Free Proposed Findings of Uncontroverted Fact - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-18

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 1 of 37

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-18

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 2 of 37

14 l:ebruary 2(102

Systems Development Corporation ATTN: Ms, Virginia Oilehrist . 215 Wynn Drive, Suite 318 Huntsville, AL 35805 Gentlemen:
1. Reference:

a. SDC, Inc., litter'dated I0 July 2001. b. Meeting withSDC and Government personnel on Contracts DAAH01-00-C-0077 and DAAH01-00-P-0741, 23 January 2002. 2. The' purpose of the meeting was to resolve two issues tha~ SDC is-con'cerned about in the production on ContraetsDAAH01-00-C-0077 and DAAH01-00-P-0741. The issues and agreed resolution are as follows: .. a. The produ.ction units are reqtiired to be subjected to environmental testing per the speeitication: APN 13235072 is beirig pro'c.u're'd ti'nd~r D~A:H0I-00"-C-0ff77.-(2oi'ffmEt c~ill~ for two articles, to be delivered ~:d Redstone Arsenal for testing. APN 13235072 note 6 indicates "'This unit shall meet the requirements of MIS41341". MIS-4"1341 c'alls 'for tln'ee different examination/testa. 1. Vistial examination per 4.3.3.1 covers 7 characteristics whichare either visually inspected or measured. 2. Examinatiot.a te.sti'ng per 4.3.3.2 covers 2' tests per MIS (current drain per 4.4.1. I and Output logic level and dynamic fanctlonal requirements per4.4.1.2) . 3. Inspection tes'tin~ per 4.3.3.3 covers the ei~vironmental requirements. In 4.3.2.3, it states "inspee.t.ioh testing ~hall be conducted on the first article sample only". This indicates that the production units are not subjected to inspection testing nor .to environmental testing.. APN¯13385560 is being procured t~nder DAAH01-00-P-0741: Contract calls for two l]rst articles to be delivered to Redst6ne Arsenal l'br testing.

447

SDC 156~1

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-18

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 3 of 37

APN 13385560 note 6 indicates "This unit shall meet the requirements of MISi. 45073". ¯"¯" MI8-45073 eaIls for three dh%rent examinations/tests. 1. Visual examination per 4.3.3.1 covers 6 characteristics which are either visually inspeei:ed or measured. 2. Examination testing l~er 4.3.3.2 covers 2 tests per the MIS .(current drain per 4.4.1.1 and Output logic level and'dynamic functional requirements per 4.4.1.2) 3. Inspection testing per 4.3.3.3 covers the environmental requirements, In 4,3.2.3, it states "i.nsp~ction testing shall be conducted on thefzrst article sample o~y.".. This indicates that the'production units are not subjected to inspection testing, nor'to environmental testing. b. PROMDa~a: it was agreed irithe me~fing that SDC wo~ald provide PROMS to.the Research and Development and Ehgineerifig Center (RDEC) for programming and subse~luent testing with the GETS 2000. PROM data will then be provided to SDC so that SDC.ean program remaining boards. 3. It is r~quested .that SDC coordi~aate with Mr. Mark Bradley at (256) 842-93.65 in order to deliver the PROMS. ¯4. If there is additional information and/0r assistance ndeded concerning this action, pleasecontact the following: Pattie Page, ~256) 8.76-2897 or Jerry Hill, (256) 876-1772.

Office/"

¯ 448

SDC 1565

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-18

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 4 of 37

3

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-18

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 5 of 37

SDC, Incorporated 26 June 2002 MEMOP~NDUM FOR RECORD

Subject: Phone cor~versation betweeh Jerald Tig~or (AMCOM SAMD Office) and Virginia P. Gilchdst (SDC, Inc. President) on 26 June 2002, 1:20p.m. Jereld Tignor called and informed me, Virginia Po Gilchrist, that he had received correspondence from E. Coleman (AMCOM Legal Office) and Jerry Hill (AMCOM Acquisition Center) regarding a schedule from us (SDC, Inc.). He (Je~:ald Tignor) informed Colei~an and Hill that SDC Could not give them .a schedule until we got what we I~eeded from the GovemmenL He further stated that when the board was sent to Barstow, the plan was to test the PROMs that had been programmed I~y AMCOM Engineering Directorate; hoWever, the board failed the test and was ..... returned to Lockheed for repair, and completion of the Test Set. Mr. Tignor stated that the board is being repaired and L0cki~ed is building the Test Set, they should be ready by the end of July (maybe) At that time it should be available, to test the PROMs. programmed at AMCOM and then we could .build the F.iret Adicle There ar'~ still no wdtten chahgeslmodifications to Our ~ontracL

Virginia P. Gilchrist President

2t5 Wynn Ddve Sul{e 31B Huntsvllle, Alabama 35806 ¯ Phone: 256.382.4600 Fax: 256.382A~0!

ht~:l/www.sdchsv,com

449

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-18

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 6 of 37

From: Seint: To: Subject:

Gilliam Carpenter [gcarpenter@sdchsv corn] Wednesday', June 26, 2002 3"41 PM rlggslaw@mlndspring corn [email protected] Phone Conversation with SAMD Off'ice

Hemo Tlgn0r Phonecon~doc Tignor.

