Document 9-4
Filed 07/18/2008
Page 1 of 26
EXHIBIT 0
~.P~ ~_,.~ . isicson@ct Uean p, Haskin/NBCiOSiDOI@DGI sc. ne" >
"Paul,-] [siosoR" Case 1:08-cv-00191-FMA Document 9-4
Filed 07/18/2008 Carner/NBC.,OS/DOi@DOI, Page 2 of 26 Ei!een E
"Douglas G.
Sugject:
S~_atus of
~-~
C!/09/2007 01:47 PH
N-il y?u o_ease pr-:.vLae me wi.zR an upia-_e on -_he status -h,:~ PCP 5n,J ~d fund2n~ T': .-_hL5 .-.ask i?,rcerT'
:he modific]<:,'<, t~ ~-',-..
Case 1:08-cv-00191-FMA
Document 9-4
Filed 07/18/2008
Page 3 of 26
EXHIBIT P
Case 1:08-cv-00191-FMA
Document 9-4
Filed 07/18/2008
Page 4 of 26
~aula Isicson
Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Eiieer~ E Ca~er@nbc,gov Tuesday, January' 09. 2007 417 PM Paula Isicson Dean R Hasklr~@nbc,gov: Douglas G. Shevchik Re: Stares cf blouification for N BCH D010004/0052
Unfortuns
If things have changed since then mlease g.~ hack to me as soon as possible
and take care,
Eileen E. Carter Procurement Speciaiis:, ESS DOI/NBC Scu
Case 1:08-cv-00191-FMA
Document 9-4
Filed 07/18/2008
Page 5 of 26
EXI-IIBIT Q
Case 1:08-cv-00191-FMA
Document 9-4
Filed 07/18/2008
Page 6 of 26
"Patterson, Gerald Mr Corrections Command"
To: Eileen E CarterlNBCIOSIDOt@DOI cc: "Leach, Tamika J CIV USA DA AOC OPMG"
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Ms. Carter, I will complete the training requirement. As per our phone conversation, I'll be waiting on the list of training that's required and will complete the training as quickly as possible. Gerald Patterson (703)602-8881-Voice (703)602-8808-Fax gerald.patterson@us, army.rail
Case 1:08-cv-00191-FMA
Document 9-4
Filed 07/18/2008
Page 7 of 26
EXHIBIT R
Case 1:08-cv-00191-FMA
Brenda L Campbell 06/20/2007 07:24 PM
Document 9-4
Filed 07/18/2008
Page 8 of 26
To: Dean R HaskiniNBC/OS/D©I@DOI cc: Eileen E Carter/NBC/OS/DOI@DOI, Lutisha HilI/NBC/OS/DOI@DOI, Edeltraud Arellano/NBC/OS/DOI@DO!, Gloria M Golden/NBC/OS/DOI@DOI Subject: Chenega IDIQ NBCHD010004 - No New Orders/No New Options
Because of the SBA requirement for 8(a) contractors to recertify every 5 years in a set aside contract, Chenega is being asked to recertify their 8(a) status. Angel will be contacting them for this recertification. We already have been told by Chenega that they are no longer 8(a) status. This means that we can no longer issue new task orders against this contract without fulfilling the CICA requirements. This will apply to exercising options also. Please identify any active task orders with options and notify the clients that the options may not be exercised. You should wait to notify the client officially until we receive the recertification from Chenega, but you may want to give them a heads up so they can have as much time as possible to plan for continued services on another instrument. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Brenda C. Brenda Campbell, C.P.M. Contracting Officer D©I National Business Center Acquisition & Property Management Division, Southwest Branch Fort Huachuca AZ 520-533-1452 E-mail: [email protected]
Case 1:08-cv-00191-FMA
Document 9-4
Filed 07/18/2008
Page 9 of 26
EXHIBIT S
Case 1:08-cv-00191-FMA
Document 9-4
Filed 07/18/2008
Page 10 of 26
Dean R Haskin . 06/22/2007 09:23 AM
To: [email protected], [email protected] cc: Eileen E CarterlNBCIOSlDOI@DOI Subject: Contract NBCHD010004, Task Order 0052, Chenega Technology Services
All Since performance for Gontract NBCHD010004, Task Order 0052 ended on 8 December 2006, and no option was exercised for continued performance, our legal staff has determir~ed that the exercise of any option for continued performance at this late date is not allowable. Therefore, we will not exercise any option period beyond the contract task order Performance Period end date of 8 December 2006. The determination to not exercise the option was based on the client's not providing this office with certain contract requirements until Mid-June. This is considered a substantial delay, and, in accordance with our legal staff opinion, as well as the provisions within the FAR and other regulatory guidance, to exercise an option period at this late stage is considered a new requirement, and would not be in the best interests of the Government. If services were performed by Chenega Technology Services beyond the Performance Period end date of 8 December 2006, it was done so at their own risk. As you are well aware, contract performance cannot begin nor continue without a current, valid contract in place. Since the performance period ended on 8 December 2006, and no option to extend performance was issued against Contract NBCHD010004, Task Order 0052, any request for payment for the time period worked beyond this date cannot be authorized. If you have any questions, feel free to call or email.
