USA War Contracts II

U.S. Department of Defense
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense
Contract
On the Web:
http://www.defense.gov/Contracts/Contract.aspx?ContractID=4828
Media contact: +1 (703) 697-5131/697-5132 Public contact:
http://www.defense.gov/landing/comment.aspx
or +1 (703) 571-3343
FOR RELEASE AT
5 p.m. ET No. 569-12
July 09, 2012

CONTRACTS

ARMY

Rolls Royce Defense Services, Indianapolis, Ind., was awarded an $182,901,902 firm-fixed-price contract. The award will provide for the M250 C30/R3 engine contractor logistics support services. Work will be performed in Indianapolis, Ind., with an estimated completion date of Dec. 31, 2016. One bid was solicited, with one bid received. The U.S. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Ala., is the contracting activity (W58RGZ-12-D-0130).

Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace, Kongsberg, Norway, was awarded an $85,000,000 firm-fixed-price contract. The award will provide for the modification of an existing contract to procure spare parts and services in support of the common remotely operated weapon station. Work will be performed in Johnstown, Pa., with an estimated completion date of May 31, 2013. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with one bid received. The U.S. Army Contracting Command, Picatinny Arsenal, Ala., is the contracting activity (W15QKN-07-D-0018).

AM General, South Bend, Ind., was awarded a $53,100,000 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract. The award will provide for the modification of an existing contract to procure system technical support. Work will be performed in Livonia, Mich., with an estimated completion date of April 3, 2013. One bid was solicited, with one bid received. The U.S. Army Contracting Command, Warren, Mich., is the contracting activity (W56HZV-08-C-0016).

American Contracting, L.L.C, Fort Collins, Colo. (W9128F-12-D-0030); GBK, J.V., Rapid City, S.D. (W9128F-12-D-0026); Mountain Movers/Ainsworth-Benning, L.L.C., Rapid City, S.D. (W9128F-12-D-0027); Pro-Mark Services, Inc., West Fargo, N.D. (W9128F-12-D-0028); and S&K Environmental, L.L.C., Arlee, Mont. (W9128F-12-D-0029), were awarded a $49,000,000 firm-fixed-price contract. The award will provide for the construction services within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Omaha District. Work location will be determined with each task order, with an estimated completion date of June 24, 2017. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with seven bids received. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha, Neb., is the contracting activity.

DCD-YATES, J.V., Ocean Springs, Miss., was awarded a $41,369,000 firm-fixed-price contract. The award will provide for the construction of an operational readiness training complex. Work will be performed in Camp Shelby, Miss., with an estimated completion date of June 14, 2014. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with 13 bids received. The National Guard Bureau, Jackson, Miss., is the contracting activity (W9127Q-12-C-0004).

Cazador Apparel, L.L.C., Anchorage, Alaska, was awarded a $35,218,634 firm-fixed-price contract. The award will provide for the construction services in support medical facilities in Agana Heights, Guam. Work will be performed in Guam, with an estimated completion date of Aug. 31, 2014. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with five bids received. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Little Rock, Ark., is the contracting activity (W9127S-12-C-6003).

EADS North America, Inc., Herndon, Va., was awarded a $15,221,000 firm-fixed-price contract. The award will provide for the modification of an existing contract to procure contractor logistic support. Work will be performed in Columbus, Miss., with an estimated completion date of June 30, 2016. One bid was solicited, with one bid received. The U.S. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Ala., is the contracting activity (W58RGZ-06-C-0194).

General Dynamics Land Systems, Sterling Heights, Mich., was awarded a $13,580,162 firm-fixed-price contract. The award will provide for the modification of an existing contract to procure services in support of U.S. government termination liability. Work will be performed in Lima, Ohio, with an estimated completion date of Jan. 1, 2013. One bid was solicited, with one bid received. The U.S. Army Contracting Command, Warren, Mich., is the contracting activity (W56HAV-11-C-0350).

Katmai Information Technologies, L.L.C., Anchorage, Alaska, was awarded a $10,331,238 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract. The award will provide for the range-operation services and maintenance. Work will be performed in Killeen, Texas, with an estimated completion date of June 30, 2013. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with nine bids received. The U.S. Army Contracting Command, Fort Hood, Texas, is the contracting activity (W9124J-12-C-0001).

Pilkington Commercial Co., Yuma, Ariz., was awarded a $10,030,000 firm-fixed-price contract. The award will provide for the design and construction of a special operations forces free fall simulator facility. Work will be performed in Yuma, Ariz., with an estimated completion date of Dec. 30, 2013. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with eight bids received. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, Calif., is the contracting activity (W912PL-12-C-0015).

Data Tactics Corp., McLean, Va., was awarded a $9,750,507 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract. The award will provide for the research and development services in support of the next-generation multi-modal analysis for counterinsurgency. Work will be performed in McLean, Va., with an estimated completion date of June 20, 2014. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with one bid received. The U.S. Army Contracting Command, Adelphi, Md., is the contracting activity (W911QX-12-C-0059).

Strategic Resources, Inc., McLean, Va., was awarded a $7,456,942 firm-fixed-price contract. The award will provide for the base services in support of Joint Base Lewis-McChord’s mobilization mission. Work will be performed in Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Wash., with an estimated completion date of Dec. 26, 2012. Six bids were solicited, with six bids received. The U.S. Army Contracting Command, Fort Lewis, Wash., is the contracting activity (W9124D-11-C-9000).

Burns & McDonnell Engineering Co., Inc., Kansas City, Mo., was awarded a $7,081,814 firm-fixed-price contract. The award will provide for the services in support of the smart power infrastructure demonstration for energy reliability and security at Fort Carson, Colo. Work will be performed in Fort Carson, Colo., with an estimated completion date of March 31, 2014. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with 17 bids received. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha, Neb., is the contracting activity (W9128F-12-C-0035).

NAVY

Globecomm Systems, Inc.*, Hauppauge, N.Y. (N65236-12-D-3274); DRS Technical Services, Inc., Herndon, Va. (N65236-12-D-3275); and L-3/3Di Technologies, L.L.C., Hanover, Md. (N65236-12-D-3276), are each being awarded an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, firm-fixed-price, multiple award contract, with a cumulative value of $17,001,463 to provide commercial-off-the-shelf satellite network and communications equipment and other services. Each contractor will be awarded $8,333 at the time of award. These contracts include options, which, if exercised, could bring the combined cumulative value of these multiple award contracts to an estimated $85,007,313. These three contractors may compete for the delivery orders under the terms and conditions of the awarded contracts. Work will be performed in Charleston, S.C., and is expected to be completed by July 2013. Work will continue through July 2017 if all options are exercised. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. These contracts were competitively procured with proposals solicited via the Commerce Business Daily’s Federal Business Opportunities website, and the Space and Naval Warfare Systems E-Commerce Central website, with three offers received. Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Atlantic, Charleston, S.C., is the contracting activity.

AQUATE Corp., Huntsville, Ala., is being awarded a $14,837,366 modification to previously awarded contract (N00174-11-C-0037) to provide work efforts for procurement, total package fielding, and sustainment support of state-of-the-art, commercial-off-the-shelf equipment in support of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and high-yield explosives responders. This requirement is to provide engineering and testing; performing modeling and simulation; conducting situational awareness; implementing new equipment and sustainment training; fielding equipment, sustainment, and providing dedicated logistics support to joint program offices and other federal agency customers dependent on critical chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and high-yield explosives equipment in support of their missions. Work will be conducted in Huntsville, Ala. (60 percent), and Aberdeen, Md. (40 percent), and is expected to be completed by July 2012. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head, Md., is the contracting activity (N00174-11-C-0037).

Lone Star Aerospace*, Addison, Texas, is being awarded a $12,367,735 cost-plus-fixed-fee, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for predictive business and technical decision analysis services in support of Naval Air Systems Command and the Naval Aviation Enterprise. The goal of these services is to improve procurement, improve operations, improve sustainment, address unplanned circumstances, and assist management in making decisions. These requirements are focused on activities which align with future mission opportunities and the organizational structure, processes, and analytical justification necessary to effectively address them. Work will be performed in Addison, Texas (80 percent); Patuxent River, Md. (10 percent); China Lake, Calif. (5 percent); and Pt. Mugu, Calif. (5 percent). Work is expected to be completed in July 2015. Contract funds in the amount of $855,011 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to FAR 6.302-1. The Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division, China Lake, Calif., is the contracting activity (N68936-12-D-0033).

USA War Contracts

Seal of the Department of Defense U.S. Department of Defense
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)
Contract
On the Web:
http://www.defense.gov/Contracts/Contract.aspx?ContractID=4831
Media contact: +1 (703) 697-5131/697-5132 Public contact:
http://www.defense.gov/landing/comment.aspx
or +1 (703) 571-3343
FOR RELEASE AT
5 p.m. ET No. 580-12
July 12, 2012

