Government Contracts Update April 2009

April 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

FAC 2005-32 Implements American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
The Civilian Agency Acquisition and Defense Acquisition Regulations Councils have published Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-32. The Circular contains six interim rules amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation. The first five rules implement the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) (PL 111-5). In order of appearance, the rules address: Item I - Buy American Requirements for Construction Material (FAR Case 2009-008); Item II - Whistleblower Protections (FAR Case 2009-012); Item III - Publicizing Contract Actions (FAR Case 2009-010); Item IV - Reporting Requirements (FAR Case 2009-009); Item V - GAO/IG Access (FAR Case 2009-011); and Item VI - GAO Access to Contractor Employees (FAR Case 2008-026). All of these interim rules have a comment period extending until June 1, 2009. The full text of FAC 2005-32 appears at ¶70,002.108.

The interim rule associated with FAR Case 2009-008 amends the FAR to implement Section 1605 of the Recovery Act with regard to Buy American Act requirements for construction materials. Section 1605 prohibits the use of funds appropriated or otherwise made available by the Recovery Act for any project for the construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair of a public building or public work unless all of the iron, steel, and manufactured goods used in the project are produced in the United States. The law requires this prohibition be applied in a manner consistent with U.S. obligations under international agreements, and it provides for waiver under three circumstances: iron, steel, or manufactured goods are not produced in the U.S. in sufficient and reasonably available quantities and of a satisfactory quality; inclusion of iron, steel, or manufactured goods produced in the U.S. will increase the cost of the contract by more than 25 percent; or applying the domestic preference would be inconsistent with the public interest. The rule adds a new FAR Subpart 25.6 (FAR 25.600-FAR 25.607), entitled "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act - Buy American Act - Construction Materials," and also adds new contract clauses at FAR 52.225-21 through FAR 52.225-24, with conforming changes to FAR 1.106, FAR 5.207, FAR 25.001, FAR 25.002, and FAR 25.1102. The rule applies to solicitations issued, and contracts awarded, on or after March 31, 2009. Contracting officers must modify, on a bilateral basis in accordance with FAR 1.108(d)(3), existing contracts to include the FAR clauses for future orders, if Recovery Act funds will be used. If a contractor refuses to accept the modification, the contractor will not be eligible to receive Recovery Act funds.

The FAR Case 2009-012 interim rule implements Section 1553 of the Recovery Act, Protecting State and Local Government and Contractor Whistleblowers. The rule adds new sections at FAR 3.907 through FAR 3.907-7, "Whistleblower Protections Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009," and a related new clause at FAR 52.203-15, which is prescribed at FAR 3.907-7. These provisions prohibit non-federal employers receiving funds under the Recovery Act from discharging, demoting, or discriminating against employees as a reprisal for disclosing certain covered information to certain categories of government officials or a person with supervisory authority over the employee. The newly added materials provide definitions relevant to the statute, establish time periods within which the Inspector General and the agency head must take action with regard to a complaint filed by a contractor employee, establish procedures for access to investigative files of the Inspector General, and provide for remedies and enforcement authority. Corresponding amendments are made to FAR 3.900, FAR 3.902 (which is removed and reserved), FAR 52.212-4, FAR 52.212-5, FAR 52.213-4, and FAR 52.244-6. The rule applies to solicitations issued, and contracts awarded, on or after March 31, 2009. Contracting officers must modify, on a bilateral basis in accordance with FAR 1.108(d)(3), existing contracts to include the FAR clause for future orders, if Recovery Act funds will be used. If a contractor refuses to accept the modification, the contractor will not be eligible to receive Recovery Act funds.

