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

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-16

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 1 of 48

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-16

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 2 of 48

SEQUENCE OF EVENTS DAAH01-00-R-0013

20 DEC 99 22 DEC 99 22 Dec 99 03 ~an 00 051an 00 20 Jan 00 20 I~ 00 24 Jan 00 27 Jan 00

Received package Legal Review complete Issued solicitation with close date of 3 Feb' Received Stable Ba~e Drawings Stable Base Drawings picked up by SDC Ree'd e-mail message from SDC with three questions (see file) S~nt Intercept request through Teeh Staffregarding contractor questions Received response from Intercept (see file) Spoke with Ms: Gilchrist regarding .response to her.quesfi6ns: Test Acceptance Requirements, MIS-41341 and requirement of Te.ledype L200 Series Test Siation for this requirement Received e-mail message from SDC indicating the 18 pages 0fMIS-41341 that they thought were missing were' on the drawings CD Received e-mail message fi'om SDC regarding obsc;lete ~arts and SDC's re-design capability. Sent Intercept request through Tech Staffregarding SDC's e-mail on obsolescence and redesig~ Received response from Intercept request (see file) Met with Small Business 0qelson and Lee), along with Team Leader (M. King) regarding the response from SEPD: It was decided that we would extend the close date on the solioitation pendhag thor6 information on obsolescence and redesign Amended solicitation tO extend close date until 18 Feb 00 Ree'd letter from SDC w/request to extend delivery to 25.Feb'00 based on fact that they were having trouble loeathg sbm6 of'the sources. Said that they did, however, think that they had found sources for the requirement. Rec'.d.letter from SDC regarding whether or not certain ECPs were included in particular drawings (see file) Told Ms. Gilohrist that we would allow her to'submit proposal on the 25~ of February. Did not amend solicitation. Talked to Larry Nichols SDC's inquiry. Larry said that the ECPs are include~l in the drawings.

27 Jan O0
1 Feb O0 1 Feb O0 2 Feb 00 2 Feb 00

4 Feb O0 16 Feb O0

18 Feb 00" 18 Feb 00 24 Feb O0

25 Feb O0

Proposal was left at front desk in lobby. OffDay

SDC 444
386

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-16

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 3 of 48

28 Feb 00 28 Feb 00

Picked up proposal from lobby Scanned Proposal. Asked SDC to submit backup for their proposal, e.g. vendor quotes for materials Ree.eived written response from Intercept request No backaJp or s~pportkng doeum'entation was included with the proposal. Asked SDC to submit vendor quotes or other supporting documentation.

02 Mar 00

Sent written response to SDC regarding thek questions on ECPs Talked with Item Manager and asked her what she thougl~, t the options lodked Like for this requirement. I mentioned to her that SDC had.proposed and indicated that because of obsolescence they would have to negotiate the optio~ as they occurred. Item manager said that she didn't see that they would exercise any options.

03 Mar 00 06 Mar 00

Ree'd vendor quotes and materials llst from SDC. Did fair market calculation fo~ each quantity range (See file). Spoke with SDC regarding quantity of 129 proposed. They proposed based on Rac'eiving an award for the total maximum quantity possible for the base year and the five. additional out years. During discussions SDC indicated that they would need to take another look at their proposal and get back with me. Called Item M. anager and asked her to send me something in writing regarding the option, s in the event we need to exclude the options during negotiations..

07 Mar 00 08 Mar 00 09 Mm" 00 13 Mar 00

Called SDC to check qn their plans for their proposal. Ms. Oilchrist was out. Reeeive.tl e-mail from Item manager to remove theoption quantities based on the fact that the prices quoted were not accurate prices beeaus.e, of obsolescence. Talked with Ms. Gilchrest of SDC. She said she had to talk with her pricing pe~:son and would get back with me. Received revised proposal from SDC. Revised proposal included a very substantial increase in unit price due to the fact that the material costs were now spread 9vet the known quantity (24) in.stead of 129 as was submitted in the fast response. The unit price for First Article (2 each) went from $7,973.58 to ~34,643.69 for a total of $69,287.38. The remaining quan~ty (22) Was priced at $33, 901.89 each up from under $9,000.00 for the highest price in any of the quantity ranges. Quantities over 25-did dot include .niaterial.costs, just labor.and administration. (see file) Sent e-mail to Ms. Gilchrist requesting that SDC separate material costs " and other costs.