DEAN R. HASKIN DOI/NBC ACQUISITION SERVICES DIVISION SOUTHWEST BRANCH PO BOX 12924 Fort Huachuca, AZ 85670-2924 Phone: 520.538.0396; Fax 520.538.0415 Dean R [email protected]
Case 1:08-cv-00191-FMA
Document 9-4
Filed 07/18/2008
Page 11 of 26
EXHIBIT T
Case 1:08-cv-00191-FMA
Document 9-4
Filed 07/18/2008
Page 12 of 26
July 2, 2007 Department of the Interior NBC Acquisition Services Division, Southwest Branch P.O box 12924 Ft. Huachuca, AZ 85670-2924 Attention: Brenda Campbell Contract Specialist Subject: Contract No. NBCHD010004, Task Order 0052 Reference: Email dated June 22 from Dean Haskins, DOI, to Clif Gibson and Paula Isicson, CTSC Dear Ms. Campbell: Chenega Technology Services Corporation (CTSC) is hereby requesting that DOI's decision to not exercise the option of the subject Task Order, as stated in the referenced Email, be reversed. The pertinent facts and time line of events are as follows: December 5, 2006. In an Email from DO1 to CTSC, DOI acknowledged receipt of funding and that CTSC was continuing to perform services beyond the period of performance and stated "should you elect to work beyond the current performance period end date, that should not be a problem." December 5, 2006. In a separate Email from DOI to CTSC, DOI further acknowledged that CTSC was working at risk and went on to add "We can exercise an option late as long as there was a demonstrated intent to do so." December 8, 2006. DOI issued to CTSC an Intent to Exercise the Option to Extend the Term of the Contract. January 9, 20(}7. In an Email from DO[ to CTSC, DOI raised the issue of COTF< Training.
February 26, 2007._. in an Email I'rc:ql DOD to CTSC, the C~orrectlons' Task ,.~,,.t he !lad completed the necessary and received c :.c~i.fica:e that met .~t.;[ s requirement for COTR ~rammg.
Case 1:08-cv-00191-FMA
Document 9-4
Filed 07/18/2008
Page 13 of 26
May 4, 2007. The DOD Task Manager and Branch Chief was reassi~aed. May 4, 2007. In an Email from DOI to CTSC, DOI informed CTSC that COTR had not fulfilled the training requirements.
May 17, 2007. in an Email from DOI to CTSC, DOI provided details on the required COTR training at CTSC's request.
June 12, 2007. The Acting Branch Chief and Task Manager completed the required COTR training and informed DOI of this fact June 22, 2007. In an Email DOI informed CTSC of their decision to not exercise the option. CTSC is requesting that DOI exercise the option and provide funding for the subject Task Order based on the following key points: The intent to exercise the option is clear and evident. DOI has received the necessary funding from DOD. Both DOI and DOD were aware that CTSC was acting in good faith by continuing to provide the critically needed services and neither took any action to stop CTSC. Al! delays in obtaining the necessary COTR training were caused by the Government. Should you have any questions, comrnents or need any additional information, please do not hesitate to call me at 703-822-2798 or contact me via Emai! at Douglas.Shevchik(d.!CTS C.net.
Dou~Shevchik Director of Contracts CTSC Cc: Patricia Woznick
Case 1:08-cv-00191-FMA
Document 9-4
Filed 07/18/2008
Page 14 of 26
EXHIBIT U
Case 1:08-cv-00191-FMA
Campbell 0~06~'2007 04:44 PM
Document 9-4
Filed 07/18/2008
Page 15 of 26
TO: doug~as,shevchik@~sc,net ¢c: Dean R HaskinfNBC/OS/DO~@DOI Subject: NISCHD010004, Task Order 0052
Mr, Shevchik, I received your letter dated July 2, 2007, Subject: Contract No. NBCHD010004, Task Order 0052, The letter was received today (Aegust 6, 2007) via FedX. Your request to exercise the option on the subiect Task Order is denied. This has been ex~haustively oommunicate~ to your firm. If your firm wishes to pursue this further, please do so in ac~'ordance with the remedies you believe may be affofde~ to you by the Federal Acquisilion Regulation (FAR), Mr. Gibson has been provided the FAR references repeatedly. This is the only response ~ intend to provide to your letter. Feel free to contact me with any questions.
