AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
SECTION OF PUBLIC CONRACT LAW
MID-YEAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Meeting called to order at 9:18 a.m. by Section Chair Mary Ellen Coster Williams.
Motion: Minutes be approved, by Lannie Elderkin, second by Donna Yesner, passed by acclamation, without dissent.
[Agenda Item 1]
[Off agenda item]
The Chair thanked Alan for another generous contribution to the Public Contract Law Education Project and commended him for his support of the Section. The Education fund supports otherwise unfunded educational program needs of the Section.
9th Annual Federal Procurement Institute - February 26 through 28 - John Pachter
[Off agenda item]
There were about 150 paid registrants for the Institute. The program was outstanding in content and execution. The Program Co-Chairs Marcia Madsen, Tony Gamboa, and Major Howard Roth, USA, were recognized by Mr. Pachter and Chair Williams for an outstanding Institute. The Chair also commended John Pachter, also a Program Co-Chair, and the Annual and Quarterly Programs Co-Chairs, Greg Smith and Kent Morrison, for their continuing outstanding programs.
[Off agenda item, Reference Agenda book Tab 41]
The program is Contract Litigation with a Sovereign Party: An Evolving Landscape. Mr. Churchill summarized the program panels and noted some of the outstanding panel participants.
Hike-Master Churchill encouraged the strong and foolish alike to join him in hiking the Grand Canyon - rim to river and back (17 miles) on April 30th. He encouraged early reservations for the El Tovar Hotel on the South Rim. An organizational party will be held Tuesday night, April 29th, at the El Tovar Hotel. Pat Wittie noted that you need not hike the entire 17 miles.
Update from Emerging Issues Committee on Homeland Security Task Force - Marcia Madsen
[Reference Agenda book Tab 12]
The Task Force is organized into three major subgroups: Procurement Transition; Liability Protection/Indemnification, and State and Local. Ms. Madsen said the Task Force has a complex challenge with the many organizational fronts moving ahead to establish the Department of Homeland Security. The Task Force had a meeting with Corey Rindner, from the Department of the Treasury General Counsel's office. He is heading up the procurement transition effort. The government seems to be focusing on the issues of running the new department on a day to day basis, while the Task Force seems to be more concerned with strategic issues. Each asked the other to share their thinking on their respective priorities, so they could help each other.
The Task Force intends to publish a series of white papers focused on a number of issues, rather than a single report. The Task Force will make the white papers available to the Council before they are published for general consumption. Some of the analytical pieces should be completed by the Spring Meeting. Marcia noted there will likely be a technical corrections bill, which may give the Section the opportunity to comment on the Homeland Security Act.
[Reference Agenda book Tabs 23 & 24]
The Task Force received comments from the Fall Council Meeting and submitted final comments to the Council for approval. On January 21st we received Blanket Authority for the comments and on Jan 27th comments were sent to Congressman Davis. His staff was appreciative of our comments and was using them. There will be a SARA II, which should be out this week, with introduction of the bill in the next two or three weeks.
Chair Williams recused herself and turned the discussion over to Chair-Elect Hugh Bell.
DISCUSSION: Chair-Elect Bell solicited comments on Time and Material (T&M) and Labor Hour (LH) contracting. Marcia Madsen noted that the Section's comments on SARA talk about T&M contracting. During one of the Institute panels on Thursday we heard some interesting information on the commercial use of the T&M contracting processes, and it seems the Section should create a white paper on this contracting method, which would make this topic ready for future comments. It is not necessary to amend our already submitted comments. Stan Dees supported Marcia's views that we should be ready with a paper to assure accountability when use of T&M contracting is part of the discussion.
Chair-Elect Bell noted that there are apparently differing views in industry on the use of T&M contracts for the purchase of IT services, so the Section should not be so quick to say that there is a commercial practice one way or the other. Mark Langevin pointed out that our comments on SARA do not endorse the use of T&M contracting, nor do we disparage their use. The report only says that these contracts may be used when appropriate. Pat Wittie agreed that we should not file a supplement to the Section comments already submitted and writing a white paper on the issue is the way we should go now. Marcia Madsen noted that it is likely that we will have the opportunity to comment again on the new SARA II legislation.
