Is our boy tracking on hunting down bubbas? I will call in a
few…leaving office now.
Eric S. Montalvo
Attorney at Law
1800 Diagonal Road
Suite 210
Alexandria, VA 22314
eric@puckettfaraj.com
(703) 706-9566 Phone
(540) 840-7717 Cell
(202) 318-7652 Fax
DC ׀ CA ׀ MI ׀ VA
www.PuckettFaraj.com
Practice is limited to matters and proceedings before special
courts - federal courts - agencies. Confidentiality / Privilege Notice: This
transmission, including attachments, is intended solely for the use of the
designated recipient(s). This transmission may contain information that is
confidential and/or privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. The use
or disclosure of the information contained in this transmission for any purpose
other than that intended by its transmittal is strictly prohibited. If
you are not an intended recipient of this transmission, please immediately
destroy all copies received and notify the sender.
From: Christopher Kannady
[mailto:clkannady@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 7:02 PM
To: eric@puckettfaraj.com; eric@teufelshunden.com
Subject: FW: Q+A - SAIC Translator Contract
important
info
From:
Christopher.Kannady@osd.mil
To: clkannady@hotmail.com
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 17:57:19 -0400
Subject: Fw: Q+A - SAIC Translator Contract
From: Office of the
Chief Defense Counsel [mailto:noreply@osd.mil]
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 04:00 PM
To: Kannady, Christopher Capt OSD OMC Defense
Subject: Q+A - SAIC Translator Contract
|
A reply to SAIC Translator Contract has been
added
|
|
|
|
|
|
Modified:
|
11/5/2010 4:00 PM
|
|
|
Created:
|
11/5/2010 4:00 PM
|
|
|
Body:
|
I just got a call from CA's Legal Advisor. CA has
signed a memo to DepSecDef (actually his Special Assistant) asking for help
in either extending the SAIS Contract or to approve a sole source contract to
retain our interpreters. I'm told the CA adopted much of the feedback
we provided him.
From: Colwell, Jeffrey
Col OSD OMC Defense
Posted: Thursday, November 04, 2010 3:35 PM
Subject: SAIC Translator Contract
Yesterday Mr. Broyles solicited input from you of
anecdotal evidence supporting the idea that our translators are not
interchangeable. Some of you have provided him/me some comments -
please continue to do so - but to the maximum extent practical - please do so
by using SharePoint and adding to this discussion. The anecdotal
evidence we receive, we'd like to pass along to the CA ... so it is not
tremendously helpful if you send us A/C privileged info that you do not
want shared with others. So for those that have
already sent us comments - it would be helpful if you would cut and paste
them here - so all have the benefit of reading them.
Let me put some of this into context. The CA is not
the one trying to cancel the contract. It is the WHS Contracting
Officer (KO). The original contract was a 5-year contract with an
initial base year and 4 one-year options thereafter. We are into the
4th year of the contract. Due to significant cost overruns and some
other contractual blunders with the contract itself, the KO does not intend
to exercise the final option year. Instead, the KO currently intends to
recompete the contract. The contract is due to expire on 3 December
2010 ... HOWEVER IT HAS BEEN MODIFIED TO EXPIRE ON 31 JAN 2011 - so we have
SAIC translator support at least until then. Also be advised that none
of this affects the All World contract (that provide support to most of our
HVD cases).
While transparent to most of you, nearly the same thing
almost happened to us this summer regarding our intel analysts ... but we
were able to successfully advocate for a sole source award to the incumbent
(SRA) and keep our analysts.
Myself, Mr. Broyles, and Capt Murphy and his entourage met
with the CA's Legal Advisor and CA Ops folks yesterday. Everyone
in the room agreed that losing our current translators could have disastrous
results for all of us. I really don't give a damn how this all affects
the prosecution ... but when they passionately agree with us on this
issue ... it can only help. Mr. Chapman asked for us to very quickly provide
him some input on all of this that he could present to the CA with the hopes
that the CA can convince the KO (or his boss - Dep Sec Def) of the importance
of maintaining continuity with this group of interpreters. The input we
provided is attached.
There may be other arguments to be made - particularly if
we lose these interpreters ... for example, you might try to argue that your
client is being deprived effective/zealous representation because of
governmental interference in the a/c relationship ... but I intentionally
omitted these arguments and save them for you to individually make (if
appropriate) in your respective cases ... either now or later.
|
|
|
Last Modified 11/5/2010 4:00 PM by Colwell, Jeffrey Col
OSD OMC Defense
|
|