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

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-15

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 1 of 34

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-15

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 2 of 34

DCMAE-GATC

CERTIFIED MAIL

March 25, 2005

SUBJECT: Final Decision on Terminated Contracts DAAH01-00-C-0077, Systems Development Corporation, Huntsville, A_L, Docket A04953 lEA Systems Development Corporation ATTN: Ms. Virginia P. Gilchrist, President 225 Spragins Street, Suite G Huntsville, AL 35801 Dear Ms. Gilchrist: This constitutes the final decision of the Contracting Officer relative to your proposal dated April 23, 2004 in the gross amount of $789,058.00-for Contract DAAH01-00-C-0077. It is my final decision that Systems Development Corporation (SDC) is entitled to $403,563.00. SDC has previously been paid $37,268.00 so the net payment will be $366,295.00. SDC's contract for circuit card assemblies for the HAWK program, DA_AH01-00-C-0077, was terminated for convenience on February 17, 2004. The obligated amount of this contract was $430,000. SDC's final settlement proposal, in the net amount of $789,058.00, was dated April 23, 2004. A partial payment request was approved ~ the amount of $37,268 on August 24, 2004.
You have not provided adequate support for costs claimed, other than those of the subcontractor, Teledyne Brown Engineers (TBE), and indirect costs allocable thereto. The details

follow:
Cost Elements Purchased Parts On Hand Other Costs G&A Expenses Subtotal: Profit Settlement Expenses Total Settlements With Subcontractors Acceptable Finished Product Gross Settlement Disposal and Other Credits Net Proposed Settlement Adjustment for Loss. Ratio Subtotals Prior Payments Net Payment Requested Proposed TCO (08/04/04) Position $321,497 $357 0 -19,303 297,500 55,338 $ 638,300'$ 55,695 63,830 0 14,316 0 $ 716,446 $ 55,695 72,612 391,913 0 0 $ 789,058 $ 447,608 0 0 $ 789,058 $ 447,608 (44,045) 0 $ 403,563 0 (37,268) ~~ 789.058 $ a66.29~ 5

361

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-15

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 3 of 34

2 Purchased Parts

Only $357 of purchased parts were delivered by TBE to SDC. The balance of the $321,497 is actually costs attributable to your settlement with your subcontractor, and is discussed in the segment on Settlement with Subcontractors, below. Other Costs You proposed the labor costs of a.buyer (500 hours - $15,281.00), a procurement clerk (147 hours $2,364.00) and a data entry clerk (200 hours - $I,656.00) as Other Cost. No support was provided for these costs. You assert that the amounts proposed are based on judgmental estimates. During the four years this program was in progress prior to termination, SDC did not establish a job cost number for this project, nor has it charged arty direct cost for this program to a specific job/project within its cost aceoundug records. These functions are normally recorded as G&A expense in the contractor's books and records. The costs represent normal procurement related G&A activities incurred on the contract which should be recouped from the normal application of the G&A rate.
Where the allocation base is insufficient to Now recovery of a cost, the cost may be al!oeated directly.to the terminated contract. I-Iowever~ in this case, you have provided no " " ¯ explandtion that shows recovery through G&A is inappropriate for this one purchase order. Throug!a the normal application of the ftual G&A expense rate this final decision allows $55,338 in G&A expenses for recovery of the claimed effort. Further, without timecards or contemporaneous support, any direct charges become mere speculation. G&A Expenses A similar problem exists with the proposed G&A expenses. You proposed the labor cost of an Executive (2,000 hours) and a Contract Administrator (2,000 hours) as G&A expense. During the four years ~s program was in progress prior to termkm, tio~ SDC did not establish a job cost numbe~ for this project, nor did it charge may direct cost for this program to a specific job/project within its .cost accounting records. The proposed costs represent normal indirect G&A aclivities incurred on the contract which should be recouped from the normal application of the G&A rate. Also, the claimed labor hours are based on the contractor's unsupported judgmental estimates. This final ' decis.ion applies the fiegofiated final l~Y02 G&A rate of 14.12 percent to subcontract settlement amount of $391,913. This allows for the normal recovery of costs associated with this contract.