Dan Gordon declared for the record that he has recused himself from this discussion.
The floor commented that new entrants to the IT market place will be most impacted by the reluctance to use T&M contracts. The established firms like FFP contracts, as they get better margins than on T&M contracts. Small businesses and business trying to get established can not take the risk of default and therefore may stay out of the IT contracting market if only FFP contracts are available.
Rob Burton suggested that the Section could be of service in its comments on SARA II by providing a white paper on the history, rationale, and analysis that caused the FAR Part 12 to state a preference for FFP contracts and to prohibit T&M contracts. Why should the government be comfortable with T&M now? What type of safeguards should the government consider when using T&M contracting?
Jerry Walz agreed with Rob Burton and Marcia Madsen and suggested that it is Congress that should be making judgments on assessing he risks to small businesses, as affected or mitigated by the use of T&M contracting by the Government. It is appropriate for the Section to opine on this issue. The floor commented that transparency is the greatest protection for businesses.
Mark Langevin said that the Section SARA comments say that T&M is "commonly used" and that is not a ringing endorsement for the use of LH contracts, and the attendant level of risk with these contracting methods, is a business decision and not a legal issue that the Section should comment upon. Marcia Madsen commented that the Section's analysis could be useful for determining the appropriate course of action and any safeguards that need to be implemented.
Jonathan Shaffer commented that there are two issues being mixed in the current discussion: whether we should change the Section's comments or supplement the Section's comments made on SARA.
Motion: Chair-Elect Bell: asked for a motion for a study on the background of T&M contracting, the history of the prohibition on T&M contracts, and the current practices. This study can be used for comments when the bill is introduced. There was no motion. There was no second.
DISCUSSION: Mark Colley suggested that the Council should ask Gerry and the Task Force if they want to continue to work on this, as they had finished their comments on SARA. Gerry Doyle said the Task Force has no problem with continuing with this study on T&M contracting and anticipated that SARA II will provide an opportunity to comment, as well as when the implementing regulations are made available for comment. Chair-Elect Bell suggested that Gerry contact the Commercial Products and Services Committee, chaired by Phil Harrington, and coordinate how to approach the anticipated comments. Stan Dees noted that it has become apparent that the practice of using T&M contracting is quite mixed and a balanced review of the topic would be useful for us all.
Chair-Elect Bell referred the subject to the Task Force and asked Gerry to contact Phil Harrington and decide how they want to allocate the study of safeguards as they apply to T&M contracting for commercial items.
Chair Williams assumed the gavel and recognized Kent Morrison.
Section Resolution Recognizing the Life and Significant Contributions Of Deceased Member Roger Boyd.
[Agenda Item 4, Attachment 1]
Kent Morrison gave a biographical sketch of Roger's life and accomplishments. Kent noted that Roger had unexpectedly died of leukemia last November. Roger had been a member of the Section Council and truly loved the people in the Section and his participation in the life of Section. Roger lectured extensively during his career, primarily on cost issues. The Roger Boyd fund has been established at the George Washington University Law School.
Section Resolution Recognizing the Life and Significant Contributions of Deceased Member Judge Louis Spector - Dave Churchill
[Agenda Item 2]
Dave Churchill gave a biographical sketch of Judge Spector noting that he had been a Section Chair and a member of the Section Council. Lou had been a member of the Corp of Engineers Board of Contract Appeal and became the first Chair of the unified Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. He was a great mentor to those practicing in government contract law.
Resolution: Dave Churchill offered a resolution: Be it resolved that Judge Spector's life long contributions to the Section be recognized. The resolution was passed by acclamation, without dissent, as the consensus of the Section Council.
