The Sonics Are Gone
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Labels: sports
Local Candidates in Cyberspace
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Liz Loomis is up and running here.
Her opponent, Mike Hope, maintains a blog here.
Her opponent, Mike Hope, maintains a blog here.
Labels: election 2008, liz loomis, mike hope
No Loss for Words, Huh. Who Are You?
http://nolossforwords.wordpress.com/
Labels: election 2008, lake stevens, snohomish
Great Catch, Right?
This one's been making the rounds.
Nope, that's not Neo's lesser-known sister moonlighting as a ball girl, that's a hoax.
Fun to watch though:)
Labels: baseball
Obama Rolling Stone Cover
Video: Obama Talks to Staff
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
A cool behind the scenes look at Obama addressing his staff at Obama for America headquarters in Chicago.
Labels: barack obama, election 2008
Changes to OtR Blog Format
Hi there. Just wanted to point out the obvious and tell you all that we're working on some site changes here at OtR.
As you've probably noticed, the format has changed slightly. We've got a google-powered search engine to browse site archives, and we're working on RSS syndication for posts and comments. You'll notice that the RSS buttons are there, but not quite working yet...almost there.
Also, we'll be switching domain names soon, so those of you who bookmark, please pay attention to forthcoming posts about a new URL. For those of you that simply click in through the LSJ webpage, nothing will change.
Thanks!
KH
Labels: otr blog
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Auction begins
Sturgeon Derby.
Prior to the auction, Cook said $4600 had been raised towards the
charity dedicated to supporting Everett Firefighter Steve Goforth, who
is in need of a heart transplant.
This Sturgeon is the winner!
@ the Sturgeon Derby!
Developer Files Federal Civil Rights Suit Against City of Lake Stevens
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Is this the picture of man whose civil rights have been infringed upon? Developer Galen Holmquist of Monroe stands on the edge of his proposed development off Grade Road in the summer of 2006.
Local developer Galen Holmquist has filed a federal civil rights suit against the City of Lake Stevens.
According to Washington Court records, Holmquist originally filed a claim in Snohomish County Superior Court, but the case was moved to the Federal District Court Docket on April 22.
I don't have any other information at this time, but if I had to bet, this is probably sour grapes over the City not letting him build ten billion houses on the property he's gobbled up in the Walker Hill/Grade Road area.
Related
LS Journal: Large Development off Grade Road Nears Approval
Labels: court, galen holmquist, lake stevens
Barclays North to Close Doors July 4
From a written statement from President Pat McCourt:
Barclays North took a number of steps to address its financial matters, which included layoffs, consolidation of our operations, freezing the status of current projects and an accelerated effort to sell our projects.
Every effort has been made to clearly, consistently and frequently communicate our status with our employees, lenders and vendors.
Unfortunately, circumstances are such that some obligations have not been resolved and we have no other option at this time but to cease operations. We still do not intend to file bankruptcy, but it is a possibility.
The Herald has more here.
Labels: barclays north, lake stevens
Boeing Tanker Protest Upheld by Feds
United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548
Office of the Comptroller General of the United States
Statement Regarding the Bid Protest Decision Resolving the Aerial Refueling Tanker Protest by The Boeing Company
B-311344 et al., June 18, 2008
The Boeing Company protested the award of a contract to Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation under solicitation No. FA8625-07-R-6470, issued by the Department of the Air Force, for KC-X aerial refueling tankers to begin replacing its aging tanker fleet. Boeing challenged the Air Force’s technical and cost evaluations, conduct of discussions, and source selection decision.
Our Office sustained Boeing’s protest on June 18, 2008. The 69-page decision was issued under a protective order, because the decision contains proprietary and source selection sensitive information. We have directed counsel for the parties to promptly identify information that cannot be publicly released so that we can expeditiously prepare and release, as soon as possible, a public version of the decision.
Although the Air Force intends to ultimately procure up to 179 KC-X aircraft, the solicitation provided for an initial contract for system development and demonstration of the KC-X aircraft and procurement of up to 80 aircraft. The solicitation provided that award of the contract would be on a “best value” basis, and stated a detailed evaluation scheme that identified technical and cost factors and their relative weights. With respect to the cost factor, the solicitation provided that the Air Force would calculate a “most probable life cycle cost” estimate for each offeror, including military construction costs. In addition, the solicitation provided a detailed system requirements document that identified minimum requirements (called key performance parameter thresholds) that offerors must satisfy to receive award. The solicitation also identified desired features and performance characteristics of the aircraft (which the solicitation identified as “requirements,” or in certain cases, as objectives) that offerors were encouraged, but were not required, to provide.
