March 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

President Calls for Government Contracting Reforms
President Obama has issued a memorandum on government contracting for the heads of executive departments and agencies. Stating the federal government "has an overriding obligation to American taxpayers," the memorandum calls for procurement reforms designed to improve competition and curb fraud and waste. The reforms will target sole-source and cost-reimbursement contracts, which – according to reports by agency inspectors general and the Government Accountability Office – have been misused, resulting in wasted resources, poor contractor performance, and inadequate accountability for results. In this regard, agencies must not engage in noncompetitive contracts except under circumstances where their use can be fully justified and where appropriate safeguards have been put in place. Also, the general policy is to prefer fixed-price type contracts, while cost-reimbursement contracts must be used only when circumstances do not allow an agency to define its requirements sufficiently to permit a fixed-price type contract. The memorandum also states the government must have "the capacity to carry out robust and thorough management and oversight of its contracts in order to achieve programmatic goals, avoid significant overcharges, and curb wasteful spending." In addition, government outsourcing for services will be reviewed more closely to determine if contractors are performing inherently governmental functions.

The President called on the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to work with the Secretary of Defense, the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Administrator of General Services, and other agency heads as appropriate, to issue, by July 1, 2009, government-wide guidance to assist agencies in reviewing and creating processes that identify wasteful and inefficient contracts, and to formulate appropriate corrective action. The memorandum also orders the OMB director and agencies to develop and issue by September 30, 2009, government-wide guidance to address: (1) the appropriate use and oversight of sole-source and other types of noncompetitive contracts and maximizing the use of full and open competition; (2) the appropriate use and oversight of all contract types to minimize risk and maximize value to the government; (3) the capacity of the federal acquisition workforce to develop, manage, and oversee acquisitions appropriately; and (4) when governmental outsourcing for services is and is not appropriate. For the text of the memorandum, dated March 4, 2009, see ¶70,105.05.

Claim Used as "Negotiating Ploy" Was Fraudulent
The amount of a Contract Disputes Act fraud penalty assessed on a contractor by the Court of Federal Claims was upheld by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit because the assessment applied to the fraudulent portion of the contractor's claim. The contractor, engaged to construct a road on a tropical island, found it difficult to compact soil. It blamed the government's contract requirements, claiming $64 million in damages. At trial, the government counterclaimed, alleging the contractor's claim violated the CDA. Under the antifraud provision of the CDA (41 USC 604), "[i]f a contractor is unable to support any part of his claim and it is determined that such inability is attributable to misrepresentation of fact or fraud on the part of the contractor, he shall be liable to the [g]overnment for an amount equal to such unsupported part of the claim." The CFC found the contractor underbid the contract with the intent to recoup any shortfall through equitable adjustments and consequently submitted the claim as a "negotiating ploy." The contractor, therefore, violated the CDA by submitting a false claim with intent to deceive the government. The CFC determined the portion of the contractor's complaint that claimed future costs was fraudulent and assessed the CDA penalty accordingly, but it did not assess a penalty for the amount claimed as breach of contract damages.

On appeal, the contractor did not offer a strong challenge to the CFC's findings, but instead argued the CFC's decision should be set aside because the court found only $50.6 million of the $64 million claim was fraudulent. However, the CFC's decision to assess the lesser amount as a penalty did not undermine its factual findings. Though the breach of contract claims could also have been fraudulent, they could be supported by different methodologies, which even if incorrect were not fraudulent. The contractor further argued a claim can be fraudulent only if it rests on false facts rather than on a baseless calculation. This argument lacked merit, as the CDA at 41 USC 605(c)(1) requires the submission of a claim "in good faith" and with "supporting data [that] are accurate and complete." By certifying to $64 million, the contractor represented the entire claim was submitted in good faith. Congress enacted the antifraud provision of the CDA specifically to address such baseless claims. The contractor's argument the penalty was unconstitutional under the Eighth and Fifth Amendments also lacked merit. The penalty was not disproportionate to the possible harm to the government. (Daewoo Engineering and Construction Co. v. U.S., CA-FC, 53 CCF ¶79,065)