Mr. Riggs, the attachment contains a memo of a conversation with Mr. Jerald

450

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-18

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 7 of 37

4

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-18

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 8 of 37

45t
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
U~CITED STATES ARMY AVIATION AND MISSILE'COMMAND REDSTONE ARSENAL, ALABAMA 35898-5280

Logistics Support Directorate Air Defense Division

CERTIFIED RECEIPT REQUESTED

Systems Development Corporation ATTN: Ms. Virginia Gilchrist 215 Wynn Drive, Suite 318 Huntsville, Alabama 35805 Dear Ms. Gilchrist: 1 ¯ References: a. Purchase Order DAAH01-00-P-0741, Circuit Card Assembly, NSN 5998-01-383-9443, Army part number 13385560. , b. Contract DAAH01-00-C-0077, Circuit Card Assembly, NSN 5998-01-319-4313, Army part number 13235072. c. Your letter dated July 09, 2001, concerning digital data for the PROM units. d. AMCOM letter dated February 14, 2002, concerning Environmental testing and PROM Data.. .. e. AMCOM letter dated March 4, 2002, advising your company to deliver the PROMS.for programming. 2. Please find enclosed contractual modifications, which extend the delivery, schedule on Purchase Order DAAH01-00-P-0741 and contract DAAH01-01-C-0077 as follows: Purchase Order - DAAH01-00-P-0741 First Article - Nove.mber 20, 2002 Production Quantity - May 29, 2003 Contract DAAH01-00-C-0077 First Article - November 10, 2002 Production Quantity - May 9, 2003

AN I=QU/~. OPPORTUNIT~ EMPLOYER

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-18

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 9 of 37

452

3. In consideration for this extension of delivery dates, the Government requests that your company waive any and all claims against the Government which may have accrued up until the date of this modification. The Government also requests the inclusion of 52.249-8, as prescribed by FAR 49.504(1), and the inclusion of 252.243-7001 as prescribed by DFARS 213.302-5, into purchase order DAAH01-00@-0741.

4. The Government, by virtu8 of these extension modifications, also waives any and all claims for contract price reduction against your company for Government provision of additional equipment and services, which accrued up until the date of this modification. 5. If there is additional information and/or assistance needed concerning this action, please contact the following within 10 days after receipt of this letter: Carolyn Gay (256) 895-9197 or Jerry Hill (256) 876-1772. Sincerely, Enclosures 19lodifieations CF: DCMC, Birmlnghan~
JERRY W. HILL Contracting Officer

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-18

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 10 of 37

453

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-18

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 11 of 37

85

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-18

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 12 of 37

454
DEPARTMENT Ol~' THEARMY
UNITED STATES ARMY AVIATION AND MISSILE COMMAND
REDSTONE ARSENAL, ALABAMA 35898-5280

September 5, 2002 Logistics Support Directorate Air Defense Division Systems Development.Corporation ATTN: Ms: Virgini~Gilchrist 215 Wyrm Drive~ Suite 318 Huntsville,.Alab~a 358~5 ...... Dear Ms. Gi!christ: 1. References: a. Contract DAAH01-01-D-0013, ElectronicComponent, NSN 5999-01-297-185-1, Army part number 132349!7. b. AMCOM letter dated March 6, 2002,.concerning contract delinquency: e. Yourletter dated March 13, 2002, concerning testing issues. The problems encountered with Contract DAAH01-00-C-0077 and DAAH01-00-P-0741 are not associated with Contract DAAH01-01-D-0013. 2. Please find enclosed contractual modifications which extend the delivery sehedtfle as follows: First Article (CLIN 0001AA) - 10 Nov 02 Production-Quantity (CLIN 000lAB) - 3 Feb 03 Production Quantity (CLIN 0001AC) - 5 Mar 03 3. If there are additional in£ormation and/or assistance needed concerning this action, please contact the following within 10 days after receipt of this letter: Carolyn Gay (256) 895-9197 or Jerry Hill (256) 876-1772. Sincerely, Enclosures Modification CEP,.TIFIED RECEIPT REQUESTED

"-~ Contra~ing Officer

CF: DCMC, Birmingham
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNIT~ EMPLOYER

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-18

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 13 of 37

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1, Contract ID Code .
2. Amemiment/Modifica~n No. 03 6. hsued By US ARMY AVIATION & HISSIL~ COMMAND AMSAM-AC-LS-H IRENE WATSON (296)876-4293 REDSTONE ARSENAL AL 35898~5280 F/MAIL: IRENE,[email protected] 3. Effective Date Code [ W31PdQ 4. Requi~tion/Purchase Req No.