The rule associated with FAR Case 2009-010 amends the FAR to implement the Office of Management and Budget Guidance M-09-10, dated February 18, 2009, entitled, "Initial Implementing Guidance for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009," with respect to publicizing contract actions. The rule adds text to FAR 4.605 requiring contracting officers to enter data in the Federal Procurement Data System on any action funded in whole or in part by the Recovery Act, in accordance with the instructions at https://www.fpds.gov. The rule also adds a new FAR Subpart 5.7 (FAR 5.701-FAR 5.705), which directs contracting officers to use the Governmentwide Point of Entry (https://www.fedbizopps.gov) to identify the action as funded by the Recovery Act, post pre-award notices for orders exceeding $25,000 for "informational purposes only," describe supplies and services (including construction) in a narrative that is clear and unambiguous to the general public, and provide a rationale for awarding any action, including modifications and orders, that is not both fixed-price and competitive, and include the rationale for using other than a fixed-price and/or competitive approach. FAR 8.404, FAR 13.105, and FAR 16.505 are amended to reflect the new posting requirements for orders at FAR Subpart 5.7. The rule applies to solicitations issued, contracts awarded, and orders issued under existing task and delivery order contracts as defined in the rule as of March 31, 2009.

The interim rule associated with FAR Case 2009-009 amends the FAR to implement Section 1512 of the Recovery Act, which requires contractors to report quarterly on their use of Recovery Act funds. The rule adds a new FAR Subpart 4.15 (FAR 4.1500-FAR 4.1502), and a new clause at FAR 52.204-11. A corresponding technical amendment is made to FAR 52.212-5. Contracting officers must include the new clause in solicitations and contracts funded in whole or in part with Recovery Act funds, except classified solicitations and contracts. Contracting officers who obligate Recovery Act funds on existing contracts or orders must modify those contracts to add the new clause. Commercial item contracts and "commercially available off-the-shelf" item contracts are covered, as well as actions under the simplified acquisition threshold. Reports from contractors for all work funded, in whole or in part, by the Recovery Act, and for which an invoice is submitted prior to June 30, 2009, are due no later than July 10, 2009. Thereafter, reports must be submitted no later than the 10th day after the end of each calendar quarter. Contractors will report the information, using the online reporting tool available at http://www.FederalReporting.gov, pursuant to the instructions at that web site. The rule applies to solicitations issued, and contracts awarded, on or after March 31, 2009. Contracting officers must modify, on a bilateral basis in accordance with FAR 1.108(d)(3), existing contracts to include the FAR clause for future orders, if Recovery Act funds will be used. If a contractor refuses to accept the modification, the contractor will not be eligible to receive Recovery Act funds.

The FAR Case 2009-011 interim rule implements Sections 902, 1514, and 1515 of the Recovery Act with regard to agency inspector general and Government Accountability Office access to contractor records. These sections are intended to "prevent the fraud, waste, and abuse" of Recovery Act funds through the review and audit of contracts using these funds. The rule amends FAR 12.504(a)(7) for contracts using Recovery Act funds to apply 41 USC 254d(c) and 10 USC 2313(c), Examination of Records of Contractor, to commercial item subcontracts that are otherwise exempt when subcontractors are not required to provide cost or pricing data. Similarly, FAR 13.006(d) is amended for contracts using Recovery Act funds to apply FAR 52.215-2, Audit and Records-Negotiation to contracts and subcontracts which are otherwise exempt because they are under the simplified acquisition threshold. The rule also adds alternate clauses to FAR 52.212-5, Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders-Commercial Items, FAR 52.214-26, Audit and Records-Sealed Bidding, and FAR 52.215-2, Audit and Records-Negotiation. Corresponding changes are made to FAR 12.301, FAR 14.201-7, and FAR 15.209. The rule applies to solicitations issued, and contracts awarded, on or after March 31, 2009. Contracting officers must modify, on a bilateral basis in accordance with FAR 1.108(d)(3), existing contracts to include the FAR clauses for future orders, if Recovery Act funds will be used. If a contractor refuses to accept the modification, the contractor will not be eligible to receive Recovery Act funds.

The rule associated with FAR Case 2008-026 amends the FAR to implement Section 871 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (PL 110-417), which allows the Government Accountability Office to interview current contractor employees during the audit of the contractor's records. The rule revises FAR 52.214-26(c), Audit and Records-Sealed Bidding, and FAR 52.215-2(d)(1), Audit and Records-Negotiation, to add the required statutory language and allow for the required access. FAR 12.503 is amended to add the statute to the list of laws inapplicable to the acquisition of commercial items. The rule is effective March 31, 2009.