Legal News

No Damages for Delay Caused by Sovereign Act
The denial of a construction contractor's claim for delay damages was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit because the order excluding the contractor from a military base was a sovereign act. The contractor sought delay damages after its access to a military base construction site was denied for 41 days following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals concluded the sovereign acts doctrine precluded a damages award because a military commander's order denying non-mission essential personnel access to the base met the doctrine's "public and general act" requirement. On appeal, the contractor contended the order could not be a public and general act because it was specifically directed at the contractor's performance.

The Federal Circuit, however, sustained the board's decision, agreeing the order was not directed at relieving the government of its contractual obligations, and the order's effect on the contractor was incidental to the objective of maintaining operational security while a military unit prepared to deploy. The fact the commander had to make particularized judgments as to which activities might interfere with that objective did not convert a public and general act into a nongeneral one. The admission of certain non-construction contractors did not indicate the order was specifically directed at the contractor's contract rights, because the access restrictions applied to the public at large, admitted contractors were deemed to be mission-essential and did not have the contractor's massive presence, and the admission of a vendor and cable personnel contravened the order. In addition, the exclusion of the contractor did not reflect government dissatisfaction with the contract or its performance and conferred no economic advantage on the government. Granting delay damages would also undermine a principal rationale of the sovereign acts doctrine by affording more favorable treatment than if the contractor had contracted with a private party and been excluded under the order. Finally, in failing to argue before the board that the government did not satisfy the "impossibility" requirement of the sovereign acts defense, the contractor waived the argument on appeal. (Conner Bros. Construction Co. v. Geren, CA-FC, 53 CCF ¶79,057)

Infringement Claim Sent to District Court with New Defendant
The Court of Federal Claims granted a motion to transfer a patent infringement claim to federal district court because the CFC lacked jurisdiction over the claim, the district court would have had jurisdiction at the time the claim was originally filed, and the transfer served the interests of justice. The dispute involved a third-party claim against the government alleging components of the F-22 fighter plane infringed the claimant's patent. The suit was brought under 28 USC 1498(a), which provides a remedy against the government in the CFC for patentees whose patents are "used or manufactured" by government contractors acting with the "authorization or consent" of the government. After the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision finding there was no government liability under §1498(a) because part of the patented process was performed outside the United States, and the CFC lacked jurisdiction over the claim (442 F3d 1345), the claimant moved to transfer the claim to district court under 28 USC 1631 and to substitute the contractor that manufactured the aircraft as defendant. Opposing the motion, the government argued, under the Federal Circuit's decision, that no court had jurisdiction over the claim.

Under 28 USC 1631, a civil action may be transferred to another forum when the transferor court lacks jurisdiction, the transferee court would have had jurisdiction at the time the original case was filed, and transfer would serve the interests of justice. Here, all three prongs were met. First, the Federal Circuit already found the CFC lacked jurisdiction over the claim. Second, although the original complaint alleged a cause of action against the government under 28 USC 1498(a), and the district court would not have had jurisdiction over the government, the district court could have asserted jurisdiction if the complaint properly alleged a claim against the contractor under the Patent Act (35 USC 271). The claimant was granted leave to amend the complaint to change the statutory basis of the claim, and to add the contractor as a defendant, because the factual basis for the claim remained the same and the contractor would not be unduly prejudiced. Third, the claim could be time-barred if transfer were denied. Moreover, the contractor was involved in discovery in the earlier phases of the litigation, and the claimant encountered several issues of first impression, so the interests of justice favored a transfer.

The government had argued "§1498 takes away the patentee's right to bring an infringement action against a [contractor] and substitutes an action for compensation against the [g]overnment," citing a 1928 Supreme Court case stating Congress enacted §1498 "to relieve the contractor entirely from liability of every kind for the infringement of patents in manufacturing anything for the government" (275 US 331). However, §1498(a) only insulates contractors from suit when the government can be found liable, and §1498(c) provides that the provisions of §1498 do not apply to claims arising in a foreign country. Therefore, "§1498(c) must be construed to nullify the contractor immunity provision of §1498(a)." There was no evidence in the legislative history that the "authorization or consent" language was intended to establish patent infringement immunity for contractors in cases where the government cannot be held liable. Further, "[c]onstruing §1498(a) ... to incorporate all forms of liability defined in [the Patent Act] ... would be contrary to legislative intent and would be inconsistent with the language of §1498 as a whole." Finally, even if §1498(a) insulated contractors from suit when §1498(c) was triggered, §1498(a) would still not prevent the exercise of jurisdiction by the district court, because §1498(a) is an affirmative defense, not a jurisdictional bar. (Zoltek Corp. v. U.S., FedCl, 53 CCF ¶79,053)

District Court Had Tucker Act Jurisdiction
A district court had jurisdiction over a claim against the government for injunctive and declaratory relief based on regulatory violations, but not based on contractual violations, held the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, because the Tucker Act's exception to the sovereign immunity waiver is limited to claims which are essentially contractual. The government terminated the contractor's subsidy payments under the Section 8 federal housing program after finding the contractor had failed to comply with a contractual requirement to keep units in satisfactory condition. The contractor brought suit in federal district court for a preliminary and permanent injunction to prevent termination of the payments, alleging the termination was a breach of contract and a violation of various regulations. Appealing the district court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, the contractor disputed the court's characterization of its claim as a disguised claim for monetary relief and argued the claim was for "relief other than monetary damages" to which the Administrative Procedure Act's waiver of sovereign immunity (5 USC 702) applied.

The Tenth Circuit first determined the claim implicated the APA's waiver of sovereign immunity because the claim's primary purpose was to obtain equitable relief. The claim was not for monetary relief because its focus was entirely prospective – seeking to preserve the contractor's ongoing relationship with the government rather than enabling a claim for past pecuniary harm. In addition, the claim sought to prevent the government's allegedly premature termination of Section 8 payments, not recovery of compensatory damages. The court then addressed whether another statute might forbid the relief. The Tucker Act "impliedly forbids" federal courts other than the Court of Federal Claims from ordering declaratory or injunctive relief for claims founded on contract, but not for claims founded on the Constitution, statutes, or regulations. Accordingly, the district court correctly declined jurisdiction over the claim for breach of contract, but it erred in dismissing the contractor's regulatory claims. The fact that the regulatory violation could not have been alleged absent the existence of a contract did not convert a claim asserting rights based on federal regulations into one which is "at its essence" a contract claim. The case was reversed and remanded in part, and affirmed in part. (Normandy Apartments, Ltd. v. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, et al., CA-10, 53 CCF ¶79,066)

Kidnapped Informant Established Breach of Implied Duties
An undercover drug informant was entitled to damages resulting from her abduction and kidnapping in a foreign country, according to the Court of Federal Claims, because the government failed to properly coordinate her overseas activities, which constituted a breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. The contractor, a confidential informant, was abducted and kidnapped in Columbia while working for the United States government. She sought damages after her release, contending the government breached an implied-in-fact contract by failing to maintain her confidentiality, protect her from harm, and ensure her safety.

The court explained that the covenant of good faith and fair dealing imposes a duty "not to interfere with the other party's performance and not to act so as to destroy the reasonable expectations of the other party regarding the fruits of the contract." The duty to cooperate is a subspecies of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, and its scope is determined from the contract and its surrounding circumstances. Here, the duty to cooperate imposed on the government "a duty to refrain from taking any action that would either disrupt [the contractor's] ability to effectively perform as a confidential informant or ... render the value of its own performance worthless." To ensure the contractor's continued viability as a confidential informant, the government was obligated to follow established protocols governing minimum notification.

