U.S. Department of Defense Contract Awards for Jan. 31, 2012

0
618

Here’s Today’s Department of Defense Contract Awards

 

AIR FORCE

Rolls-Royce Corp., Indianapolis, Ind., is being awarded a $112,224,520 firm-fixed-price, requirements type contract for covering sustaining services including logistics support, program management support, engineering services, spares and technical data in support of the C-130J propulsion systems which include the AE2100D3 engine and R-391 propeller system.  This modification is to exercise Option V (Year 6).  The location of the performance is Indianapolis, Ind.  Work is expected to be completed by Jan. 31, 2013.  WRALC/GRBKA, Robins Air Force Base, Ga., is the contracting activity (FA8504-07-D-0001; Delivery Order 0600).

Lockheed Martin Corp., Marietta, Ga., is being awarded a $62,956,540 firm-fixed-price, fixed-price-award-fee, time-and-material, and cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for sustaining services including logistics support, program management support, engineering services, repairs, spares and technical data in support of the C-130J unique systems.  The location of the performance is Marietta, Ga.  Work is expected to be completed by Jan. 31, 2014.  WR-ALC/GRBKA, Robins Air Force Base, Ga., is the contracting activity (FA8504-06-D-0001-P00020; Delivery order FA 8504-06-D-0001-0700).

The Boeing Co., Wichita, Kan., is being awarded a $47,862,156 firm-fixed-price, time-and-material cost reimbursable and cost-plus-incentive-fee contract modification which will provide for Option Year III support.  The contracting activity is Tinker Air Force Base, Okla.  The location of the performance is Wichita, Kan.  Work was completed Dec. 21, 2011.  OC-ALC/GKSKB, Tinker Air Force Base, Okla., is the contracting activity (FA8106-09-C-0005/P00039).

CSC Applied Technologies, L.L.C., Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $26,870,070 cost-plus-award-fee contract for the exercise of option for the base operating support service contract at Keesler Air Force Base, Miss.  The location of the performance is Keesler Air Force Base, Miss.  Work is expected to be completed by Jan. 31, 2012.  81 CONS, Keesler Air Force Base, Miss., is the contracting activity (FA3002-08-C-0001-A00115).

Kaman Precision Products, Inc., Orlando, Fla., is being awarded a $24,171,717 firm-fixed-price contract action, which tasks the contractor to provide the Air Force with a quantity of 6,067 of the Joint Programmable Fuze Systems to meet munitions requirements.  The location of the performance is Orlando, Fla.  Work is expected to be completed by December 2013.  AAC/EBDK, Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., is the contracting activity (F08626-98-C-0006, P00158).

Textron Defense Systems, Wilmington, Maine, is being awarded a $13,600,000 firm-fixed-price contract for 143 monition control units (MCU); 5 MCU test sets; 15 munitions application program cards; one wind corrected munitions dispenser (WCMD) dual system support simulator; one WCMD telemetry ground station; 10 WCMD telemetry kits; two instrumented measurement kits; and 1552 lanyard connectors.  The locations of the performance are Wilmington, Maine, and Tucson, Ariz.  Work is expected to be completed by February 2014.  AAC/EBJK, Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., is the contracting activity (FA8682-11-C-0044 PZ0001).





Woolpert, Inc., Dayton, Ohio, is being awarded a $12,000,000 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract in which individual firm-fixed-price delivery orders will be awarded for multi-discipline architect/engineer services to support Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.  The location of the performance is at various locations at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.  Work is expected to be completed by Jan. 29, 2017.  ASC/PKOC, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity (FA8601-12-D-0006).

Lockheed Martin Corp., Marietta, Ga., is being awarded a $10,962,810 predominately firm-fixed-price (91.2 percent) with time-and-material (8.2 percent) and cost reimbursement (0.6 percent) contract types for contract modification obligating fiscal 2011 and fiscal 2012 procurement dollars to exercise the previously negotiated option contract line item numbers on the FYOC IV contract (FA8625-11-C-6597) to maintain current support levels for the next period of performance (Feb. 1, 2012 through Jan. 31, 2013) for the C-130J Program Office.  The location of the performances is Marietta, Ga.  Work is expected to be completed by Jan. 31, 2013.  ASC/WLNNC, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity (FA8625-11-C-6597 P00084).

Lockheed Martin Corp., Marietta, Ga., is being awarded a $7,757,653 firm-fixed-price, time-and-material contract to procure spares, field support representative support, and program management, return and repair support, and engineering services support for the Royal Norway Air Force to support the arrival of their new C-130J fleet.  The location of the performance is Marietta, Ga.  Work was completed by Jan. 31, 2014.  WR-ALC/GRBKB, Robins Air Force Base, Ga., is the contracting activity (FA8504-06-D-0001-0606).

