Government Contracts Update November 2008

November 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 william.vanhuis@wolterskluwer.com.

Hot Topic

FAR Councils Issue Two New FACs
The Civilian Agency Acquisition and Defense Acquisition Regulations Councils have published two new Federal Acquisition Circulars. FAC 2005-28 and FAC 2005-29 each contain one final rule amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation. The FAC 2005-28 rule (FAR Case 2007-006) addresses a contractor business ethics compliance program and disclosure requirements. The FAC 2005-29 rule (FAR Case 2007-013) pertains to requirements for employment eligibility verification. Each FAC also contains a Small Entity Compliance Guide, which indicates a corresponding regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared for the final rule. For the text of FAC 2005-28, see 70,002.102. For the text of FAC 2005-29, see 70,002.103.

The final rule associated with FAR Case 2007-006 strengthens requirements for a contractor code of business ethics and conduct, and an internal control system. The rule also requires disclosure to the government of certain violations of criminal law, violations of the civil False Claims Act (31 USC 3729-3733), and significant overpayments, and provides for the suspension or debarment of a contractor whose principal knowingly fails to make a timely written disclosure to the agency Office of the Inspector General and the contracting officer. This rule, which implements the Close the Contractor Fraud Loophole Act (PL 110- 252, Title VI, Chap 1), follows two proposed follows two proposed rules (70,006.215 and 70,006.223) and a related final rule issued with FAC 2005-22 (FAR Case 2005-007). The prior final rule added a new FAR Subpart 3.10 to require contractors to exercise the highest degree of integrity and honesty. That rule added requirements for a written code of business ethics and conduct, and sought to promote compliance by requiring an employee business ethics and compliance training program and an internal control system (FAR 3.1002). The current final rule amends FAR Subpart 3.10, at FAR 3.1001, FAR 3.1003, and FAR 3.1004, and the contract clause at FAR 52.203-13, to amplify these requirements, which apply to contracts that have a value exceeding $5,000,000 and a performance period of 120 days or more.

Specifically, the FAR Case 2007-006 rule requires contractors to establish and maintain detailed internal controls to detect and prevent improper conduct in connection with the award or performance of any government contract or subcontract. A contractor must make timely disclosures to the agency OIG, with a copy to the CO, whenever, in connection with the award, performance, or closeout of a contract, it has credible evidence of a violation of federal criminal law involving fraud, conflict of interest, bribery, or gratuity violations found in Title 18 of the United States Code, or a violation of the civil False Claims Act. A knowing failure by a contractor's principal to make the appropriate disclosure is cause for suspension or debarment. The rule makes conforming changes to the FAR by adding a definition at FAR 2.101, amending contractor qualification and debarment provisions at FAR 9.104-1 and FAR 9.406-2, and amending requirements for contractor performance information at FAR 42.1501. The rule also impacts the contract clauses at FAR 52.209-5, FAR 52.212-5, FAR 52.213-4, and FAR 52.244-6. Contractors must establish an internal control system within 90 days after contract award, unless the CO establishes a longer time period pursuant to FAR 52.203-13(c). The requirement for an internal control system does not apply to small businesses or commercial item contracts. This final rule goes into effect on December 12, 2008.

The FAR Case 2007-013 final rule adopts, with changes, a proposed rule (70,006.224) to require certain contractors and subcontractors to use the E-Verify system administered by the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, as the means of verifying their employees are eligible to work in the United States. This rule implements Executive Order 13465, Economy and Efficiency in Government Procurement Through Compliance With Certain Immigration and Naturalization Act Provisions and the Use of an Electronic Employment Eligibility Verification System, dated June 6, 2008, and the selection of the E-Verify system as the electronic system to be used by contractors and subcontractors for employment verification. This final rule applies to contracts that are above the simplified acquisition threshold and have a performance period of at least 120 days. The new requirements commit contractors to use the DHS E-Verify system to confirm that all of the contractors' new hires, and all existing employees directly performing work under federal contracts, are authorized to work in the U.S.