Page ~ Of~ 5. PrejectNo.~fappllcable) Code

SEE SCHEDULE 7. Administered By ~f ether then Item 61 DCMA BIRMINGHAM BURGER PHILLIPS CENTER 1910 THIRD AVE NORTH RM 201 BIRMINGHAM AL 35203-2376

SCD s
Name And Address Of Contractor (No., SWeet, City, County, State and Zip Code) SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CORP 215 WYNNDR SUITE 318 HUNTSVZLLEAL 3580S

PAS wowb. ADP PT BQO338 9A. Amendment Of Solicitation No.
9B. Dated (See Item 10A. Modification Of Contract/Order No.

TYPE BUSINESS: Small Disadvantaged Business Performing in U.S. ¯ Code 79123 ~ Facility Code ¯

D,~.~Z0~-01-V-0013/000X 10B.Dated(Seelteml3) 2000NOV27 .... .

1L THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TOAMENDMENTS'OF SOLICITATIONS -']The above numbered solicitation is amended a~ 'set forth in Item 14. The hour end date specified for receipt of Offers [] is extended, [] is notextended. " ......... Offer~ mn~t acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to t.he hour and datespecifted in the solicitation or as amended by One of the following methods: (a) By-completing iten~ 8 and 15, and returning.. . copies of the.amendmenta: (b) By. acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the. offer submitted; or () By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the sol/dtation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR: ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIFY OFOFFERS PRIOR TO.THE HOUR-AND DATE" SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFE1L If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already.submitted, such. change may be mad~ by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the . op~ning hour and date specified. 12. Accounting And Appropriation Data (If requir.ed) NO CHANGE TO OBL~GATIO~ DATA 13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS .... It Modifies The Contract/Order No. As Described In Item 14. A. Tiffs Change Order is Issued Pursuant To: The Changes Set Forth In Item 14"Are Made In The Contract/Order No. In Item 10A. B. The Above Numbered Contract/Order Is Modified To Reflect The Administrative Changes (such as changes in paying office, appr6priation data, etc.) Set Forth In Item 14~ Pursuant To The Authority of FAR 43.103(by. C. This Supplemental Agreement Is Entered Into Pursuant To Authority Of: ~rrtr,~

.."

KIND MOO CODE:

[]

. D. Other (Specify type of modification a.mi authority) iMPORTANT: Contractor [] is not, [] is required to sign this document and return I . copies to the Issuing Office. Description Of Amendment/Modification (Organized by UCF section headings, including sollcitution/contract subject matter where feasible.) SEE SECOND PAGE FOR DESCRIPTION

Except a~ provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document ~;eferenced In item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force ¯ and effect.

15B. Contractor/Offeror .,.,1SA. Name And Title Of Signer (Type or prtnt)i I ~Sl~nature of person authorized to sign) t~S~ 7540-01-151-8070 PREVIOUS EDITIONS UNUSABLE

16B. United States Of America 16C. DateSigned [ 15C. Date Signed I ~ 16A" Name And Tire Of C°ntracting Ofticer (Type °r irlnt)CAROLYN. GAY@REDSTONE. ARMY. M ILCAROLYN GAY (2561955-9197 By {Signature of Contr~-_g Officer~ .... 30-105-02 STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

455

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-18

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 14 of 37

CONTINUATION SHEET
Name of Offeror or Contractor: s~s~,~

Reference No. of Document Being Continued PIIN/SIIN D~01-01-D-O013/0O01 MOD/AMD 03

Page

SECTION A - SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION THIS MODIFICATIO~ IS ISSUED TO REVISE THE~DELIVERY DATES FOR THE FIRST ARTICLE AND PRODUCTION (~UANTITIES: CLIN 0001AA (FIRST ARTICLE} - i0 NOV 02 CLIN 000lAB (PRODUCTION QUANTI~ ) - 3 FEB 03 CLIN 000lAB (PRODUCTION QUANTI~/} - 5 MAR 03

ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS REMAIN UNCHANGED.

END OF NARRATIVE A 006 ***

456

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-18

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 15 of 37

CONTINUATION SHEET

Reference No. of Document Being Continued PIIN/SIIN v~-mx-oz-~oo13/OOpl MOD/AMD QU~TITY

Page

3 of 5

Name of Offeror or Contractor: SUPPLIES/SERViCES
SECTZON S - SUPPLTES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/COSTS

UNIT~

0001AA

FIRST ARTICLE - PROGRAM YEAR 1

1

$ 13 864.21000

$

13~864.21

NS~: ~899-01-297-1851 NOUN: BLECTROMIC COHPONE~I FSCI4 : 18876 PART NR: 13234917 SECURITY CLASS: Unclassified PRON.* D108%48~DI PRO~ AM~: 09

ACRN: AA

Packa~in,a and Harkin~ PACA~GING/PAC~ING/SPECIFZCATIONS: MI~L-STD-2073- IC UNIT PACK: 001 INTERMEDIATE" PACK': LEVEL PRESERVATION: Hilltary LEVEL PACKING: B Inspection and A~cep~ance INSPECTION:, Orlg~ ACCEPTANCE: Destlna~ion Govern~en~ ~pproval/Disapproval Days ~ 90 Deliveries o~,,,,, pe~-fqrman~~ 5UPPL ~EL CD MILSTRIP ADDR SIG CD MARK FOR TP CD 003 W31P4Q01450100 W31POW g 2 DEL REL CD ~U/t~T!T~ DEL DATE