NAVY

Hensel Phelps Construction Co., Irvine, Calif., is being awarded a $56,463,304 fixed-price modification under a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N62473-12-C-1406) to exercise option 0001 which provides for the construction of a helicopter maintenance facility at Naval Air Station North Island.  The work to be performed provides for the construction of a multi-story, steel-framed, three-bay maintenance hangar.  It includes electrical and mechanical utilities, power check pad, engine wash pad, compressed air building, secure communications connections, aircraft parking apron and roadway, and demolition of vacant facilities.  Built-in equipment includes an elevator, backup generators, and a closed loop wash rack system.  Special construction features include sound attenuation for the administration and shop space, an Aqueous Fire Fighting Foam Protection System, telephone system, and intrusion detection system wiring, and incidental related work.  The total contract amount after exercise of this option will be $56,653,304.  Work will be performed in San Diego, Calif., and is expected to be completed by October 2013.  Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.  The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, San Diego, Calif., is the contracting activity.

BAE Systems, Minneapolis, Minn., is being awarded a $52,000,000 not-to-exceed modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-12-C-5311) to exercise options for the Advanced Gun System (AGS) for DDG 1002.  The (AGS) is a 155mm, vertically loaded, stabilized gun mount that is capable of storing, programming, and firing the long range land attack projectile.  It is a fully automated weapon system capable of firing 10 rounds per minute supplied via a fully automated magazine loading system.  The gun’s primary mission is land attack.  The DDG 1000, Zumwalt class destroyer, will employ two AGS gun mounts and magazines in support of ground expeditionary forces.  Work will be performed in Louisville, Ky. (37 percent); Cordova, Ala. (30 percent); Minneapolis, Minn. (28 percent); and Burlington, Vt. (5 percent).  Work is expected to be completed by January 2018.  Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.  The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C, is the contracting activity.

The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Mo., is being awarded a $48,078,874 modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price delivery order contract (N00383-06-D-001J) for integrated logistics support and sustaining engineering services in support of the F/A-18 A-D, F/A-18 E/F, and EA-18 G aircraft.  Services to be provided include in-service engineering, information systems, technical data updates, support equipment engineering, training and software integration support.  Work will be performed in St. Louis, Mo. (70 percent); El Segundo, Calif. (15 percent); Oklahoma City, Okla. (6 percent); Bethpage, N.Y. (5 percent); and San Diego, Calif. (4 percent).  Work is expected to be completed in December 2012.  Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.  The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity.

Raytheon Co., Missile Systems, Tucson, Ariz., is being awarded a $39,623,908 modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price, fixed-price-incentive-firm target contract (N00019-11-C-0001) for the Lot 12 low rate initial production of 47 AIM-9X Block II all up round tactical missiles for the Navy (five) and Air Force (42); 47 Block II active optical target detectors for the Navy (five) and Air Force (42); 51 Block II captive air training missiles for the Air Force; and 29 containers for the Navy (two) and Air Force (27); as well as special test equipment and various spare components for the Navy and Air Force.  Work will be performed in Tucson, Ariz. (41.42 percent); Andover, Mass. (10.12 percent); various locations in the United States (6.31 percent); Valencia, Calif. (5.71 percent); Ontario Canada, Midland (5.4 percent); Rocket Center, W.Va. (5.24 percent); Vancouver, Wash. (5.08 percent); Goleta, Calif. (2.99 percent); El Segundo, Calif. (2.81 percent); Cheshire, Conn. (2.30 percent); Simsbury, Conn. (1.60 percent); Cincinnati, Ohio (1.53 percent); Heilbronn, Germany (1.52 percent); El Cajon, Calif. (1.48 percent); San Jose, Calif. (1.45 percent); Anniston, Ala. (1.16 percent); San Diego, Calif. (0.87 percent); Chatsworth, Calif. (0.80 percent); Newbury Park, Calif. (0.74 percent); Orlando, Fla. (0.66 percent); Montgomery, Ala (0.58 percent); and various locations outside the United States (0.23 percent).  Work is expected to be completed in January 2014.  Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.  This contract combines purchases for the Air Force ($35,490,235; 89.57 percent) and the Navy ($4,133,673; 10.43 percent).  The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity.