Legal News

Government Breached Timber Sale Contracts
The government was liable for breach of timber sale contracts, according to the Court of Federal Claims, because it did not sufficiently disclose risks associated with pending environmental litigation, and it unreasonably and unduly delayed lifting suspensions of work. The government awarded the contracts while it was a defendant in a lawsuit that challenged the sufficiency of wildlife surveys in timber sale areas. The federal district court ultimately found the government did not perform the required surveys and enjoined operations at the work sites. After suspending the contracts to comply with the court order, the government entered into a stipulation agreement with the environmental plaintiffs, conducted the necessary surveys, and then lifted the suspensions. The timber contractor subsequently filed suit in the CFC, where it established breach of contract on two alternative and independent grounds.

First, given the circumstances of the suspensions and the degree of the parties' respective knowledge, it was unreasonable for the government to award the contracts without informing the contractor of the specific risks arising from the environmental litigation. At the time of award, the government was aware of its weak position in the litigation and the environmental plaintiffs were targeting the sale areas. It also knew a decision from the district court was forthcoming. By contrast, the contractor did not know its timber sales were at issue in the litigation "and thus could not anticipate, or judge the likelihood of, an injunction against the pending timber sales." A contracting officer's "generic" announcement at the bid opening and in advance oral bidding, that the sale was currently under litigation and award may be delayed, did not put the contractor on notice its contracts were directly affected by the environmental litigation. The government was in breach of its duty to cooperate, which was inferred from its knowledge of certain risks, its failure to pass along this knowledge to the contractor, and the contractor's resulting deprivation of a "substantial measure of the fruits of the contract." The contractor bid "with the reasonable expectation ... its operations would proceed in due course," and the government was liable for a "shortfall in the raw materials [that] flow[ed] into the [contractor's] mills" of approximately five to six million board feet of timber.

Second, the government unreasonably extended the suspensions. Each contract was suspended for a period of approximately three to four years. However, the government unnecessarily delayed the suspensions by not completing survey work in a timely fashion. Other environmental litigation impacting two of the timber areas did not justify the length of the suspension, because in that case, there was no court order, which was a condition to the government's exercise of the contracts' suspension clause. The government also unreasonably enlarged the scope of one of the suspensions to cover an entire timber sale area, where it could have allowed operations to commence over part of the area. Finally, there was no merit to the government's contention the contractor suffered no damages, which were to be determined in a separate trial. (Scott Timber, Inc. v. U.S., FedCl, 53 CCF ¶79,077)

Protester Disqualified for Opening E-Mail
A protester was reasonably excluded from further participation in two task order competitions because its program manager improperly accessed an e-mail containing sensitive and proprietary information. The government issued two task order solicitations to eligible Logistics Civil Augmentation Program contractors, one of which was the protester. Shortly before their issuance, the cognizant contracting officer inadvertently e-mailed to the protester an attachment which contained source selection sensitive information, as well as proprietary information regarding the LOGCAP contractors, but pertaining to a different task order. Almost immediately, the CO instructed the protester to delete and destroy all copies of the e-mail and attachment. Although the protester took a number of steps to comply with this directive, its program manager admitted opening the e-mail and attachment without reading it, despite being aware of the CO's instructions. Following its refusal to isolate the program manager from the ongoing task order competitions, the protester was disqualified from further competition for those task orders. The protester argued its disqualification was improper because the agency did not specifically find the program manager's actions caused it to "obtain[] an unfair competitive advantage."