OOl
FOB POINT: DesCina~io~

1

I0-N0V-2002

SH£P TO: PARCEL POST ADDRESS (W31POW} PR WOH9 HQ USA A%~I AND MISLE CMD TRANSPORTATION OFFICER BLDG 8022 COTTONWOOD RD HP RTTC ~LDG 4500

DAAH01-0.L-O- 0013/0001

000lAB

PRODUCTION QU~I~TITY - PROGRAH ~ 1 NSN.* 5999-01-257-1851 NOU~: ELECTRONIC COMPONEN FS(3q .- 18876 PART NR: 13234917 SECURZTY CLASS: Unclasai£ied PRON: DI884484DI PRON AMD: 09 AMS CD: 070011 Packaging and Markin~ HIL-STD-2073-1C UNIT PACK: 001 INTER~EDIATE PACK: 000 LEVEL PRESERVATION: Military LEVEL PACKING: B

178

$

622.00000 $

ACRN: AA

457

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-18

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 16 of 37

CONTINUATION SHEET

Reference No. of Document Being Continued PI1N/SHN V~Ol-OZ-D-OOZ3/0OOl MOD/AMD o~

~ Page

4 of ~

Name of Offeror or Contractor: s~s~Ms D~oP~trr coRp ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES
Inspec~ioa and Acceptance INSPECTION: Origin ACCEPTANCE: Origin Deliveries or Performance DeC SUPPL RE5 CD MILSTRI~ ~DDR 001 W31G3H005~IH24 W2 HGIU J DEL REL ~ QU~I~ 001 116

QUANTITY UNIT

S~G ~ ~ ~R TP ~ 2 .DEL DA~ 03-F~-2003

¯. .

SHIP"TO: P~L POST ~D~SS (H2HGIU} ~ ~SPORTATION OFFI~ ¯ DDSP ~. ~ FACILI~ ~W ~ PA 17070-5001

SUPPL ~L ~ MILS~IP ~DR 002 W31G3H005~IS2~ W62G2T

SIG ~ ~ FOR TP ~ J 2

FOE PO~T: D~ina~on SHIP ~: P~CEL POST ~D~SS (W62G2T) ~ DEF DIST DEPOT ~ J~UI~ ~SPORTATION OFFI~

~N~/DELI~Y O~ER

0001AC

PRODU~ION. QU~TI~

$, 644.62000

iS,

36t098.72

NO~: ELE~O~C ~HPO~ FS~: 18876 P~T ~: 13234917 SE~I~ ~S: U~classified PRO~: DlI92853DI PRO~ ~: 03

A~ ~

,~ckaqlng ~d ~arklnq PA~G~G/PACING/S PECI F I~TIONS: ~W MIL-S~-20$3 LE~L P~S~TION: ~L PA~NG: B Inspection and Acceptance

458

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-18

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 17 of 37

CONTINUATION SHEET

Reference No. of DocumentBelng Continued PIIN/SHN v~0z-0~-n-00z~/0oo~ MOD/AMD o~

~age

s of s

Name of Offeror or Contractor: SXST~S DEVELOVMENT CORP

tTEM NO

SUPPLIeS/SERVICES
D~livarles or Performanc~ DOC SUPPL RELCD MILSTRI~ ADDR . SIG C~. MARK F0_~R TP CD" 001 N31G3H~0860~51 W2SGIU . J DEL REL CD ~OANTITY DEL DATE 001 ~6 0~-MAR-2003 FOB POINT: D~s~inat!on SHIP TO: PARCEL POST ADDRESS (W25GIU} X~TRANSPORTATION OFFICER ........ DDSP'NEW CUMBERLAND PACILIT~. ¯ ..... BUILDING MISSION DOOR 113 134 NEW CUMBERLAND PA 17070-5001