Brenda Campbell, C,P.M. Contracting Officer DO~ Nationa~ Business Cente~ Acquisition & Property Management Division, Southwest Branch Fort Huachuca AZ 520-533~ 1452 E-mail; [email protected]
Case 1:08-cv-00191-FMA
Document 9-4
Filed 07/18/2008
Page 16 of 26
EXHIBIT V
Case 1:08-cv-00191-FMA
Document 9-4
Filed 07/18/2008
Page 17 of 26
WALKER REAUSAW
,~orne~ at Llv,,
Jodv A Rmusaw 6!2 W~e 6~' .avenue ,~Mnchorage, .'MK 0950 I Tel: !-907-277-5297 Fax: 1-?07-277-!055 Emaih [email protected]
November 28, ~.00 /
VIA FEDERAL E,.-~RESS
Department of the Interior NBC Acquisition Services Division, Southwest Branch P. O. Box 12924 Ft. Huachuca AZ 85670-2924 Attention: Dean Ha.skin, Contracting Officer
Chenega Technology Services Corporation North Fork Services Joint Venture Contract No.: NBCHDOI O0004, Task Order 0052 Certified Claim
This firm represents Chenega Technology Services Corporation (CTSC) for certain matters relating to the above-referenced contract.. Pursuant to the provisions of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978, as amended (41 U.S.C. §§ 601-613), FAR Subpart 33.2 and FAR 52.233-1, CTSC submits the following certified claim and hereby demands pa~vrnent, as a matter of right, of the sum certain of $169,956.17. This claim is submitted in connection with the CTSC indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract with the U.S. Department of the Interior ("DOI') for Agriculture ("USDA")/U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") for Information Technology Architecture Development, Information Technology Application (IT), Systems Engineering and technical Analysis (SETA), Financial and Administrative support services to a variety of both DoD and non-DoD customers. The Contract Number is NBCHI)0100004. The specific Task Order from which this claim arises is Task Order 0052. This claim is submitted within six years after accrual of the claim. This claim is for amounts unpaid following CTSC's submission of proper invoices. The enclosed spreadsheet, Exhibit A, contains an invoice summary and identifies the amounts currently outstanding. Copies of the outstanding invoices and supporting documentation, including copies for Form SF-1043 for each are enclosed herewith as Exhibit B. Each of these invoices was properly submitted in accordmace with Section G.4 of the Contract. DOA never indicated that the invoices were not properly submitted or that the costs claimed therein were unreasonable or unallowable yet, to date, these amounts have gone unpaid.
Case 1:08-cv-00191-FMA
Document 9-4
Filed 07/18/2008
Page 18 of 26
Pursuant to F.~ 31.201-2, Determining Allowabilio', a cost is allowable if it complies with the tbllowmg requ~ements: (1) Reasonableness; (2) ~adlocabiliv; (13) Standards promulgated by the CAS Board, if applicable, otherwise, generally accepted accotmting principles and practices appropriate to the circumstances; (4) Terms of the contract; and (5) Any limitations set tbrth in this subpart. Each of these criteria are satisfied here. Basis for Claim
This claim arises from the refusal of DOI to pay the amounts due on the alleged ground that it had not exercised the option to extend Task order 0052. DOI represented to CTSC that it would exercise the option to extend Task Order 0052 and provided it with a written "Notice of Intent to Exercise Option", dated December 8, 2006. DOI also repeatedly represented that the only conditions on the formal exercise of the option was securing appropriated funds. COI did not mention any additional condition relating to COTR certification. After the sole condition to the exercise of the option was fulfilled - DOI obtained in-house funding - and after CTSC had performed substantial services in reliance on the representations, DOI refused to exercise the option by reason of the Government's own failure to designate a properly trained COTR. Attached to this Certified Claim as Exhibit C, is a letter fi-om CTSC to DOI, dated July 2, 2007, which contains a complete recitation of the factual basis for this claim, and includes copies of relevant emails and other correspondence.