CONTRACTS

NAVY

The Navy is awarding indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity multiple award contracts to 385 contractors that will provide for their competition for service requirements solicited by Naval Sea Systems Command, Naval Air Systems Command, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, Naval Supply Systems Command, Military Sealift Command, Naval Facilities Command, Strategic Systems Programs, Office of Naval Research, and the U.S. Marine Corps. The 22 functional service areas within the scope of the contracts include: research and development support; engineering system engineering and process engineering support; modeling, simulation, stimulation, and analysis support; prototyping, pre-production, model-making, and fabric support; system design documentation, and technical data support; software engineering, development, programming, and network support; reliability, maintainability, and availability support; human factors, performance, and usability engineering support; system safety engineering support; configuration management support; quality assurance support; information system development, information assurance, and information technology support; ship inactivation and disposal support; interoperability, test and evaluation, trials support; measurement facilities, range, and instrumentation support; acquisition logistics support; supply and provisioning support; training support; in-service engineering, fleet introduction, installation and checkout support; program support; functional and administrative support, and public affairs and multimedia support. These contracts are in addition to the existing 2,501 contracts previously awarded under the SeaPort Enhanced (SeaPort-e) acquisition program for services procurements. The government estimates a maximum of $5,300,000,000 of services will be procured per year via orders issued under the SeaPort-e multiple award contracts. The award of these contracts is a result of the SeaPort-e Rolling Admissions solicitation. The SeaPort-e acquisition is comprised of seven regional zones in which task orders will be competed based upon the principal place of performance. These awards contain provisions to set aside requirements for small businesses, service disabled veteran owned small businesses, 8a business development program and historically under-utilized business zone small businesses. Under these multiple award contracts, each contractor will be provided a fair opportunity to compete for individual task orders solicited within their zone or zones of performance. The awards have a two-year base period with one five-year award term. These contracts were competitively procured via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online website, with 415 offers received and 385 contracts awarded. Contract funds will be obligated at the time of task order award and as such, multiple funding types (with varying expiration dates) may be used, consistent with the purpose for which the funds were appropriated. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division, Dahlgren, Va., is the contracting activity (N00178-12-D-6741 through N00178-12-D-7127). The list of contractors involved are: 5-D Systems, Inc.*, Round Rock, Texas; 6e Technologies*, Lafayette, Colo.; A&T Marketing, Inc. dba AT Networks*, Columbia, Md.; Aboutscan, Inc.*, San Ramon, Calif.; Accutype Services, Inc.*, Charlottesville, Va.; ACR Technical Services Inc.*, Newport News, Va.; Act Too Consulting, Inc.*, Ridgecrest, Calif.; ADNET Systems, Inc., Rockville, Md.; Advanced Concepts and Technology International, L.L.C. dba ACT-I*, Waco, Texas; Advanced Concepts Enterprises, Inc., dba ACES*, Shalimar, Fla.; Advanced Fusion Technologies, L.L.C.*, Lihue, Hawaii; AE Strategies, L.L.C.*, McLean, Va.; AERMOR L.L.C.*, Canton, N.C.; AES Technology, L.L.C.*, San Marcos, Texas; Aethercomm, Inc., Carlsbad, Calif.; AFG Group Inc., dba AFG Construction Management*, Herndon, Va.; AIS Engineering Inc.*, Silver Spring, Md.; Alakai Consulting & Engineering, Inc.*, Mililani, Hawaii; Alico Systems Inc.*, Torrance, Calif.; Allagash Group L.L.C.*, Columbia, Md.; Alliant Technologies L.L.C.*, Louisville, Ky.; Alpha Omega Group*, Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif.; Alutiiq Pacific, L.L.C.*, Anchorage, Alaska; Alytic, Inc.*, Sterling, Va.; Anchor Point Technology Resources, Inc.*, Indianapolis, Ind.; APPEREON Business Solutions Inc., dba ABSI*, Baltimore, Md.; Appledore Marine Engineering, Inc.*, Portsmouth, N.H.; Applied Energetics, Inc.*, Tucson, Ariz.; Applied Minds L.L.C.*, Glendale, Calif.; Applied Radar, Inc.*, North Kingstown, R.I.; Ares Corp., dba Ares Government Services, Burlingame, Calif.; ArgenTech Solutions Inc.*, Durham, N.H.; Assevero Security Consulting, L.L.C.*, Annapolis, Md.; Assisted Management Solutions, Inc., dba AMS*, Leonardtown, Md.; Assura, Inc.*, Henrico, Va.; ASTRO Systems, Inc.*, Bethesda, Md.; Athena Technology Group, Inc.*, Falls Church, Va.; Atlantic Diving Supply Inc., dba ADS, Virginia Beach, Va.; AttivaSoft, L.L.C.*, Columbia, Md.; Auxiliary Systems, Inc.*, Norfolk, Va.; Avansis, Inc.*, Alpharetta, Ga.; Avatar Technologies, Inc.*, Melbourne, Fla.; AVID L.L.C.*, Yorktown, Va.; Avionics Test and Analysis Corp., dba ATAC*, Niceville, Fla.; AXIS Management Group, L.L.C.*, McLean, Va.; BAER Consulting Firm L.L.C., dba BMK Consultants*, St Paul, Minn.; Banyan Technology Solutions, Inc.*, Rockville, Md.; Bay West, Inc.*, St. Paul, Minn.; Beacon Interactive Systems*, Cambridge, Mass.; Bentler Enterprises Inc.*, Lanham, Md.; Berhanu, Eskinder dba EBA*, San Diego, Calif.; Bering Straits Aerospace Services L.L.C.*, Anchorage, Alaska; Bevilacqua Research Corp.*, Huntsville, Ala.; BinTech, Inc.*, Vienna, Va.; Birdi and Associates, Inc.*, Pasadena, Calif.; Blue Glacier Management Group Inc.*, Fairfax, Va.; Blue River Information Technology, L.L.C., dba Blue River IT*, Arlington, Va.; Blue Water Media L.L.C.*, Greenbelt, Md.; BNL Inc.*, Lovettsville, Va.; Boecore*, Colorado Springs, Colo.; Book Zurman, Inc.*, Largo, Fla.; Bowen Consulting Group, Inc., dba Bowen Group,*, Stafford, Va.; BPX Technologies, Inc.*, Rockville, Md.; Braxton-Grant Technologies, Inc.*, Woodstock, Md.; Buffalo Group L.L.C.,*, Reston, Va.; Business Information Technology Solutions Inc., dba BITS*, Alexandria, Va.; Caduceus HealthCare Inc.*, Atlanta, Ga.; Calhoun International, L.L.C.*, Tampa, Fla.; Calloway and Associates, Inc.*, Raleigh, N.C.; Carolinas IT dba Sytec Business Solutions*, Raleigh, N.C.; Carrington Services Group, L.L.C.*, Owings Mills, Md.; CBX Technologies, Inc.*, Oakland, Calif.; Center for Strategic & International Studies dba CSIS*, Washington, D.C.; Centris Consulting, Inc.*, Scranton, Pa.; Change Stride L.L.C.*, Sterling Heights, Mich.; CKA, L.L.C.*, Reston, Va.; Cloudburst Security L.L.C.*, Alexandria, Va.; CNF Technologies Corp., dba Cyber Net Force*, San Antonio, Texas; Code Plus, Inc.*, Fairfax, Va.; Colossal Contracting L.L.C.*, Alexandria, Va.; COMINT Systems Corp.*, Springfield, Va.; Command Languages Inc., dba CLI Solutions*, Tampa, Fla.; Conley & Associates Inc.*, Grover, Mo.; Continental Tide Defense Systems Inc.*, Hazleton, Pa.; Contracting Resources Group, Inc., dba CRG*, Baltimore, Md.; Cornerstone Technology Services, L.L.C.*, Mount Jackson, Va.; CornerTurn, L.L.C.*, Corona, Calif.; Corps Solutions, L.L.C.*, Stafford, Va.; Crawford Consulting Services Inc.*, East Pittsburgh, Pa.; Crescent Resources, L.L.C.*, New Orleans, La.; Crowley Technical Services, L.L.C.*, Jacksonville, Fla.; CSIC Corp.*, San Diego, Calif.; CSMI L.L.C., dba CSMI*, Lawrence, Mass.; Cyber Squared Inc.*, Arlington, Va.; Cybrix Group Inc.*, Tampa, Fla.; Data Center Enhancements Inc.*, Saint Charles, Ill.; Data Networks Inc., dba Data Networks Corp.*, Reston, Va.; DAVetTechs L.L.C., dba Disabled American Veteran Technologies*, Honolulu, Hawaii; Definitive Logic Corp.*, Arlington, Va.; Delta Epsilon Technologies, L.L.C.*, McLean, Va.; Delta Solutions & Strategies, L.L.C.*, Colorado Springs, Colo.; Design West Technologies Inc., dba Design West Aratech*, Tustin, Calif.; Dev Sion Corp.*, Cary, N.C.; DfR Solutions, L.L.C.*, College Park, Md.; DHA Group Inc
., dba DHA*, Washington, D.C.; DHPC Technologies, Inc.*, Woodbridge, N.J.; Digital Outfit*, San Diego, Calif.; Digitized Schematic Solutions L.L.C.*, Westlake Village, Calif.; Dimension Consulting Inc.*, Ashburn, Va.; DoVeDa Enterprises Inc.*, Mountain View, Calif.; Dragoon Technologies Inc.*, Sterling, Va.; DSFederal Inc.*, Gaithersburg, Md.; Dynamic Network Enterprises, Inc.*, Stafford, Va.; Eclipse Group Inc.*, Annapolis, Md.; ECSI International Inc., dba ECSI*, Clifton, N.J.; Edaptive Systems L.L.C.*, Owings Mills, Md.; Egressone Corp., dba Egressone Technology Group*, Irving, Texas; ELAN Technical and Administrative Services L.L.C.*, San Diego, Calif.; Ellis & Ellis Associates, E2, Inc.*, Saint Petersburg, Fla.; E-merging Technologies Group Inc.*, Cleveland, Ohio; Engineered Testing Systems L.L.C.*, Indianapolis, Ind.; Enterprise Technology Services L.L.C., dba ETS*, Herndon, Va.; eScribeSolutions Inc.*, Virginia Beach, Va.; Espey Mfg & Electronics Corp.*, Saratoga Springs, N.Y.; EXCEL Staffing Services dba EXCEL Management Services Inc.*, Richmond, Va.; Exceptional Employees for Exceptional Results Inc., dba E3R Inc., Trade Style*, El Cajon, Calif.; Executech Strategic Consulting L.L.C.*, Woodbridge, Va.; Eyak Technology L.L.C. dba Eyak Tek, Sterling, Va.; Fairwater Associates L.L.C.*, Norfolk, Va.; Federal Acquisition Strategies L.L.C.*, Fredericksburg, Va.; Fidelity Technologies Corp., Reading, Pa.; FM Talent Source L.L.C.*, Silver Spring, Md.; FnnTEK Inc.*, McDonough, Ga.; FPS Communications L.L.C.*, Dumfries, Va.; Frankie Friend & Associates Inc.*, Centennial, Colo.; G4I Staffing Support*, Vienna, Va.; GaN Corp.*, Huntsville, Ala.; GB-SYS, Inc., dba Genesis Business Systems*, San Antonio, Texas; Gemini 3 Group Inc.*, Stafford, Va.; Genova Technologies*, Cedar Rapids, Iowa; Geospatial Consulting Group International, L.L.C., dba GEOCGI*, Alexandria, Va.; Get It Done (GID) Solutions L.L.C., dba GID Solutions L.L.C.*, Fredericksburg, Va.; Govsolutions Inc.*, Virginia Beach, Va.; Graham Staffing Services Inc., dba Graham Staffing*, Rockville, Md.; Grant Thornton L.L.P., Alexandria, Va.; Green Mountain Communications Inc.*, Pembroke, N.H.; GreenLine Systems Inc.*, Arlington, Va.; Gupton and Associates Inc.*, Alexandria, Va.; Heartwood Studios Inc.*, San Mateo, Calif.; Heron Associates Inc.*, Vienna, Va.; High Impact Services Inc.*, Noblesville, Ind.; Human Potential Consultants L.L.C.*, Carson, Calif.; HumanTouch L.L.C.*, McLean, Va.; ICC Software Inc.*, Plano, Texas; ICEL Integrated Services L.L.C.*, Severn, Md.; Ideaon*, Concord, Calif.; Index Group Inc.*, Rockville, Md.; InDyne Inc., Reston, Va.; Information Management Consultants Inc.