14 mar 00 15 Mar 00

further review of materials. It appears that there are some minimum b.uys requirements, however, in some instances, there is no indication of mhaimum buy requirements.
Contacted Bmee Whitaker, DCMC Liaison on base, regarding getting assistance in validating the materials required for this requirement. Talked to WiIliam Amens of DCAA regarding getting information on SDC's overhead rates, etc.

16 Mar O0

SDC 445

387

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-16

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 4 of 48

t

Mr. Amens said he had just inherited SDC two weeks ago, but he said they should have some information on the company and said he wotild take'a look and get back with me. 17 Mar 00 Met with Bruce Whitaker regarding assistance fi'om DCMC.Bruce made several calls. Bruce called me and gave me a contact (Sandra George, 313-0643, and Jean Chandler, Industrial Speeialist, 313-0654) for assistance with th~ material use. Called Sandra George. She said she would get her Industrial Specialist to go out to SDC and review the material. Sent e-mail request for technical assistance to Sandra George (see file). Work-ln-Process m~eting with Mr. Hatley. Reported on PKON Status. Directorate review scheduled for Tuesday, March 21. Margaret and myself will be in training. Carolyn Gay will report on this PRON to Mr. Epps. Made changes on AMS prifitout to reflect 2 Mar00 iristead of 15'Mar as reported to M_r. Harley. Forwarded request for assistance to Jean Chandler, Industrial Speeialist: She 6alled and said she should get out to SDC tomorrow. In training

17 Mar 00 17 Mar O0 17 Mar O0

20 Mar 00 .21-23 Mar '00 27 Mar 00

Ree'd call from Sandra George. She said they would try to get sore.eerie out to SDC this week and have something for me by the end ofthn week
Call froni Lee Ford, Small Business to check on status of thi.~ requkemerit. I told Mr. Ford that DCMC was going out to SDC to review the material use for me, and that theyindicated t.hat they sh.ould have something for me by the end of the week. Received call from representative from DCMC. He wanted to know exactly what type of information we wanted him to be looking for. I told him I needed him to take a look at material use for this requirement. Because of the jump in price from the initial proposal to the. second proposal, I need help in evaluating material use s~ce material is the greatest cost proposed. P~eeived from DCMC representative, He said .he had gone out the SD~ and said that SDC would need to resubmit their bill of materials. There ~vere some inconsi.steneies in what he reviewed. He said that he would give me a report so that I could request this information from the contractor. I expect the report ¯ Monday or Tuesday of next week. Called Karen Pendly at 8DC. Left message for her to return call re Industrial Specialist's request for corrected Bill ot'Materlal. Per Karen, she is working on resubmitting the requested corrected Bill of ¯ Material and. hope to have it complete by the end of the day. Received proposal Revision C from SDC based on revised/corrected Bill.of Material, late afternoon.

Mar oo

30Mar00

31Mar00

4AprO0

6Apr00

Faxed request for technical assistance in reviewing revise.d proposal based on corrected Bill of Material.

SDC 446
388

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-16

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 5 of 48

7-11Apt00 12Apt0'0

7Apr00 AWS Day. 10-11Apt00 Out for YMTF at Alabama A & M Ca/led DCMC Industrial Specialist CKireh) for status on requested review. No Answer. Left message on answering machine. Call Mr. K[rch's office. Again, no answer. Left message on answering machine. DCMC Industrial Specialist, Charles Kireh, called to say that he would be going to SDC on Monday Apr 17. Ca!led Item Manager to ask if they would consider a lifetime buy on these items beeanse.the proposed price have required, lot buys and we @ill have to pay for the extra.quantities anyway, Sent e-mail request for eonsidemtlon. Called Item Manager to verify that the e-mail was received and to 'get status of' answer to iny request, Per the Item Manager, her supervisor was out of the office this morning. She was not sure that he would be in today, but said that she would get back with me tomo=ow unless he came in today. Talked with Mr. Kireh while he was at SDC. He said that he was getting to review. He said that he thought it was best to review for the lot quantity of 129 because we probably.would not be able to buy them later.