Profit
The contractor applied a 10 percent profit rate to its tom! contract cost to compute its pr.oposed profit of $63,830 ($638,300 x 10 percent). ~rhere a contractor would have sustaiued a loss on a terminated contract if i~ had been completed, the FAR requires that the terminated settlement amount be adjusted to reflect that fact pAR 49.303). The rationale for this requirement is that a contractor should not be better off as a result of a termination for convenience than it would have been if the contract had been fully performed. You were in a loss position in the performance of contract DA_AH01-00-C-0077. The appropriate adjustment in this instance is calculated as follows:

362

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-15

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 4 of 34

The contract was for $430,000. SDC issued a subcontract to Teledyne Bro~na in the amount of $403,297.58. When G&A at 14.12 percent is added to the subcontract costs, the contractor's performance costs rise to $460,243. Full eontra~t performance requires SDC setup and labor costs to maintain the inventory and provide it per the schedule. The out years are only for labor and burdens since the material is included in the base year. For a quantity of 21, (one year after having produced 24 units and therefore that much more efficient) the cost is $1,221.00 per unit. Thus for this contract,~ SDC labor would have cost more than $29,304.00 (24*$1,221.00). Adding this to the material cost means the contract would have been sustained an even larger loss than the loss based just on subcontractor costs and burden~
Net Settlement Amount = Settlement + Price for + Remainder of . * Expenses Acceptable Negotiated Settlement Units Aider Sublracting Settlement Expenses and the Contract Price of Acceptable Units * =0 +0 + 447,608 Conlraet Price Incurred Cos'Is before T4C + Estimated Cost to Complete

($447,608.00 + 29,304.00) y $476,912.00 = +447,608 * .9016 --- 403,563 447 60g TCO determiaed settlement amount prior to loss calculation $44,045 Loss applied

Settlement ]Exoenses The contractor made a judgmental estimate of the hours required for settlement of the termination, including negotiations. SDC multiplied the labor rates of the Executive (105 hours) and Contracts Administrator (125 hours) to arrive at estimated labor cost and burdened it to arrive at the estimated settlement expense. The final decision allows no direct charges forthese G&A type employees whose full salaries remain charged to the G&A expense pool Through the normal application of the final G&A expense rate this final decision allows $55,338 in G&A expenses for recovery of G&A effort. Settlements With Subcontractors TBE proposed $394,109 of which $391,913 has been determined robe allowable. The . p~oposed amount has been reduced for $1,750 of other costs which represents an adjustment to the ¯ inventory valuation, the adjustment of G&A to the final rates(S302), and profit on these amounts

6144).

In summary, it is my final decision that Systems Development Corporation (SDC) is entitled to $403,563.00 for contract D!LAH01-00-C-0077. This decision may be appealed to the cognizant Board of Contract Appeals, which for this contract is the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, Skyline Six, 5109 Leesburg Pike, ¯ Seventh Floor, Falls Church, Virginia 22041. If you.decide to appeal, you must, within 90 days from .the date you receive this decision marl or otherwise furnish Written notice to the agdney 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 number. You should also include a certification of the claim in accordance with the Disputes clause of your contract..With regard to appeals .to the ~'gency board, you may proceed under the

363

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-15

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 5 of 34

board's small claim procedure for claims of $50,000,00 or less or its accelerated procedure for cl~fims of $100,000.00 or less. Instead of appending to the agency board of contract appeal, you may bring ~n action directly in the United States Court of Federal Clams (except as provided in the Disputes Act of 194g, 41 U.S.C. 603, regarding Maritime Contracts) within 12 months ofthe date you receive this claim. The rules of the ASBCA are located at http://www.law.~ccu.edu!asbca/rule.htm#RULES.
You may choose to try settling this dispute through the use of Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADI~) techuiques. The Defense Contract Management Agency is committed to the use of ADR whenever possible. Please note that the ASBCA is also favorably.disposed to the use of Alternate Dispute Resolution. ADK techniques utilized by the Board include settlement judges (third pm'ty neutrals/mediators); mini-trials; and summary trial with binding decisions. Should you be interested in using some form of ADt~ to attempt to resolve this dispute, either outside or within the context of an ASBCA appeal, please contact me. It should be noted that this offer to use ADP~ or use of its procedures does not in any way alter the respective 90-day and 12-month appeal deadlines at the ASBCA and COFC or respective procedural requirement for filing an appeal. Nor would your ¯ election to pursue ADR preclude you from contemporaneously ~g a formal and timely appeal with either adjudicative body. The offer to ADR or use of its procedures does not constitute a reconsideration of this final decision

Should you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (678) 503-6351, FAX (678) 503-6034, or e-mail [email protected]_l.

