EMAIL DETAILS

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