Section Resolution Recognizing the Life and Significant Contributions of Deceased Member Judge Robert Gomez - Carol Park-Conroy
[Agenda Item 3]
Carol Park-Conroy gave a biographical sketch of Judge Gomez and his extensive career in contract law. She noted Judge Gomez was an avid golfer and had been a Judge on the ASBCA for 20 years. He brought enthusiasm and dedication to his work on the Board. When he retired from the Board he went into private practice with the same energy he had shown on the Board.
Resolution: Carol Park-Conroy offered a resolution: Be it resolved Judge Robert Gomez be recognized for his contributions to the Section and Public contract Law. The resolution was passed by acclamation, without dissent, as the consensus of the Council.
Carl Vacketta, Editor of the Section Journal, shared with the Section that he and Herman Levy had visited Bob in the hospital shortly before his death and had shown him the article Bob had written which was ready for publication in the Journal. Bob commented that he really appreciated the gesture.
Section Resolution Recognizing the Life and Significant Contributions of Deceased Member Judge Richard Solibakke - Ruth Burg
[Agenda Item 5]
Ruth Burg recognized the memory of Judge Richard Solibakke by giving a biography of his life and some reflections on his career. Ruth noted that Judge Solibakke had been the Chairman of both the ASBCA and the Engineer Board. Dick had been a founding member of the Section and a member of our Council and he had encouraged the Judges on the ASBCA to participate in the Section.
Motion: Ruth Burg moved the following resolution: Be it resolved that Judge Richard Solibakke be recognized for his contributions to the Section of Public Contract law and the legal profession. Also, be it resolved that the Chair communicate these resolutions to the families of those being recognized today and that we have reflected their life-long and enduring contributions to the Section and the legal profession. The resolution received a second and was passed by acclamation, without dissent, as the consensus of the Council.
Don Gavin related a story about Dick Solibakke's dispute resolution skills.
Chair Williams agreed that she will share the resolutions with the families of Roger Boyd, Judge Louis Spector, Judge Robert Gomez, and Judge Richard Solibakke.
Proposal to Consider Formally Recognizing Members Who Have Made Significant Contribution to the Section - Marshall Doke
[Agenda Item 6]
Marshall Doke proposed that the Section create a memorial fund to allow people to recognize the loss of our friends in the Section, as well as those that serve the Section with distinction. The Section could establish a separate part of the Section Education and Justice Fund that would be available for donations recognizing Section members whom we have lost and those who have made contributions to the Section. The donations to this fund would be used to support the works of Section members.
Motion: That the Chair appoint a committee to consider appropriate guidelines, to report back to the Council at the next meeting, for establishing such a fund as part of the Justice and Education Fund, to recognize our members past and present. The motion received a second and was adopted unamiously by acclamation.
The Chair invited volunteers from the Council to be part of the committee. The Chair appointed Dan Gordon, Kent Morrison, Marcia Madsen, Carl Vacketta, and Tom Madden, who will chair the committee. The Chair noted that it is the sense of the Council that this will be more than a memorial fund as we also want a way to recognize living members of the Section.
The Chair recognized Marcia Madsen. Marcia noted that the Section Fellows organization has as one of its functions to recognize members of the Section that make extraordinary contributions to the Section and the committee just appointed could work with the Fellows on its project. The Chair suggested that Tom Madden's committee should discuss its ideas with the Fellows.
[Off Agenda Item]
Chair Williams Recognized Bill Crowley, who has been her deputy this year, and provided invaluable support to the Chair. Bill has spearheaded Chair's initiative to increase young lawyer participation in the Section. We are being successful and need to continue this work in the future. The Chair requested the Council allow her to fill the young lawyer representative position on the Council with Bill Crowley.
Motion: That the Chair be allowed to fill the young lawyer position on the Section Council with Bill Crowley. The motion was seconded and passed by acclamation. The Chair announced that the Section now has a new member of the Council, Bill Crowley.
[Off Agenda Item]
Motion: Dan Gordon moved that the Chair be authorized to appoint a new member of the Section to serve for the remainder of this year as the Young Lawyer's Division Liaison to our Section Council. A second was heard and the Council approved the motion unanimously by acclamation.