PAUL E. SLEMONS. Termination Contracting Officer
cC:

DCMAE-GAG/Leigh Owens, Esq.

364

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-15

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 6 of 34

3

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-15

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 7 of 34

012971851

CONTRACTOR NAME= C~TY & STATE:

~AYTHEO~ CO
A~DOVERHA

ITEM~ ~DECTRON~
OR£G£NAL U~IT-PR£CE $00000~688~00 9000000608.04 $000001961.66 QUANTITY .00000000111
00000000795

AWARD DATE 11 F~b 99 8 Jul 91 26 Mar 91

00000000652

There ~a no mo~e data available today for the ~IIN selected. "

O'~RetLtrn to procurement Hlst~rf Page

1 of 1

OB/17/2.0QO 12:R6PM TOTRL P. 03

365

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-15

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 8 of 34

Mai___h_h J eComm~.q~ I seam~ I ~~ I Bulletin Boar~ I Ln.y. t~__~_~.I.!~_~P_L_~ I ~1~ ; Lo_Lng~u~
IPro~umment History

]Procurement History Sea~ch

Higl~ ¢o.:~tract mlit price: $ 215 t6.0500

Low contr~t unit p'dc~: $1635.0000

NSN'

Qty Unit Price CAGE 2 Company

5998013194313 2 $ 21516.0500 7#. . ! _2. .3_ - SYS,TEM~ ~E.,VI~,'LOPMENT 5998013194313 22 $17589.4500 751'23- SYSTEMS,.DE~. OPMENT 599801"3194313 15 $'163Y.0000 05716-RAYT~-IE_ QN'CO:. '' 5998013194313 15 $ 2000,000'0 05716 -.~R~'Lq~H~ON CO, 5998013194313 15 $ 2127~0000 05716- P,,AYTHEONCO: 5998013194313 15 $ 4653.0000 05~I6-~YTHEONCO: 5998013194313 18 $1635,0000 ~- ~IEON CO 5998013194313 2 $ 2127.oooo o5716.-~bN'co! " .... 5998013194313 2 $ 4653,0000 057.16-.KA~'gEON CO: 5998013194313 6 $ 2000.0000 o57~6-._~EU~oN coi

Deta~!~' ~.Report.

http://vcww.apls.vo.../soar~, h_proc, c fm?search_val'--~998%2D01%2D319%2D4~ 1 ~&se.aro~ro 8/8/2003' : t.

366

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-15

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 9 of 34

Procurement:~story Search Search results for 5998-0!-383-9443

¯

Deta~il Repo~ High contra~t unit price: $ 6440.0000 Low contract unit price: $128.5700 Unit Contrat~ Awm'd Date NSN Qty Price CAGE - Company
5998013839443 2 5998013839443 5 5998013839443 3 5998013839443 35 .~998013839443 29 5998013839'443 29

528~.72oo 75~23
5285.7100 ~'~ 123

~0,0O00 05716

1870.0~ 05716

¯

http:l/ .w)vvc.ap ls, oo'.../sear.oh..pr~c.cfm ~ seaxch_.v:sl----5 99 8 %2DO 1%2D383%2D9443&~eareh d~fn---.r,~

367

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-15

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 10 of 34

~ I eCoromerce I Search Menu I FA~ ! Bulletin Board i Inventow I

13234917

ht~p://www.apls.com/app/sr~.rch_rrport, cfin?srar~h_vaI-132349.17&search i. data=rq0o~t

7/27/00

368

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-15

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 11 of 34

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-15

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 12 of 34

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-15

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 13 of 34

0

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-15

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 14 of 34

Type of Wiiver:

Major Defense Acquisition Program (MDAP) Solici.tati.on/Contract MIL- STD/MIL- S~EC¯ Process NON-MDAP Solicitation/Contract ~~IL-S~D/MIL-SPEC
~rocess

X_____Managemenh andManufacturing Processes (Two-Year). W~apon System Rebuy X .Spare Service i. Requester: Program: See. Attachment ~ ~ ~ POC: .... ¢=~_p~ " . ~_~= ¯ Phone:, (256) ~1~-]6w7 2. Date Submitted: 07/01/98 Office Symbol :. DSN: , 897-1697 ,,