The Whiting-Turner Contracting Co., Baltimore, Md., is being awarded a $38,155,069 firm-fixed-price modification under a previously awarded contract (N40085-10-C-5312) for the construction costs associated with modifying the bachelor enlisted quarters (BEQ) to meet the Marine Corps’ “Best in Breed” design standard at Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune.  The work to be performed provides for the construction costs, including all supervision, labor, tools, materials, and equipment, associated with the conversion from six smaller BEQ buildings to two larger BEQ buildings which fulfills the changes and betterments which are needed to make these BEQ buildings meet the Marine Corps guidance on BEQ standards.  After award of this modification, the total cumulative contract value will be $180,323,472.  Work will be performed in Jacksonville, N.C., and is expected to be completed by September 2013.  Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.  The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Mid-Atlantic, Norfolk, Va., is the contracting activity.

Bechtel Plant Machinery, Inc., Monroeville, Pa, is being awarded a $21,461,993 cost-plus fixed-fee modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-12-C-2106) to exercise an option for naval nuclear propulsion components.  Work will be performed in Monroeville, Pa.  Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.  No completion date or additional information is provided on Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program contracts.  The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity.

Booz Allen Hamilton, Norfolk, Va., is being awarded a not-to-exceed $20,000,000 modification to previously awarded indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, cost-plus-fixed-fee, firm-fixed-price pricing provisions contract (N00189-08-D-0022) to increase funded amount.  The total contract value inclusive of all modifications is estimated at $184,103,663.  The contract will provide leadership teams, providing expertise in change management, barrier identification and removal, and key enterprise performance metrics.  The contractor will focus efforts on applying the key tenets of a structured, process-focused, metrics-driven enterprise approach to determine required output, identify and remove barriers, develop and analyze measures of performance, and manage the cultural changes necessary to reach enterprise objectives.  It is the primary role of the contractor to work with naval personnel, active, reserve, civilian, and other government contractors, to accomplish the goals of the enterprise.  Work will performed on-site at government sites (72 percent) and off-site contractors sites (28 percent).  Work will be completed by Sept. 30, 2012.  Funding will be operations and maintenance, Navy provided by the individual Fleet Readiness Enterprises and will be placed on individual task orders.  Contract funds in the amount of $20,000,000 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.  The requirement was issued on a sole-source basis utilizing other than full and open competition procedures.  NAVSUP Fleet Logistics Center, Norfolk, Va., is the contracting activity (N00189-08-D-0022).

Northrop Grumman Guidance and Electronics Co., Woodland Hills, Calif., is being awarded an $18,925,000 firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract to repair components of the AN/ANS-150 Navigation Systems and the NPN 217 Doppler System supporting the H-60 helicopter, and the AN/ASN-123 Navigation System supporting the EA-6B aircraft.  Work will be performed in Salt Lake City, Utah (75 percent), and Woodland Hills, Calif. (25 percent), and is expected to be completed by Jan. 31, 2017.  Defense Business Operations Funds and Navy Working Capital Funds being used on this contract will not expire before the end of the current fiscal year.  This contract was not competitively procured.   Naval Supply Systems Command Weapons System Support, Philadelphia, Pa., is the contracting activity (N00383-12-D-044G).

Larkor Construction Co., Macro-Z Technology Team IV JV*, Homedale, Idaho, is being awarded a $10,590,000 firm-fixed-price contract for the construction of the Explosives Handling Wharf Security Force Facility at Naval Base Kitsap Bangor.  Work will be performed in Silverdale, Wash., and is expected to be completed by August 2013.  Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.  This contract was competitively procured via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online website with eight proposals received.  The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Northwest, Silverdale, Wash., is the contracting activity (N44255-12-C-3007).

The Navmar Applied Sciences Corp.*, Warminster, Pa., is being awarded a $9,640,400 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for a Phase III Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) project under Topic N04-237, “Mobile Shallow Water Antisubmarine Target System.”  The objective of this contract is to mature the design of the Shallow Water Target (SWT) System developed under the Phase II SBIR into a production-ready, over-the-side radio-frequency (RF) prototype SWT System and submarine simulator.  In addition, this contract provides for research studies on RF and radiated signals; development of algorithms and display concepts; performance and functional testing; on-site-integration and field testing; training tools and documents; and on-site and post-test training.  Work will be performed in Lexington Park, Md. (60 percent), Warminster, Pa. (35 percent), and various testing locations in and outside the continental U.S. (5 percent).  Work is expected to be completed in January 2015.  Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.  This Phase III contract was not competitively procured pursuant to FAR 6.302.5.  The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Lakehurst, N.J., is the contracting activity (N68335-12-C-0003).