[Off Agenda Item]
The Chair introduced Julia Davis, Assistant Attorney General appointed as Principle Counsel to the Secretary to the Maryland Department of General Services. Ms. Davis is a new member of the Section.
Model Procurement Code Promotional Initiatives -
Status of Initiatives in Maryland - Scott Livingston & Paul Dauer
[Agenda Item 10 - Report at Tab 10]
The Model Procurement Code was adopted by Maryland as a result of the Spiro Agnew scandal in 1973. By 1981 there was a Maryland State Board of Contract Appeals with jurisdiction over bid protests. The opinions are published and Scott and Paul will help interested people access the opinions (the opinions are not on line). The General Assembly is taking a look at the way Maryland conducts its business. The Task Force on Procurement Efficiency legislation will be heard next week. Scott drafted a Memorandum for the Co-Chair of the Governor's transition team which is reflected in this legislation. The new Governor is likely to be looking at: privatization, share in savings contracts (which Maryland does not presently have), an equal access to justice Act is being proposed (being opposed by the Office of the Attorney General), Board of Contract Appeals (needs to be strengthened), streamlining procurement, on-line auctions, training for procurement officers, and e-commerce.
Paul Dauer endorses the memorandum found at Tab 10 as an excellent distillation of some of his concerns.
Norm Thorpe noted three initiatives in the Agenda book but said there are also some opportunities in Detroit that may provide a target of opportunity, as the FBI is looking at the books and records relating to the construction of the new airport and the allocation of concessions at the airport.
Norm suggested that educational activity and advocacy promoting the MPC would be facilitated if the Committee had a charter from the Council to perform such activities. Norm suggested the Chair appoint an ad hoc committee, composed of Paul Dauer, Tom Madden, and Craig Othmer, who have volunteered to form such a committee with Norm. The members of this committee would go to state and local officials with copies of the Model Procurement Code and make timely presentations explaining the MPC. Chair Williams noted that the discussion reflected that it is the sense of the Council to promote the MPC. Norm noted that no funds were needed right now but recommended that Education Fund, or some such Section resource, be used to pay for the airline tickets to perform these visits. Norm noted that people will go to the appropriate fund managers to get approval for payments ahead of time.
Pat Meagher suggested that the members of the ad hoc committee create a package of talking points that people could use when the making the presentations.
Paul Dauer suggested the need to coordinate with the MPC Committee and involve Larry Ethridge, who probably has a package of materials or talking points that he used when making such presentations. Also, Bryan Arnold, Chair of State and Local Legislation and Regulation Committee, should also be involved. The Chair noted that Arnold and Dauer drafted the letter to the Governor of California, which got us involved in helping them with their regulations. That letter was co-signed by Chair Williams and the Chair of the State and Local Government Section, Mary Massaron Ross. We should have that Section involved, and Thorpe concurred.
Motion: A motion was made to appoint an Ad Hoc Committee composed of Chair Norm Thorpe, Tom Madden, Paul Dauer, Craig Othmer, Larry Ethridge, John Miller, Margaret McConnell, and Bryan Arnold and that the Committee be allowed to seek appropriations to support travel costs of the Committee by application to the appropriate sources of the such funds.
DISCUSSION: Paul Dauer noted that the Ad Hoc Committee needs to respect and work within the existing Section committee structure, Chair Williams agreed and left the coordination to the discretion of the Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee.
The motion received a second and unanimously passed by acclamation.
[Agenda Item 42 - Reference Tab 42]
The Nominating Committee is currently sitting and seeking names for nomination to the Section Council and Secretary position. If you want to nominate yourself, or another, contact Norm Thorpe, Chair of the Nominating Committee.
Report on ABA's Review of the Blanket Authority Process, and the Section's FAR Comment Authority - Pat Meagher and Greg Smith
[Agenda Item 11 - Attachment 2]
Greg Smith discussed the draft letter to John Vittone, who is Chair of the ABA Ad Hoc Blanket Authority Review Committee. The letter drafted to Vittone requests renewal of our special FAR blanket authority, that we have had for more than 20 years. The letter will have endorsement letters attached, including an endorsement from Angela Styles and David Drabkin.