~~AprO0
14AprO0

14Apt00
17Apt00

17Apt00

SDC 447
389

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-16

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 6 of 48

7

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-16

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 7 of 48

390 ...................... ¯ ,

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-16

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 8 of 48

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-16

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 9 of 48

Don Mikell

7

1
2 3 4

place of employment and your position? My name is Don Mikell. I work for the u.s. Army out on Redstone Arsenal. And I work as an engineer. And what organization do you work in? Well, let's see. Research and Development Engineering Organization, part of the organization. Is that Dr. McCorkle's organization? Yes, it is. That identifies it for me. I'm not sure exactly What leve! you wanted to get down to. I just basically wanted to place you in the organization. That's fine. Do you work for a particular branch in the RDECC? Yes. Let's see. It's the -- well, let's see. have changed names. Give me just a minute to remember what -- if I can, what the latest version of our name is. That's fine. I believe it's the Test Operations part of it. In January and February of 2000, what organization did you work for? We

5~ 6
7

8
9 I0 II 12 13 14

15
16 17

18
19 20 21 22 23

Huntsville Reporting, Inc. (256) 533-9399

391

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-16

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 10 of 48

Don Mikell

15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9

Nichols was the name. Nichols. I apologize to Mr. Nichols as well. Al! right. I have not noted Mr. Nichols' name on there, but I would assume that it probably was. Did you independently verify the information provided in the Technical Group Action on Exhibit Number 3? I did not independently verify that. You see the last handwritten line, "The solicitation with SDC should be cancelled"? Yes. That was Mr. Nichols' recommendation? I would ~ssume it was. And you endorsed it? Yes. What was the basis for Mr. Nichols recommendation that the solicitation which had not been awarded should be cancelled? The recommendation was based on what is indicated above in that paragraph that there is a test station which is required for testing this assembly, and that it is at Raytheon, and it is not available here in Huntsville for use. Now, with.respect to Exhibits Number i, 2 -- I'm

i0
II 12 13 14

15
16 17

18
19 20 21 22 23

Huntsville Reporting, Inc. (256) 533-9399

392

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-16

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 11 of 48

49

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-16

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 12 of 48

Don Mi]~ell

II

1 2
3

All right. Mr. Nichols recommends-in the Technical Group Action, "Recommend this procurement from SDC be cancelled." . Do you see that in there? It's the next-to-the-last line. Yes, I see that. Okay. And by signing this, this would be your recommendation as well? Based on what was said here, it appears that that should be done. Okay. What was the reason that you wrote and Mr. Nichols gave to you for canceling the procurement with SDC? Well, I would say from reading this, that the statement that the circuit card needed to be redesigned. And that would be something that the prime contractor, who was Raytheon, should do, since they are the Prime Contractor on this system. And you would feel certain that this information was forwarded to the contracts office in February of 2000? Yes. There is the sticky note down at the bottom, "To Amelia Moore from Don Mikell, one page," and the

4

5 6
7

8 9
I0 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Huntsville Reporting, Inc.

