The draft RFP issued by the Army Energy Initiatives Task Force is a significant step in the Army’s plan to develop large-scale renewable energy projects. It presents as much as $7 billion in new opportunities to the alternative energy market and reflects a growing synergy between the defense and energy industries. Here we highlight some of the key provisions in the draft RFP, including some that are unique to contracts with the federal government.

The Draft RFP

The draft RFP was issued by the Army Energy Initiatives Task Force. It contemplates a multiple-award indefinite delivery-indefinite quantity contract under which the Army could purchase up to $7 billion worth of renewable and alternative energy over 10 years—a base period of 3 years with 7 option years. Through competition with the IDIQ contract holders, the Army would issue individual firm-fixed-price task orders to purchase electricity through Power Purchase Agreements based on a fixed rate per unit of energy (e.g. $/kWh). The PPAs would be allocated across four renewable technologies:  solar (1.5 billion kWh); wind (9 billion kWh); biomass (19 billion kWh); and geothermal (8 billion kWh).

Depending on the requirements of a particular task order, bidders could be responsible for constructing the energy generating systems and guaranteeing a certain level of renewable energy output by a specific date. Failing to meet the specified date could subject the contractor to liquidated damages for the output shortfall on a price-per-MWh basis.

Maintenance of the energy generation systems would be the contractor’s responsibility, as would achieving certain output performance levels over the course of the PPA. For variable energy production technologies (i.e. solar and wind), contractors would have to maintain performance levels that are in the top 25 percent of the industry in the United States. For continuous energy production technologies (i.e. geothermal and biomass), contractors would be required to provide replacement energy at no cost when their systems fail to meet the minimum production requirements.

To offset the construction and maintenance costs, bidders would be required to take advantage of all available utility incentive programs.  The government would retain ownership of any renewable energy credits associated with the energy generated under the task order.

Courts often look at a party’s conduct for help in interpreting ambiguous contract terms. But this concept has broader application. Actions and positions that one side takes before a dispute arises may actually override a clear contract requirement. The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals’ recent decision in TKC Aerospace, Inc. v. Department of Homeland Security, CBCA No. 2119 (Jan. 31, 2012) [pdf] illustrates the point. The Board’s opinion identifies the contractor’s response to a problem during performance as the key factor in resolving the case.

The Court of Federal Claims has issued an important decision establishing that offerors will be held accountable for making inaccurate representations in proposals. According to the Court’s decision in GTA Containers, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-606C (Fed. Cl. Feb. 22, 2012) [pdf], proof that an offeror made a misrepresentation in its proposal is sufficient to sustain a bait-and-switch protest if the agency relied on the misrepresentation.

As part of the much-publicized $26 billion mortgage foreclosure settlement between the five largest mortgage lenders, 49 states attorneys general, and the United States, Bank of America has agreed to pay $1 billion to resolve False Claims Act allegations relating to its mortgage lending practices. According to the press release issued by United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York Loretta E. Lynch, federal prosecutors had been investigating Bank of America since 2009.

As part of the SBA’s 8(a) Business Development Program, participants are permitted to form mentor-protégé relationships and to establish joint venture (JV) entities eligible for award of 8(a) set aside contracts. Before a mentor-protégé JV can be eligible for set-aside awards, its JV Agreement has to be approved by the SBA Office of Business Development. Approval is conditioned upon compliance with applicable regulations, including 13 C.F.R. § 124.513. After award of a set-aside contract, other offerors have the option of filing a size protest with the SBA challenging the awardee’s status as small.

In Size Appeal of Trident, LLC, SBA No. SIZ-5315 (Jan. 24, 2012) [pdf], the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) held that an SBA area office has no authority to review the substance of an 8(a) mentor-protégé JV agreement as part of a size appeal if it has already been approved by the SBA Office of Business Development and determined to be in compliance with applicable regulations. In that case, Trident appealed the area office’s determination that it was “other than small” and accordingly ineligible for award of an 8(a) set-aside for weather observation and forecasting services.

Husch Blackwell’s Postal Service Contracting practice group today released its list of the top 10 U.S. Postal Service suppliers for fiscal year 2011. For the ninth straight year FedEx claimed the No. 1 spot. Another air carrier, Kalitta Air, Inc., which transports military mail bound for Iraq and Afghanistan, claimed the second spot. The list is compiled by David P. Hendel, a partner in the firm who has served clients’ postal contracting needs for 30 years. 

Postal Service contracting highlights in 2011, and a look ahead to 2012, will be the focus of a complimentary webinar presented by Husch Blackwell on Tuesday, February 7, 2012 at 1 p.m. EST.

Postal contractors continue to be impacted by USPS cost-cutting efforts, reductions in requirements, and a renewed emphasis on obtaining competition. These pressures, …

The FAR Cost Principles and federal cost reimbursement contracts provide that only reasonable allowable costs are recoverable, including costs for executive compensation. A January 18, 2012 decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals rejected a government challenge to the reasonableness of compensation one contractor paid to executives and rejected the DCAA’s methodology for determining the reasonableness of the compensation. See J.F. Taylor, Inc., ASBCA Nos. 56105, 56322 (Jan. 18, 2012) [pdf].

Contributed by Ike Skelton and Russell Orban of Husch Blackwell’s Government Affairs Practice Group

The United States Department of Defense is the world’s biggest purchaser of goods and services, spending some $381 billion on contracts in FY 2011. But serious changes are on the way. The Iraq war is over and the Obama Administration is planning to withdraw from Afghanistan in the near future. Last summer’s hard-fought budget agreement requires $487 billion in cuts to the defense budget over the next 10 years. The President will soon recommend a defense budget that shaves $51 billion from its previous 2013 projections.