Motion: Chair-Elect Bell moved that the Council adopt the letter for the continuation of our special blanket authority. Lannie Elderkin seconded.
DISCUSSION: Chair Williams noted that the letter is subject to the comments made earlier in the day by Council members.
The motion passed by acclamation without dissent.
Proposed Changes to the GSA Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) Providing for Acquisition of Information Technology by State and Local Governments Through Federal Supply Schedule Contracts - Prof. Chris Yukins, Phil Harrington, and Paul Dauer.
[Agenda Item 13 - Reference Tab 13 and Attachment 3]
The Proposed rule published on January 23rd as changes to the GSA Acquisition Regulations. Phillip Harrington discussed the proposed rule found at Tab 13, noting specifically that price reductions made by a participating dealer on sales made under this contract will result in an overall price reduction being assessed against the contractor, as provided in the price reduction clause. This provision may create a problem, noting page 3225 of the proposed rule which provides for the use of these federal supply schedule contracts by state and local governments. If State or Local governments make use of these contracts, they can't change the terms and conditions found in the contracts, and disputes may be litigated in state or federal courts using the principles of Federal Procurement Law and the UCC.
Chris Yukins pointed to his slides (found at Tab 13) which he used in his presentation to GSA. Chris's concern is the anti-competitive impact that the GSA rules could have in the commercial marketplace. The price reduction clause was discussed, as were potential violations of the Sherman Act and anti-trust policy.
Paul Dauer noted that the authority for state and local agencies to use the GSA supply schedules is found in the E-Government Act. The draft letter has been given to Council as a discussion item, but it is not intended to be the letter for Council approval. This will not be the final form of the letter, although the letter identifies some of the issues. Under Homeland Security Act the authority for use is limited to IT under Schedule 70. It will be necessary for the state and local government to access special IT to be able to use the same IT. Supply schedule terms and conditions must be used, except for disputes and patent indemnity and any clause unique to government contracts. The Federal government is not a party to the contract entered into by state and local entities. Comments on the Regulations are required by March 24.
Tom Hill, Co-Chair of the State and Local Procurement Division, commented on the interplay between federal, state, and local laws and their overlapping authority. Regulations should make it clear that statute is not a grant of authority to enter into a FSS Schedule 70 contract - state and local governments would have to have their own authority to use Schedule 70. No disputes clause is incorporated in these regulations - litigation will be in state and local courts, but it would appear that a dispute resolution method should be incorporated in the contracts with the vendors. The disputes clause does not have to be the federal scheme. Most favored customer clause: regulations should clarify that state and local orders would be under the federal clause and not the state and local rules. The Regulations say that the general principles of federal procurement law will apply but these Regulations should be more specifically identified, since users will be the state and local procurement officials who may not be familiar with the federal processes. Chris Yukins suggested that the GSBCA should be the ADR dispute forum, which would de facto require the application of federal dispute law
In response to a question by Dan Gordon, Paul Dauer opined that there is now no requirement for competition and he expects, based on the experience in California, that the schedules will be used as a vehicle to circumvent competition.
Pat Meagher suggested that our comment letter should point out that the Section believes that having the terms and conditions on a take-it-or-leave-it basis is a good thing. Paul Dauer also said that the letter should be completed within a week for circulation to the Council for comments. April 24 is when the GSA intends to implement state usage of the schedules.
Dave Drabkin said that he was looking forward to getting comments from the Section and that our comments should address the proper disputes resolution forum. It is GSA's intention to have the regulations effective at the same time as the statute, April 19th. March 24th is the firm date for comments, but GSA will consider comments that are submitted prior to the actual publication date of the rule. There will be another public meeting held by GSA March 10th to get as much discussion on the regulations as possible.
