Subject: RE: Update on FTA Timing
From: "Virginia Verdeja" <[email-masked]>
To: "Alex Slater" <[email-masked]>, "Singham, Shanker A." <[email-masked]>, "Nell McGarity" <[email-masked]>, "Jitendra Tomar" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, "Hilary Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 09:28:36 -0400

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 violate 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:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 9:03 AM
To: Singham, Shanker A.; Nell McGarity; Virginia Verdeja; Jitendra
Tomar; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; 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:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 10:40 PM
To: Nell McGarity; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; 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:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 4:50 PM
To: Virginia Verdeja ([email-masked]); Jitendra Tomar
([email-masked]); Singham, Shanker A.; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; 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