MIL SPEC/ST~/M~ P~OCE~'~ired. MIL SPEC/STD/M~ P~OCESS

MIL SPEC/STD/M~ PROCESS title : 3. Mission statement: Describe the mission the requested MIL SPEC/STD/PROCESS is to support: The Manufacturing and Management processes contained in the legacy Technical
functional ~nd perfoKma~ce ihar.acter!.s£i.Cs..,....and'co~plv..~$th the reliability, maintaina~ility.~..inderoperability and safety requirements~ of the weapon system. (Reflrence AMCOM and PEO Aviation MAP, Section V, paragraph c~7)

4. Product~Pr6cess desc¯~iption: O~s'cr~be in detail the product or process covered by the r~quested MI~ SPEC/ST~/M~M PROCESS.

370

SDC .1 "~ 39

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-15

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 15 of 34

5. Commercia! equivalents.(N/A .FOR M&M PROCESSES) Describe one or more commercially available prDducts which serve as the nearest equivalents to those described, by the applicable MIL SPEC/STD.

6. " Differences between military and commereial'produets: Describe the differences, if any, between the p~oduct(s) 'orprocess (es) defined by the applicable MIL SPEC/STD and the neirest commercia! equivalent(s). (N/A FOR M&M PROCESSES) ~

7.- Military-unique document requirement [(N/A FOR M&!~ PROCESSES). Describe, if applicable,how the differences between the p~oduct defined by theapplicable MIL SPEC/STD and that.of the commercial equivalent(s)are such that a clear r~q~.i.rement" for a military-unique specification or standa~a'i~-establishid.
...... w.! ~ " ....... ' ................................. . ¯

8. Mission impact. (N/A FOR M&M BROCESSES) Describe the functional impacts of ,,sing the commercial equivalent product(s) in lieu o~ those specified by MIL SPEC/STD to mi~sioh accgmp~ishment; if impacts make use unacceptable, provide shpporting information.

371

SDC 1140

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-15

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 16 of 34

9 Economic inalysis. (N/A FOR M&M PROCESSES) Provide a summary of economic/cost analysis showin~ the economic impact of using, the commercially equivalent product(s) versus those de.fined by the applicable MIL SPEO/STD. If impacts make use unacceptable, provide supporting informa'tlon:

10.

REQUESTING OFFICIAL:

RICHARD W. AMOS Acting Director, System Engihearing and P;oduction Directorate, Missile Research, [Develo~ment~ and. Engineering Cen~er'

PM ~r System Manager

~JUL 2 7 1998.
'Date WAIVER DISPOSITION App~pved p~imarily for the folldwing reason: Requirement for mil~tary-unique M~L SPE6/STD .Unaccebt~ble mission impact by using NG~ or industrialwide standard alternative No cost-effective ~GS or industrial-wide standard alternative ." Based on ~he res~Its of the best business approach decision process,it has been determined that the , technical dlta package, and'all processes contained therein, for the above listed weapon systeM, is hereby" approved for use.in acquisition documents. This approval, is effective for a period not tO exceed two years from the signature date on this document (FOR M&M PROCESSES ONLY)

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-15

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 17 of 34

Disapproved

Returned without action; fallowing addihional information requested: Mission deicription" Process descriptign DescriptiQh of.NGS or industrf~l-wi~e standard alternatives Dgsqription.of d±ffer.ences between milit&ry process and MGS or industrial-wide standard al~e~natives M~litary-uniqu~ document requirement description Mission impact Eqonomic/Cost analysis of military and NGS or industrial-wide ~tandard alternatives Other

WAIVER REQUESTED CONTROL NUMBER: WAIVE~ APPROVAL OFFIC~.A~F Date Date AM~OM and PEO,.~viationl Standards Executive

373

SDC 1142

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-15

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 18 of 34

ATTACI-IM~NT

AVIAT!ON.~

IMLRS 3 STINGER 4. PATRIOT 6 FAAR , 7 HERCL~ES. 9 ATAS 10. AVENGER. I 1 STINGER 12 I-tAWK ¯ 13 TOW ' t4 TOW2 15.'DRA.GON I6 BFVS '17 LANCE 18 I-IELLFIRE I9 LCSS 20 ANITSQ-73 21 TOW COBRA

¯ 1 ASE 2 ALSE' " 3 APACI-IE

4 A~WS
5 KEUY 6 T-53 7 COBRA 8 BLACKI-~WK 9 T-700 10 T-701 11 CHINOOK I2 T-5.5 13 KtOWA 14 T-703 15 T:63 16 AGSE. ¯ 17 TADS 18 PNVS 19 AGPU 2O LONGBOW