*, Reston, Va.; Information Management Group Inc., dba IMG*, Fairfax, Va.; Information Systems Solutions Inc., dba ISSI*, Rockville, Md.; Information Technology Company L.L.C., dba Information Technology*, Falls Church, Va.; Information Technology Strategies L.L.C., dba IT-STRAT*, Dulles, Va.; Innovative Management Strategists L.L.C.*, Woodbridge, Va.; Innovative Solutions & Integration Strategies Corp., dba I.S.I.S. Corp.*, Williamsburg, Va.; Innovative Systems Group, Inc.*, Raleigh, N.C.; InQuirere L.L.C.*, Middletown, N.Y.; InquisIT L.L.C.*, Chantilly, Va.; Integrated Design Group Inc.*, Boston, Mass.; Integrated Solutions Management Inc., dba ISM*, Tampa, Fla.; Integrity PCB Design Inc., dba Integrity Engineering & Design Solution*, Scottsdale, Ariz.; Intellectus, L.L.C., dba Intellectus*, Chantilly, Va.; IntelliDyne L.L.C., Falls Church, Va.; Intelligent Waves L.L.C.,*, Reston, Va.; Interactive Process Technology L.L.C.*, Jamaica Plain, Mass.; International Software Systems Inc.*, Greenbelt, Md.; Interspec L.L.C.*, Virginia Beach, Va.; Intratek Computer Inc.*, Santa Ana, Calif.; IP-Plus Consulting, Inc.*, Columbia, Md.; J&B Hartigan Inc., dba Technology Management Group*, Carrollton, Va.; Java Productions Inc., dba JPI*, Blacksburg, Va.; JCI Metal Products*, Lemon Grove, Calif.; Johnsons Consulting L.L.C., dba Cutting Edge Technologies & Solutions*, Mesa, Ariz.; JTJ Resources L.L.C.*, Stockbridge, Ga.; K.R.T. L.L.C.*, Chesapeake, Va.; Karda Systems L.L.C.*, Virginia Beach, Va.; KeyBridge Technologies Inc.*, Oklahoma City, Okla.; Keysoft Systems Inc.*, San Diego, Calif.; Kinney Group Inc.*, Indianapolis, Ind.; Kinsey Technical Services Inc.*, Chantilly, Va.; Kitco Fiber Optic Inc.*, Virginia Beach, Va.; Kizano Corp.*, Woodbridge, Va.; Kochur Trummer L.L.C.*, San Diego, Calif.; Konark Software Solutions L.L.C.*, Virginia Beach, Va.; kSARIA Corp.*, Methuen, Mass.; Lean Solutions Institute Inc., dba LSI*, Carlsbad, Calif.; Leed Corporate Services Inc., dba Leed Staffing Services*, Brookfield, Conn.; LeMay Engineering and Consulting*, Anchorage, Alaska; LGB & Associates Inc.*, Fairfax, Va.; Lightship Group L.L.C., dba Ask Services*, Wickford, R.I.; LinkedObjects Inc.*, San Diego, Calif.; Loch Harbour Group Inc.*, Alexandria, Va.; Logistics & Environmental Solutions Corp., dba LESCO*, Huntsville, Ala.; Lone Star Aerospace Inc.*, Addison, Texas; LTC Solutions L.L.C.*, Stafford, Va.; Lynch Consultants L.L.C.*, Washington, D.C.; Lynux Works Inc.*, San Jose, Calif.; Macetech Security Solutions Inc., dba Mace Consulting Services*, Panama City, Fla.; Machristom L.L.C.*, Lexington, Ky.; Mag Defense Services L.L.C.*, Chantilly, Va.; Mahan Consulting Group L.L.C.*, McLean, Va.; Management Recruiters of Fort Worth-SW L.P., dba Siter-Neubauer & Associates*, Fort Worth, Texas; Manufacturing Technical Solutions Inc.*, Huntsville, Ala.; Mav6 L.L.C., Alexandria, Va.; MD Consulting L.L.C.*, Waldorf, Md.; Md2 Systems Inc.*, Glen Allen, Va.; Media Systems Integration L.L.C.*, Chantilly, Va.; MEI Technologies Inc., Houston, Texas; Melco Inc.*, Key West, Fla.; MeriTec Services Inc.*, San Antonio, Texas; Metis Solutions L.L.C.*, Alexandria, Va.; Metis Technology Solutions Inc.*, Mountain View, Calif.; Mid Atlantic Professionals Inc., dba Simply Staffing*, Germantown, Md.; MIRATEK Corp.*, El Paso, Texas; Mirus Technology L.L.C.*, Fairfax, Va.; Mission Solutions L.L.C., Moorestown, N.J.; MIT Professionals Inc.*, Houston, Texas; MSB Associates L.L.C.*, Downers Grove, Ill.; MultiServices Group International Corp. Inc., dba MSGI Corp.*, Tampa, Fla.; National Material Supply Co., L.L.C.*, St Louis, Mo.; National Professional Exchange Inc., dba NPX, Hollywood, Md.; National Marine Mammal Foundation Inc.*, San Diego, Calif.; NBS Enterprises L.L.C.*, Leesburg, Va.; Nelson Engineering Co.*, Merritt Island, Fla.; Netorian*, Middle River, Md.; NetQuarry Inc.*, Fullerton, Calif.; NevWest Inc.*, National City, Calif.; NextGen Consulting Inc., dba NGCI*, Washington, D.C.; Ninx Technologies L.L.C.*, Bowie, Md.; Noblis Inc., Falls Church, Va.; Northern Technologies Group dba NTG*, Tampa, Fla.; Northstar Advisory & Engineering Services*, Falls Church, Va.; Novel Applications of Vital Information Inc.*, McLean, Va.; Nsite L.L.C.*, Fredericksburg, Va.; Nsync Services*, Grand Prairie, Texas; Nuvuk Construction L.L.C., dba Pueo Group Contracting*, Aiea, Hawaii; Obsidian Solutions Group L.L.C.*, Fredericksburg, Va.; Office Automation Systems Ltd., dba Oasys*, Peoria, Ill.; Operations & Technology Inc.*, Lanham, Md.; Optimus Technology Inc.*, Parkville, Md.; Orbis Technologies Inc.*, Annapolis, Md.; OST Inc. dba Optimal Solutions & Technologies*, Washington, D.C.; Pacific Rim Defense L.L.C.*, Aiea, Hawaii; Paragon Research Corp.*, Huntsville, Ala.; Pathfinder Consultants, L.L.C.*, Washington, D.C.; Patriot L.L.C., dba Patriot Innovations*, Columbia, Md.; PAVR Software Solutions L.L.C.*, Fairfax, Va.; PBP Management Group Inc., dba PBP*, Wichita, Kan.; Peerless Technologies Corp.*, Fairborn, Ohio; Pendaran Inc.*, Ann Arbor, Mich.; PGSE Inc., dba PRISM Group*, San Diego, Calif.; Pinnacle Shift Technologies L.L.C.*, Bloomington, Ind.; Planet 9 Studios Inc.*, San Francisco, Calif.; Plateau Software Inc.*, Issaquah, Wash.; PM Tec Inc., dba PM Tech*, Phoenix, Ariz.; Posterity Group L.L.C.*, Ashton, Md.; Premier Systems Sales Ltd., dba Premier Systems Ltd.*, Blue Bell, Pa.; Presidio Networked Soluti
ons dba PRESIDIO, Greenbelt, Md.; PRL Technologies Inc.*, Valrico, Fla.; Probus Test Systems Inc.*, Lincroft, N.J.; Procon Consulting L.L.C.*, Arlington, Va.; Project Support Services Inc.*, Summerfield, Fla.; Project XYZ Inc.*, Huntsville, Ala.; Propulsor Technology Inc.*, Bridgeville, Pa.; ProSync Technology Group L.L.C.*, Ellicott City, Md.; Protech Global Solutions L.L.C., dba ProTech*, Fairfax, Va.; PTR Automation Inc.*, Panama City Beach, Fla.; Pure Integration dba PureIntegration*, Herndon, Va.; Pyramid Quality Solutions & Innovations Inc.*, Madison Heights, Mich.; Qbase L.L.C.*, Springfield, Ohio; QuarterLine Consulting Services L.L.C.*, McLean, Va.; RadGov Inc.*, Fort Lauderdale, Fla.; RationalSoft Inc., dba Rationalsoft*, Reston, Va.; Real Time Consulting L.L.C.*, Phoenix, Ariz.; Resolution Group Inc.*, Indianapolis, Ind.; RF Logistics L.L.C.*, Chula Vista, Calif.; Riverside Research Institute, New York, N.Y.; Romanyk Consulting Corp.*, Plano, Texas; Sabre Solar L.L.C., dba Sabre-Co.*, Bethesda, Md.; Sage Consulting Group Inc.*, Alexandria, Va.; Sand Springs Development Corp.*, Estero, Fla.; Sapphire Innovative Solutions Inc.*, Las Vegas, Nev.; Savantage Financial Services Inc., dba Savantage Solutions*, Rockville, Md.; ScaVet Technologies L.L.C., dba SVT*, Sewell, N.J.; Science and Technology Associates Inc., dba STA*, Arlington, Va.; ScienceTomorrow L.L.C.*, Woodbridge, Va.; SDV International L.L.C.*, Alexandria, Va.; SE2 Spielman Engineering dba SE2*, Camarillo, Calif.; Security Risk Solutions Inc.*, Mount Pleasant, S.C.; Segue Technologies Inc.*, Arlington, Va.; Shadowens Services Inc.*, Lexington Park, Md.; Shine Enterprises L.L.C., dba Shine Systems & Technologies*, Charlottesville, Va.; SIBS L.L.C.*, Gladstone, Va.; Soft-Con Enterprises Inc.*, Upper Marlboro, Md.; Software Transformations Inc.*, Addison, Texas; Solomon Technology Solutions Inc.*, Scottsdale, Ariz.; Solv L.L.C., dba Solv*, Arlington, Va.; Spaan Tech Inc.*, Chicago, Ill.; Spanalytics L.L.C.*, Richmond, Va.; Special Tactical Services L.L.C.*, Virginia Beach, Va.; Spectrum Systems Inc., Fairfax, Va.; SSB Inc.*, Fairfax, Va.; Stokes Evans Ltd.*, Alexandria, Va.; StratComm Inc., dba Boston Publishing Co.*, Natick, Mass.; Strategic Business Systems Inc.*, Clearwater, Fla.; Strategic Innovative Solutions L.L.C.*, Tampa, Fla.; Street Legal Industries Inc.*, Oak Ridge, Tenn.; Suh’dutsing Telecom L.L.C.*, Cedar City, Utah; Summit Technologies Inc.*, Winter Park, Fla.; Sun Technologies Group Inc.*, San Diego, Calif.; Superior Marine Solutions L.L.C.*, Hampton, Va.; Swain Online Inc., dba Swain Techs*, Ardmore, Pa.; Synchron L.L.C.*, Fairfax Station, Va.; Synchronized Logistics & Technology Corp.*, Washington Township, Mich.; Synexxus Inc.*, Arlington, Va.; Sysorex Government Services Inc., dba ISC-Information Systems Consortium*, Herndon, Va.; Systems Service Enterprises Inc., dba SSE*, St. Louis, Mo.; T and T Consulting Services Inc., dba TATCS*, Gaithersburg, Md.; Tactical Edge*, San Diego, Calif.; TaraNet Inc.*, San Diego, Calif.; Tauri Group L.L.C., Alexandria, Va.; TechEdge Solutions Group L.L.C.*, Glenview, Ill.; TechGuard Security L.L.C.*, O’Fallon, Mo.; Technical Control Consultants L.L.C.*, New Bern, N.C.; Technician Professionals L.L.C.*, Waldorf, Md.; Technology Solutions Provider Inc., dba TSPI*, Sterling, Va.; TechShot Inc.*, Greenville, Ind.; Teksouth Corp.*, Gardendale, Ala.; Telstar Associates Inc.*, Boise, Idaho; Tesla Laboratories Inc.*, Arlington, Va.; TestPros Inc.*, Sterling, Va.; Tetrad Digital Integrity dba TDI*, Washington, D.C.; Thomas L. Stowell & Associates L.L.C.*, Norfolk, Va.; Tiburon Associates Inc., Alexandria, Va.; Torch Technologies Inc, Huntsville, Ala.; Trans-Tel Central Inc., dba Trans-Tel*, Norman, Okla.; Trident Alliance Corp. L.L.C.*, Reno, Nev.; Tridyn Group*, Marlton, N.J.; Trifecta Solutions L.L.C.*, Reston, Va.; Trilok Inc.*, Leesburg, Va.; Triquetra Technologies, Inc.*, Newport News, Va.; True Communications Inc.*, Dulles, Va.; Unatek Inc.*, Bethesda, Md.; United States Marine Inc., Gulfport, Miss.; University of Tennessee dba Univ. Tennessee System Office, Knoxville, Tenn.; Uptime Solutions Professional Services Group Inc., dba Uptime Solutions PSG*, Richmond, Va.; U.S. Federal Solutions Inc.*, Alexandria, Va.; U.S. Job Force Inc.*, Norfolk, Va.; U.S. Tower Corp.*, Woodlake, Calif.; VDL-5 Technologies Inc.*, Santee, Calif.; Vend-Tech Enterprise L.L.C.*, Wichita, Kan.; Ventrom L.L.C.*, Washington, D.C.; Ventura Technology Enterprises Ltd.*, Waipahu, Hawaii; VersaTech Inc.*, Savage, Md.; Veteran Corps of America*, O’Fallon, Ill.; Veteran Data Solutions L.L.C.*, Cary, N.C.; VetsAmerica Business Consulting Inc.*, McLean, Va.; Virtual Workgroup Technologies Corp.*, Ashburn, Va.; Vision Information Technology Consultants L.L.C., dba Vision IT Consultants*, Little Rock, Ark.; Vizz L.L.C.*, Pensacola, Fla.; Voletude L.L.C.*, Morristown, N.J.; Volt Telecom Group, Corona, Calif.; W5 Technologies Inc.*, Huntsville, Ala.; West Sound Workforce Inc.*, Gig Harbor, Wash.; Wiltex Inc.*, Norfolk, Va.; Wiser Company L.L.C.*, Murfreesboro, Tenn.; X Corp Solutions Inc.*, Alexandria, Va.; XMCO Inc.*, Warren, Mich.; Yakshna Solutions Inc.*, Herndon, Va.; Zeneth Technology Partners L.L.C.*, Arlington, Va.; ZFI Engineering & Construction Inc.*, Winter Haven, Fla.; Zolon Tech Inc.*, Herndon, Va.; L-3 National Security Solutions Inc., Reston, Va.; and Portland Tacoma Consulting L.L.C., Stevenson, Wash.