The agency received proposals and conducted numerous rounds of negotiations with Boeing and Northrop Grumman. The Air Force selected Northrop Grumman’s proposal for award on February 29, 2008, and Boeing filed its protest with our Office on March 11, supplementing it numerous times thereafter. In accordance with our Bid Protest Regulations, we obtained a report from the agency and comments on that report from Boeing and Northrop Grumman. The documentary record produced by the Air Force in this protest is voluminous and complex. Our Office also conducted a hearing, at which testimony was received from a number of Air Force witnesses to complete and explain the record. Following the hearing, we received further comments from the parties, addressing the hearing testimony as well as other aspects of the record.
Our decision should not be read to reflect a view as to the merits of the firms’ respective aircraft. Judgments about which offeror will most successfully meet governmental needs are largely reserved for the procuring agencies, subject only to such statutory and regulatory requirements as full and open competition and fairness to potential offerors. Our bid protest process examines whether procuring agencies have complied with those requirements.
Our review of the record led us to conclude that the Air Force had made a number of significant errors that could have affected the outcome of what was a close competition between Boeing and Northrop Grumman. We therefore sustained Boeing’s protest. We also denied a number of Boeing’s challenges to the award to Northrop Grumman, because we found that the record did not provide us with a basis to conclude that the agency had violated the legal requirements with respect to those challenges.
Specifically, we sustained the protest for the following reasons:
1. The Air Force, in making the award decision, did not assess the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation, which provided for a relative order of importance for the various technical requirements. The agency also did not take into account the fact that Boeing offered to satisfy more non-mandatory technical “requirements” than Northrop Grumman, even though the solicitation expressly requested offerors to satisfy as many of these technical “requirements” as possible.
2. The Air Force’s use as a key discriminator that Northrop Grumman proposed to exceed a key performance parameter objective relating to aerial refueling to a greater degree than Boeing violated the solicitation’s evaluation provision that “no consideration will be provided for exceeding [key performance parameter] objectives.”
3. The protest record did not demonstrate the reasonableness of the Air Force’s determination that Northrop Grumman’s proposed aerial refueling tanker could refuel all current Air Force fixed-wing tanker-compatible receiver aircraft in accordance with current Air Force procedures, as required by the solicitation.
4. The Air Force conducted misleading and unequal discussions with Boeing, by informing Boeing that it had fully satisfied a key performance parameter objective relating to operational utility, but later determined that Boeing had only partially met this objective, without advising Boeing of this change in the agency’s assessment and while continuing to conduct discussions with Northrop Grumman relating to its satisfaction of the same key performance parameter objective.
5. The Air Force unreasonably determined that Northrop Grumman’s refusal to agree to a specific solicitation requirement that it plan and support the agency to achieve initial organic depot-level maintenance within 2 years after delivery of the first full-rate production aircraft was an “administrative oversight,” and improperly made award, despite this clear exception to a material solicitation requirement.
6. The Air Force’s evaluation of military construction costs in calculating the offerors’ most probable life cycle costs for their proposed aircraft was unreasonable, where the agency during the protest conceded that it made a number of errors in evaluation that, when corrected, result in Boeing displacing Northrop Grumman as the offeror with the lowest most probable life cycle cost; where the evaluation did not account for the offerors’ specific proposals; and where the calculation of military construction costs based on a notional (hypothetical) plan was not reasonably supported.
7. The Air Force improperly increased Boeing’s estimated non-recurring engineering costs in calculating that firm’s most probable life cycle costs to account for risk associated with Boeing’s failure to satisfactorily explain the basis for how it priced this cost element, where the agency had not found that the proposed costs for that element were unrealistically low. In addition, the Air Force’s use of a simulation model to determine Boeing’s probable non-recurring engineering costs was unreasonable, because the Air Force used as data inputs in the model the percentage of cost growth associated with weapons systems at an overall program level and there was no indication that these inputs would be a reliable predictor of anticipated growth in Boeing’s non-recurring engineering costs.
We recommended that the Air Force reopen discussions with the offerors, obtain revised proposals, re-evaluate the revised proposals, and make a new source selection decision, consistent with our decision. We further recommended that, if the Air Force believed that the solicitation, as reasonably interpreted, does not adequately state its needs, the agency should amend the solicitation prior to conducting further discussions with the offerors. We also recommended that if Boeing’s proposal is ultimately selected for award, the Air Force should terminate the contract awarded to Northrop Grumman. We also recommended that the Air Force reimburse Boeing the costs of filing and pursuing the protest, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. By statute, the Air Force is given 60 days to inform our Office of the Air Force’s actions in response to our recommendations.
Information about GAO’s bid protest process can be found at www.gao.gov
For further information please contact: Michael R. Golden, GAO’s managing associate general counsel for the procurement law division, 202-512-4788.