Oshkosh Corp., Oshkosh, Wis., is being awarded a $6,998,250 firm-fixed-price contract to supply 217 diesel engines, which will be installed in newly manufactured Medium Tactical Vehicle replacement variants.  Work will be performed in Corinth, Miss., and is expected to be completed in June 2013.  Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.  This contract was not competitively awarded.  The Marine Corps Systems Command, Quantico, Va., is the contracting activity (M67854-12-C-0217). \

WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICE

Nova Corp., Chambersburg, Pa., is being awarded a $19,609,310 cost-plus-fixed-fee and firm-fixed-price contract to provide comprehensive information technology support with a focus including the following:  network planning and engineering, systems and database administration operations, desktop engineering, customer support, information security, alternate site support.  Work will be performed in Arlington, Va., with an estimated completion date of Jan. 31, 2013.  The bid was solicited through the Internet, with one bid received.  Washington Headquarters Service is the contracting activity (HQ0034-12-C-0011).

*Small business

Marginal Effects of a Complete Dischcarge of Student Loans

Journal of Law and Education April 1, 2005 | Thayn, Jason I. INTRODUCTION In the United States, an individual who meets the qualifications is able to get student loans from the federal government to help them finance their higher education. There is a federal law in place that is designed to deter individuals from abusing and misusing this system. In Chapter 11 of the United States Code ?§523(a)(8), an individual who has received these educational loans is barred from having them discharged under bankruptcy law, unless one exemption requirement is meet. The loan may be discharged if repaying it will impose an “undue hardship” on the debtor or the debtor’s dependents.1 While this rule seems somewhat self-explanatory, there has been great debate over the undue hardship requirement. One of the reasons for this is that some courts are allowing partial discharge of the loan debt when they find undue hardship, and other courts are allowing complete discharge of the loan debt when they find undue hardship. Because this disparity in application of the law can have grossly different outcomes for similarly situated debtors, there needs to be standardized rule that is followed in all courts.2 II. HISTORY OF STUDENT LOANS IN BANKRUPTCY In 1976 the United States Congress codified the first bill that made, as a general rule, student loans nondischargeable.3 This law came about as a result of the concern for the potential abuse of a loophole in the government’s student loan program.4 This potentially abused loophole, which was abused more in theory than in fact, allowed students to completely discharge their guaranteed loans under the old Bankruptcy Act.5 In 1973, this concern was brought to the attention of the Congressional Committee on Bankruptcy. The Commission found that this problem was not a serious threat, but they concluded that it had the potential to be one.6 This finding, along with the public’s perception that this was a real problem, eventually prompted Congress to pass the Education Act of 1976.7 Eventually, this law was reformed somewhat and came into being as the original version of ?§523(a)(8).8 That law allowed student loans to be discharged if the individual had petitioned for the discharge five years after they began repayment of the loan, or there was found to be undue hardship on the debtor as a result of the loan repayment. In 1998, ?§ 523(a)(8) was reformed to only allow discharge of student loans if undue hardship was found. section 523 no longer had the time stipulation requirement.9 III. UNDUE HARDSHIP Determining what constitutes an undue hardship and what does not is not a finite science. There are four main tests that courts use to determine whether undue hardship exists. While they may all vary from one another in focus and application, they all require the debtor to demonstrate extenuating circumstances and a certainty of hopelessness to qualify as undue hardship.10 A definition of undue hardship that is commonly accepted and followed “require[s] a three-part showing: (1) that the debtor cannot maintain, based on current income and expenses, a ‘minimal’ standard of living for herself and her dependents if forced to repay the loans; (2) that additional circumstances exist indicating that this state of affairs is likely to persist for a significant portion of the repayment period of the student loans; and (3) that the debtor has made good faith efforts to repay the loans.”11 A. Unfairness of the “Strict Approach” If undue hardship has been found in the past, most courts have allowed a complete discharge of the student loan, no matter how great or how small the debt may be.12 This is known as the “strict approach,” due to the fact that the court is reading ?§523(a)(8) very strictly and coming to the conclusion that if undue hardship is found than the law says that the debtor is completely discharged from the debt. Those who follow this interpretation feel that the language is unambiguous and cannot mean anything else.13 When an individual is found to have met the undue hardship requirement, a court that uses the “partial approach” interprets the law as allowing them to discharge only the part of the debt that is causing the undue hardship.14 The effect on the marginal individual One of the problems of the “strict approach” is that there is potentially drastic difference in outcomes for individuals in almost identical situations. Theoretically, as little as one dollar could separate someone who is allowed complete discharge of their student loans and someone is not allowed any discharge of their student loans. It could be that both individuals are identical in all aspects, except one makes a dollar less than the other and that is just enough to satisfy the undue hardship requirement. It may seem like the difference in income of one dollar would never have this outcome, but some where courts using the “strict approach” must have a cut off point, or else all student loans would be discharged in bankruptcy. citistudentloans.org citi student loans