The FAR Case 2007-013 rule exempts contracts for commercially available off-the-shelf items and items that would be COTS items but for minor modifications. The rule also exempts employees who hold an active security clearance of confidential, secret, or top secret, and those for whom background investigations have been completed and credentials issued pursuant to Homeland Security Presidential Directive-12. In exceptional circumstances, a head of the contracting activity, without power of redelegation, is authorized to waive the requirement. In response to public comments from the proposed rule, the final rule significantly extends the timelines for registering, beginning to use the system for new and existing employees, and using the program to initiate verification of new hires. Accordingly, this rule adds a new FAR Subpart 22.18, which consists of a scope provision (FAR 22.1800), definitions (FAR 22.1801), a policy statement (FAR 22.1802), and the prescription regulation (FAR 22.1803) for the newly added contract clause at FAR 52.222-54. Corresponding technical changes are made to FAR 2.101, FAR 22.102-1, and FAR 52.212-5. Contracting officers should modify, on a bilateral basis, existing indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts in accordance with FAR 1.108(d)(3) to include the FAR 52.222-54 contract clause for future orders if the remaining period of performance extends at least six months after the final rule effective date, and the amount of work or number of orders expected under the remaining performance period is substantial. This final rule goes into effect on January 15, 2009.

Legal News

Price Realism Analysis Improperly Downplayed Maintenance Issues
A price realism analysis of aircraft maintenance proposals was arbitrary and capricous, according to the Court of Federal Claims, because the analysis did not adequately consider aging issues associated with the aircraft. The protest concerned a request for proposals for KC-135 depot maintenance that anticipated, among other things, a four-year fixed-price contract for programmed depot maintenance, with option years. Offerors were required to provide labor, fringe benefits, overhead, and general and administrative rates to enable the government to perform a price realism analysis. All of the aircraft were at least 40 years old, and "[t]he greatest unknown ... was the potential that the aging of the aircraft would require substantially more maintenance over time." In its final proposal, the awardee projected efficiencies enabling it to require fewer labor hours than the protester, and it reduced its final price by a sufficient margin so that it had the lowest total evaluated price. In a protest before the Government Accountability Office, the Comptroller General found the government failed to address and document the viability of the awardee's reduced labor hours and price properly, and recommended the government explicitly address the analytical relationship between aging aircraft and price realism (23 CGEN 112,527). Following corrective action consisting of price realism and risk analyses, the government affirmed the award. In a second protest, GAO found "no basis to question the adequacy or reasonableness of the [government's] actions, its analysis, or its conclusions" and found the protester's challenges to the cost/price evaluation to be "without merit" (23 CGEN 112,643).

The court determined the corrective action was "fatally flawed "because the government relied on a non-aging fleet for its conclusions and misinterpreted an RFP addendum. The price realism analysis recited that offerors were not required "to estimate the impact of aging aircraft issues in the out years" of the contract and the addendum advised that price adjustments would be negotiated to accommodate chronic aging aircraft. However, both the awardee and the protester were likely under the impression that aging was in fact an issue. Both offerors limited the use of applied learning curves to reduce hours for the depot maintenance work on the basis of leveling and aging aircraft concerns. Further, under the provisions of the addendum, many of the added maintenance tasks that resulted from servicing an aging fleet would not be eligible for renegotiation. Therefore, the "heavy reliance" the government placed on the addendum to address the age issue was not justified.

Moreover, the protester was prejudiced by the flawed analysis. Both the awardee and the protester "were considered as having submitted awardable offers," and the government concluded both were similarly priced, with the awardee "slightly lower by $15,048,602 at the bottom line T[otal] E[valuated] P[rice]." The awardee was selected on the basis of its superior mission capability proposal and lower price, but the inappropriate price realism analysis affected one of these two outcome determinative factors, as well as the award decision. There was a substantial chance the protester would have received the contract award had the government conducted an appropriate price realism analysis. The government was ordered to "resolicit the procurement and take the necessary steps in a new solicitation to address explicitly the role of an ever-aging KC-135 fleet on the PDM to be performed." (Alabama Aircraft Industries, Inc. - Birmingham v. U.S., et al., FedCl, 52 CCF 79,013)