QUANTITY

UNIT

UNIT PRICE

~o~-o1-o-ooz~/OOOl
¯ ¯,

459

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-18

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 18 of 37

8

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-18

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 19 of 37

SDO,. lne,

~
;(,..~ , September fi, :2002

Commander U.S. Army Aviation and Missil.e Command AMSAM-AC-ML-SA Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898 Attention: Mr. J'erryHill Subject: Contracts DAA.H01-00-C-00'77, DAAH01-00-P-0741 ~d DAAI-t01-0!-D-001.3 Dear Mr. Hil!: SDC, Inc. has reviewed your Jetter of 27 August 2002 and believes that any reestablishment of the dhlivery date witho~Jt resolving the serious technical defects in the .Teclmieal Data Package (TDP) is impractical. Your proposed modifications' shift the entire risk of correcting and producing these parts .to a Small Disadvmt~zged Bushaess. Such a result is unfair and obfuscates the reality of the deplorable condition of the TDP. At a recent meeting, there was disagreement between "AMCOM technical experts on the subject of adequacy of the TDP." We must work together to. z~md other solutions. SDC has examined the various.alternatives and suggest several aitemalJves which are set out below. SDC, Ine has spent 'considerabl.e.. resoizrees ~om solicitation tl~ougla the hwai'd of the three/-IAWK contracts atte.mpting to provide to the Army products" that are sHtable for. fielding. (See aff~ehed documentation time lines). SDC has repeatedly z~equested the necessary daia in th~ format required by the contracts, and th~ doctzmentafion to properly manufacture the products: However, a great dea] of time has elapsbd and SDC still does not have the data specified in the contracts to produce the products as intended in ou~. or~glnaiproposal. Examples of the insufficient data are as follows: . 1) PROM Data - The contract TDPL Legend directs that the copy o£ the d~gital drawing, ",..included in tl~s Technical Data Package is not use.~l for man'ufaeture. A copy of the drawing in disk or magnetic tape format will be fur~shed to the stzecessfial bidder upon requ'esti'. To j~roperly program PROMs for use on the ¯ circuit cards, SDC requires the data files for loading into the PROMs. These data files must be provided in electrode format for consistency in loading the PROMs ~15 W~n Drive, 8ul~e a18
Phon~:

Fex: 2.56~.'Y2~ 460 f

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-18

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 20 of 37

and. to prevent mistakes associated with manually entering the data. AJthough "requested, SDC h.as still not received an electronic version of the data. files. It appears what we have received are the very drawings the TDPL Legend directs us NOT to use. In order to manually enter and cheek the data, SDC will incur additional costs that were not expected or proposed in the original quotation. While such "a technique could be employed, the risk of programming microcircuits w~th incorrect data, and thereby producing scrap assemblies is very high: The Government has also made it clear that additiona! funding for data entry and replacement PROMs will not be provided. TheGovernment also suggested that SDC could bi~y the programmed microcircuits fi-om Raytheon or Woodard Electric if desired. However, the original, solicitation did not mention these two companies as directed or suggested sources. Therefore,'our proposal was to procure the PROMs arJd.pi-ogram them with the'electronic data file(s) to be provided by theGove .rmnent. 'To change our plans at this time and p~chase the programrhed parts will have a significant financial impact upon this program and our company. Most recently, the Government has attempted ~o s~!ve this dile~arna by programming contractor provided PROMs. However, test and data verification requirements hav.e not been addressed or assumed by the Government. 2) Acceptance Test Procedures - On build to print contracts,, it is routine for the customer to provide copies of the existing test procedure used to determin.e if the p .m-ts..are acceptable..Although SDC has requested Aceeptanoe Test Plans and Procedures, the Government has only provided copies of speciiic'ations that call out the general perfc~rmanee requirements. Therefore, instead of receiving copies of existhag proc6dures, SDC will have to pay for au Acceptance Test Plan/Proeed~es...t9 be written and then forward it to the Government for comment and approval,.~.. In-addition, the special test equipment required by tlfis effort was ¯ not included i~ ~tii" bffer." ~the.Governm'ent does nbt provide the test procedures and equiPmen..t.: performing this effort for the awarded price is.not feasible.
. .o ¯ . .... ¯

The following" opti~h~:~e' ~et. Vort!i to resolve this issue: (1) Termifiate the awarded contracts for convenience. The ROM cost for : t~rr~i~oi~'d~all three contracts is $606,193.96 ' " (2) Perform. Technology Insert!on activities, which include the bui]ding and testing oft, he.products with new cbmponents. The ROM cost of technblogy insertion foi" all three contracts is $1,005,47.6.3 I. If your are ¯ interested in these altematiye, we are prepared" to provide the technical detrtils of this approach." ' ,'" . (3) Task the original OEM (Raytheon) under it~ engha...eerlng service contra~t to. correct....., o....,.and,- modernize., the TDP and upon completion eompetively prdci~.~ the ~.arts.
¯ %:g.:..7.,,~.¯,7~.~¯ .. .¯

SDC 1289

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-18

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 21 of 37

The Technical Data packages as they exist do not represent a technically feasibile, package for a.successful build-to-print job and therefore the existing contracts should be terminated immediately. The most serious faults in the TDP did not surface until after .award .and. were not readily apparent during the bidding process. For example, we did not know that the digital data was not available until after contract award. The examples cited above are but two cases where sufficient data is lacking to complete the effo.rt as proposed, and the answers or altema.tives offered by the Government will have an adverse gnancial impact upon SDC as a small, disadvantaged business. To complete a contract of t/~s type, SDC assumed that the normal, basic technical data and documentation would be made available. As a Small Disadvantaged Business, SDC cannot continue to absorb the financial impacts caused by the Government's failure tO provide the required da.ta. We have already expended asignilicant amount of'time and resources as we have attempted to come up with "work-arounds" to these problems, so an expeditious resolution of this situation would be greatly appreciated. We are prepared to m'eet to find a solution wb_ich accomplishes a p~sitive result for all parties involved. To arrange such a meeting, pleas, e.onta~t the ~der_signed at (-256) 382-4600. Sincerely,

Virginia P. Gilchrist President.