Amee Bay L.L.C.*, Charleston, S.C. (N65236-12-D-4827); Cambridge International Systems Inc.*, Arlington, Va. (N65236-12-D-4828); Forward Slope Inc.*, San Diego, Calif. (N65236-12-D-4829); Grove Resource Solutions Inc.*, Frederick, Md. (N65236-12-D-4830); Prism Maritime*, Chesapeake, Va. (N65236-12-D-4831); and Professional Software Engineering Inc.*, Virginia Beach, Va. (N65236-12-D-4832) are each being awarded an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, cost-plus-fixed-fee with fixed-price-incentive (firm target) and firm-fixed-price provisions, multiple award contract for the procurement of Production, Installation and In-Service Support (PII) services. The services required include support of design, acquisition, production, integration, testing, installation, and configuration management of certified C5ISR capabilities, with a specific focus on submarine and surface new construction, modernization, systems production/integration, installation and life cycle support of systems and subsystems integrated within or in support of the subsurface and surface platforms, both afloat and shore based. Each contractor will be awarded $2,500 at the time of award. These contracts include options which, if exercised, would bring the cumulative value of these contracts to an estimated $249,590,000. Work will be performed worldwide. Work is expected to be completed by July 2013. If all options are exercised, work could continue until July 2017. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The multiple award contracts were competitively procured by full and open competition after exclusion of sources under small business set-aside provisions (10 U.S.C. 2304 (b)(2)) via the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center e-Commerce Central website and the Federal Business Opportunities website, with eight offers received. Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Atlantic, Charleston, S.C., is the contracting activity.

Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, Ariz., is being awarded a $45,913,625 modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-12-C-2000) for the procurement of 123 Tomahawk Block IV Composite Capsule Launching Systems (CCLS) for the U. S. Navy. The CCLS is a water tight encapsulating system in which the Tomahawk missile is loaded, shipped and launched from Navy submarines. Work will be performed in Tucson, Ariz. (24.61 percent); Lincoln, Neb. (23.17 percent); Camden, Ark. (12.48 percent); Rocket Center, W.V. (10.3 percent); Carpentersville, Ill. (8.74 percent); Joplin, Mo. (6.63 percent); Hopkinton, Mass. (4.76 percent); Huntsville, Ark. (4.37 percent); Alamitos, Calif. (2.05 percent); Torrance, Calif. (1.47 percent); Downers Grove, Ill. (.75 percent); and Brooksville, Fla. (.67 percent), and is expected to be completed in July 2014. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity.

STARA Technologies Inc.*, Gilbert, Ariz., is being awarded a $14,943,064 firm-fixed-price contract for sustainment of Persistant Ground Surveillance System (PGSS) Operators at Forward Operating Bases throughout Afghanistan for the U.S. Army. Work will be performed in Afghanistan, and is expected to be completed in April 2013. Contract funds in the amount of $14,943,064 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(2). The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Lakehurst, N.J., is the contracting activity (N68335-12-C-0357).

General Electric Co., Lynn, Mass., is being awarded a $13,154,779 modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-11-C-0045) for engineering and logistics services in support of the F/A-18E/F aircraft F414-GE-400 engine. Work will be performed in Lynn, Mass. (90 percent) and Evendale, Ohio (10 percent), and is expected to be completed in December 2012. Contract funds will in the amount of $274,986 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity.

The USA Environmental Inc.*, Oldsmar, Fla., is being awarded a $10,685,460 firm-fixed-price contract for munitions clearance in three remedial action areas, at the Operable Unit 2-B, Non-Time Critical Removal Action, Former Adak Naval Air Facility, Adak Island, Alaska. The work to be performed provides for development of project plans and completes a munitions clearance to prescribed depths in three remedial action areas totaling about 323 acres in accordance with the agreements presented in the Adak Operable Unit B-2, Non Time Critical Removal Action, Action Memorandum. Work will be performed on Adak Island, Alaska and is expected to be completed by July 2016. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online website, with seven proposals received. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Northwest, Silverdale, Wash., is the contracting activity (N44255-12-C-3003).

HDR Architecture Inc., Chicago, Ill., is being awarded $10,000,000 under a previously awarded indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract (N40083-08-D-0065) to exercise option four for architectural and engineering services at Naval Station Great Lakes. The work to be performed provides for design packages repairs and alterations to existing facilities, collateral equipment lists; project preliminary hazard analysis; obtaining permits and regulatory approvals; surveys (topographic and boundary); soil investigations, comprehensive interior design; contractor submittal review; construction inspection, observation and consultation; Operations and Maintenance Support Information (OMSI); environmental assessments; fire protection; anti-terrorism/force protection evaluation and design; designs for phased construction; and as-built drawing preparation. Acceptance of project-related work that requires comprehensive asbestos/lead paint surveying and provide a design that will support the removal, demolition, and disposal of these and other hazardous materials in accordance with applicable laws and regulations is required. The current total estimated contract amount after exercise of this option will be $50,000,000. Work will be performed in Great Lakes, Ill., and work is expected to be completed July 15, 2013. Contract funds in the amount of $10,000,000 are obligated on this award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Midwest, Great Lakes, Ill., is the contracting activity.

Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company Inc., Kansas City, Mo., is being awarded a $8,349,136 firm-fixed-price, stand alone architect-engineering contract for architectural and engineering services required to complete design services for two projects: a Nuclear Power Operational Training Facility and a Nuclear Power Operational Support Facility at Joint Base Charleston, Charleston, S.C. The work to be performed provides for preparation of design/build request for proposals and other post construction design services. The anticipated design start dates are August 2012 and August 2013. Work will be performed in Charleston, S.C., and work is expected to be completed April 2016. Contract funds in the amount of $8,349,136 are obligated on this award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online website with 11 proposals received. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southeast, Jacksonville, Fla., is the contracting activity (N69450-12-C-0025).

Pave-Tech Inc., Carlsbad, Calif., is being awarded $8,344,795 for firm-fixed-price task order #0012 under a previously awarded multiple award construction contract (N62473-09-D-1605) for the design and construction of MV- 22 Aviation Pavement Project at Marine Corps Air Station, Camp Pendleton, Calif. The work to be performed provides for the design, construction, and rehabilitation of aircraft pavement to accommodate MV- 22 squadrons. The contractor shall provide all labor, supervision, engineering, materials, equipment, tools, parts, supplies, and transportation to accomplish the work in accordance with the request for proposal requirements. Work will be performed in Oceanside, Calif., and is expected to be completed by January 2014. Contract funds in the amount of $8,344,795 are obligated on this award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Four proposals were received for this task order. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, San Diego, Calif., is the contracting activity.

FLIR Systems Inc., North Billerica, Mass., is being awarded a $7,057,070 modification under previously awarded contract (N00164-11-D-JQ79). The contract ceiling will increase to $11,500,000 for the test, teardown, and evaluation, repair, and data for the Maritime Forward Looking Infrared System, Combatant Craft Forward Looking Infrared System, Shipboard Infrared Visual Sensor System, and the SeaFLIR system. The systems provide maritime crafts with all-weather, day/night, high resolution, stabilized FLIR (forward looking infrared) thermal imaging capability to augment existing optical and radar sensors. Work will be performed in North Billerica, Mass., and is expected to be completed by July 2016. This is a commercial contract and was issued on a sole source basis in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1), as set forth in FAR 6.203-1(b)(1)(ii). Contract funds in the amount of $13,000 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division, Crane, Ind., is the contracting activity.

AIR FORCE

York River Electric Inc. Yorktown, Va., (FA4800-12-D-0001); Brady-Flour L.L.C., San Diego, Calif., (FA4800-12-D-0002); Heartland Construction, Paducah, Ky., (FA4800-12-D-003); Homeland Contracting Corp., Chesapeake, Va., (FA4800-12-D-0004); Noah MEB JV3, Virginia Beach, Va., (FA4800-12-D-005) and Abbott General Construction Inc., Hampton, Va., (FA4800-12-D-0006) are being awarded a $250,000,000 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract to provide various construction projects. The location of the performance is Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Va., to include any federal institution in the Hampton Roads area of Va. Work is to be completed by July 11, 2013. The contracting activity is the 633rd Contracting Squadron, Langley Air Force Base, Va.

ARMY

Sprint Solutions Inc., Reston, Va., was awarded a $45,000,000 firm-fixed-price contract. The award will provide for the cell phone and BlackBerry services for the U.S. Army Human Resources Command and its subordinates. Work location will be determined, with an estimated completion date of April 28, 2017. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with four bids received. The U.S. Army Contracting Command, For Knox, Ky., is the contracting activity (W9124D-12-D-0040).

Thales Raytheon Systems Company L.L.C., Fullerton, Calif., was awarded a $44,921,549 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract. The award will provide for the modification of an existing contract to procure AN/TPQ-37 Receiver Exciter Installation Kits, associated spares and Firefinder Centerline Software. Work will be performed in Fullerton, with an estimated completion date of Sept. 28, 2012. One bid was solicited, with one bid received. The U.S. Army Contracting Command, Fort Monmouth, N.J., is the contracting activity (W15P7T-06-D-T001).

Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., Stratford, Conn., was awarded a $41,906,702 firm-fixed-price contract. The award will provide for the modification of an existing contract to procure Integrated Logistics Support, Program Management, Aircraft Warranty, Maintenance Manpower and Software Loading to support the 15 UH-60M “Green” aircraft procured for the Swedish Armed Forces. Work will be performed in Stratford, with an estimated completion date of Dec. 31, 2014. One bid was solicited, with one bid received. The U.S. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Ala., is the contracting activity (W58RGZ-08-C-0003).

L-3 Communications Systems West, Salt Lake City, Utah, was awarded a $26,305,900 firm-fixed-price contract. The award will provide for the modification of an existing contract to procure 580 Remote Operations Video Enhanced Receiver 6 upgrade kits. Work will be performed in Salt Lake City, with an estimated completion date of April 30, 2013. One bid was solicited, with one bid received. The U.S. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Ala., is the contracting activity (W58RGZ-07-C-0209).

New World Solutions Inc., Fairfax, Va., was awarded a $25,000,000 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract. The award will provide for the engineering and support services to the Program Integration Office for quick-reaction response to Department of Defense and national requirements. Work will be performed in Fairfax, with an estimated completion date of June 29, 2017. One bid was solicited, with one bid received. The U.S. Army Contracting Command, Natick, Mass., is the contracting activity (W911QY-12-D-0021).

Dell Federal Systems, Round Rock, Texas, was awarded a $21,997,612 firm-fixed-price contract. The award will provide for the procurement of hardware to support the life cycle replace program under the direction of the Science Engineering Center at Fort Lee, Va. Work will be performed in Round Rock, with an estimated completion date of Aug. 30, 2012. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with three bids received. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Miss., is the contracting activity (W91QUZ-06-D-0002).

Defense Support Services L.L.C., Marlton, N.J., was awarded a $20,629,497 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract. The award will provide for the maintenance and support services for the Directorate of Logistics at Fort Hood, Texas. Work will be performed in Fort Hood, with an estimated completion date of Dec. 31, 2012. One bid was solicited, with one bid received. The U.S. Army Contracting Command, Fort Hood, Texas, is the contracting activity (W91151-12-D-0010).

EMI Technologies, Las Cruces, N.M., was awarded a $20,000,000 firm-fixed-price contract. The award will provide for the procurement of General Purpose Instrumentation Vans Shelters and Trailers in support of White Sands Missile Range, N.M. Work will be performed in Las Cruces, with an estimated completion date of June 26, 2013. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with three bids received. The U.S. Army Contracting Command, White Sands Missile Range, N.M., is the contracting activity (W9124R-11-D-0207).

Honeywell International Inc., Tempe, Ariz., was awarded a $17,520,857 firm-fixed-price contract. The award will provide for the procurement of Aviation Ground Power Unit Turbine Engines. Work will be performed in Phoenix, Ariz., with an estimated completion date of Nov. 30, 2013. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with one bid received. The U.S. Army Contracting Command, Chambersburg, Penn., is the contracting activity (W911N2-12-C-0037).

Northrop Grumman Technical Services Inc., Herndon, Va., was awarded a $14,273,646 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract. The award will provide for the services in support of a Government Owned Contractor Operated facility in Afghanistan. Work will be performed in Sierra Vista, Ariz.; and Afghanistan, with an estimated completion date of March 29, 2013. One bid was solicited, with one bid received. The U.S. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Ala., is the contracting activity (W58RGZ-08-C-0025).

American Ordnance L.L.C., Middletown, Iowa, was awarded a $14,126,142 firm-fixed-price contract. The award will provide for the modification of an existing contract to procure M234 and M234A1 120mm Propelling Charges. Work will be performed in Middletown, with an estimated completion date of Aug. 30, 2013. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with four bids received. The U.S. Army Contracting Command, Rock Island, Ill., is the contracting activity (W52P1J-09-C-0029).

Rolls-Royce Corp., Indianapolis, Ind., was awarded a $13,879,930 firm-fixed-price contract. The award will provide for the services in support of the upgraded single channel full authority digital engine control retrofit of OH-58D fleet. Work will be performed in Indianapolis, with an estimated completion date of July 29, 2014. One bid was solicited, with one bid received. The U.S. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Ala., is the contracting activity (W58RGZ-11-D-0257).

Day Zimmerman — Lone Star L.L.C., Texarkana, Texas, was awarded a $12,622,914 firm-fixed-price contract. The award will provide for the procurement of PBXN-9 Supplementary Charge. Work will be performed in Texarkana, with an estimated completion date of June 28, 2017. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with five bids received. The U.S. Army Contracting Command, Rock Island, Ill., is the contracting activity (W52P1J-12-D-0057).

Chemring Ordnance, Perry, Fla., was awarded an $11,777,500 firm-fixed-price contract. The award will provide for the procurement of PBXN-9 Supplementary Charge. Work will be performed in Perry, with an estimated completion date of June 28, 2017. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with five bids received. The U.S. Army Contracting Command, Rock Island, Ill., is the contracting activity (W52P1J-12-D-0056).

DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY

Timken Aerospace Transmissions L.L.C., Manchester, Conn., was awarded contract SPRRA1-12-D-0048. The award is a firm fixed price contract with a maximum $32,738,850 for swashplate controls. There are no other locations of performance. Using service is Army. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2012 Army Working Capital Funds. There were two proposals with two responses. The date of performance completion is July 12, 2015. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Aviation, Redstone Arsenal, Ala.

Crown Clothing Co., Vineland, N.J.*, was issued a modification exercising fourth option on contract SPM1C1-08-D-1104/P00030. The award is a firm fixed price, indefinite delivery and indefinite quantity contract with a maximum $8,509,347 man’s poly/wool, gabardine coats. There are no other locations of performance. Using service is Marine Corps. There were two proposals with two responses. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2012 Defense Working Capital Funds. The date of performance completion is July 26, 2013. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pa.