Override Did Not Consider Impact on Procurement System
The Court of Federal Claims declared the government's override of an automatic stay void and without effect because the override decision lacked a rational basis. The contract for information technology services was stayed pursuant to the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 upon the filing of a Government Accountability Office protest. The government subsequently exercised its right under CICA to override the automatic stay, justifying the override as being in the best interests of the United States. According to the override memorandum, the government did not have the staff or expertise to maintain critical systems for several months without outside support, and it considered whether it could forego the services, extend the incumbent's contract, or use an existing procurement vehicle. Reviewing whether the override decision was arbitrary and capricous under the three-prong analysis articulated by the Supreme Court in Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (463 US 29), the CFC focused on the "important aspect of the problem" prong, applied to the prong a four-part test developed in prior CFC cases, and found the override decision lacked a rational basis.

Under the first and second parts of the test, the government demonstrated there could be adverse consequences in not having an IT contractor, but there may have been reasonable alternatives available and the government did not pursue them. The record showed the government discussed extending the incumbent's existing contract or granting it a short-term sole source contract, but there was no evidence of "serious exploration of options" for interim services. Next, the government's cost-benefit analysis was flawed. The government considered "reprocurement costs," but it did not consider the costs to the integrity of the procurement system. It also improperly factored into its decision its chances of prevailing on the merits of the GAO protest, and improperly cited the avoidance of "termination costs" and "uninterrupted performance beyond the calendar year" as benefits of an override. There was no showing of serious consequences to the government absent an override. Finally, the override memorandum did not cite any reasoning showing actual consideration of the fourth part of the test, the impact on competition and the integrity of the procurement system. The government stated in the memorandum that it had a "reasonable chance of prevailing," limited the awardee's performance to "essential efforts during the pendency of the protest," and the protestor was not "next in line," but none of these justifications involved the integrity of the procurement process. By failing to consider the impact of the override on the procurement system, the government failed to "consider an important aspect of the problem. "(E-Management Consultants, Inc. v. U.S., et al., FedCl, 52 CCF 79,018)

CFC Enjoins Information Technology Services Contracts
The Court of Federal Claims enjoined and set aside contracts for information technology program management support services because the evaluation improperly applied two factors, and the best value trade-off determination was inadequately documented, assessed technical merit inconsistently, and placed undue emphasis on price. The post-award bid protesters argued the government did not follow the evaluation scheme when evaluating proposals under the small business participation factor and improperly failed to assign one proposal a strength under the technical/management factor. They also contended the government's trade-off decisions were inconsistent with the solicitation's evaluation scheme. According to the protesters, the solicitation stated nonprice factors were significantly more important than price, but contracts were awarded to the offerors with the lowest prices, the source selection authority's notes revealed an emphasis on technical acceptability over best value, and the government did not identify any weaknesses in the final proposals of the competitive range offerors.

The court first found the government did not apply two evaluation factors equally. An evaluation board had assigned three awardees a strength under the technical/management factor for program manager on-site decision-making authority, but it did not assign one protester a strength in this area despite no meaningful difference between the phraseology in the awardees' proposals and the protester's proposal. All four offerors described similar decision-making authority in the proper section of the proposal, and the government should have assessed strengths of a similar magnitude for each of them. The government also applied the small business participation factor improperly when it assigned two awardees ratings that exceeded the maximum ratings available under the source selection plan. The evaluation was irrational, and a reevaluation would lower the ratings of two awardees and possibly change the SSA's trade-offs.

Further, the best value trade-off determination was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful. The selection decision was inadequately documented and replete with conclusory statements. Its performance risk "comparisons" lacked any comparative language and merely indicated offerors received the same adjectival ratings, and it noted proposals as receiving identical ratings, declaring the proposals "essentially equal," without further explanation. Moreover, the selection document evidenced a clear "intent to inflate the technical portions of the low-price offerors' proposals and downplay the technical superiority of the higher-priced offerors' proposals. "The SSA treated proposals unequally when comparing subfactors and undercut the superior technical evaluations of the higher-priced proposals. Finally, the SSA "emphasized the nature, quality, and extent of a proposal's strengths when it benefitted a lower-priced proposal but often ignored the nature, quality, and extent of a proposal's strengths and relied instead on the adjectival/color ratings when a higher-priced proposal was found to be superior." These actions showed the SSA used a technically acceptable, low price analysis and accorded price, the fourth most important factor, more weight than permitted by the solicitation. The court granted permanent injunctive relief and ordered the government to reevaluate competitive range proposals and make a new selection decision. Femme Comp Inc., et al. v. U.S., et al., FedCl, 52 CCF 79,009.