Conclusion
Based upon the foregoing, CTSC requests a Contracting Officer's final decision awarding it a sum certain of $169,956.17 Sincerely, WALKER REAUSAR
~l~'am ~alker
William K Walker
Enclosures
Case 1:08-cv-00191-FMA
Document 9-4
Filed 07/18/2008
Page 19 of 26
CER TTFICA770N
I certi~ that the clam is made in good faith; that the supporting data are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief'; that the amount requested accurately reflects the contract adjustmerlt for w)fich the contractor believes the Go~ent is lia~e;/a~d authorized to ceIK'fy the.Z~airo on behalf of the contractor. J/ ! 1 By: Dou~ S h,f, zrc hik DirectS of Contracts Chenega Technology Services Corporation
Case 1:08-cv-00191-FMA
Document 9-4
Filed 07/18/2008
Page 20 of 26
Exhibit J
Case 1:08-cv-00191-FMA
Document 9-4
Filed 07/18/2008
Page 21 of 26
11 January 2008 Douglas Shevchik Chenega Technology Services Corporation 5911 Kingstowne Village Parkway, Suite 200 Alexandria, VA 22315 Dear Mr. Shevchik: Reference your claim dated 28 November 2007, submitted against Contract Number NBCHD010004, Task Order 0052. Chenega Technology Services Corporation (CTSC) claims that the Government (DOI) owes CTSC for work performed on the referenced task order beyond the performance end date. The claim is based on: 1. The Government not exercise an option under Task Order 0052 even though the intent to exercise the option is clear and evident; 2. Necessary funding was received from DoD
o
Both DOI and DoD were aware that CTSC was acting in good faith by continuing to provide critically needed services and no action was taken by either DOI or DoD to stop CTSC;
4. Any and all delays in obtaining the necessary COTR training were caused by the Government.
Each point stated above is addressed by the Contracting Officer 1. The Government did not exercise an option under TaskOrder 0052 even though the intent to exercise the option is clear and evident,"
FAR 52.217-9, Option to Extend the Term of the Contract states "The Government may extend the term of this contract by written notice to the Contractor... The preliminary notice does not commit the Government to an extension" DOI issued a letter of intent to CTSC on December 8, 2006. As requested, the letter of intent was signed by an authorized representative of CTSC. The letter of intent states, in part, "This letter advises you of our intent .... and does not in any way commit or obligate the Government. Should the Government extend the term of the contract, a modification will be issued." No such modification was issued.
PO Box 12924 Ft. Huachuca, AZ 85670 Phone 520.538.0423 www.aqd.nbc.gov
Case 1:08-cv-00191-FMA
Document 9-4
Filed 07/18/2008
Page 22 of 26
U1 S IT I ON~T
~.lerra Vista
k,~ovv wl~en, or iL that would happen. Since CTSC still continued to work without authorization, the risk of continued performance was CTSC's and CTSC's alone.
As responded to and stated above, the Governments position is that CTSC l~-~ew that any performance beyond the contract performance end date was a risk. When CTSC elected to continue to perform beyond the performance period end date, the risk to perform was assumed by CTSC of its own accord, and done so without verbal or written direction from an authorized Government representative. CTSC's claim dated November 28, 2007 as submitted is hereby denied. This is the final decision of the Contracting Officer. You may appeal this decision to the agency board of contract appeals. If you decide to appeal, you must, within 90 days from the date you receive this decision, mail or otherwise furnish written notice to the agency board of contract appeals and provide a copy to the Contracting Officer from whose decision this appeal is taken. The notice shall indicate that an appeal is intended, reference this decision, and identify the contract by number. With regard to appeals to the agency board of contract appeals, you may, solely at your election, proceed under the board's small claim procedures for claims of $50,000 or less or its accelerated procedure for claims of $100,000 or less. Instead of appealing to the agency board of contract appeals, you may bring an action directly in the United States Court of Federal Claims (except as provided in the Contract Disputes Act of 1978, 41 U.S.C. 603, regarding Maritime Contracts) within 12 months of the date you receive this decision.
P© Box 12924
Ft. Huachuca, AZ 85670 Phone 520.538.0423 ,,vww.aqd.nbc.gov
Case 1:08-cv-00191-FMA
Document 9-4
Filed 07/18/2008
Page 23 of 26
EXHIBIT W
Case 1:08-cv-00191-FMA
Document 9-4
Filed 07/18/2008
Page 24 of 26
ACQ UI,S IT IONT . lerI a Vista
Douglas Shevchik Chenega "l-ethnology Services Corporation 5911 Kingstowne Viilage P~rkway, Suite 200 Alexandria, VA 22315 Dear Mr. Shevchik:
Reference your claim dated 28 November 2007, submitted against Contract Number NBCHD010004, Task Order 0052.