21 ATC
22 NTH 23 T62"

2~ C-NITE
23 GLLD 24 TPS 25 MCTNS 26 LTD 27 IFTE 28 FISTV ¯ 29 LSDIS 30 TEMOD

374

SDC 1143

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-15

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 19 of 34

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-15

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 20 of 34

SDC 1110

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-15

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 21 of 34

OII:~UIT CARD ABSEIVIBLY- I:)AAD BCpA=~p/HP! (~8 MOBILITY

~¥ BE PR.O{~If~3. ~-QUIN'~IT DEBt, NLIM~E~ttS/£1~AVAILABLE ~

4I

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-15

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 22 of 34

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-15

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 23 of 34

ACQUISITION STRATEGY SUMMARY SHEET

PRON: D1943064
NSN: 5998-01-319-4313

APN: 13235072
PRIORITY: 11 SYSTEM: I-IAWK ITEM: CIRCUIT CARD ASSEMBLY QTY: 24 ESTIMATED AMOUNT:- $130,532.3"6

..

AMC/AMSC CODE: AMC/AMSC DATE: 2/04/1999 NEEDS QA/ENGR REVIEW GOVERNMENT TESTED FIRST ARTICLE REQUIRED STRAT CODE: C . SIC CODE: 3674 SOLDER~G STATEMENT REQUIRED STABLE BASE DRAWINGS REQUIRED CANCELLED SpEC ~L-S-1394"9) An Acquisition Strategy Meeting was held on 16 June 1999 and the following individmils werein attendance: James Adams Vickie Patterson Margaret King Ben Acosta Otto Hsu Kay Smothers Jolene Sisk Jenetta Johnson AMSAM-AC-ML-L AMSAM-RD-SE40-TL AMSAM-AC-ML-SA AMSAM-MMC-AD-MC AMSAM-DSA-WCP AMSAM-CIC-ED-MI AMSAM-MMC-AD-MI:I AMSAM-MMC-AD-M 6-2047 6-3241 2-7553 6-4140 2-03.20 3-2961 6-5567 2-6576

During tie Strategy Meeting it was determined that due to the fact that the TDP has cancelled specs (MIL-S-13949) that cannot be replaced, requirement will possibly be restricted to Raytheon Company:

SDC 840

377

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-15

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 24 of 34

Incremental Quantity Range: Minimum 9
Options:

Maximum 25

FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 F.Y04

( 5 L 16 ) ( 5 -- 16 ) ( 11 -- 30 ) ( 7 -- 21 ) ( 7 -- 21 )

~ QTY WILL BE CAPPED AT 75 EACH.

Therefore, on 17 June 1999, pron was passed to HAC for source review.
On 16 August 1999, pron amendment 02 was received increasing the quantity ~rom 14 each to 24 each.

On 4 October 1999, r.eceived from Loop with drawings & Icapp as follows: AMC/AMSC CODE: 2G AMC/A2~C DATE: 9/27/1999 Adequate For Unlimited Procurement. Government Tested First Article Required for a quantity'of 2 each. Strat Code: C SIC Code: 3674 ODS is required Need SAO waiver for ASTM-D4126 & MIS-14753 STABLE BASE DRAWINGS REQUI'RED DIGITAL DATA REQUIRED ('INCLUDED IN DRAWINGS ON DISK) On 7 October 1999, pron is a~signed to PXA-08, Dan Conley. This action is to be planned as Best Value. A waiver was approved on 20 September 1999, allowing the contractor to use cancelled MIL-S-13949 for this pron D1943064 only. Waiver is enclosed in file.
RFP NUMBER: DAAH01-00-R-0013 Received amendment 03, for first article diversion dated 21. October 1999.

On 25 October 1999, package is complete. This action was delayed in Small Business Administration Office due to the fact that they recommended to go 8(a).

SDC 841 378

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-15

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 25 of 34

Previously, this action was planned as Best Value. Also, the TDP contains Digital Data. According to Larry Nichols in Engirteeering, the Digital Data for this action involve specific programs for them.icrochips and according to Lester James in Documentation, the Digital Data is included on disk.
Therefore, based on discussions with Mr. John Nelson & Lee Ford; Small Business, Cathy Dickens & ~lames Adams; Acquisition Stratbgy Divison, this action would be a good candidate to be presented under the Te~im Millennium (New Business DeveIopment), involvlng Teledyne Brown Engineering along with Campbell Engineering & SDC, Incorporated.