Responsibility Determination Upheld Despite Bid-Rigging
The Court of Federal Claims lifted a preliminary injunction enjoining performance of a construction contract because the government complied with an order to make a new responsibility determination and the determination was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or unlawful. The court issued the injunction in a prior decision (52 CCF 78,979) in which it found the contracting officer's determination that the awardee was responsible, notwithstanding violations of Japanese bid-rigging laws, was arbitrary and capricious. The court concluded the government could "accept the violations as appropriate for foreign policy reasons or other legitimate reasons of national or military policy," but the "policy call" on the appropriate ethical standard was to be made by a higher-level government official. In a modified preliminary injunction, the court ordered the government to make a new responsibility determination through a new CO. The CO was to obtain "written advice by someone at the flag officer or presidential appointee level, as to the pertinent policy considerations and standards of business integrity," make "a reasoned analysis of the conduct of the awardee and the statutory and regulatory factors relevant to the purposes of a responsibility determination," and "articulate the reasons for finding the awardee either a responsible contractor or not, consistent with the applicable law and Navy policy." A rear admiral appointed a new CO, who found the awardee was responsible. The protester argued the new determination was also arbitrary and capricous.

However, the admiral complied with court's order and the new CO performed a reasoned analysis. The admiral acknowledged the sanctions against the awardee, and directed the CO to determine whether the awardee's record of integrity and business ethics was satisfactory in light of the factors in FAR 9.406-1(a) and to consider any other germane factors. The CO followed the directive by weighing the evidence against the ten factors in FAR 9.406-1(a), which does not necessarily require debarment in all cases, and by meeting with senior officials of the awardee, who assured the CO they were committed to eliminating bid rigging and were unaware of any bid rigging involving the awardee's contracts with the United States government in Japan. Further, the evidence supported the new responsibility determination. The government submitted documentation of the Japanese government's acceptance of mitigative measures, and the new CO's declaration detailing his meeting with the awardee's officials, as evidence of the awardee's commitment to lawful conduct. The CO also reviewed the awardee's past performance evaluations, reputation in the industry, and ability to perform the contract. Although the court may not have agreed with the determination, it could not substitute its judgment for that of the government. (Watts-Healy Tibbitts A JV v. U.S., et al., FedCl, 52 CCF 79,017)

GAO Jurisdiction Extended to Merits of Task Order Protest
Jurisdiction existed over a task order protest because Section 843 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 authorizes Comptroller General protests for orders exceeding $10 million. The protest followed the issuance of a task order for security services pursuant to a multiple-award indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract. According to the protester, the past performance evaluation was unreasonable and the awardee was ineligible for award because it did not hold a required security clearance. The government argued the Government Accountability Office was not authorized to review the issues raised in the protest due to the protest limitations in the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (10 USC 2304(c)). According to the government, the 2008 NDAA (PL 110-181) granted task order contractors the right to "receive the information [regarding the bases for competitions]" and protest the government's failure to provide this information, but not the right to challenge the merits of an award decision.

The Comptroller General denied the protest, finding the 2008 NDAA modified the prior FASA limitations regarding permissible protests by authorizing "a protest of an order valued in excess of $10,000,000." The Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, which was modified by FASA, defines the term "protest" to include, among other things, objections to awards (31 USC 3551(1)). The 2008 NDAA, read in the context of CICA, FASA, and GAO practice and procedure, grants the Comptroller General the same substantive protest jurisdiction conferred by FASA and CICA. There was no basis for concluding "Congress intended to establish a system that requires agencies to advise offerors of the bases for task order competitions, and enforces that requirement through authorization of bid protests --but provides no similar enforcement authority to ensure that agencies actually act in accordance with the guidance they are required to provide to offerors." As a result, the authority granted to the Comptroller General in the 2008 NDAA extends to protests asserting an award decision does not reflect the ground rules established for the task order competition, and GAO had jurisdiction to consider whether the source selection decision here "was reasonably consistent with the terms of the underlying solicitation and applicable procurement laws and regulations." The protester was unsuccessful on the merits. (Triple Canopy, Inc., 23 CGEN 112,718)

Regulatory News

DoD Proposes Protection for Human Research Subjects
The Department of Defense has proposed an amendment to the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement to address requirements for the protection of human subjects involved in research projects. The rule proposes a new contract clause, DFARS 252.235-70XX, for use in contracts involving human subjects in research, to inform contractors of their responsibilities for compliance with 32 CFR Part 219, DoD Directive 3216.02, applicable DoD component policies, 10 USC 980, and, when applicable, Food and Drug Administration policies and regulations. Pursuant to amended DFARS 235.072, the clause would apply to solicitations and contracts awarded by any DoD component, regardless of mission or funding program element code. The clause would not apply to use of cadaver materials alone, which are not directly regulated by 32 CFR Part 219 or DoD Directive 3216.02, and which are governed by other DoD policies and applicable state and local laws. The rule would also add a new provision at DFARS 207.172, which would require contractors to have a Human Research Protection Official, as defined in the new clause and identified in the DoD component's Human Research Protection Management Plan. This official, who must be identified in acquisition planning, would be responsible for the oversight and execution of the requirements of the clause. Comments on this proposed rule, which should refer to DFARS Case 2007-D008, are due by December 26, 2008. For the text of the rule, see 70,020.255.

BIS Implements Agreement with International Atomic Energy Agency
The Bureau of Industry and Security has issued a final rule that adds a new subchapter to the Export Administration Regulations to implement the provisions of the Protocol Additional to the Agreement Between the United States of America and the International Atomic Energy Agency for the Application of Safeguards in the United States of America. The Additional Protocol is an agreement between the U.S. and the IAEA to allow monitoring and reporting of certain civil nuclear fuel cycle-related activities. The rule implements provisions of the Additional Protocol that affect U.S. industry and other U.S. persons engaged in certain civil nuclear fuel cycle-related activities, which are not regulated by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission or its domestic Agreement States, and are not located on certain U.S. government locations. The new EAR provisions, which appear in a new Subchapter D, "Additional Protocol Regulations," consist of EAR Part 781 through EAR Part 799. The new provisions describe requirements to report certain activities to BIS, the scope and conduct of IAEA complementary access to locations at which civil nuclear fuel cycle-related activities take place, and the role of BIS in implementing the Additional Protocol in the U.S. The impact of the APR on U.S. industry and other U.S. persons involves the submission of annual reports, annual update reports, and other reporting requirements, as well as on-site activities in conjunction with complementary access. Other agencies issuing regulations to implement provisions of the Additional Protocol include the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Defense. For the text of the rule, effective October 31, 2008, see 72,750.155.

SBA Rule Streamlines Administrative Wage Garnishment
The Small Business Administration has issued a direct final rule amending its debt collection regulations (13 CFR Part 140) by clarifying terminology within the regulations and streamlining administrative wage garnishment hearing procedures. SBA 140.11 sets forth the scope and processes by which SBA may institute administrative wage garnishment against individuals in the collection of debts, as well as the process by which an individual may contest AWG. These modifications to SBA 140.11 revise definitions and the process by which a debtor requests a hearing regarding AWG. The rule makes clear that not only SBA, but also public and private entities pursuing debt on SBA's behalf, may implement AWG against SBA's debtors. Amended SBA 140.11 also removes SBA's Office of Hearings and Appeals administrative judges and OHA procedures from the AWG hearing process, which simplifies the process for both SBA and debtors. The rule goes into effect December 11, 2008, without further action, unless SBA receives significant adverse comments by November 26, 2008, in which case SBA will withdraw the rule. For the text of this direct final rule, see 70,425.343.

SBA Emergency Interim Final Rule Addresses 7(a) Loans
The Small Business Administration has issued, on an emergency basis, an interim final rule that makes the secondary market for loans guaranteed under section 7(a) of the Small Business Act more efficient with regard to loan pricing and the formation of secondary market loan pools. The rule allows the interest rate on 7(a) loans to be based on a London Interbank Offered Rate and permits SBA pool assemblers to create Weighted Average Coupon pools under SBA's Secondary Market Guarantee Program. According to SBA, this rule is necessary to help ensure continued availability of capital to small businesses and to improve liquidity in and efficiency of the secondary market. The interim final rule is effective November 13, 2008, and comments are due December 15, 2008. For the text of the rule, see 70,425.345.

Major Contract Awards

Oshkosh Corp. - $1 Billion. Oshkosh Corp., Oshkosh, Wis., was awarded on Oct. 31, 2008, a $1,266,601,398 requirements/contract/firm/fixed/price contract. The purchase of 2285 new heavy Expand Mobility Tactical Trucks (HEMTTA4) trucks, 768 HEMTT RECAP, an upgrade a lower model truck. Work will be performed in Oshkosh, Wis., with an estimated completion date of Sept. 30, 2012. One bid was solicited and one bid was received. TACOM, Warren, Mich., is the contracting activity (W56HZV-09-D-0024). Government Contracts Reports 1984, November 12, 2008.

Aerospace Corp. - $797 Million. Aerospace Corp., of El Segundo, Calif., is being awarded a cost plus fixed fee contract for $797,107,900. This action will provide Acquisition of Scientific, Engineering, and Technical support for the Federally Funded Research and Development Center (Aerospace Corp.) which supports the Air Force and other Department of Defense programs. $27,923,400 has been obligated. Los Angeles Air Force Base, Calif., is the contracting activity. F08802-09-C-0001. Government Contracts Reports 1984, November 12, 2008.

Bechtel Plant Machinery Inc. - $605 Million. Bechtel Plant Machinery Inc., Pittsburgh, Pa., is being awarded a $605,030,234 modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-07-C-2102) for additional naval nuclear propulsion components. Work will be performed in Pittsburgh, Pa. (68 percent) and Schenectady, N.Y. (32 percent). Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. No completion date or additional information is provided on contracts supporting the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington Navy Yard, D.C., is the contracting activity. Government Contracts Reports 1983, November 5, 2008.

Raytheon Missile Systems Co. - $441 Million. Raytheon Missile Systems Co., Arizona, is being awarded a $441,900,000 (maximum) indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for development and test of the Ballistic Missile Defense System Multiple Kill Vehicle Payload System. Work will be performed in Tucson, Arizona and is expected to be complete by December 2011. This is a sole source contract award. The contract funds will not expire at the end of the fiscal year. The Missile Defense Agency, Huntsville, Ala., is the contracting activity (HQ0147-09-D-0001). The contract will be incrementally funded. The Task Order 0001 negotiated value is $54,013,313 with a period of performance of 1 Nov. 2008 through 1 Nov. 2009. We anticipate funding approximately $24,000,000 at time of award. Both FY09 and FY10 research, development, test and evaluation funds will be used. Government Contracts Reports 1983, November 5, 2008.

Northrop Grumman - $300 Million. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding - Newport News, Va. is being awarded a $300,705,466 cost plus fixed fee contract for continuation of the refueling complex overhaul advance-planning efforts for the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) and its reactor plants. This effort will continue to provide for advanced planning, shipchecks, design, documentation, engineering, procurement, fabrication and preliminary shipyard or support facility work to prepare for and make ready for the refueling, overhaul, modernization and routine work. Work will be performed in Newport News, Va. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity (N00024-07-C-2117). Government Contracts Reports 1983, November 5, 2008.

The Charles Stark Draper Laboratory - $298 Million. The Charles Stark Draper Laboratory is being awarded Modification P00006 under contract (N00030-08-C-0010) in the amount of $117,385,862 for Trident II (D5) guidance system repair, guidance system parts and MK6LE. This modification increases the total contract value to $298,318,107. Work will be performed in the following locations: Cambridge, Mass., (43 percent), Pittsfield, Mass., (38 percent), El Segundo, Calif., (12 percent), Clearwater, Fla., (5 percent), and Andover, Mass., (2 percent) and is expected to be completed by 30 Sept. 2011. This contract was not competitively procured. The Navy's Strategic Systems Programs, Arlington, Va., is the contracting agency. Government Contracts Reports 1985, November 19, 2008.