Washington, DC 20548
Office of the Comptroller General of the United States
Statement Regarding the Bid Protest Decision Resolving the Aerial Refueling Tanker Protest by The Boeing Company
B-311344 et al., June 18, 2008
The Boeing Company protested the award of a contract to Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation under solicitation No. FA8625-07-R-6470, issued by the Department of the Air Force, for KC-X aerial refueling tankers to begin replacing its aging tanker fleet. Boeing challenged the Air Force’s technical and cost evaluations, conduct of discussions, and source selection decision.
Our Office sustained Boeing’s protest on June 18, 2008. The 69-page decision was issued under a protective order, because the decision contains proprietary and source selection sensitive information. We have directed counsel for the parties to promptly identify information that cannot be publicly released so that we can expeditiously prepare and release, as soon as possible, a public version of the decision.
Although the Air Force intends to ultimately procure up to 179 KC-X aircraft, the solicitation provided for an initial contract for system development and demonstration of the KC-X aircraft and procurement of up to 80 aircraft. The solicitation provided that award of the contract would be on a “best value” basis, and stated a detailed evaluation scheme that identified technical and cost factors and their relative weights. With respect to the cost factor, the solicitation provided that the Air Force would calculate a “most probable life cycle cost” estimate for each offeror, including military construction costs. In addition, the solicitation provided a detailed system requirements document that identified minimum requirements (called key performance parameter thresholds) that offerors must satisfy to receive award. The solicitation also identified desired features and performance characteristics of the aircraft (which the solicitation identified as “requirements,” or in certain cases, as objectives) that offerors were encouraged, but were not required, to provide.
The agency received proposals and conducted numerous rounds of negotiations with Boeing and Northrop Grumman. The Air Force selected Northrop Grumman’s proposal for award on February 29, 2008, and Boeing filed its protest with our Office on March 11, supplementing it numerous times thereafter. In accordance with our Bid Protest Regulations, we obtained a report from the agency and comments on that report from Boeing and Northrop Grumman. The documentary record produced by the Air Force in this protest is voluminous and complex. Our Office also conducted a hearing, at which testimony was received from a number of Air Force witnesses to complete and explain the record. Following the hearing, we received further comments from the parties, addressing the hearing testimony as well as other aspects of the record.
Our decision should not be read to reflect a view as to the merits of the firms’ respective aircraft. Judgments about which offeror will most successfully meet governmental needs are largely reserved for the procuring agencies, subject only to such statutory and regulatory requirements as full and open competition and fairness to potential offerors. Our bid protest process examines whether procuring agencies have complied with those requirements.
Our review of the record led us to conclude that the Air Force had made a number of significant errors that could have affected the outcome of what was a close competition between Boeing and Northrop Grumman. We therefore sustained Boeing’s protest. We also denied a number of Boeing’s challenges to the award to Northrop Grumman, because we found that the record did not provide us with a basis to conclude that the agency had violated the legal requirements with respect to those challenges.
Specifically, we sustained the protest for the following reasons:
1. The Air Force, in making the award decision, did not assess the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation, which provided for a relative order of importance for the various technical requirements. The agency also did not take into account the fact that Boeing offered to satisfy more non-mandatory technical “requirements” than Northrop Grumman, even though the solicitation expressly requested offerors to satisfy as many of these technical “requirements” as possible.
2. The Air Force’s use as a key discriminator that Northrop Grumman proposed to exceed a key performance parameter objective relating to aerial refueling to a greater degree than Boeing violated the solicitation’s evaluation provision that “no consideration will be provided for exceeding [key performance parameter] objectives.”
3. The protest record did not demonstrate the reasonableness of the Air Force’s determination that Northrop Grumman’s proposed aerial refueling tanker could refuel all current Air Force fixed-wing tanker-compatible receiver aircraft in accordance with current Air Force procedures, as required by the solicitation.
4. The Air Force conducted misleading and unequal discussions with Boeing, by informing Boeing that it had fully satisfied a key performance parameter objective relating to operational utility, but later determined that Boeing had only partially met this objective, without advising Boeing of this change in the agency’s assessment and while continuing to conduct discussions with Northrop Grumman relating to its satisfaction of the same key performance parameter objective.
5. The Air Force unreasonably determined that Northrop Grumman’s refusal to agree to a specific solicitation requirement that it plan and support the agency to achieve initial organic depot-level maintenance within 2 years after delivery of the first full-rate production aircraft was an “administrative oversight,” and improperly made award, despite this clear exception to a material solicitation requirement.