Dutch Judge Who Ordered Pirate Bay Links Found To Be Corrupt

Judge Chris Hensen, who ordered the Dutch Pirate Party to censor all links to The Pirate Bay recently (something Techdirt calls Censorship Crazy), appears to have quite a bit of dirt in his baggage.

This morning, @Kanarieman pointed me to an article of my own from 2010: just under two years ago, another very strange case went down in the Netherlands. The same judge, Chris Hensen, ordered that talking about file names was legally the same thing as distributing the actual files so named, and ordered the discussion forum FTD shut down. Yes, a discussion forum distributing no files was ordered to be shut down.

At its time, this case was decried as a blatant violation of free speech (but, alas, actually confirms that you can’t have the copyright monopoly and free speech at the same time).

However, something odd appeared in the aftermath. A brochure was discovered, where the plaintiff’s representative in the case – a professor Visser – offered commercial courses in anti-piracy, together with the judge, Chris Hensen. The plaintiff and judge were running a commercial enterprise together, one that had a direct bearing on the subject matter of the case.

Let me take that once more, for this is truly mind-boggling: not only was the plaintiff and judge personally and closely acquainted, the plaintiff in a controversial copyright monopoly case was running a commercial anti-piracy outfit together with the judge in the case. Money was involved. Commercial interest was involved. The judge was, as it appears from this brochure for the quite expensive course, getting money. Shortly after the case. In a directly related matter together with the plaintiff. That makes the judge not only corrupt, but textbook corrupt.

(UPDATE: @LeHoax explains, “It’s not just any course they do together, it’s part of the Dutch bar association’s official training program for lawyers.” This is relevant to the context, of course, and mitigates the situation somewhat, but doesn’t detract from the fact that plaintiff and judge were together in a commercial venture on the direct subject matter – the plaintiff’s side, piraterijbestrijding (fighting piracy), is clearly readable in the brochure.)

This judge, this corrupt judge Chris Hensen, is the exact same judge Chris Hensen that has now banned links to the Pirate Bay from a political party, another equally crazy whackdown on fundamental freedoms of speech. But seeing this background, things fall better into place: the judge Chris Hensen was corrupted to begin with, and has been since at least 2010.

I can’t help feeling that this is getting ridiculous. From the IPRED champion in the European Parliament who was married to the Vivendi chairman, to the lead police investigator in The Pirate Bay case who got a job with Warner Brothers (a plaintiff) immediately on finishing the investigation, to the judge in the Pirate Bay case who was a member of the plaintiff’s pro-copyright organization, and now this – can’t the copyright industry fight for the monopoly ideas on their own merits, without needing biased, prejudiced, and corrupted officials?

UPDATE 2: There are several more interesting references, links, and facts surrounding this story over at the discussion thread on Hacker News. Also, here is a Dutch source that confirms the factual circumstances regarding the business relationship between plaintiff and judge in the FTD case.

Source

UK outlawed encryption

There was some surprise in the comments of yesterday’s post over the fact that the United Kingdom has effectively outlawed encryption: the UK will send its citizens to jail for up to five years if they cannot produce the key to an encrypted data set.

First of all, references – the law is here. You will be sent to jail for refusing to give up encryption keys, regardless of whether you have them or not. Five years of jail if it’s a terrorism investigation (or child porn, apparently), two years otherwise. It’s fascinating – there are four excuses that keep coming back for every single dismantling of democracy. It’s terrorism, child porn, file sharing, and organized crime. You cannot fight these by dismantling civil liberties – they’re just used as convenient excuses.

We knew that this was the next step in the cat-and-mouse game over privacy, right? It starts with the government believing they have a right to interfere into any one of your seven privacies if they want to and find it practical. The next step, of course, is that the citizens protect themselves from snooping – at which point some bureaucrat will confuse the government’s ability to snoop on citizen’s lives for a right to snoop on citizen’s lives at any time, and create harsh punishments for any citizens who try to keep a shred of their privacy. This is not a remotely dystopic scenario; as we see, it has already happened in the UK.

But it’s worse than that. Much worse. You’re not going to be sent to jail for refusal to give up encryption keys. You’re going to be sent to jail for an inability to unlock something that the police think is encrypted. Yes, this is where the hairs rise on our arms: if you have a recorded file with radio noise from the local telescope that you use for generation of random numbers, and the police asks you to produce the decryption key to show them the three documents inside the encrypted container that your radio noise looks like, you will be sent to jail for up to five years for your inability to produce the imagined documents.

A 32-gigabyte noise file, or encrypted data? Can only be the latter.

But wait – it gets worse still.

The next step in the cat-and-mouse game over privacy is to use steganographic methods to hide the fact that something is encrypted at all. You can easily hide long messages in high-resolution photos today, just to take one example: they will not appear to contain an encrypted message in the first place, but will just look like a regular photo until decoded and decrypted with the proper key. But of course, the government and police are aware of steganographic methods, and know that pretty much any innocent-looking dataset can be used as a container for encrypted data.

So imagine your reaction when the police confiscate your entire collection of vacation photos, claim that your vacation photos contain hidden encrypted messages (which they don’t), and sends you off to jail for five years for being unable to supply the decryption key?

This is not some dystopic pipe dream. This law already exists in the United Kingdom – and the vacation photo scenario above, while on the far-fetched side of the scale, is possible. And the basic philosophical problem is greater than the described collateral damage: the government will send you to jail for safeguarding any confidences placed in you.Source

Iranian First Vice-President Rahimi's Comments on Drugs

Iranian First Vice-President Rahimi’s Anti-Semitic Comments at the International Day Against Abuse Conference in Tehran

Press Statement
Victoria Nuland
Department Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
July 3, 2012

We strongly condemn Iranian First Vice-President Mohammad Reza Rahimi’s vile anti-Semitic and racist comments on June 26 at the International Day Against Drug Abuse conference in Tehran. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has confirmed that the conference was not held under UN auspices, nor did officials in attendance have any idea that Rahimi would level such offensive charges. Both UN Secretary-General Ban-Ki Moon and UNODC Executive Director Yury Fedotov registered their dismay and serious concern over Rahimi’s anti-Semitic speech and issued a statement July 3 calling on Iranian officials to refrain from these kinds of anti-Semitic statements.

The United States supports meetings that address the very real crisis of drug abuse and drug trafficking around the world. We trust that parties interested in combating the scourge of drug abuse and drug trafficking will focus their efforts on legitimate international meetings, and will join us in condemning such attempts to take advantage of them to promote hateful, racist speech.

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2012/al-monitor/in-iran-anti-semitic-outbursts-r.html

Which links to this Persian account, translated by Google (better translation welcome)

http://www.aftabir.com/news/view/2012/jun/26/c1_1340705604.php/

Tuesday, Jun 26, 2012 – 02:43:24

The Iranian Students News Agency (ISNA).

Mohammad Reza Rahimi said at the celebration of the global fight against drugs: the development of drugs and glass are rooted in the Talmudic teachings of Zionists.

Rahimi asserted: The Talmud teaches against Christianity and also against Muslims. Judaism considers itself to be served by others.

He continued: what happened in Russia as well as labor unrest resulted from the actions of all the Jews and their leaders, but later research showed that among the Jews not one of them was killed.

First Vice President stated: Wherever there Muslim blood is spilled Yahoods [Jews?] are behind it.

They destroy not only with drugs but also with cultural biases, biases issues they promote to their children, their parents realize that no boy and girl can resist. Rahimi said: Jews dominate the media world’s thinking and work to increase their cultural wealth and resources from plundered countries.

Rahimi said that when Iranian forces entered Afghanistan they found opium cultivation has increased by 60%, otherwise Iran would buy all the drug produced in Afghanistan and convert it into morphine and medical use. We can also reveal that money could taken the Afghan narcotics transit route to Europe and to open the way to earn income for our country, but this is contrary to morality, and contrary to our education.

He pointed out: 13% of opium addicts are in Europe and elsewhere they are common as wine. Despite that we have respect for the followers of Moses, but we are opposed to the Zionists. Zionists are promoting and developing drugs, but they avoid addiction to them.

The First Vice President said: 210 million people worldwide are suffering drug addiction and 27 million people in Asian countries. Rahimi said: According to the rules and regulations of the Iranian leader drug deaths will be publicized. Our question to you based on our few deaths because we do not promote drugs, then what is the fuss.

Rahimi said the spread of drugs in Asian countries and in Africa has not occurred because there is no money to buy drugs.

He also pointed out: 10 percent of Americans are addicted to drugs, but the story behind all these are Shyvnyyst [?]. First Vice President also stated that three million immigrants a year from Afghanistan have been imposed on our country and said on Iran is the greatest nation of immigrants. Our unemployment numbers in the country approches zero because of the low number of unemployed in our country.

Elsewhere in his remarks he noted America’s claims about certain events based on satellite images of prison camps, so he said why not see all fields of opium in Afghanistan? Kvryd?[?]

He said threats to Iran’s independence and freedom is everywhere seen as manifestations of global arrogance and Zionism is the source. Why should Iran give Chharhzar [?] martyr for the anti-drug but not the blood from the nose, decide on one of them.

First vice president said, the Secretary General Staff Drug Head accused importation of opium from Iran but did not go to the Prayer Wall for industrial materials. Who organized importation of this material. Who is behind this.

Rahimi said: Senator, America has sold us poisoned cigarettes to bring down the people and our schools have to say that these are a threat.

He emphasized that the Zionists are behind all the adventures of the drug, said Iran is willing to pay this price for all countries in the world to know that Zionism is the main drug. He said the Iranian people are standing firm and are content with the severe sanctions.

Report: ISNA (www.isna.ir)

Official Cause of Russian Killer Flood Challenged

Translated from the official Russian website.Sorry if the translation isn’t accurate.You can still get the meaning :

Investigation Committee of Russia has announced that during a heavy downpour in the Kuban were plum water reservoir above the town Neverdjayevskaya Krymsk. Rumors that the rapid rise of water during the night was the result of discharges to the reservoir, appeared almost immediately. They fueled an official letter to the leader of “Yabloko” Mitrokhin, “and officials have studiously denied. Vladimir Putin at a meeting of experts was informed that this is impossible. According to recent data, the element has killed 171 people.

Saturday night Putin himself said: “No process water discharge is not provided, it is simply not technically possible to do this is the construction of this reservoir. According to RTN, at the moment everything is in the planning, operation.”

On Sunday, senior assistant to the head of the Investigative Department of the Investigative Committee of the Krasnodar Territory of Russia, Ivan Sanger told RIA “News”: during a heavy downpour in the Kuban were automatically drains the water in the reservoir Neverdjayevskaya, but argue that this has caused flooding early. “Within 13 hours were repeated automatic sinks” – said Sanger.

– July 9 announced the all-Russian day of mourning
– “The Missing Governor” found

Sanger added that the water drains were portions. The dam itself has no damage.

“Interfax” Sanger said later: “Discharges of water produced in the usual, normal mode. Overlap of the dam was not, therefore, discharges could not cause a flood.”

At 11:50 TFR website published a message which says: “Despite the fact that the normal mode provides periodic releases of water are small, but the normal mode of the dam did not affect the development of the tragic events.”

On Sunday afternoon the head of Ministry of Emergency Situations Vladimir Puchkov said that he personally flew over Neverdjayevskaya reservoir on the Mi-8 helicopter, and no damage to the dam there.

The same day, at the suggestion of the governor of Kuban Alexander Tkachev five residents Krymsk up by helicopter and inspected from the air Neverdjayevskaya reservoir, the press service of the Administration of Krasnodar Territory. These people are convinced that “the water discharge was technically impossible” and “Reservoir is not to blame for the flood” broadcast media.

Previously, it was announced that the Investigative Committee opened a criminal investigation into the deaths of people during floods in the Krasnodar region. “The case was opened under Part 3 of Article 109 of the Criminal Code (causing death by negligence),” – said the source, “News.”

In social networks, high-profile post has been a resident of Krymsk Julia Andropov. She claimed that her father, who worked on the reservoir, said an emergency meeting of the committee, where it was decided to open the floodgates. Later, post and page Andropov had been removed, but it kept the cache Google. The report said that opened the floodgates to protect against flooding of Novorossiysk.

Initially, the dumping of water from the reservoir and the Krasnodar environmentalist wrote Suren Ghazarian. Then he abandoned this version: “I have traveled up the rivers and Bakanke Neberdzhayu as I could. Came to the conclusion that the discharge from the reservoir Neverdjayevskaya could not become a major cause of the flood, although residents adhere to this version of events. Adagum climbed all tributaries and not just a river Neberdzhay on which the dam, “- he wrote on his LiveJournal.

In Rostechnadzor agree with reservations MRS. “The project of construction of the dam is designed so that technologically impossible to dump water into emergency mode – said to” Interfax “agency. – At the dam spillway is a structure, but it is in its upper part, and only works in the overflow of the dam, but this is not was. ”

Flooding on the night of July 7 has flooded more than 5000 homes in three cities (Gelendzhik, Krymsk, Novorossiysk) and a number of towns in Krasnodar Krai. According to recent reports of the operational headquarters of the Interior Ministry, the victims of raging element was 171 people. Sought medical treatment, 320 (including 48 children) were hospitalized 104 people. For information about the missing departments do not lead. MOE reports more than 12 thousand victims.

Violated the system of electricity, gas and water supply, road and rail traffic.

The cause of flooding, according to official figures, began to rain showers.

“The Missing Governor” found

The Mayor Vladimir Krymsk Ulanovskii former unavailable for comment throughout the Sabbath, said rescuing drowning, and “he almost drowned.” Its absence in the news bothered blogosphere, even wrote that he “disappeared in an unknown direction.”

According to KP, late at night on July 8 in a live local radio station “Electron-FM” Ulanovskii explained where he was and what he did. “The wave of the order of 3-4 meters, came instantly. We announce event with sirens drove cars. We were distributed to the team, trying to wake people – did not work. We, my team and I did not sleep all night, saving people, attracted by the technique. But when there were more than 3 meters of water – machinery has no way would help. We found the boats with motors, saving people on the boat – I had almost drowned. We shot people from rooftops, from the trees. It was awful. This floods the city does not remember. I still do not know how much water came from – instantly, dramatically. those who died – the kingdom of heaven, to save someone – health. ”

Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2012 16:50:18 +0300
Subject: Weird flood in southern Russia, over 150 dead

Some interesting counterweight from Russia:

These links:

http://www.newsru.com/russia/08jul2012/skrflood.html

and

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fvk.com%2Fwall160960523_52

are describing the standpoint little bit differing from the official (Russian) opinion, claiming the flood was technogenic, as of the choice for officials was either Krymsk will be flooded or a much more bigger city – Novorossisk – will

The key sentence in the cached doc is:

[Russian omitted.]

The approximate translation: Everybody is silent now, but my father was on duty that night and the commission met in a hurry to decide whether or not to open the gates of the Neberdzhajev Dam.

While the official standpoint is that the dam does not have “such type” of gates.

12 July 2012 Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

Oh I have seen that already! I could recognize that anywhere!

The Gentleperson’s Guide To Forum Spies (spooks, feds, etc.)

http://pastebin.com/irj4Fyd5

1. COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum
2. Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
3. Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
4. How to Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent)
5. Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression
______________________________________________________________________________________

COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum..

There are several techniques for the control and manipulation of a internet forum no matter what, or who is on it. We will go over each technique and demonstrate that only a minimal number of operatives can be used to eventually and effectively gain a control of a ‘uncontrolled forum.’

Technique #1 – ‘FORUM SLIDING’

If a very sensitive posting of a critical nature has been posted on a forum – it can be quickly removed from public view by ‘forum sliding.’ In this technique a number of unrelated posts are quietly prepositioned on the forum and allowed to ‘age.’ Each of these misdirectional forum postings can then be called upon at will to trigger a ‘forum slide.’ The second requirement is that several fake accounts exist, which can be called upon, to ensure that this technique is not exposed to the public. To trigger a ‘forum slide’ and ‘flush’ the critical post out of public view it is simply a matter of logging into each account both real and fake and then ‘replying’ to prepositined postings with a simple 1 or 2 line comment. This brings the unrelated postings to the top of the forum list, and the critical posting ‘slides’ down the front page, and quickly out of public view. Although it is difficult or impossible to censor the posting it is now lost in a sea of unrelated and unuseful postings. By this means it becomes effective to keep the readers of the forum reading unrelated and non-issue items.

Technique #2 – ‘CONSENSUS CRACKING’

A second highly effective technique (which you can see in operation all the time at http://www.abovetopsecret.com) is ‘consensus cracking.’ To develop a consensus crack, the following technique is used. Under the guise of a fake account a posting is made which looks legitimate and is towards the truth is made – but the critical point is that it has a VERY WEAK PREMISE without substantive proof to back the posting. Once this is done then under alternative fake accounts a very strong position in your favour is slowly introduced over the life of the posting. It is IMPERATIVE that both sides are initially presented, so the uninformed reader cannot determine which side is the truth. As postings and replies are made the stronger ‘evidence’ or disinformation in your favour is slowly ‘seeded in.’ Thus the uninformed reader will most like develop the same position as you, and if their position is against you their opposition to your posting will be most likely dropped. However in some cases where the forum members are highly educated and can counter your disinformation with real facts and linked postings, you can then ‘abort’ the consensus cracking by initiating a ‘forum slide.’

Technique #3 – ‘TOPIC DILUTION’

Topic dilution is not only effective in forum sliding it is also very useful in keeping the forum readers on unrelated and non-productive issues. This is a critical and useful technique to cause a ‘RESOURCE BURN.’ By implementing continual and non-related postings that distract and disrupt (trolling ) the forum readers they are more effectively stopped from anything of any real productivity. If the intensity of gradual dilution is intense enough, the readers will effectively stop researching and simply slip into a ‘gossip mode.’ In this state they can be more easily misdirected away from facts towards uninformed conjecture and opinion. The less informed they are the more effective and easy it becomes to control the entire group in the direction that you would desire the group to go in. It must be stressed that a proper assessment of the psychological capabilities and levels of education is first determined of the group to determine at what level to ‘drive in the wedge.’ By being too far off topic too quickly it may trigger censorship by a forum moderator.

Technique #4 – ‘INFORMATION COLLECTION’

Information collection is also a very effective method to determine the psychological level of the forum members, and to gather intelligence that can be used against them. In this technique in a light and positive environment a ‘show you mine so me yours’ posting is initiated. From the number of replies and the answers that are provided much statistical information can be gathered. An example is to post your ‘favourite weapon’ and then encourage other members of the forum to showcase what they have. In this matter it can be determined by reverse proration what percentage of the forum community owns a firearm, and or a illegal weapon. This same method can be used by posing as one of the form members and posting your favourite ‘technique of operation.’ From the replies various methods that the group utilizes can be studied and effective methods developed to stop them from their activities.

Technique #5 – ‘ANGER TROLLING’

Statistically, there is always a percentage of the forum posters who are more inclined to violence. In order to determine who these individuals are, it is a requirement to present a image to the forum to deliberately incite a strong psychological reaction. From this the most violent in the group can be effectively singled out for reverse IP location and possibly local enforcement tracking. To accomplish this only requires posting a link to a video depicting a local police officer massively abusing his power against a very innocent individual. Statistically of the million or so police officers in America there is always one or two being caught abusing there powers and the taping of the activity can be then used for intelligence gathering purposes – without the requirement to ‘stage’ a fake abuse video. This method is extremely effective, and the more so the more abusive the video can be made to look. Sometimes it is useful to ‘lead’ the forum by replying to your own posting with your own statement of violent intent, and that you ‘do not care what the authorities think!!’ inflammation. By doing this and showing no fear it may be more effective in getting the more silent and self-disciplined violent intent members of the forum to slip and post their real intentions. This can be used later in a court of law during prosecution.

Technique #6 – ‘GAINING FULL CONTROL’

It is important to also be harvesting and continually maneuvering for a forum moderator position. Once this position is obtained, the forum can then be effectively and quietly controlled by deleting unfavourable postings – and one can eventually steer the forum into complete failure and lack of interest by the general public. This is the ‘ultimate victory’ as the forum is no longer participated with by the general public and no longer useful in maintaining their freedoms. Depending on the level of control you can obtain, you can deliberately steer a forum into defeat by censoring postings, deleting memberships, flooding, and or accidentally taking the forum offline. By this method the forum can be quickly killed. However it is not always in the interest to kill a forum as it can be converted into a ‘honey pot’ gathering center to collect and misdirect newcomers and from this point be completely used for your control for your agenda purposes.