(256)

533-9399

393

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-16

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 13 of 48

Don Mikell

12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 i0 Ii 12 13
14
aw

date. That would indicate that it was sent to contracts. And who is Amelia Moore? She is the lady in contracts that handles all these pre-award actions that come to our office. There's one point of contact over in contract.s, and she is it, and I am the one point of contact in our office. Everything goes between the two of us. Now, Mr. Mikell, I haven't asked you about your background. engineer? Yes, sir. And if you would just briefly tell me what your education is, I would appreciate that. All right. I have a B.E.E. Communications option from Auburn University. Okay. And how many years experience have you had as an engineer? Okay. Well, I graduated in 1958, went to work a few weeks later, and have worked ever since. I see, okay. Are you aware of whether or not Geraldine Williams or Amelia Moore would have any technical education or background in which to You have told me that you're an

15
16 17

18
19 20 21 22 23

Huntsville Reporting, Inc.

(256) 533-9399

394

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-16

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 14 of 48

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-16

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 15 of 48

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-16

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 16 of 48

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-16

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 17 of 48

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-16

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 18 of 48

Virginia P. Gilchrist

43

1 2 3 4 5 6
7

question. I'll represent to you that the calculation of damages were done by myself and an accountant. MS. STENTIFORD: Well, it's her claim. MR. RIGGS: To the extent that she knows. THE WITNESS: Well, I guess having been run around in circles by the Aviation and Missile Command for approximately four years, I probably would have made the number higher, because we spent an enormous amount of time and energy trying to get this Technical Data Package straightened out when they knew before they awarded this contract to us that we could not build the package based on things that have been presented during these depositions. BY MS. STENTIFORD: Q. A. You say they knew. It's documented. They say they didn't know. It's in writing.

8
9

i0
Ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

So, basically it was your inconvenience that you say supports the claim for your -It wasn't just inconvenience. We tried with everything we had to be'able to build these cards because circuit cards in and of themselves are not a major manufacturing effort. But with the number of problems associated with the Technical Data Package,

2O
21 22 23

Huntsville Reporting, Inc. (256) 533-9399

397

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-16

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 19 of 48

Virginia P. Gilchrist

44

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

the first thing we did was to put in the request for the things that were in the contract that said do not attempt to manufacture. So we did exactly what the contract told us to do. As I sit here today, we still don't have the things that the contract required and we still have not ha~ the contract changed. So all of the things that transpired after that were our attempt to try to help the government correct their defective data package. Okay. Count two says the covenant of fair dealing and cooperation, and you claim damages in the amount of five hundred thousand dollars. Can you tell me what that was based on? MR. RIGGS: Same response from me as the first. THE WITNESS: I think the response would be the same as the earlier one I just gave in terms of fair dealing and cooperation. If they knew in January, or somebody at AMCOM knew in January of 2000 that nobody could build that with Raytheon, and they awarded a contract to us in May, they just ran usaround in circles for no reason. BY MS. STENTIFORD:

9
i0 II 12 13 14

15
16 17

18
19

2O
21 22 23

Huntsville Reporting, Inc. (256) 533-9399

398

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-16

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 20 of 48

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-16

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 21 of 48

30 June 2000

Ms. Georgia Walker U. S. Army Aviation and Missile Command Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898 Reference: Contract DAAH01-00-C-0077 Dear Ms. Walker. In order to ensure that lhe boards for this contract meet the requirements, we need an electronic version of the Gerber data to forward to our board supplier. If we have to create our own files, we need a set of the MY.LAR ARTWORK for the boards. This data is needed to meet our scheduled First Article delivery requirements. In order to more effectively complete the functional test requirements, we would respectfully request an existing unit for comparison purposes. Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated as we move forward to meet our first article delivery requirements. If you have questions or desire additional inl'ormation, please feel free to contact the undersigned at (256) 382-4600. Respectfully,

Virginia P. Gilchdst President SDC, Inc.

215 Wynn Drive, Suile 318 Huntsville, Alabama 35805 Phone: 256.726.6300 Fax: 256.726.6301

399

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-16

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 22 of 48

30 June 2000

Ms. Georgia Walker U.. S. Army Aviation and Missile Command Reds|one Arsenal, AL 35898 Reference: Contract DAAH01-00-C-0077 Dear Ms. Walker. In order to ensure that the boards for this contract meel the requirements, we need an electronic version of the Gerber data to font~ard to our board supplier. If we have to create our own files, we need a set of the MY.LAR AR]WORK for the boards. This data is needed to meet our scheduled First Article delivery requirements. In order to more effectively complete the functional test requirements, we would respectfully request an existing unit for comparison purposes. Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated as we move forward to meet our first article delivery requirements. if you have questions or desire additional inlormalion, please feel free to contact the undersigned at (256) 382-4600. Respectfully,

Virginia P. Gilchdst President SDC, Inc.

