EMAIL DETAILS

Agreed.

Virginia

On Sep 29, 2010, at 11:34 AM, "Singham, Shanker A." <SSingham@ssd.com>
wrote:

> So let's use the following:
>
> "CAF USA has not violated, and is not in present violation of any
> federal Buy America laws that attached to this procurement."
>
> From: Virginia Verdeja [mailto:virginia.verdeja@cafusa.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 9:29 AM
> To: Alex Slater; Singham, Shanker A.; Nell McGarity; Jitendra Tomar; hbiden@rosemontseneca.com
> ; eschwerin@rosemontseneca.com; Hilary Rosen
> Subject: RE: Update on FTA Timing
>
> I think our goal has to be simple and clear so that it is
> acceptable. All I want is a sentence that says “CAF USA did not viol
> ate any FTA laws including Buy America”. Let FTA say whatever they
> want about Metro, we should not push for this.
>
> Virginia
>
> From: Alex Slater [mailto:ASlater@skdknick.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 9:03 AM
> To: Singham, Shanker A.; Nell McGarity; Virginia Verdeja; Jitendra
> Tomar; hbiden@rosemontseneca.com; eschwerin@rosemontseneca.com;
> Hilary Rosen
> Subject: RE: Update on FTA Timing
>
> Would stress it’s by no means guaranteed that we’ll be able to
> get this in. But how about:
>
> "We find that CAF USA was Buy America compliant at all times, and
> was subject to confusion around Houston METRO's faulty procurement
> process. It is our opinion/perception that CAF USA was unaware of
> many of the flaws in the procurement program when it contracted with
> Houston METRO, particularly false implications that it was not Buy
> America compliant. In the course of this procurement, we believe
> that CAF USA did not knowingly violate US procurement laws, nor did
> it act in any way in a manner that contravened the spirit of US
> procurement laws."
>
>
> From: Singham, Shanker A. [mailto:SSingham@ssd.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 10:40 PM
> To: Nell McGarity; Virginia.Verdeja@cafusa.com; tomar@cafusa.com; hbiden@rosemontseneca.com
> ; eschwerin@rosemontseneca.com; Alex Slater; Hilary Rosen
> Subject: RE: Update on FTA Timing
>
> Nell: I assume we might be able to inject a paragraph in their
> denial of our Request for Reconsideration. The ideal paragraph
> would say the following:
>
> "We find that CAF USA was not in violation of the Buy America
> requirements that applied to this procurement, because the two LRVs
> that were to be assembled in Spain were not subject to Buy America
> requiremenst since they were subject to a locally funded contract.
> These two LRVs were not the same LRVs that would have been subject
> to the public interest waiver request, and are not essential to the
> fulfillment of the main federally funded contract for 103 LRVs. CAF
> USA was an unwilling and unwitting victim of Houston METRO's flawed
> procurement process."
>
> If this is too much of a stretch for them, we can try:
>
> "We find that CAF USA was Buy America compliant at all times, and
> was a unwitting victim of Houston METRO's wrongful procurement
> process. CAF USA was unaware of many of the fundamental flaws in
> the procurement program when it contracted with Houston METRO,
> including any activity that might have implicated the Buy America
> provisions that attached to it. In the course of this procurement,
> we find that CAF USA did no act that violated US procurement laws,
> nor did it act in any way in a manner that contravened the spirit of
> US procurement laws."
>
> I am sure they will have comments on language and we can work to
> craft something that is satisfactory to all.
>
> Shanker.
>
> From: Nell McGarity [mailto:NMcgarity@skdknick.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 4:50 PM
> To: Virginia Verdeja (Virginia.Verdeja@cafusa.com); Jitendra Tomar (tomar@cafusa.com
> ); Singham, Shanker A.; hbiden@rosemontseneca.com; eschwerin@rosemontseneca.com
> ; Alex Slater; Hilary Rosen
> Subject: Update on FTA Timing
>
> We just got word back that the FTA could have their letter to CAF
> USA done by the end of the week. We are continuing to push for them
> to state that CAF USA is a victim in this situation.
>
> Shanker—what would the exact wording of the phrase be that we would
> need them to include?
>
> Please let me know if you have any questions.
>
> --Nell