6. The Air Force’s evaluation of military construction costs in calculating the offerors’ most probable life cycle costs for their proposed aircraft was unreasonable, where the agency during the protest conceded that it made a number of errors in evaluation that, when corrected, result in Boeing displacing Northrop Grumman as the offeror with the lowest most probable life cycle cost; where the evaluation did not account for the offerors’ specific proposals; and where the calculation of military construction costs based on a notional (hypothetical) plan was not reasonably supported.
7. The Air Force improperly increased Boeing’s estimated non-recurring engineering costs in calculating that firm’s most probable life cycle costs to account for risk associated with Boeing’s failure to satisfactorily explain the basis for how it priced this cost element, where the agency had not found that the proposed costs for that element were unrealistically low. In addition, the Air Force’s use of a simulation model to determine Boeing’s probable non-recurring engineering costs was unreasonable, because the Air Force used as data inputs in the model the percentage of cost growth associated with weapons systems at an overall program level and there was no indication that these inputs would be a reliable predictor of anticipated growth in Boeing’s non-recurring engineering costs.
We recommended that the Air Force reopen discussions with the offerors, obtain revised proposals, re-evaluate the revised proposals, and make a new source selection decision, consistent with our decision. We further recommended that, if the Air Force believed that the solicitation, as reasonably interpreted, does not adequately state its needs, the agency should amend the solicitation prior to conducting further discussions with the offerors. We also recommended that if Boeing’s proposal is ultimately selected for award, the Air Force should terminate the contract awarded to Northrop Grumman. We also recommended that the Air Force reimburse Boeing the costs of filing and pursuing the protest, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. By statute, the Air Force is given 60 days to inform our Office of the Air Force’s actions in response to our recommendations.
Information about GAO’s bid protest process can be found at www.gao.gov
For further information please contact: Michael R. Golden, GAO’s managing associate general counsel for the procurement law division, 202-512-4788.
Labels: boeing
Sturgeon Derby Saturday
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Don't forget to head on over to Lake Firefighter/friend of OtR Pat Cook's charity sturgeon derby this Saturday at Priest Point. Proceeds benefit stricken fire guy Steve Goforth.
The Herald's Wayne Kruse has all the details.
First prize is a thousand bucks. Maybe you'll get lucky and tie into a ball of 30,000 humping sturgeons like the one that turned up in the Columbia earlier this year.
Border Battles Revisited
So, I've kinda backed away from the Lake Stevens vs. Snohomish turf battle over the last week, but I thought we should note that the County Council voted 4-1 today to throw both the Lake Stevens and Snohomish/Mike Reid proposals off the docket - effectively telling both cities that no one entitity was gonna grab all the goodies for themselves.
We first wrote about this a few weeks ago, and I editorialized in my OtR/LS Journal column that the County Council (and Council President Dave Somers) would be wise to junk both proposals.
A bit later, The Herald covered the issue with a sprawling (and quite good) front page feature and arrived at the same conclusion that we did earlier in an excellent editorial they ran Sunday.
And to the haters: this isn't an "I told you so" post. Or maybe it is?
Related:
Will Somers, County Council Allow Border Landgrab?
Guest Commentary from LS Mayor Vern Little
Myth Versus Fact: LS UGA Expansion Proposal
Stealing from the Comment Section
Headed to Snohomish
Letter: LS Always Shortchanged by County
Is Snohomish/Developer Relationship Inappropriate?
LS Chamber Moves on Docket Issue
We first wrote about this a few weeks ago, and I editorialized in my OtR/LS Journal column that the County Council (and Council President Dave Somers) would be wise to junk both proposals.
A bit later, The Herald covered the issue with a sprawling (and quite good) front page feature and arrived at the same conclusion that we did earlier in an excellent editorial they ran Sunday.
And to the haters: this isn't an "I told you so" post. Or maybe it is?
Related:
Will Somers, County Council Allow Border Landgrab?
Guest Commentary from LS Mayor Vern Little
Myth Versus Fact: LS UGA Expansion Proposal
Stealing from the Comment Section
Headed to Snohomish
Letter: LS Always Shortchanged by County
Is Snohomish/Developer Relationship Inappropriate?
LS Chamber Moves on Docket Issue
Labels: lake stevens, uga
Bunny Rabbit Battles
Warning: Adult words in this clip.
Just felt like being inspired so I watched my favorite scene from the Curtis Hanson classic "8 Mile". It's been a while since an Eminem album, and he never acted again after rave reviews in his debut. Where's Marshall been lately?
Just felt like being inspired so I watched my favorite scene from the Curtis Hanson classic "8 Mile". It's been a while since an Eminem album, and he never acted again after rave reviews in his debut. Where's Marshall been lately?
Labels: movies
Picture of the Year?
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Courtesy of the AP.