Another problem with this interpretation of the law is that it gives individuals a disincentive to do better. If individuals feel that they may likely have to file for bankruptcy and they are given an opportunity to get a small raise a work, or a slightly better paying job, this interpretation gives them the incentive to refuse for fear that if they increase their income they may not have their student loans completely discharged. By keeping the lower paying position or job, the individual who is able to discharge his student loans completely will have an increase in their net income. It seems that by having the all-or-nothing approach to this problem still keeps the door open for potential abuse, by allowing debtors to just meet a certain threshold to avoid complete responsibility for paying back their student loans. website citi student loans

B. Fairness of Partial Discharge In 11 U.S.C. ?§ 105(a), the law permits a bankruptcy court to make any judgment that is necessary so long as it is consistent with the Bankruptcy Act. When dealing with a student loan discharge where there is not found to be undue hardship, but where some relief of the financial burden is needed, an approach that only allows an “all-or-nothing treatment thwarts the purpose of the Bankruptcy Act.”15 For this reason some bankruptcy courts, using the broad powers they feel they are granted under ?§105, “have partially discharged student loans even while finding the student loans nondischargable.”16 But in allowing these partial discharges of student loans, the courts still require debtors to meet the requirement of undue hardship for whatever portion of the debt that is being discharged.17 The effect on the marginal individual By allowing partial discharges of student loans in bankruptcy, it seems that the courts would be achieving what the legislature intended when they enacted ?§523(a)(8). That is, the courts would be preventing abusive discharges while still allowing a truly financially burdened individual a fresh start.18 There seems to be little reason not to allow partial discharges of student loans. It only makes sense that if an individual debtor cannot pay back their loan because they are unable to make payments, then by requiring them to pay what they can makes it fair to everyone else who is required to back their student loans.

Anyone that does not meet the undue hardship requirement has to pay back their entire student loan amount, regardless if it is a large burden to them or not. Why should someone who is struggling to pay back their student loan be able to avoid paying back the entire amount just because they are marginally more burdened then the another individual, who will be stuck with paying back the entire amount because he does not quite meet the undue hardship threshold. Giving debtors, who are facing an undue hardship, a partial discharge of their loan to the extent that they can maintain some minimal standard of living, still allows those debtors to have a fresh start, in the sense that they can then maintain minimal standards that they could not previously have maintained. Why should they be given a standard of living above those that do not meet the requirement for undue hardship? Other debtors who are just at, or above, the minimal standard of living have to stay there and pay off their loans and do not get some “get of debt free card,” but still have to struggle to pay back their obligations. Since most bankruptcy courts have a strong presumption against discharging student loans, it would seem that when they did find reason to discharge a student loan, they would only want to do so to the minimum extent.19 Also in allowing partial discharge of student loans, individuals contemplating bankruptcy do not have an incentive to try and do better. They know that they might potentially lose out on a complete discharge of their student loans if they were to increase their income and fall outside of the undue hardship threshold. Instead of trying to do everything they can to earn more money and pay back their loans, they have an incentive to do the opposite. This is because it could potentially end up costing them more to have the increase in their income, then the savings associated with a complete discharge of their student loan.

IV. CONCLUSION Not allowing partial discharge of student loans diminishes the incentives that loan companies have to enter into the student loan market because there is a higher risk involved for them. This ends up causing there to be fewer companies providing loans, which causes their prices to potentially be higher. The more companies there are vying to get into the student loan market the better off students would be because of the potential decrease in the cost of the loans.

In addition, individuals who are facing the possibility of bankruptcy would not have an incentive to go looking for the jurisdiction that uses the “strict approach” if there were a universal approach used in the courts. They would, theoretically, receive the same outcome no matter what jurisdiction they were in.

When it is all said and done it seems that the courts should have a uniform law to apply. It should be a law that allows them to partially discharge student loans to the extent of that portion of the loan that is causing the undue hardship, assuming undue hardship has been established. Fairness should overrule the semantics of ?§523(a)(8), and partial discharge of student loans should be the standard the courts use when dealing with student loans in bankruptcy.

JASON THAYN Thayn, Jason

Author Details
G M
This is a general posting account for VT
ATTENTION READERS
Due to the nature of independent content, VT cannot guarantee content validity.
We ask you to Read Our Content Policy so a clear comprehension of VT's independent non-censored media is understood and given its proper place in the world of news, opinion and media.

All content is owned by author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images within are full responsibility of author and NOT VT.

About VT - Read Full Policy Notice - Comment Policy