462

SDC ! 290

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-18

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 22 of 37

7

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-18

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 23 of 37

463

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
UNITED STATES ARMY AVIATION AND MISSILE COMMAND REDSTONE ARSENAL, ALABAMA 35898-5280

November 61 2002

Logistics Stipi~o'rt Directorate Air Defense Division Systems Development Corporation ATI'N: Ms. Virginia Gilehrist 215 Wynn Drive, Suite 318 Huntsville, Alabama 35805 Dear Ms. Gilchrist:
I. References:

cERTIFIED tLECEIPT ¯ REQUESTED

a. Purchase Order DAAH01-00-P-0741, Cireui.t Card Assembly, NSN 599.8-01-383-9443, Army part number 13385560. b. Contract DAAH. 01-00-C-0077~ Circuit Card Assembly, NSN 59~8-01-319-4313, Army part number 13235072. e. Contract DAAH01-0 I-D-0013, Electronic Component, NSN 5999-01-297-1851, Anriy part number 13234917. 2. .The government has provided everything contractually required to maniafacture the above items under referenced contracts..The Government's position is that its latest data submissiori to sDC clearly reconciles all issues involved with references (a) and (b), and that there are no TDP issues involved with reference (e). .. 3. The late'st SDC .correspondence indicate.s that there are unresolved TDP problems concerning the above contracts. The Government does not under~tand your technical position. Thus, the Government requests that you contact the. poin.ts of contact listed below within five days from the receipt of this letter to arrange a date and time for technical conferences between 8DC and Government personnel. Given the differences in the nature of the contraels., the Government will discuss refere.nees (a) and (b) exclusively in one session, and reference (c) in a different session. 4. The Government's goal is to establish a delivery schedule for the above-referenced contracts and to procure the items in accordance with the contract.

SDC 1456
AN EOUAL OPPORTUNIIYEMPLOY~R

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-18

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 24 of 37

Anlcle Number i! R.ag~sle.red. Value il COD

DC FOe

SC SH - RD RR Fee Fee Fe.- Fez

.,5-3"-5"

[
m

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-18

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 25 of 37

88

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-18

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 26 of 37

To:
Cc:

Subject:

Pager Patti W ACQ .Thursday, August28, 2003.4:09 PM Hill, Jerry" W AOQ; Wa[son, irene M ACQ Bowersox, Wilbur G ACQ FW: RE: NSNs 5999-01-297-1 ~51, 5998-01-383-9443, and 5998-01-319-4313

FY! Patti'
---Original Message---From: ~ Fards, 3o~m W Tl~ur~day~ ~gus~ 28~ 200t 4:06 PH Sent: To; Smlth~ Wes G LEGAL; Page~ Patti W Subjeckl ¯ RE: NSNs 5999-01-297-,~11~11~ 5998-01-383-9443, and 5998-01-319-4313

Wes and Patti-

Sorry, I a.lmost forgo.t to send this oqt. The sta.ble .b~ses for NSN 5998-01-383-9443 ~re in good condition and usable for_mai'iuf~ictur~n~! )3urposes. However, we still don't have the computer programs indicated in the Tech Data package.

The condition of'the TbPs'for thesubject NSNs are as follows: NSN 5999-01-297-1851, PN 13234917, Electronic Component: TDP is valid, stable base drawings are in good condition, all documentation is available. AMC/AMSC Code is 1G, fully competitive. NSN 5998-01-31 ~-~313, PN 13235072, Circuit C~rd A~sembly: TOP has missing data .(Computer P.rogram'digital data). AMcoM copy o.f stable base drawings are inadequate, requires spec.ial test equipment. TDP is restricted to Raytheon, AMC/AMSC is 3N. Part is only procurable from Prime at this time. .. NSN 5998-01-383-9443, PN 13385560, Circuit Card Assembly: 'TOP has missfng.data iComputer-Progi'a~n digital data), requires special test
465
I

SDC 1304

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-18

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 27 of 37

Watson, Irene M ACQ
From: Hill, Jerq/'WACQ

Tuesday, August 26, 2003 11:00 AM. Tignor, Jeral~ F SAMD Page, Pattl WACQ; Waison, Irerte M ACQ; Bowerso×, Wilb. ur GACQ; Smith, Wes G EEGAL Subject: FW: NSNs 5999-01-297-1851, 5.998-01-383-9443, and 5998-01-31g-4313 Sent: Gdrald, You were go!ng to let ~s know ify~u can get the necessary' documendatlon from Ra .ytheon that would allow for SDO to perform on the contracts. We need your answer (ASAP). ---:-. Od'gfnal Nessage---From.= Page, PaLtl W ACQ Sent= Tuesdays August 26~ ~003 10:31 AM . To; Wal:sdn, ~'rene N ACQ .13c1 Bowersox~ Wilbur G ACQ; Hill, 3arty W ACQ Sub.fact:~ ~ NSNs 5999-0/.-297-1851~ 5998-0!.-383-g,H3~ and 5998-0/.-3/.9-4313 FYI ---OrlgTnal.Hessage-=--- . ' From~ Smil~ Wes G LEGAL Sent= Tuesday~ August 26~ 2003 10:21'AH To; Page, Pa~ W ACQ ¯ Su.bjecl:; RE: NSNs 5999-01-297.-1851, 5998-01-383-9,H. 3, ahd 5998-01-319-4313

.)