Pat Meagher pointed out that we have an obligation to coordinate the comment letter with State and Local Government Law Section, even though our comments are based upon our FAR comment authority.
Chair-Elect Bell will sign the comment letter and not Chair Williams, because Chair Williams recused herself. Bryan Arnold is Chair of the State and Local Procurement Division's Legislation and Regulation Coordination Committee, which is the cognizant committee for this action. Pat Wittie, John Pavlick, and Chris Yukins volunteered to help with drafting the letter. Paul Dauer said the Council should have a draft by the middle of next week. Comments should be addressed directly to Tom Hill and Paul Dauer.
[Agenda Item 16]
The report is behind schedule but there are excusable delays. The past performance survey was launched on the internet in the middle of December, but had received 130 responses within a month.
In mid-January Al Purdue and Rick Vacura were invited to attend the DoD Integrated Process Team for Past Performance, which included all of the DoD focal points and points of contact within DoD, and affiliated agencies, that are interested in past performance. This group wants to see our data for inclusion in their guide. The group suggested that the survey be distributed to their mailing list to get program people, contractors, and government people included in the survey. The cut-off date for consideration of submitted surveys has been changed to March 15th . A detailed briefing is now scheduled for the Scottsdale meeting in May.
The committee now has 1220 responses with an approximately equal distribution between public and private sectors. The surveys have a lot of narrative comments on improvements of the past performance process.
DISCUSSION: Pat Wittie has forwarded the survey to clients and has seen a lot of enthusiasm from these clients, who welcomed the opportunity to comment on the past performance process.
Discussion of White Paper on Commercial and Government Practices for Purchasing Research and Development, and Potential for Publication as a Monograph - Holly Svetz
[Agenda Item 17, Reference Tab 17 ]
Bob Huffman took responsibility for drafting the white paper found at Tab 17. The white paper memorializes the April 22nd meeting of the Research and Development and Intellectual Property Committee discussing Commercial and Government Practices for Purchasing R&D.
DISCUSSION: Norm Thorpe noted that the Chief Counsel for Congressman Davis's Committee asked Norm to provide him a copy of a paper memorializing the meeting. The paper and presentation material has been posted on the Committee web site and distributed by CD to the attendees. This is not a matter for Council approval as it is a record of the presentations.
Proposed Changes to the FAR and SBA Regulations to Reduce Contract Bundling and Mitigate Contract Bundling Determined to be Necessary and Justified -John Jensen, Small Business Committee Co-Chair
[Agenda Item 18, Reference Tab 18]
This is a report on the proposed changes to the FAR and the SBA regulations concerning contract bundling. The proposed rules were issued on January 31st, found at Tab 18. The purpose of the rules is to implement recommendations made by OMB in a report issued in October 2002, at the request of the President. Current law does not favor contract bundling and, when used, seeks to mitigate its impact on small businesses.
OMB made nine recommendations, four of which expressly call for changes to the FAR or to SBA regulations. The Committee focused on the rational basis for these recommendations and not on the policy decisions made by OMB when formulating its recommendations:
1. Task orders issued under multiple award ID/IQ contracts would be subject to bundling review.
a. Committee thinks the recommendation does not go far enough as the standard for addressing bundling should be applicable to task or delivery orders issued by an agency under the agency's multiple award contracts.
2. OMB recommended that the agency OSDBUs review all proposed acquisitions above agency-specific dollar thresholds for unnecessary and unjustified bundling.
a. Consistent with OMB's report, the Committee thinks the regulations should require that the OSDBU review a proposed acquisition plan, be afforded an opportunity to review and react to that proposed acquisition plan before it is finalized, and do so within specified time limits.
3. When there is going to be bundling above certain thresholds that it be carefully determined that the least amount of bundling take place and that the impact be as little as possible on small businesses.
a. The Committee thinks that the proposed regulations support this recommendation.
4. Subcontracting plans should be strengthened. In acquisitions over $100K, past performance should be evaluated as to compliance with small business contracting plans.
a. The proposed changes are not to FAR part 15, but to FAR Part 42, and particularly to the past performance section.