The Comptroller General denied the protest, finding in light of the program manager's knowing access of the e-mail and attachment, that the disqualification was based on facts and not innuendo. In addition, the question of whether the program manager actually gained access to the sensitive information at issue could not be resolved by the self-serving statements of the program manager and the protester, that the program manager denied acquiring more than a cursory knowledge about the e-mail and attachment before deleting it. Accordingly, the government reasonably concluded the program manager's knowing and improper access to the information required action be taken to protect the integrity of the procurement system. Further, given solicitation closing dates that were three to four weeks after the date of the disclosure, the government reasonably determined isolating the program manager from the competitions at issue was necessary. (Kellogg Brown and Root Services, Inc., 24 CGEN ¶112,800)

Protester Was Unreasonably Excluded from Competition
The government's failure to solicit a quotation from a protester was unreasonable because it knew the protester was interested in competing for a purchase order and it had no reasonable basis for doubting the protester's ability to furnish the items at issue. In order to keep up with demand for fluorescent lamp starters for the Eagle F-15 aircraft, the government issued multiple purchase orders for the starters. Shortly after the cancellation of one of the orders due to the awardee's quotation of a non-domestic item for a small business set-aside, the acquisitions specialist issued a new request for quotations, which stated it was an urgent and compelling purchase. The protester was not one of the vendors contacted by the AS, despite its submission of a quotation for the prior, cancelled order. The government argued the acquisition was conducted using simplified acquisition procedures and that it sought the required amount of competition by obtaining three quotations. According to the government, it did not solicit the protester due to its lack of prior performance for the item, and because a prior purchase order for the item had been cancelled as a result of the protester's misrepresentation of the foreign product it was providing as a domestic end product.

The Comptroller General sustained the protest, finding the government did not establish a reasonable basis for excluding the protester. When using simplified acquisition procedures, the government must promote competition "to the maximum extent practicable." Although this standard generally may be met by soliciting at least three sources, the government "may not deliberately fail to solicit a responsible source that has expressed interest in competing without a reasonable basis for questioning the source's ability to meet the [government's] needs." Here, the protester's lack of prior performance did not distinguish it from the awardee, which also had not previously furnished the item. In addition, the prior noncompliance with the obligation to furnish a domestic item was not a reasonable basis for exclusion, because there was no indication of nonresponsibility or other ground for ineligibility, and the RFQ did not call for the rejection of non-domestic items. Further, the fact the protester was not listed as a manufacturing source of supply did not support the government's position, as the RFQ did not require offerors to furnish items they had manufactured. Finally, the protester's failure to submit an offer in response to a prior request for proposals for the item was not a reasonable basis for exclusion, because the closing date for that RFP had not passed at the time the order under protest was issued, and the RFP sought a much larger quantity than the RFQ. In light of the awardee's performance of half the contract and its delinquency on the other half, the Comptroller General recommended that if the government cancelled the RFQ and resolicited, it should at a minimum consider the protester's viability as a source. (Solutions Lucid Group, LLC, 24 CGEN ¶112,811)

Regulatory News

FAR Councils Issue Six Rules with FAC 2005-31
The Civilian Agency Acquisition and Defense Acquisition Regulations Councils have published Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-31. The Circular contains two interim and four final rules amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation. In order of appearance, the rules address: Item I - Small Business Size Rerepresentation (FAR Case 2006-032); Item II - Clarification of Submission of Cost or Pricing Data on Non-Commercial Modifications of Commercial Items (FAR Case 2008-012, Interim); Item III - Amendments to Incorporate New Wage Determinations (FAR Case 2008-014); Item IV - Least Developed Countries that are Designated Countries (FAR Case 2008-021); Item V - Federal Food Donation Act (2008) (FAR Case 2008-017, Interim); and Item VI - Technical Amendments. See the summaries below for each rule's effective date. The full text of FAC 2005-31 appears at ¶70,002.106.