John says In i~is message below that the'0741 part should only be procured from R.aytheon, I guess regardless'of whether the drawings are good or.not, since we know we don't have ~ood elecfromc data., l.iiJst wanted him to ¯ find out whether ~e drawings we gave SDC are good for purposes of handl!ng t~e SDC claim .that I. expect any day.now. B.ut, have we given up on "rlgnor being able to rectify the TD.P p.roblema on the.two clrcuit card assemblies by obtaining further drawings and data? Has anyone heard from 71. gnor? .~
--Orlgfnal "Message---From= Page, Part/W AC.Q . " Sent; Tuesday~ A~igust 26a 2003 10:;I.1 AM To= Smi~, Was G LEGAL Subject'= RE: NSNs 5999-0.1-297-J.851, 5998-01-383-9443, and 5998-01-319-4313

Does this rriear~ that again, the info be/o~ Is n'ot necessarily true? It specific'a//y addresses each contract separately: I just stopped an award for the same NSN as 0741 based on thia and now I have to go re,eve th, e pacf~age until we get yet another ver~fidaticin that what we say IS what we sayll Can you tell I'm a touchy on this subject? ' ¯ .O. h well, sdch Is life. P "attl --L-Orlglnal Hessage---. ¯.. From= Smith, Was G LEGAL Sent= Tuesday, August 26, 200.3 ~}:'~3 AN Toi .Page, Patti W A(::Q; Watson, Zrene H ACQ Subject: FW: NSNs 5999-0!.-~97-1851, 5998-01-383-9443, and 5998-01-31'9~313 I asked John Fan'is to go and ~at~a loot~ at tf:~lrawings for 0741. To my knowledge, thSy haven't

466

SDC 1306

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-18

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 28 of 37

bee,~ ~rified ~s. be[n~ iike ~he ones for OO F{', ~r ~ood
Wes Smith Attorney/Advisor. AMCOM Legal Office 842-0537 ---0rfgfnal Message---From: Farrls, John W .. Seht:: Tuesday, A. ugust 26, 2003 ~:10 AM. To: Watsdn, Irene N ACQ.. Cct T~gnor, ~lemld F~;AMD; Smll~, Wes G LEGAL; Roddguez, Rosallo "LEO"' Subject: RE: NSNs 5999-01-2~7-185:/., 5~98-01-383-9~H3, anti 5998-01-3/.9-4313

Thb condifign ofth,~ TDPs for th. e.su.bject NSNs ar.s .~ .foll.ows: NSN.5999-O1-297-1Sf], PN 13234917,'Rlectronic Component: TDP i~ valid,, stable b~e' .drawings are in good oorid~ti6n, all dqcumen~ation "is available. : AMC/AMSC Code is I~, fully, competitive. NSN 5998-01.31~-4313, PN iJ235072; Cirouit Card Assbmbly:. ,. TDP hhs ~.'sshng data (Computer Progr.am d~gita[ data)..AM.COM copy o~' stabI~ base drawings are inadequate, requires "special test equipment. " '. " ¯ .. . TD.P is.restricted to Rayt/ieon, AMC/AMSC is 3~. Part Ls only procurable frown Prh'he at tbJs time. NSN 5998-01-383-9443, PN 133"85560, Circuit Card Assembly: TDP has missing data (Computer Pr6gram digital data), requires special test equipment. TDP will be res~ct~d to Raytheon, AM~/AMSC ~vill b.e 3N. Part is only procurable from Pr~me at tiffs thne.

., loha.Farris
Industrial Ope~:afions'Div "AMSAM-RD-SE-IO-TL ]~,ngineet'[ug Directorate

¯876-7254,
----Oflgrna/Message--.-.. ¯ ¯ From: WatCh, Irene H ACQ ¯ Sent: Monday, Augus~.25~ 2003 9i56 AN Tot.T~gnor; 3erald F SAND; Wertz~.Rober~ L SAND; Farris, 3ohn W; Smith~ Wes G LEGAL

10/3/2003

467

SDC 1307

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-18

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 29 of 37

Co-' Bowerso&.Wilbu? G ACQ; Hill, 3erry W ACQ; Page~ PatTi W ACQ Subject; NSNs 5999-01-297-185~., 5998-02-383-9443, and 5998-01-31.9-4313 Importance; High IMMO has verified that subject NSNs are FMS Case customer buys. This 9ffice still URGENTLY n.eeds to know' Ihe validity of the TDP due to pending actions. Request you pri~vkte.a specific answer for each NSN. Irene Watson AC-LS-M 6-4293