Action will be initiated under the 8(a) program.
On 24 November 1999, a 2579 was initiated and sent back to Small Business Administration Office for review. ' "

On 2 December 1999, package was returned from Small Business with a memorandum dated 1 December 1999, recommending 8(a) contractor System Development Corporation, (SDC), 215 Winn drive, Huntsville, Alabama 35805. Small Business also asked for the DD Form 2579 to 'reflect any. optional quantities 'and/or options years and any increase in the total dollar amount as a result o.f options. On 6 December 1999, package was passed to BSX 59 pending receipt of copy of letter of offer to SBA for this requirement.

SDC 842

379

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-15

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 26 of 34

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-15

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 27 of 34

AMCOM and PEO AVIATION STANDARDS EXECUTIVE WAIVER REQUEST FOR~ Ti~pe of Waiver:

Major Defense Acquisition Program (MDAP) Solicitation/Contract MIL-STD/MIL-SPEC P~ocess NON-MDAP Solicitation/Contract X MIL-STD/MIL-SP~C Process
Management and Manufacturing Processes (Two-Year) Weapon System ~.Rebuy __Spare Service

i. Requester: Program: HAWK PRON D1943064 Date Submitted: 09/15/1999 Office Symbol: AMSAM-RD-SE-IO POC: John Farris DSN: Phone: 876-7254" Solicitation: Contract: Part Number: 13235072 NSN: 5998-01-319-4313 2. MIL SPEC/STD/M&M PROCESS required. MIL SPEC/STD/M&M PROCESS number: MIL-S-13949 M!L SPEC/STD/~&M PROCESS title: Sheet, Printed Wiring Board, General Specification for 3. Mission statement: Describe the mission the requested MIL SPEC/STD/PROCESS is to support: .~pare P~rt Procurement 4. Product/Process description: Describe in detail the product or process covered by the requested MIL SPEC/STD/M&M PROCESS. Printed Wiring Board raw materials including copper clad laminates, pre-pregs, bonding film, etc. 5. Commercial equivalents.(N/A FOR M&M PROCESSES) Describe one or more commercia~1y available prgducts which serve as the .

SDC 1104 38O

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-15

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 28 of 34

nearest equival~nts to those described by the applicable MIL SPEC/STD. IPC 4101 6. Differences between military and commercial products: Describe th6 differences, if any, between "the product(s)' or process (es) defined by the applicable MIL SPEC/STD and the nearest commercia! equivalent(s). (N/A FOR M&M PROCESSES) MIL-S-13949 requi~es specific testing and f~eguencies and has a QPL which requires specific re-certification periods. ~IPC 4101 does not require.s~eclfic tests and has no certification requirements. 7. Mission impact. (N/A. FOR M&MPRO~ESSES) Describe the functi6nal impacts of using the commercial equivalent product(s) in lieu of those specified by MIL SPEC/STD to mission accomplishment; if impacts make use unacceptable, provide supporting information. There is inadequate information and history, to predict what functional differences there are between materials produced to IPC 4101 as ~opposed to MIL-S-13949. This isone of the reasons to be concerned. There is no reliability, data for products built to IPC 4101. 8. .Conversion. Can the MIL SPEC/STD be converted to a MIL-PRF, Interface STD or Standard Practice? Describe the actions being taken or justification for n~n-conversion. At present there is no action being taken to convert MIL-S-f3949 to any other type of document. The IPC Board is to meet in October and plans to address amending IPC 4101 to include the testing r~.quirements of MIL-S-13949. 9. Military-unique document requirement (N/A FOR M&M PROCESSES). Describe, if applicable, how the differences between the product defined by the applicable MIL SPEC/STD and that of the commercia! equivalent(s)are ~uch.that a clear requirement for a militaryunique specification or standard is established. ihere.is 25 years of history that demonstrates that materials procured and tested to MIL-S-13949 have..a high .degree of reliability. IPC 4101 leaves the determination of testing