FAR Case 2006-032 finalizes, with changes, the interim rule issued in FAC 2005-18, which amended the FAR to implement the Small Business Administration's final rule entitled "Small Business Size Regulations; Size for Purposes of Governmentwide Acquisition Contracts, Multiple Award Schedule Contracts and Other Long-Term Contracts; 8(a) Business Development/Small Disadvantaged Business; Business Status Determinations." The purpose of the SBA rule and this FAR case is to improve the accuracy of small business size status reporting at the prime contract level over the life of certain contracts, including long-term contracts and contracts involving novations, acquisitions, and mergers. Pursuant to the interim rule, contractors are required to rerepresent their size status on contracts before the end of the fifth year of a contract that is more than five years in duration. Rerepresentation is also required before exercising any option of a contract exceeding five years, and following execution of a novation agreement or a merger or acquisition of the contractor, regardless of whether there is a novation agreement. A change in size status does not change the terms and conditions of the contract, but the agency may no longer include the value of options exercised or orders issued against the contract in its small business prime contracting goal achievements. Although not addressed in the SBA rule, the interim rule strengthened the requirement for a contracting officer to document in the contract file the date the contractor verified its representations in the government's Online Representations and Certifications Application, or to include a paper copy of those representations in the contract file.

To implement these changes, the interim rule amended FAR 4.602; changed the heading of FAR Subpart 4.12 to read "Rerepresentations and Certifications" and revised the introductory text to FAR 4.1200; added a new subparagraph to FAR 4.1201; revised FAR 17.207(e); added a new paragraph (c) to FAR 19.202-5; redesignated FAR 19.301 as FAR 19.301-1, while adding new sections at FAR 19.301, FAR 19.301-2, and FAR 19.301-3; amended FAR 19.302 and FAR 19.308; revised FAR 19.804-6; amended the contract clause at FAR 52.212-5; and added a new clause at FAR 52.219-28. In response to comments to the interim rule, the FAR Case 2006-032 final rule makes further changes. The rule adds a requirement to the clause at FAR 52.219-28 for contractors to update size status information in the Central Contractor Registration and ORCA databases when any of the events requiring rerepresentation occur. The final rule also revises FAR 19.301-2(d) to state that agencies should issue a modification to the contract capturing the rerepresentation and report it to the Federal Procurement Data System within 30 days after notification of the rerepresentation. The final rule makes additional changes for clarity and overall ease of understanding, and to maintain consistency within the FAR. A corresponding technical change is made to FAR 1.106 regarding Office of Management and Budget approval under the Paper Work Reduction Act. This rule carries an April 20, 2009, effective date.

The interim rule in FAR Case 2008-12 amends the FAR to implement Section 814 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, which required the harmonization of the thresholds for cost or pricing data. Specifically, Section 814 required alignment of the current threshold for cost or pricing data on non-commercial modifications of commercial items ($500,000) with the Truth in Negotiation Act threshold for cost and pricing data ($650,000). Thus, as the TINA threshold for cost or pricing data is adjusted in the future, so will the threshold for obtaining cost or pricing data on non-commercial modifications of commercial items. This rule amends FAR 15.403-1 at paragraphs (c)(3)(ii)(B) and (c)(3)(ii)(C). Comments on the interim rule, which must reference FAR Case 2008-12, are due May 18, 2009. The rule is effective March 19, 2009.

The final rule in FAR Case 2008-014 addresses solicitation amendments incorporating new wage determinations requirements, and a possible scenario where a contracting officer has to unnecessarily reevaluate proposals already eliminated from a competition. The rule amends FAR 22.404-5(c)(3), which covers contracting by negotiation when the closing date has passed, and currently requires a new wage determination with a changed wage rate be furnished as an amendment to all prospective offerors that submitted proposals. There was an apparent inconsistency between FAR 22.404-5(c)(3) and FAR 15.206(c), with the latter requiring amendments issued after closing to be issued to all offerors that have not been eliminated from the competition. This final rule corrects the inconsistency by changing the language at FAR 22.404-5(c)(3) to indicate a contracting officer must amend solicitations to incorporate new wage determinations and furnish the wage rate information to all offerors that have not been eliminated from the competition, if the closing date for receipt of offers has already passed. The rule goes into effect April 20, 2009.

The final rule associated with FAR Case 2008-021 implements a revision by the United States Trade Representative to the list of Least Developed Countries that are designated countries under the Trade Agreements Act of 1979. The USTR has revised the list to add Liberia and to remove Cape Verde. Accordingly, this final rule amends the FAR to revise the definitions of "designated country" and "least developed country" at FAR 25.003, and the definition of "designated country" in the clauses at FAR 52.225-5, Trade Agreements, and FAR 52.225-1, Buy American Act - Construction Materials Under Trade Agreements. The rule also amends a date in the clause at FAR 52.212-5. This final rule carries a March 19, 2009, effective date.

The interim rule in FAR Case 2008-017 amends the FAR to implement the Federal Food Donation Act of 2008 (PL 110-247), which encourages executive agencies and their contractors to donate wholesome excess food to nonprofit organizations that provide assistance to food-insecure people in the United States. Specifically, this interim rule applies to contracts greater than $25,000 for the provision, service, or sale of food in the U.S. The rule adds a new FAR Subpart 26.4, entitled "Food Donations to Nonprofit Organizations." Specifically, the definition section, FAR 26.401, adds four definitions from the Act: "apparently wholesome food," "excess food," "food-insecure," and "nonprofit organization." The policy section, FAR 26.402, states the government encourages agencies and their contractors to donate excess apparently wholesome food to nonprofit organizations providing food-bank assistance to Americans. The procedures section, FAR 26.403, provides the costs and liability details to encourage contractor donations to nonprofit organizations. FAR 26.404 prescribes use of a new contract clause, FAR 52.226-6, in solicitations and contracts greater than $25,000 for the provision, service, or sale of food in the U.S. The rule also adds corresponding language at FAR 31.205-11, FAR 52.212-5, and FAR 52.213-4. Comments on the interim rule, which must reference FAR Case 2008-017, are due May 18, 2009. The rule is effective March 19, 2009.

Item VI of FAC 2005-31 makes technical amendments to the FAR. The final rule makes editorial changes at FAR 3.503-2, FAR 47.103-1, and FAR 52.225-11. These technical amendments are effective March 19, 2009. Also, FAC 2005-31 includes a Small Entity Compliance Guide, which was prepared in accordance with Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. The Guide identifies one rule—FAR Case 2006-032, Small Business Size Rerepresentation—as having a corresponding regulatory flexibility analysis.

Major Contract Awards

Equilon Enterprises - $1.5 Billion. Equilon Enterprises, Houston, Texas is being awarded a maximum $1,509,925,337 fixed-price with economic price adjustment, indefinite-quantity and indefinite-delivery contract for fuel. Other location of performance is Deer Park, Texas. There were originally 68 proposals Web-solicited with 26 responses. Using service is Defense Energy Support Center. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The date of performance completion is April 30, 2010. The contracting activity is the Defense Energy Support Center, Fort Belvoir, Va. (SP0600-09-D-0465). Government Contracts Reports 2002, April 1, 2009.

Multiple Contractors - $750 Million. Dimensions Construction, Inc., San Diego, Calif., Halbert Construction Co., Inc., El Cajon, Calif., Hal Hays Construction, Inc., Riverside, Calif., I.E. Pacific, Inc., San Diego, Calif., K.O.O. Construction, Inc., West Sacramento, Calif., Peter Vander Werff Construction, El Cajon, Calif., and Souza Construction, Inc., Farmersville, Calif., are each being awarded a firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity multiple award construction contract HUBZone and Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business set-aside for new construction and renovation of general building construction at various locations within the NAVFAC Southwest area of responsibility including but not limited to southern Calif., (83 percent), Ariz., (16 percent), and New Mexico, (1 percent). The total contract amount for all seven contracts is not to exceed $750,000,000 for all contracts combined. The terms of the contracts are not to exceed 60 months, with an expected completion date of April 2014. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Government Contracts Reports 2006, April 29, 2009.

Hess Corp. - $610 Million. Hess Corp., Woodbridge, Va., is being awarded a maximum $610,118,406 fixed-price with economic price adjustment contract for electrical services. Other locations of performance are in Maryland, and New Jersey. Using services are Army, Navy, Air Force and Federal Civilian Agencies. There were originally 195 proposals solicited with 11 responses. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The date of performance completion is June 30, 2014. The contracting activity is the Defense Energy Support Center, Fort Belvoir, Va. (SP0600-09-D-8016). Government Contracts Reports 2006, April 29, 2009.