! \,

468

SDC 1308

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-18

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 30 of 37

89

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-18

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 31 of 37

John W.Farris

30

1

government counsel has referred to it as unfortunate Exhibit Number 8 -- I'm glad to have it, personally. Would you look around over there and see if you've got Exhibit Number 8 in your pile? H~re it is. Got

2
3

5 6
7 8 9 I0 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

it. In Exhibit Number 8, I believe that the lower e-mai! is written by you; is that correct? Uh-huh, yes. And in' here the AMC/AMSC is 3N? Yes. What does that mean? It is a code that is assigned by the technical review as a result of a technical review of a Technical Data Packet to determine whether or not it is -- it has al! the data needed to produce the part by anybody. And a 3N is a restricted code, meaning there is some reason why you cannot release this TDP for a full. and open competitive action. And N specifically means there is special test equipment involved. Do you know when the technical review that you're referring to may have taken place? Here's what happened in this case. We went through the normal technical review. It was assigned a G

20
21 22 23

Huntsville Reporting, Inc.

(256)

533-9399

469

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-18

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 32 of 37

John W. Farris

31

1 2 3

code, meaning that it was fully competitive potentially. That was probably a mistake. Someone didn't catch the -- those page three and page ten of the mylar being unreadable. So, it went through the acquisition center to be solicited. Okay. When these intercept actions started coming in, that's when we hoticed that it required special test equipment in the testing spec, and that's when we recommended that it be restricted to Raytheon based on that reasoning. And then I prepared a document to file a 3N code restricting this procurement to Raytheon. Okay. And that was -It was after it went out on the street for the solicitation. But it was sometime in the 2000 time frame, 1999-2000-2001 time frame? I can't confirm exactly when it happened. Would you have in your records something that could tell us the date that that was prepared? Yes. Is that something you would be willing to provide to counsel to provide to us?

4 5 6
7

8
9 i0 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17

18
19

2O
21 22 23

Huntsville Reporting, Inc. (256) 533-9399

47O

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-18

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 33 of 37

0

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-18

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 34 of 37

Jerald F. Tignor

19

1

termination of the contracts? No, I don't know. Do you recal! any discussions or were you involved in any.discussions about the termination for convenience. of the contract? No. Contracts office didn't discuss that with you? No. Did you make any recommendation to the contracts office with respect to a contractual action related to a termination for convenience? No. Did you make any -- other than -- I'm sorry. Did you provide any technical opinion to the contracts office with respect to the condition of the Tech Data Package that would differ from your stated view in the document marked EXhibit Number 5? We had probably three meetings on this. The first meeting that I think was this one, later on I stated we were trying to get the technical documentation that she needed to do the contract, and that's all I can really say.
Oo

2
3 4

5 6
7

8
9 i0 II 12 13 .14 15 16 17 18 19

2O
21 22 23

Okay, that's fine. Let me go back to the Technical

Huntsville Reporting, Inc.

(256) 533-9399

471

.

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-18

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 35 of 37

Jerald F. Tignor

~0

Data Package as it existed just prior to the award of 2 the contract. Would an engineer with reasonable skill be able to determine by reviewing that Technical Data Package whether or not it was adequate to build the parts in the condition it was at the time? A. Adequate being yes or no, I'd say they would be able to do that. Q. And you described certain parts of the drawings or the Tech Data Package being like scrambled eggs or something like that. A. Q. A Xerox copy, yes. So an engineer with reasonable skill, other than yourself, would have been able to discern the same information prior to award if they had reviewed the documents? A. Q. Probably. Okay, fine. Give us a few minutes, we may be finished. (Discussion off the record.) (Exhibit No. 25 marked for identification.) BY MR. RIGGS: Q. Mr. Tignor, I've laid before you what's been marked

3
4

5 6
7

8
9

i0
ii 12 13 14

15
16 17

18
19

2O
21 22 23

Huntsville Reporting, Inc. (256) 533-9399

472

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-18

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 36 of 37

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-18

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 37 of 37

Jerald F. Tignor

22

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

And the Level III documentation, is that documentation adequate for competition? Yes. So Raytheon not provide you sufficient documentation for competition? At this time you are right. Okay. And this is August -- I'm sorry -- September~ 4th, 2003? Uh-huh. All right. And they had not -- prior to September 4th, 2003, what you thought was Level III documentation was not in fact Level III documentatlon. Yes. You indicated earlier that you subsequently got data from Raytheon. I would take that answer to mean that it was after September 4th, 2003. Yes. Do you know how long after September 4th, 2003? I think probably two, three months minimum, because we started a correspondence battle with them and went to a couple meetings up there, and we talked very hard at getting that information from them.

9
I0 ii 12 13 14

15
16 17 18 19

2O
21 22 23

Huntsville Reporting, Inc. (256) 533-9399

473