Chenega Technology Services Coq:roration (CTSC) claims that the Government (DOI) owes CTSC for work performed on the referenced task order beyond the performance end date, The claim is based on: t. The Government not exercise an option under T~k Order 0052 even though the intent to exercise the option is clear and evident; 2. Necessm7 ftmding was re¢eived from DoD 3. Both DOI and DoD were aware that CTSC wa~ acting in good faith by continuing t~ provide critically needed ~ervices and no action was taken by either DOI or DoD to stop CTSC; Any and all delays in obtaining the necessary COTR training wer~ caused by the Qovernment, Each point stated above is addressed by the Contracting Officer 1, The Government did not exercise an option under Task Order 0052 even though the intern to exercise the option is clear and evident;
FAR 52.217-9, Option to Extend the Term of the Contract states "The Government may extend the term of this contract by written notice to the Contractor... The preliminary notice does not commit the Govemmem to an extension" DOI issued a letter ot~ intent to CTSC on December If, 2006, As requested, ~he letter of intent was signed by ma authorized represen~tive of CTSC, The letter of intent states, in part, "This letter advise$ you of our intent .... and does not in any way commit or obligate the Government. Should the Government extend the term of the contract, a modification will be issued." No such modification was issued.
Case 1:08-cv-00191-FMA
Document 9-4
Filed 07/18/2008
Page 25 of 26
zA~CQ uIs ITIONI
Sierra Vista
While funding was received, the receipt of funding without the issuance of a contract action, i.e. modification, task order, or contract in no way implies nor directs a contractor to work or continue to work unless specifically authorized verbally or in writing by a Contracting Ofricer. Even if such authorization i~ given, any work performed by a contractor is done so at risk by the contractor. In this case. no such authorization was given to CTSC. [n fact, several emails and verbal instruction was provided to CTSC stating that should CTSC elect to work without a modification to the contract, they would do so at their own risk. 3. Both DO1 and DvD were aware that CTSC was acting in goodJ~tirh by continuing to provide critically needed services and no action was taken by either DOI or DoD to stop CTSC, Acting in good faith was a risk that CTSC took on its own. No authorization was given by DO[ or DOD for CTSC to continue with performance under this task order. CTSC is, or as a minimum as an experienced contractor, should be aware that any work continued beyond a contract performance end date is done so, or taken on, at the risk of the contractor. While it is true that DOI, through informal correspondence, discussed with CTSC that a contract modification to extend the performance period (exercise the option period) was being worked, it was made clear that, should CTSC elect to work beyond the performance period end date, they were doing so at their own risk, and there is no guarantee that the option would be exercised. The Government, in this instance, had rto obligation to stop CTSC, as they were well avvare that the performance period had expired. 4. Any and aH ddo?/s in obtaining the necessary COTR training were caused by the Government.
Any training required by an appointed Contracting Officer Representative (COR) is the responsibility of the appoiming agency. In this case, DOD appointed, or tried to appoint, an unqualified COR. DOI reminded the client and the named COR of the training requirements, and that all necessary training must be completed before any appointment can be made or the contract performance (option) be extended (exercised). Unfortunately, the client did not do so in a timely manner. However, the failure of the Government to apI~oint a qualified COR in no way impacted CTSC's decision to work beyond the performance period end date. In fact. CTSC was informed ~hat the client had not provided a qualified COR, and we, DOI. did not
Case 1:08-cv-00191-FMA
Document 9-4
Filed 07/18/2008
Page 26 of 26
Sierra Vista
know when, or if, that would happen. Since CTSC still continued to work without authorization, the risk of continued performance was CTSC's and CTSC's alone.
As responded to and stated above, the Governments position is that CTSC knew that any performance beyond the contract pcrfcrmance end date was a risk. When CTSC elected to cominue to perform beyond the p~rformmace period end date, the risk to perform was assumed by CTSC or" its own accord, and done so without verbal or wrivten direction from an authorized Government representative.
CTSC's claim dated November 28, 2007 as submitted is hereby denied. This is the final decision of the Contracting Officer. You may appeal this decision to the agency board of contract appeals. If you decide to appeal, you must, within 90 days from the date you receive this decision, mail or otherwise furnish written notice to the agency board of contract appeals and provide a copy to the Contracting Offleer from whose decision this appeal is taken. The n~tiee shall indicate that an appeal is intended, reference this decision, and identify the eontragt by number. With reg~d to appeals to the agency board of contract appeals, you may, solely at your election, proceed under the board's smalI claim procedurvz for claims of $50,000 or less or its accelerated proeedur, for claims of $100,000 or less, Inslead of ap~aling to the agency board of contract appeals, you may bring an action directly in the United States Court of Federal Claims (except as provided in the Contract Disputes Act of 1978, 4! US.C. 603, regarding Maritime Contracts) within 12 months of the date you reeelve this decision.
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms