and DFARS 231.203, and in addition to changes made to DFARS 252.215-7004, the rule revises the solicitation provision at DFARS 252.215-7003. The interim rule is effective May 13, 2008. Comments on the interim rule, identified by DFARS Case 2006-D057, are due by July 14, 2008. The text of the rule appears at ¶70,016.479.

DoD Updates Earned Value Management Requirements
A Department of Defense final rule (DFARS Case 2005-D006) amends the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement to update requirements for DoD contractors to establish and maintain earned value management systems. This rule supplements the final Federal Acquisition Regulation rule published with Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-11 and establishes DoD-specific earned value management requirements, as permitted by the FAR. The changes made to the DFARS by this rule include the following:

• For cost or incentive contracts and subcontracts valued at $20,000,000 or more, the rule requires an earned value management system that complies with the guidelines in the American National Standards Institute/Electronic Industries Alliance Standard 748, Earned Value Management Systems (ANSI/EIA-748) (DFARS 234.201(1)(i)).
• For cost or incentive contracts and subcontracts valued at $50,000,000 or more, the rule requires an earned value management system that has been determined by the cognizant federal agency (as defined in FAR 2.101) to be in compliance with the guidelines in ANSI/ EIA-748 (DFARS 234.201(1)(ii)).
• For cost or incentive contracts and subcontracts valued at less than $20,000,000, the rule provides that application of earned value management is optional and is a risk-based decision (DFARS 234.201(1)(iii)).
• For firm-fixed-price contracts and subcontracts of any dollar value, the rule discourages the application of earned value management (DFARS 234.201(1)(iv)).
• The Defense Contract Management Agency is assigned responsibility for determining earned value management compliance when DoD is the cognizant federal agency (DFARS 234.201(2)).
• Requirements for contractor cost/schedule status reports are eliminated.

Accordingly, this final rule removes DFARS 234.005, adds a new DFARS Subpart 234.2, amends DFARS 242.1106, removes DFARS 242.1107-70, creates two new contract clauses at DFARS 252.234-7001 and DFARS 252.234-7002, and removes the clauses at DFARS 252.242-7001, DFARS 252.242-7002, DFARS 252.242-7005, and DFARS 252.242-7006. In addition, corresponding changes are made to the DFARS companion resource Procedures, Guidance and Information at PGI 234.201 and PGI 242.1106, which is removed. This DFARS rule is consistent with the policy in the memorandum issued by the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) on March 7, 2005, Subject: Revision to DoD Earned Value Management Policy (available at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/ops/ policy_vault.html). For the text of the proposed rule, see 70,020.222. For the text of this final rule, which is effective April 23, 2008, see ¶70,016.477.

DoD Extends Authority for Prototype Projects
A Department of Defense final rule (DFARS Case 2008-D008) amends the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement to provide for a five-year extension of DoD's authority to carry out a pilot program for transition to follow-on contracting after use of other transaction authority. The rule implements Section 823 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, which amended Section 845 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (as amended by Section 847 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004; 10 USC 2371 note), to extend the authority. Items or processes that do not otherwise meet the definition of "commercial item" may be treated as commercial items in the award of contracts and subcontracts under the pilot program. In addition, items or processes acquired under the pilot program may be treated as developed in part with federal funds and in part at private expense for purposes of negotiating rights in technical data. DFARS Subpart 212.70 addresses the pilot program. Accordingly, the rule amends DFARS 212.7002-1 and DFARS 212.7002-2 to reflect the extended expiration date, from September 30, 2008, to September 30, 2013. For the text of this final rule, effective April 23, 2008, see ¶70,016.475.

CAS Board Finalizes Standard 415 ESOPs Rules
The Cost Accounting Standards Board, Office of Federal Procurement Policy, has issued a final rule amending Cost Accounting Standard 412, "Cost Accounting Standard for composition and measurement of pension cost," and CAS 415, "Accounting for the cost of deferred compensation." These changes to the CAS direct that costs of all Employee Stock Ownership Plans, regardless of type, be accounted for in accordance with CAS 415, and provide criteria in CAS 415 for measuring ESOP costs and assigning those costs to cost accounting periods. The amendments specify that the provisions of CAS 415, and not any other Standard, govern accounting for ESOPs costs. The allocation of a contractor's assigned ESOP costs to contracts and subcontracts is addressed in other Standards. While the purpose of CAS 412 is to provide guidance for determining and measuring the components of pension costs, the Standard does not apply to ESOPs that meet the definition of a pension plan (CASB 9904.412-20). Such plans are considered deferred compensation and covered exclusively by CAS 415. Pursuant to CASB 9904.415-20, CAS 415 applies to the cost of all deferred compensation except the cost for compensated personal absence, and the cost for pension plans that do not fit the description of an ESOP, as defined in CASB 9904.415-30. The final rule also revises CASB 9904.415-40 to specify the requirements for measurement and assignment of ESOP costs. Revised CASB 9904.415-50 provides techniques for application, and CASB 9904.415-60 presents illustrations.

The CAS and Federal Acquisition Regulation have dealt with issues associated with ESOPs since these plans became popular in the late 1970s as a vehicle for providing incentive compensation to employees, as well as a means for corporations to finance their capital requirements. At first, the issues that arose were regarded as allowability matters that were to be treated in the FAR. The views of the CAS Board were sought primarily on an advisory basis. However, after the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals issued its decision in the "Parsons case" (91-1 BCA 23,648), various government commentators suggested the Board place ESOP cost measurement and period assignment matters on its agenda. Both the Department of Defense and contractors reiterated this position following the ASBCA's decision in Ball Corp. (00-1 BCA 30,864). The Board decided to research the issue and subsequently released a staff discussion paper (70,061.01), and in response to public comments followed up with an advance notice of rulemaking (70,058.03). The final rule adopts the proposed rule (70,058.04) with minor changes to the transition provision, CASB 9904.415-63, which states revised CAS 415 is effective June 2, 2008, and generally requires contractor compliance at the start of the next accounting period beginning after the receipt of a contract to which the Standard applies. For the text of the final rule, see ¶70,055.20.

Major Contract Awards

Multiple Firms - $4 Billion. AMEC Earth and Environmental, Inc. of Plymouth Meeting, PA; CDM Contractors,Inc. of Cambridge, MA; CH2M-Hill Facilities and Infrastructures, Inc. of Englewood, CO; Earthtech, Inc. of Long Beach, CA; ECC of Burlingame, CA; Innovative Technical Solutions, Inc. of Walnut Creek, CA; Jacobs Government Services, CO of Pasadena, CA; Parsons Infrastructure and Technology Group, Inc. of Pasadena, CA; Perini Corp of Framington, MA; Toltest of Maumee, OH; North Wind of Idaho Falls, ID; SEI Group, Inc. of Huntsville, AL; Balovento, LLC of Dothan, AL; J2 Engineering of Tampa, FL; Charter Environmental of Wilmington, MA; DWG and Associates of Bluffdale, UT; Weston Solutions, Inc. of San Antonio, TX; Johnson Controls Federal Systems/Versar, LLC of Springfield, VA; and MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. of Alpharetta, GA are being awarded an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract for $4,000,000,000 (maximum total of all task orders on all contracts) (multiple contracts will be awarded). The SATOC program will provide sustainment, restoration, and modernization type construction activity worldwide. The ceiling established for the Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (SR & M) Task Order Contract (SATOC) program is $4 billion. $4 billion is the maximum total of all task orders on all contracts (multiple contracts to be awarded) over the life of the program (up to 10 years). At this time $2,500 per awardee has been obligated. Randolph AFB, TX, is the contracting activity (multiple contracts). Government Contracts Reports, No. 1960, May 28, 2008.

Multiple Firms - $1.5 Billion. Helicopter Tech., Inc., of King of Prussia, PA; Logistics Specialties, Inc., of Layton, UT; ES3 Prime Logistics Group, Inc., of San Diego, CA; and Eagle Tool and Machine Co., Inc., of Springfield, OH, are being awarded an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract for $1,500,000,000. This action will provide support and source for competitive Air Force and DLA land gear (709 Air Force, and 371 DLA items). At this time $8,000,000 has been obligated. Hill AFB, UT, is the contracting activity (FA8203-08-D-0001, FA8203-08-D-0002, FA8203-08-D-0003, FA8203-08-D-0004). Government Contracts Reports, No. 1958, May 14, 2008.

Lockheed Martin Space Systems Co. - $1.4 Billion. Lockheed Martin Space Systems Co., of King of Prussia, PA, is being awarded a cost plus incentive fee/cost plus award fee contract for $1,463,969,301. This is a new contract for the first increment, of the next generation of Global Positioning System (GPS Base IIIA) is a satellite-based radio navigation system that serves military and civil users world-wide. GPS III is an incremental acquisition will be acquired in three blocks: GPS IIIA, GPS IIIB and GPS IIIC. GPA IIIA will evolve existing capabilities, introduce a new L1C civil signal, increase earth coverage M-Code power for authorized military users, provide a graceful growth path to achieve full capabilities development document threshold requirements, and continue support for the Nuclear Detonation Detection System mission. The contract acquires two GPS IIIA research and development Satellite a capability risk reduction and maturation effort to evolve capabilities for GPS IIIB and GPS IIIC, a GPS satellite simulator, and a bus real time simulator. It also includes options for ten additional GPS IIIA production satellites. At this time $96,802,931 has been obligated. El Segundo, CA, is the contracting activity (Lockheed Martin: FA8807-08-C-0010; Boeing: FA8807-08-C-0012). Government Contracts Reports, No. 1959, May 21, 2008.

Harris Corp. - $350 Million. Harris Corp., (RF Communications Division), Rochester, NY, is being awarded a ceiling price $350,000,000 firm-fixed-priced, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract resulting from Request for Proposal No. M67854-08-R-7009 for the Multi-Band Radio (MBR). Work will be performed by Rochester, NY, and work is expected to be complete May 2013. Delivery of the production quantities of MBR is expected to begin in Sept. 2008. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Marine Corps Systems Command, Quantico, VA, is the contracting activity (M67854-08-D-7009). Government Contracts Reports, No. 1959, May 21, 2008.

General Electric Co. - $321.6 Million. General Electric Co., Aircraft Engines Business Group, Lynn, MA, is being awarded a $321,694,248 modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-06-C-0088) to exercise an option for fiscal 2008 Lot 12 full rate production of 84 each F-414-GE-400 engines and device kits and 10 engine fan modules for the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft. Work will be performed in Lynn, MA. (50 percent); Madisonville, KY. (22 percent); Hooksett, NH (13 percent); Albuquerque, NM (6 percent); Rutland, VT (5 percent); Dayton, OH (2 percent); Evandale, OH (1 percent); and Bromont, Canada (1 percent), and work is expected to be completed in December 2009. 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, No. 1957, May 7, 2008.

AM General, LLC - $206.7 Million. AM General, LLC, South Bend, IN, was awarded on May 15, 2008, a $206,794,684 firm-fixed price contract to add 1,578 High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV) to contract. Work is to be completed in Mishawaka, IN, with an estimated completion date of Dec. 31, 2009. One bid was solicited with one bid received. Tank and Automotive Command, Warren, MI, is the contracting activity (DAAE07-01-C-S001). Government Contracts Reports, No. 1960, May 28, 2008.