Valero Marketing & Supply Co. - $540 Million. Valero Marketing & Supply Co., San Antonio, Texas is being awarded a maximum $540,299,718 fixed-price with economic price adjustment, indefinite-quantity and indefinite-delivery contract for fuel. There are no other locations of performance. There were originally 68 proposals Web-solicited with 26 responses. Using service is Defense Energy Support Center. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The date of performance completion is April 30, 2010. The contracting activity is the Defense Energy Support Center Fort Belvoir, Va. (SP0600-09-D-0480). Government Contracts Reports 2002, April 1, 2009.

Petromax Refining Co., LLC - $539 Million. Petromax Refining Co., LLC, Bay City, Texas is being awarded a maximum $538,622,438 fixed-price with economic price adjustment, indefinite-quantity and indefinite-delivery contract for fuel. There are no other locations of performance. There were originally 68 proposals Web-solicited with 26 responses. Using service is Defense Energy Support Center. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The date of performance completion is April 30, 2010. The contracting activity is the Defense Energy Support Center, Fort Belvoir, Va. (SP0600-09-D-0061). Government Contracts Reports 2002, April 1, 2009.

Equilon Enterprises - $495 Million. Equilon Enterprises dba, Houston, Texas is being awarded a maximum $494,696,609 fixed-price with economic price adjustment, indefinite-quantity and indefinite-delivery contract for fuel. Other location of performance is Mobile, Alabama. There were originally 68 proposals Web-solicited with 26 responses. Using service is Defense Energy Support Center. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The date of performance completion is April 30, 2010. The contracting activity is the Defense Energy Support Center, Fort Belvoir, Va. (SP0600-09-D-0470). Government Contracts Reports 2002, April 1, 2009.

ConocoPhillips - $434 Million. ConocoPhillips Bartlesville, Okla., is being awarded a maximum $433,969,126 fixed-price with economic price adjustment, indefinite-quantity and indefinite-delivery contract for fuel. Other locations of performance are in Okla., Kan., and Colo. There were originally 68 proposals Web-solicited with 26 responses. Using service is Defense Energy Support Center. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The date of performance completion is April 30, 2010. The contracting activity is the Defense Energy Support Center, Fort Belvoir, Va. (SP0600-09-D-0466). Government Contracts Reports 2002, April 1, 2009.

ExxonMobile Fuels Marketing Co. - $355 Million. ExxonMobile Fuels Marketing Co., Fairfax, Va. is being awarded a maximum $354,571,555 fixed-price with economic price adjustment, indefinite-quantity and indefinite-delivery contract for fuel. Other location of performance is in Louisiana. There were originally 68 proposals Web-solicited with 26 responses. Using service is Defense Energy Support Center. Contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The date of performance completion is March 31, 2010. The contracting activity is the Defense Energy Support Center, Fort Belvoir, Va. (SP0600-09-D-0471). Government Contracts Reports 2002, April 1, 2009.

Manhattan Torcon - $333 Million. Manhattan Torcon A joint Venture, Falls Church, Va., was awarded on March 27, 2009 a $333,000,000 firm-fixed-price contract for the replacement of the facility at Fort Detrick in Fredrick, Md. Work is to be performed at Fort Detrick, Frederick, Md., with an estimated completion date of April 5, 2014. Bids were solicited on the World Wide Web with three bids received. U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Baltimore, Md., is the contracting activity (W912DR-09-C-0026). Government Contracts Reports 2003, April 8, 2009.

Lockheed Martin - $320 Million. Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded $320,000,000 not-to-exceed modification to a previously awarded advance acquisition contract (N00019-08-C-0028). This modification provides for long lead materials and efforts associated with the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Air System Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Lot III procurement of the required Special Tooling, Special Test Equipment and Technical Assistance. 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 November 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 2002, April 1, 2009.