215 Wynn Drive, Suile 318 Huntsville, Alabama 35805 Phone; 256.72&6300 Fax; 256.726.6301

399

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-16

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 23 of 48

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-16

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 24 of 48

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-16

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 25 of 48

26 July 2000

Ms. Georgia Walker ¯ U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Cotmuand Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898
Reference (A): Contract DAAIt01-00-C-0077 (B): Gilthrist/Walker Letter dated 30 Juue 20/30 Dear Ms. Walker:' Examination of the MYLAR ARTWORK for Printed Wiring Board P/N 13234265 provided to SDC for manufacture of tile DAAD Circuit Card Assembly PIN 13235072 proved to be copies of the originals and of insufficieut quality to effectively mauufacture the PWBs. We have been ia contact with Mr. Jim Byme, of Raytheon Corporation who indicated Raytheon has the original stable base drawings, MYLAR's, needed to nmnufacture the DAAD CCA. Mr. Byrne stated rile stable base drawings and digital data required to manufacture the DAAD CCA are the property of the U.S. Government in the custody of Raytheon and that they could be made available to SDC upon Govennnent request.

Based.on the information obtained front Raytheon and description of the orighml Contract TDP data Combats (attachment 1), SDC hereby requesls the following be provided:
Rev Lit -i3234265 Sheet 0002 Sheet 0003

src '
CD Stalus Stable Bas~ Drawing Stable Base Drawing

Sheet 0004 Sheet 0005
Sheet 0006 Sheet 0007 Sheet 0008

A A A A A A

A

Sheet 0009 Sheet 0010
Sheet 0011 D9 D9 D9 D9 ~sP'i J'038109-3 i CP13038109-32

A
A
A

N N N N N N N N N
N

stable.Base Drawing stable. . Base Drawing Stable Base Drawing Stable Base Drawing
Stable Base Drawing

Stable Base Drawing Stable Base.Drawiag Stab..le Base,Drawing

N N N

Digital Data Digi,!al Data
Digi'i~i Dais" ,,

CP13638120'008 CP13038120-021

Dig~fal Data

401

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-16

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 26 of 48

Mr. Jim Byn~e, of Raytheon may be conlacted directly at Phone Number (781) 999-4714. lie guggested tile fornml ~equrst be routed tl:u:ough the Mr. Bob Girard, HAWK Program Manager, Raytheo~ Corporation, 180 Ilartwell Road, Bedford, MA 01730-2498. Si)C Would be aisle to complete our acceptance test procedttres al~d fuuctioual test requirements if it was possible for A MCOM to provide an ex|stlng DAAD CCA for comparison purposes. Your assistance i~a this matter is greatly appreciated as we continue to move forward on this contract. If questions arise, or additional information is needed, please Feel free to coutact the undersl/~ned at (256) 382-4 600. Respectfully,

Virginia P. Gilchrist President SDC, Inc.

402

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-16

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 27 of 48

5

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-16

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 28 of 48

Joh~ W. Farris

2O

1 2 3 4 5 6
7

identified them as something else. THE WITNESS: I just don't have any way of knowing that they are -- you asked me before were these the mylars that were shown in the meeting in 2003. BY MR. RIGGS: Q. A. Right. I don't know that. My recollection was those were not. I'm not saying those weren't the mylars with 0077. I'm saying they weren't part of that meeting, as I recall. I thought that meeting was another contract that we were discussing. Q. Actually, there were a series of three contracts that we were discussing. 0077 was -A. Mr. Carpenter, from what I recall, brought the mylars from one of the other contracts. Q. All right. Can you tell from Exhibit Number 12 whether or not these are the drawings that relate to 0077? A. Q. Yes, they are. Okay. Now, do you have any knowledge of what mylars actually are and how they are used? A. Yes.