However, the government's own investigation established the contractor's supervising agent did not follow U.S. and Colombian protocols when he authorized travel without notifying or obtaining approval from the proper authorities. By failing to follow its own procedures, the government, at the very least, interfered with, and failed to cooperate in, the contractor's performance of the operations in Columbia. The agent "was well aware of the accepted principle of coordinating interoffice investigations with all concerned offices," but he failed to follow fundamental protocols, and "either fabricated a non-existent agreement or grossly misinterpreted conversations," when he authorized the travel. The agent's "subterfuge and evasion" also constituted a violation of the obligation of good faith under Section 205 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts. Although the evidence suggested the agent was a "rogue agent," he was acting within the scope of his employment when he sent the contractor "into harm's way." The amount of the contractor's damages was to be determined in a separate trial. (SGS-92-X003 v. U.S., FedCl, 53 CCF ¶79,063)

Government Used Functionally Similar Software After Termination
The government was liable for expectation damages for breaching an information technology contract's non-substitution clause, according to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, because, after terminating a delivery order for convenience, the government replaced the contractor's software with functionally similar software. The dispute arose from an IT blanket purchase agreement, under which the government issued a delivery order to lease software. The government subsequently terminated the delivery order for convenience, which triggered the order's non-substitution clause and obligated the government not to replace the leased software with functionally similar products for one year after the termination. On appeal, the contractor alleged that several of the delivery order's software items were functionally similar to software applications in the government's human resources database.

The government argued it did not use any of the software leased under the delivery order, so it could not have replaced it. The government also denied using functionally similar software and further argued that the purportedly similar software was already in use when the delivery order was terminated, so it could not have replaced any applications. However, the record indicated the government used the delivery order software when it analyzed and evaluated whether it could install the software to interface with its then-existing applications. Also, the government's argument it had the allegedly similar software in use before terminating the delivery order for convenience lacked merit. The government upgraded some of the software it was using and in doing so created applications that were functionally similar to the contractor's product. Accordingly, the government was liable for damages to the extent it used software functionally similar to that provided under the delivery order. (DLT Solutions, Inc., ASBCA, ¶92,501)

Regulatory News

DoD Suspends SDB Price Evaluation Preference
The Department of Defense has suspended the use of a 10-percent price evaluation adjustment for small disadvantaged businesses because it exceeded its 5-percent goal for contract awards to SDBs in fiscal year 2008. The suspension will be in effect for one year and will be reevaluated based on the level of contract awards to SDBs in fiscal year 2009. Section 801 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 prohibits DoD from granting the 10-percent price preference for a 1-year period following a fiscal year in which DoD achieved the 5-percent goal for contract awards established in 10 USC 2323(a). The suspension applies to all solicitations issued from March 13, 2009, to March 12, 2010. For the text of the notice, see ¶70,245.61.

OPM Finalizes Rule on Health Benefits Acquisitions
The Office of Personnel Management has finalized, with changes, a proposed rule amending the Federal Employees Health Benefits Acquisition Regulations. The change to the clause at FEHBAR 1652.216-70 clarifies the rate setting process for community-rated carriers with respect to Similarly Sized Subscriber Groups and removes the ban on rate reconciliation adjustments for the final year of Federal Employees Health Benefits Program contracts. OPM will begin conducting rate reconciliation on community-rated contracts that terminate after January 1, 2009. The final rule is effective March 23, 2009. For the text of the rule, see ¶70,283.04.