The Committee thinks the proposed regulations go part of the way to implement the OMB report. It would be appropriate for the Section to submit comments on the regulations. There is an April 1st deadline to submit comments.
The Chair invited members of the Council to submit comments directly to John Jensen, noting that she might recuse herself.
[Agenda Item 9 - Attachment 4]
Chair Williams noted that Bill Woods should be deleted from the Item on the Agenda as he was not commenting on this matter and that Rand Allen would report for Bill Roberts.
Rand Allen reported for Sandy Hoe and Bill Roberts, co-chairs, with Mike Mutek of the Privatization and Outsourcing Committee. A draft of a white paper on the proposed OMB changes to the A-76 rules has been made available to the Council. This is an out-growth of a report issued by the Congressionally mandated Commercial Activities Panel that was chaired by the Controller General and had both private and government members. The report was issues April 30, 2002.
The Commercial Activities Panel proposed, and OMB tried to implement, an Integrated Competitive Process where the public sector proposal is treated the same as the private proposal. The proposed OMB changes were reviewed, although the proposed changes do not get into much detail on how the recommendations are to be implemented. Three possible approaches for contracting were proposed by OMB for this source selection:
1. Low price technically acceptable.
2. Cost-technical trade off - best value type of procurement.
3. Cost-technical trade off with a phased evaluation - a second round of proposals after the evaluators have leveled the two proposals submitted.
OMB proposes an Agency Tender Official (ATO), to represent the offer by the agency. The authority of the ATO is unclear. Conflicts of interest is another issue raised by the proposed regulations.
The white paper is an attempt to get balanced comments. Comments have been received from government and industry. However, the Committee has received comments from government lawyers and federal union representatives that the paper does not reflect all views adequately, so the Committee decided it will go through another round of analysis to make sure the final product is as representative as possible. Final rule date is anticipated to be within the next month.
DISCUSSION: Jerry Walz expressed serious concerns about part C
Dan Gordon announced that he has recused himself from these discussions.
[Agenda Item 8, Reference Tab 8]
There is a letter at Tab 8 from the Section of Litigation seeking contributions for the Minority Judicial Intern Program. The Chair commended the letter to the Council for consideration by Council members. It will be an action item at the Scottsdale meeting. Norm Thorpe commented that the Section should support this effort and said the usual contribution for a Section is $1,500. Norm suggested that the Budget Officer review this request and Tom Madden concurs.
[Agenda Item 21, Report Attachment 5]
Pamela Roberts, Liaison from the ABA Board of Governors, could not attend today. Pamela Roberts submitted a written report, attachment 5. Chair Williams summarized the report.
Chair Williams commented that she hopes we have the renewal of the Section's special FAR comment authority approved by Annual Meeting. The Section has interim authority for our comments on FAR related issues.
[Off Agenda Item]
Marshall Doke and Allan Joseph are on the ABA Panel reviewing the IT contract over-run.
[Agenda Item 35, Reference Tab 35 and Attachment 6]
Elizabeth Fleming provided highlights of the committee's written report, found at Tab 35 of the Agenda Book.
[Off Agenda Item]
Chair Williams encouraged Section members to donate their time in support of the GW Moot Court competition.
[Agenda Item 15]
Bill has approached Catholic University and American University to hold an information/recruiting reception, as we did at GW. Bill is looking for contacts that can help us get access to the universities to get the functions approved. Judge Loren Smith is helping us at Catholic University.
[Agenda Item 41, Reference Tab 41]
Greg gave a preview of the San Francisco Annual Meeting programs. There will be programs on: Privatization in government; Cost and Pricing Issues; GSA schedule access by state and local governments; and Suspension and Debarment.
Having worn out the Council, and the attending Section membership, with a Council Meeting relentlessly packed with work and the affairs of the Section, Chair Williams adjourned the meeting without dissent or complaint at 12:30 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Robert L. Schaefer
Secretary