8

9 i0
ii 12 13 14 15 16 17

18
19

20
21

22
23

Huntsville Reporting, Inc. (256) 533-9399

4O3

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-16

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 29 of 48

John W. Farris

.21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2o 21 22 23

And you understand mylars to be a pattern that the machine copies? Yes. Do you have the ability to look at these drawings and determine whether or not they are of sufficient quality for a machine to copy them? Page three is not sufficient quality to reproduce the circuit part, cut out the circuit part. Would page three be necessary to the production of these parts? Yes. Are there any other pages, based on your observation? Let me look at them. good quality. Page ten. Page ten is not a ¯

Let's see. I hand you Exhibit Number 8 right there. When you state in Exhibit Number 8, "AMCOM copy of stable base drawings are inadequate," are you referring to contract 0077 part number 13235072? Yes. As far as you are aware, AMCOM did not provide a suitable copy of stable.base drawings adequate to perform the functions of this contract? Yes.

Huntsville Reporting, Inc. (256) 533-9399

404

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-16

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 30 of 48

John ~. Farris

22

1 2 3 4 5

Okay. Do you have any knowledge as to when SDC first presented that issue to AMCOM? I'm unaware if they ever presented that issue to AMCOM. Let me show you what's been previously marked as Exhibit Number 6, which we contend is a letter sent to the missile command on -- I'm sorry -- the Army Aviation and Missile Command in July of 2000. The first couple of sentences raises the issue, I believe. Okay. So it would appear that issue has been raised from the beginning? I've never seen that letter before. Do any of the pre-award documents, Exhibits I, 2 or 3, raise stable base drawing issues? i, 2 or 3? No. These three right here.
NO.

6
7

8
9 I0 II 12 13 14

15
16 17

18
19

20
21 22 23

Okay. Mr. Hill testified he needed technical assistance to know exactly what was raised in those. I have to confess I'm just like Mr. Hill. Okay.

Huntsville Reporting, Inc.

(256)

533-9399

4O5

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-16

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 31 of 48

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-16

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 32 of 48

Jerald F. Tignor

17

1
2 3

Can you tell from this set of drawings if this set of drawings was actually produced by Xerox copy on mylar stock? That's what it looks like. Okay. Now, the method of producing mylars for manufacturing purposes is different than just copying them on a Xerox machine; isn't it? Yes. The mylar data that I got from Raytheon is a CD. Okay. And how would it be -- how would that CD be turned into a mylar that would be an adequate pattern for a machine? For the machine they are using, usually it's put in a computer and the computer interfaces with the machine. The mylar drawings themselves have very few dimensional depictions on it; is that correct? In other words, it's not like a mechanical drawing that has al! of the dimensions set out? It's not the purpose of it. ~

4

5 6 7 8
9
i0 ii 12 13 14

15
16 17

18
19

20
21 22 23

The purpose Of it is for whatever machine you use to follow a pattern -Uh-huh.

Huntsville Reporting, Inc.

(256) 533-9399

406

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-16

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 33 of 48

Jerald F. Tignor

18

1

-- read from the computer? Right. And the documents before you today are not documents that could be used, read from a computer, to be adequate to produce the parts? These look like just copies -- and they are from '87. Like I stated, we got some mylar data on the CDs from Raytheon in '03, '02, somewhere around in there. But that data was not ever provided, as far as you know, to SDC? I don't know if it was or not. I think the door was closed on us by then. My question was you don't have actua! knowledge that that data was provided? No. We tried to deliver it, though. We did have somebody go to SDC to try to deliver it, and we weren't allowed in the building. I see. Who was that? One of the contracting people. I don't know who it
was.