Guidelines for Acquisition of Energy Efficient Products Issued
The Department of Energy has finalized, with changes, a proposed rule addressing the procurement of energy-efficient products by the federal government. The final rule implements amendments to the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (42 USC 8251-8259) requiring agencies to procure ENERGY STAR-qualified or Federal Energy Management Program-designated products in acquisitions involving energy consuming products and systems. The NECPA also requires agencies to incorporate into specifications for procurements involving energy-consuming products and systems, and into the factors for evaluation of offers received for these procurements, criteria for energy efficiency that are consistent with the criteria used for rating ENERGY STAR-qualified products and FEMP-designated products. A procurement may be excepted if the head of an agency finds in writing that an ENERGY STAR-qualified product or FEMP-designated product is not cost-effective over the life of the product, or does not meet the functional requirements of the agency. Energy-consuming products or systems designed or procured for combat or combat-related missions are excluded. Under the rule, the planning requirements of the NECPA apply to design, design/build, renovation, retrofit and services contracts; facility maintenance and operations contracts; energy savings performance contracts and utility energy service contracts; and if applicable, lease agreements for buildings or equipment, including build-to-lease contracts. Agencies are also directed to require the procurement of ENERGY STAR and FEMP-designated products in new service contracts, and other existing service contracts as they are recompeted, and to the extent possible, to incorporate these requirements and preferences into existing contracts as they are modified or extended through options. The final rule omits a reporting requirement that was part of the proposed rule. For the text of the final rule, effective April 13, 2009, see 74 FR 10830.

Major Contract Awards

Lockheed Martin - $5 Billion. Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Information Systems & Global Services of Gaithersburg, MD, is being awarded a potential $5 billion indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract with mixed payment provisions including firm-fixed-price, incentive arrangements and cost reimbursable arrangements for contractor logistics support services in support of U.S. Special Operations Command worldwide. The minimum amount guaranteed under the contract is $2.5 million. The work will be performed at Special Operations Forces Support Activity in Lexington, KY, and other locations across the globe, and is expected to have a period of performance from March 2, 2009, to March 1, 2018. This contract was awarded through full and open competition. The contract number is H92254-09-D-0001. Government Contracts Reports 1999, March 11, 2009.

Verizon - $2.5 Billion. Verizon Business Network Services Inc., Ashburn, Va., was awarded a firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract consisting of one five-year base period, two 24-month option periods and one 12-month option period and a maximum ceiling amount of $2,500,000,000. This requirement was announced via the Federal Business Opportunities website and two offers were received. This action, the Defense Information Systems Network (DISN) transmission services - Pacific II (DTS-P II) contract, provides end-to-end transmission services and capabilities essential to Defense Information System Network - Pacific, DoD's consolidated enterprise level telecommunications infrastructure for the expanded Pacific region. The Defense Information Technology Contracting Organization, Pacific is the contracting activity (HC1019-09-D-2000). Government Contracts Reports 2000, March 18, 2009.

Parsons Infrastructure & Technology Group - $977 Million. Parsons Infrastructure & Technology Group, Inc., Pasadena, Calif., is being awarded an estimated $977,374,565 requirements contract with firm-fixed unit prices subject to economic price adjustment. This contract will provide a realistic environment to support a variety of training tasks related to the deployment and maneuverability in an urban setting to enable Marines to conduct training in an environment replicating urban conditions. The Military Operations in Urban Terrain system also allows Marine units to master the challenges of urban navigation, movement, target acquisition and engagement and cross boundary coordination. The training may be performed at any Marine Corp base worldwide, and the work is estimated to be completed March 2014. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This effort was awarded by using a full and open competition. The Marine Corps System Command, Orlando, Fla., is the contracting activity (M67854-09-D-8000). Government Contracts Reports 2001, March 25, 2009.

McKesson Pharmaceutical Supplies - $902 Million. McKesson Corp., San Francisco, CA, is being awarded a maximum $902,400,000 firm-fixed-price, national prime vendor contract for pharmaceutical supplies. Other location of performance is Arizona. Using service is Department of Defense. The original proposal was FedBizOps-solicited with two responses. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract is exercising the sixth option year period. The date of performance completion is February 28, 2010. The contracting activity is the Defense Supply Center Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA (SPM200-03-D-1666). Government Contracts Reports 1998, March 4, 2009.

Lockheed Martin - $797 Million. The Air Force is modifying a firm-fixed-price contract with Lockheed Martin Corp., of Fort Worth, Texas for $797,132,785. This contract action will provide 14 F-16C and 16 F-16D Block 50 aircraft for the Government of Turkey. At this time, $682,158,785 of Foreign Military Sales funds has been obligated. 312 AESG/SYKA, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio is the contracting activity (FA8615-07-C-6034, PZ0005). Government Contracts Reports 1998, March 4, 2009.