General Dynamics Electric Boat Corp. - $285 Million. General Dynamics Electric Boat Corp., Groton, Conn., is being awarded a $285,943,240 cost plus fixed fee contract for design agent, planning yard, engineering, and technical support for active nuclear submarines. This contract includes options which, if exercised, would bring the cumulative value of the contract to an estimated $1,788,110,840. The contract provides for drawings and related technical data; design change documentation; logistics technical data; configuration management; hull, mechanical and electrical engineering; submarine safety design review; non-propulsion plant electrical system engineering; propulsion plant engineering; information services; maintenance engineering; refit/availability technical support; on-site support; configuration change program design and installation support; configuration change program material support; submarine technical trade support; training and facility support; RDT&E program support; R&D submarine/submersibles support; miscellaneous special studies; temporary alteration support; modernization of submarine/submersible systems/subsystems; and affordability/cost reduction technical support. Work will be performed in Groton, Conn., (73 percent); Kings Bay, Ga., (11 percent); Bangor, Wash., (8 percent); Quonset, R.I., (6 percent); and Newport, R.I., (2 percent), and is expected to be completed by Oct. 2009. Contract funds in the amount of $34,313,188 will expire at the end of the fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington Navy Yard, D.C., is the contracting activity (N00024-09-C-2101). Government Contracts Reports 1986, November 26, 2008.

Herndon Products, Inc. $274 Million. Herndon Products, Inc., Maryland Heights, Mo. is being awarded a maximum $274,400,000 fixed price with economic price adjustment, total set-aside contract for total supply chain management and customer direct initiative to provide equipment delivery support. Other location of performance is Chambersburg, Pa. Using services are Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps. There were originally 10 proposals Web solicited with 5 responses. Contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The date of performance completion is October 30, 2012. The contracting activity is the Defense Supply Center Columbus (DSCC), Columbus, Ohio (SPM7LX-09-D-9002). Government Contracts Reports 1983, November 5, 2008.

Multiple Firms - $250 Million. Baldi Bros. Inc., Beaumont, Calif.; Hal Hays Construction, Inc., Riverside, Calif.; Pave-Tech, Inc., Carlsbad, Calif.; Reyes Construction, Inc., Pomona, Calif.; and Sundt Construction, Inc., Tempe, Ariz., 85282-1903, are each being awarded a firm fixed price indefinite delivery indefinite quantity multiple award construction contract for airfield paving and heavy duty paving for military operation vehicles at various locations within the Southwest. The maximum contract amount for all five contracts combined is not to exceed $250,000,000. Work will be performed within the Southwest, including but not limited to Arizona, (12 percent), Calif., (80 percent), New Mexico, (1 percent), Nevada, (5 percent), Utah (1 percent), and Colorado, (1 percent), and work is expected to be completed November 2013. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured as an unrestricted two phase best value design build via the Naval Facilities Engineering Command e-solicitation website, with 10 proposals received. These five contractors may compete for task orders under the terms and conditions of the awarded contract. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, San Diego, Calif., is the contracting activity (N62473-09-D-1603/1604/1605/1606/1607). Government Contracts Reports 1986, November 26, 2008.

Lockheed Martin - $221 Million. Lockheed Martin Simulation, Training and Support, Orlando, Fla., is being awarded a $221,642,000 firm fixed price, indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract to provide performance based logistics maintenance and support services for up to 500 U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps Hybrid, Radio Frequency, Communications Navigation and Instrumentation, and High Power Consolidated Automated Support System stations. Work will be performed in Orlando, Fla. (80 percent) and at various ashore and afloat aviation intermediate maintenance depots, Navy training sites, and Marine Corps airwings (20 percent), and is expected to be completed in November 2015. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via an electronic request for proposals; one offer was received. The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Lakehurst, N.J., is the contracting activity (N68335-09-D-0006). Government Contracts Reports 1985, November 19, 2008.