2

3 4 5 6
7

8
9 I0 II 12 13 14

15
16 17

18
19 20 21 22 23

Do you know what the date of that was? No. Do you know whether or not it was before or after the

Huntsville Reporting, Inc. (256) 533-9399

407

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-16

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 34 of 48

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-16

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 35 of 48

John W. Farris

~40

1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9

contractor saying there was an issue with stable base drawings on this contract. That were sent to you? That were sent to me. Okay. I'm not going to go through all of them, but we actually have a book ful! of letters with respect to these issues, including the one that I first showed you, but I wanted to make sure that the contracts office or whoever they contact in the technical chain never contacted someone like you to look into the problem with respect to these three contracts until contemporaneously with the July-August time frame of 2003. Idon't recall. What I recall, the conversation was more not the adequacy of the mylars, but that we did not proceed Gerber data, not the quality of the mylars themselves. Okay. And the Gerber data is a substitute for mylars; isn't it? It's another option. You can use it in lieu of mylars? If you have it available, which we did not. Raytheon owns it?

i0
ii 12 13 14

15
16 17

18
19

2O
21 22 23

Huntsville Reporting, Inc.

(256)

533-9399

4O8

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-16

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 36 of 48

John W. Farris

41

1

Not required. No. Raytheon developed the mylar drawings. I could not tell you if they had Gerber data or not or what they use for manufacture. It is just an option that some people prefer. I have no further questions. Thank you. Okay. EXAMINATION BY MS. STENTIFORD:

2
3
"'4

5

6
7

8
9 i0 ii

Q.
A.

Don't go. Okay. Looking back at Exhibit 8, you were-asked a series of ¯ questions about the Code 3 AMC/AMSC N. remember that? Yes. I just wanted to clarify that the -- you said the N code meant that it was restricted; is that correct? Yes. And does the N code indicate a specific reason for the restriction? Yes. What's that? That special test equipment is required. And so if there were a representation that a Do you

Q.

12
13 14

15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Hunt~sville Reporting,. Iic. (256) 533-9399

409

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-16

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 37 of 48

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-16

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 38 of 48

Je~ald F. Tignor

24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 II 12 13 .14 15 .16 17 18 19 2o 21 22 23

Oo

Right there, 1323072. It essentially says the same thing. Let me ask you a couple questions about that. "TDP has missing data (computer program digital data)." Is that clear what is missing from the TDP? Yeah. I stated that earlier. We went to the drawing files and pulled the TDP, and it was complete except for the logic data at the end of it. The reason I'm asking you the question with respect to this is Mr. Hil! had some difficulty understanding what that meant during his deposition. But you have no difficulty understanding what that means? This means that it was a Xerox copy that was unreadable. "AMCOM copy o9 stable base drawings are inadequate, require special test equipment," you don't have any trouble understanding what that means, do you? No. And with respect to the last sentence, you don't have any trouble understanding what that means? I don't khow what 3N means. Okay, that's fine. The TDP restricted to Raytheon is -- that's clear and understandable?

Huntsville Reporting, Inc. (256) 533-9399

410

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-16

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 39 of 48

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-16

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 40 of 48

6

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-16

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 41 of 48

SDC,

22 September O0

U.S. Army Aviation & Missile. Command Attn: AMSAM-AC-LS-SIGeorgia Walker Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898 Subject: Contract DAAH01-00-P-0741 Reference: Stable Base Drawings received on 22 September 2000. Dear Ms. Walker:. SDC appreciates your response to our request for Stable Base Drawings. However, after an engineering review of the drawings provided, we have determined that they are inadequate. Several are illegible and therefore cannot be used. .... Our total focus is upon producing a quality productwithin the requirements of the contract, but the Stable Base Drawings provided will not permit us to do so. We therefore, request that your office provide Gerber data as soon as possible. Gerber data is essential to the production of quality Circuit Card Assemblies. .If you need additio.nal information, please contact Gilliam Carpenter"at (256) 382-4600..