Computer Sciences Corp. - $737 Million. The Computer Sciences Corp., Federal Sector of Falls Church, VA, is being awarded a cost-plus-award fee contract modification under contract HQ0006-03-C-0003 for $108,011,668. After award of this modification the cumulative contract value will be $736,989,348. The work will be performed in Huntsville, Alabama. This sole source award is a modification to extend the existing contract through January 2010. This is a bridge modification to provide continuity of support until the competitive award of the Missile Defense Agency Advisory and Engineering Support Services contracts. The amount obligated on this action is $40,129,330 using fiscal year 2009 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation funds. The Missile Defense Agency is the contracting activity (HQ0006-03-C-0003). Government Contracts Reports 1998, March 4, 2009.

Lockheed Martin - $666 Million. Lockheed Martin Corp., Maritime Systems and Sensors Tactical Systems, St. Paul, Minn., is being awarded a $665,637,785 firm-fixed-price contract for the procurement of phased depot maintenance, structural service life extension, and avionics modification on 12 P-3C aircraft for the government of Taiwan under the Foreign Military Sales Program. In addition, this contract provides for ground handling and support equipment and publications. Work will be performed in St. Paul, Minn., (50 percent); Greensville, S.C., (27 percent) and Marietta, Ga., (23 percent), and is expected to be completed in August 2015. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity (N00019-09-C-0031). Government Contracts Reports 2000, March 18, 2009.

General Electric - $438 Million. General Electric Co., Aircraft Engines Business Group, Lynn, MA, is being awarded a $438,138,755 modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract to exercise an option for the Fiscal Year 2009 full rate production of 90 F414-GE-400 engines and 90 F414-GE-400 device kits for the U.S. Navy. In addition, this option provides for 26 F414-GE-400 engines and 24 F414-GE-400 device kits in support of the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF). The F414-GE-400 engine powers the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet 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 is expected to be completed in April 2011. This contract combines purchases for the U.S. Navy ($343,713,854; 78.4 percent) and the Government of Australia, ($94,424,901; 21.6 percent) under the Foreign Military Sales Program. 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 (N00019-06-C-0088). Government Contracts Reports 1999, March 11, 2009.

EDO Communications and Countermeasures Systems - $317 Million. EDO Communications and Countermeasures Systems, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, is being awarded a $316,848,122 modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-07-C-6311) for the production and support of 4,501 JCREW 2.1 Radio-Controlled Improvised Explosive Device (RCIED) Electronic Warfare (CREW) systems to meet urgent Department of Defense (DoD) requirements in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Vehicle Mounted CREW systems are one element of the DoD's Joint Counter RCIED Electronic Warfare program. Spiral 2.1 CREW systems are vehicle mounted electronic jammers designed to prevent the initiation of Radio-Controlled Improvised Explosive Devices. Work will be performed in Thousand Oaks, CA, and is expected to be completed by April 2010. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington Navy Yard, DC, is the contracting activity. Government Contracts Reports 1999, March 11, 2009.

Lockheed Martin - $265 Million. Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded an advance acquisition contract with an estimated value of $265,000,000 for long lead materials and effort associated with the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Air System Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Lot IV procurement of 12 Air Force Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) air systems, 14 Marine Corps Short Take-off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) air systems, one Navy Carrier Variant air system, and one Netherlands CTOL air system. In addition, this contract provides for associated ancillary mission equipment, sustainment support, special tooling/special test equipment and technical/financial data. Work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas, (35 percent); El Segundo, Calif., (25 percent); Warton, United Kingdom, (20 percent); Orlando, Fla., (10 percent); Nashua, N.H., (5 percent); and Baltimore, Md., (5 percent), and is expected to be completed in Jan. 2010. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity (N00019-09-C-0010). Government Contracts Reports 2000, March 18, 2009.