SDC 1105 381

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-15

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 29 of 34

requirement up ~o the buying activity. This is a "fox in the hen house" scenario. i0. Economic analysis. (N/A FOR M&MPROCESSES) Provide a sualmary Qf economic/cost analysis showing the economic impact of using the commercially equivalent product(s) or MIL PRF, versus those defined by the applicable MIL SPEC/STD. If impacts make use unacceptable, provide supporting information. To date no materia! suppliers have offered a p~$.~e d.ecrease...for IPC 4101 materials over MIL-S-13949. ii. Follow-on Action: Describe the actions being taken to eliminate the need for citing the MIL SPEC/STD/Process in future acquisitions. No follow-on action is being taken at present pending the IPC Board decision regarding amending IPC 4101 to include the testing .req~..i.reme~ts qf.MIL-STI3949. If the decision is made to. not amend the IPC. 4101, AMCOM could create a MIS which would include ..the requirements, of MIL-S-13949. 12. REQUESTING OFFICIAL: OTTO HSU HAWK Configuration Manager

PM or System Manager Date

13.

WAIVER DISPOSITION Approved primarily for the following reason: Requirement for miiitary-unique MIL SPEC/STD Unacceptable mission impact by using NGS or industria!-wide standard alternative

382

SDC 1106

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-15

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 30 of 34

No cost-effective NGS or industrial-wide standard alternative Based on the results of the best business approach decision process, it has been determined that the technical data package, and all processes contained therein, for the.above listed weapon system, is hereby approved for use in acquisition documents. This approval is effective for a period not to exceed two years from the signature date on this document. (FOR M&M PROCESSES ONLY) Dis'approved

Returned without action; following additional information requested: Mission description Process description Description of NGS or industrial-wide standard alternatives Description of differences between military process and NGS or industrial-wide standard alternatives Military-uniq~ie document requirement description Mission impact Economic/Cost analysis of military and NGS or industrial-wide standard alternatives MIL PRF, Interface or Standard Practice Standard Other

WAIVER REQUESTED CONTKOL NUMBER: WAIVER APPROVAL OFFICIAL: Date AAE or Milestone~sion AuthQ~it~

o. '
AMCOM and PED, Aviation, Standards Executive

383

SDC 1i07

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-15

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 31 of 34

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-15

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 32 of 34

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-15

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 33 of 34

5

Case 1:06-cv-00232-LMB

Document 41-15

Filed 10/29/2007

Page 34 of 34

FAX 2057313443

SBA ~ED

i I

U.S. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 2121 8TH AVENUE NORTH, SUITE 200 BIRMINGHAm. ALABAMA 35203-2398

December 10, 1999 Mr. John F. Nelson, Chief Smal~ and Disadvi~n.taged Business Utillzation Office Attn: AMSAM-SB U. S. Army Avlation antiMissile'Command Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898-5000 Dear Mr. Nelson: Pursuant to Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act (15(Z~ C.637(a)), the Small Business Administration accepts ),our offer to enter into a contract to be awarded in .aecdrdanOe~ith the_ Memorandum of Understandln~ between your azencv and the _Small Business Administratipr~ The off~r for Circuit Card Assembly, M~ssile ,~ystem: H.4WK (SIC 3674, S~ze Standard 500 emplayees), has an estimated value of $767, 099. 73. This acceptance is in support, of the approvedbusiness plan of@stems Development Corporation, 215 Winn Drive, Huntsville, AL Our preliminary analysis indicates that this requirement is suitable for 8(a) contracting and the 8(a) concern has the requisite capabilitz;es to l~rform satisfactorily, including the required banding, if necessary. A determination has been made that acceptance of this procurement will cause no adverse impact on bnother small business concern.
Pleasanote that if the Statement o_f. Work (SOW) & changed SBA will have to redetermine tha_ appeot~riatenes~s "of the SIC.Cod~ and th~,,acceptabili~ o_t'thts o~r t'or the 8(el contractor,named above._._....~

[n accordanc~ with the Memorandum of Understanding, authorization is hereby given to your office to contract directly with the 8(a) con,.actor. Please furnish a copy of all contract actions to Jolmnie K Beam, Business Opportunity Specialist, ~ ,~. Small Business Administration, 8(a) Business Development Division, 2121 8th Avenue North, Suite 200, Birmingham, A£ 33203. 2398. lf you have any quentions, please call (205) 731.0706/FAX205-731-3443.
Sin erely, Assistant Distr~t ~irector 8(a) Business ~/elopment "

"THE FEDERAL GOVERNMI~NT IS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER"

SDC 822

385