Virginia P. Gilchdst President

215 Wynn Drive, Suite 318 Huntsville, Alabama 35805 Phone: 256.726.63(}0 Fax: 256.726.6301 http'..//www.sdchsv.com

A.,'I ,'!

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-16

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 42 of 48

B6

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-16

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 43 of 48

Gillia .m' .CarPenter~__~ ..... F(, ,: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Importance: Virginia Gilchrist [[email protected]] Monday, November 27, 2000 10:19 AM '[email protected]' '[email protected]' FW: PROM Data High

.....Original Message ..... From:. Walker, Georgia L ACQ [SHTP:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 9:57 AM To : ' vpgilchri st @sdchsv. corn' Walker, Georgia L ACQ Cc: Subject: RE: PROM Data Importance: High Ms. Gillhrist, I am'working on trying'to get you digital data that you need'it is taking sometime to find out who is to provide that information to me. Thank you Georgia Walker ..... Original Message ..... (" ,m: Virginia Gil.chri~t [mailto:[email protected]] Sent:Monday, November 20, 2000 10:16 AM To: '[email protected]' Subject: E'W: PKOM Data Importance: High Ms : W&ikerWe were wondering here if perhaps we could set a meeting with you and or the Technical people so that we can move forward with the Firt articles for two HAWK packages that' we have. We are very anxious to complete the first articles and the information was. not on any of the CDs that we currently have. We really want to move this process forward and would appreciate help that you can give us to facilitate the process. Thank YouVirginia Gilchrist President SDC, Inc. (256) 382-4 600-phone (256) 382-4 601--fax ..... Original Message ..... From: Walker, Georgia L ACQ [SMTP:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2000 3:48 PM '[email protected]' To: Walker, Georgia L ACQ . . Cc: Subject: RE: PROM Data Importance: High s. Gilchrist, ¯ The information that you are requesting is on the cd that was provided to you You should be able to pull that information up and with the solicitation. open

~412

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-16

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 44 of 48

.~.~ up th~ "same way that you are doing for the gerber files.
I~ you have any question please call me or email me.

(

R,,dnks Georgia Walker

..... Original Message ..... From: Virginia Gilchrist [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2000. 4:32 PM To: '[email protected]' Subject: PROM Data Importance: High
Ms. Walker-

SDc, Inc. is requesting the PROM data for the Progra,m~able ICs. This information was requested in a previous letter. It is also called out in attachment 1 as "digital data" for CP13038109-31 and -32 and alsoCP13038120-008 and -021. on page i0 of i0, it states taht the Digital drawing will be furnished upon request. This data is need to program the ICs so that the first articles can be completed. ~hank YouVirginia Gilchrist

~413

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-16

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 45 of 48

6

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-16

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 46 of 48

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-16

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 47 of 48

63

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-16

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 48 of 48

415
Gilliam Carpenter
tom: Sent: To: Subject:

Walker, Georgia L ACQ [[email protected]] Tuesday, January 30, 2001 7:57 AM 'Gilliam Carpenter' RE: HAWK Circuit Card Assemblies High

Importance:
Dear Mr. Carpenter,

The use of Alternate Par'ts was addressed and our Technical Group did not agree with the use of the Alternate Parts now if you have parts that are obsolete then you need to list those .and send them in for review.

Thanks, Georgia Walker ..... Original Message ..... From: Gilliam Carpenter [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 10:42 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: HAWK Circuit Card Assemblies Dear Ms. Walker, Our conversation of 24 January 2001 was very informative and certainly appreciated. SDC now understands that you will modify Contract 3AAHOI-00-C-0077 after delivery of the digital data. We also understand that modifications made after delivery ~f the digital data will be negotiated for Consideration. SDC understands this process. However, during our conversation, we did not address the status of our request to use Alternate Parts. Additiohally, we have not received legible Stable Base drawings for Contract DAAH01-OO-P-0741. As indicated in our letter of 22 September 2000, the Stable Base Drawings you provided wet4 illegible. Thank you for your response and assistance. Gilliam Carpenter" Contracts Administrator