CONCLUSION

Remember these techniques are only effective if the forum participants DO NOT KNOW ABOUT THEM. Once they are aware of these techniques the operation can completely fail, and the forum can become uncontrolled. At this point other avenues must be considered such as initiating a false legal precidence to simply have the forum shut down and taken offline. This is not desirable as it then leaves the enforcement agencies unable to track the percentage of those in the population who always resist attempts for control against them. Many other techniques can be utilized and developed by the individual and as you develop further techniques of infiltration and control it is imperative to share then with HQ.
______________________________________________________________________________________

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it — especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the ‘How dare you!’ gambit.

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such ‘arguable rumors’. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a ‘wild rumor’ from a ‘bunch of kids on the Internet’ which can have no basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary ‘attack the messenger’ ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as ‘kooks’, ‘right-wing’, ‘liberal’, ‘left-wing’, ‘terrorists’, ‘conspiracy buffs’, ‘radicals’, ‘militia’, ‘racists’, ‘religious fanatics’, ‘sexual deviates’, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning — simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough ‘jargon’ and ‘minutia’ to illustrate you are ‘one who knows’, and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man — usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with – a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues — so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the ‘high road’ and ‘confess’ with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made — but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, ‘just isn’t so.’ Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly ‘call for an end to the nonsense’ because you have already ‘done the right thing.’ Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for ‘coming clean’ and ‘owning up’ to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won’t have to address the issue.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can ‘argue’ with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how ‘sensitive they are to criticism.’

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the ‘play dumb’ rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations — as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.

25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.
______________________________________________________________________________________

Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist

1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.

3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for ‘conspiracy theorists’ and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.

6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of ‘artificial’ emotionalism and an unusually thick skin — an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial.

Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the ‘image’ and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It’s just a job, and they often seem unable to ‘act their role in character’ as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later — an emotional yo-yo.

With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game — where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.

7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat ‘freudian’, so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within.

I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I’m not aware of too many Navy pilots who don’t have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.

8) Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation:

a) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT – FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.

b) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR – there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to ‘get permission’ or instruction from a formal chain of command.

c) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay – the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.

______________________________________________________________________________________

How to Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent)

One way to neutralize a potential activist is to get them to be in a group that does all the wrong things. Why?

1) The message doesn’t get out.
2) A lot of time is wasted
3) The activist is frustrated and discouraged
4) Nothing good is accomplished.

FBI and Police Informers and Infiltrators will infest any group and they have phoney activist organizations established.

Their purpose is to prevent any real movement for justice or eco-peace from developing in this country.

Agents come in small, medium or large. They can be of any ethnic background. They can be male or female.

The actual size of the group or movement being infiltrated is irrelevant. It is the potential the movement has for becoming large which brings on the spies and saboteurs.

This booklet lists tactics agents use to slow things down, foul things up, destroy the movement and keep tabs on activists.

It is the agent’s job to keep the activist from quitting such a group, thus keeping him/her under control.

In some situations, to get control, the agent will tell the activist:

“You’re dividing the movement.”

[Here, I have added the psychological reasons as to WHY this maneuver works to control people]

This invites guilty feelings. Many people can be controlled by guilt. The agents begin relationships with activists behind a well-developed mask of “dedication to the cause.” Because of their often declared dedication, (and actions designed to prove this), when they criticize the activist, he or she – being truly dedicated to the movement – becomes convinced that somehow, any issues are THEIR fault. This is because a truly dedicated person tends to believe that everyone has a conscience and that nobody would dissimulate and lie like that “on purpose.” It’s amazing how far agents can go in manipulating an activist because the activist will constantly make excuses for the agent who regularly declares their dedication to the cause. Even if they do, occasionally, suspect the agent, they will pull the wool over their own eyes by rationalizing: “they did that unconsciously… they didn’t really mean it… I can help them by being forgiving and accepting ” and so on and so forth.

The agent will tell the activist:

“You’re a leader!”

This is designed to enhance the activist’s self-esteem. His or her narcissistic admiration of his/her own activist/altruistic intentions increase as he or she identifies with and consciously admires the altruistic declarations of the agent which are deliberately set up to mirror those of the activist.

This is “malignant pseudoidentification.” It is the process by which the agent consciously imitates or simulates a certain behavior to foster the activist’s identification with him/her, thus increasing the activist’s vulnerability to exploitation. The agent will simulate the more subtle self-concepts of the activist.

Activists and those who have altruistic self-concepts are most vulnerable to malignant pseudoidentification especially during work with the agent when the interaction includes matter relating to their competency, autonomy, or knowledge.

The goal of the agent is to increase the activist’s general empathy for the agent through pseudo-identification with the activist’s self-concepts.

The most common example of this is the agent who will compliment the activist for his competency or knowledge or value to the movement. On a more subtle level, the agent will simulate affects and mannerisms of the activist which promotes identification via mirroring and feelings of “twinship”. It is not unheard of for activists, enamored by the perceived helpfulness and competence of a good agent, to find themselves considering ethical violations and perhaps, even illegal behavior, in the service of their agent/handler.

The activist’s “felt quality of perfection” [self-concept] is enhanced, and a strong empathic bond is developed with the agent through his/her imitation and simulation of the victim’s own narcissistic investments. [self-concepts] That is, if the activist knows, deep inside, their own dedication to the cause, they will project that onto the agent who is “mirroring” them.

The activist will be deluded into thinking that the agent shares this feeling of identification and bonding. In an activist/social movement setting, the adversarial roles that activists naturally play vis a vis the establishment/government, fosters ongoing processes of intrapsychic splitting so that “twinship alliances” between activist and agent may render whole sectors or reality testing unavailable to the activist. They literally “lose touch with reality.”

Activists who deny their own narcissistic investments [do not have a good idea of their own self-concepts and that they ARE concepts] and consciously perceive themselves (accurately, as it were) to be “helpers” endowed with a special amount of altruism are exceedingly vulnerable to the affective (emotional) simulation of the accomplished agent.

Empathy is fostered in the activist through the expression of quite visible affects. The presentation of tearfulness, sadness, longing, fear, remorse, and guilt, may induce in the helper-oriented activist a strong sense of compassion, while unconsciously enhancing the activist’s narcissistic investment in self as the embodiment of goodness.

The agent’s expresssion of such simulated affects may be quite compelling to the observer and difficult to distinguish from deep emotion.

It can usually be identified by two events, however:

First, the activist who has analyzed his/her own narcissistic roots and is aware of his/her own potential for being “emotionally hooked,” will be able to remain cool and unaffected by such emotional outpourings by the agent.

As a result of this unaffected, cool, attitude, the Second event will occur: The agent will recompensate much too quickly following such an affective expression leaving the activist with the impression that “the play has ended, the curtain has fallen,” and the imposture, for the moment, has finished. The agent will then move quickly to another activist/victim.

The fact is, the movement doesn’t need leaders, it needs MOVERS. “Follow the leader” is a waste of time.

A good agent will want to meet as often as possible. He or she will talk a lot and say little. One can expect an onslaught of long, unresolved discussions.

Some agents take on a pushy, arrogant, or defensive manner:

1) To disrupt the agenda
2) To side-track the discussion
3) To interrupt repeatedly
4) To feign ignorance
5) To make an unfounded accusation against a person.

Calling someone a racist, for example. This tactic is used to discredit a person in the eyes of all other group members.

Saboteurs

Some saboteurs pretend to be activists. She or he will ….

1) Write encyclopedic flyers (in the present day, websites)
2) Print flyers in English only.
3) Have demonstrations in places where no one cares.
4) Solicit funding from rich people instead of grass roots support
5) Display banners with too many words that are confusing.
6) Confuse issues.
7) Make the wrong demands.
Cool Compromise the goal.
9) Have endless discussions that waste everyone’s time. The agent may accompany the endless discussions with drinking, pot smoking or other amusement to slow down the activist’s work.

Provocateurs

1) Want to establish “leaders” to set them up for a fall in order to stop the movement.
2) Suggest doing foolish, illegal things to get the activists in trouble.
3) Encourage militancy.
4) Want to taunt the authorities.
5) Attempt to make the activist compromise their values.
6) Attempt to instigate violence. Activisim ought to always be non-violent.
7) Attempt to provoke revolt among people who are ill-prepared to deal with the reaction of the authorities to such violence.

Informants

1) Want everyone to sign up and sing in and sign everything.
2) Ask a lot of questions (gathering data).
3) Want to know what events the activist is planning to attend.
4) Attempt to make the activist defend him or herself to identify his or her beliefs, goals, and level of committment.

Recruiting

Legitimate activists do not subject people to hours of persuasive dialog. Their actions, beliefs, and goals speak for themselves.

Groups that DO recruit are missionaries, military, and fake political parties or movements set up by agents.

Surveillance

ALWAYS assume that you are under surveillance.

At this point, if you are NOT under surveillance, you are not a very good activist!

Scare Tactics

They use them.

Such tactics include slander, defamation, threats, getting close to disaffected or minimally committed fellow activists to persuade them (via psychological tactics described above) to turn against the movement and give false testimony against their former compatriots. They will plant illegal substances on the activist and set up an arrest; they will plant false information and set up “exposure,” they will send incriminating letters [emails] in the name of the activist; and more; they will do whatever society will allow.

This booklet in no way covers all the ways agents use to sabotage the lives of sincere an dedicated activists.

If an agent is “exposed,” he or she will be transferred or replaced.

COINTELPRO is still in operation today under a different code name. It is no longer placed on paper where it can be discovered through the freedom of information act.

The FBI counterintelligence program’s stated purpose: To expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, and otherwise neutralize individuals who the FBI categorize as opposed to the National Interests. “National Security” means the FBI’s security from the people ever finding out the vicious things it does in violation of people’s civil liberties.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press and a mere token opposition party.

1. Dummy up. If it’s not reported, if it’s not news, it didn’t happen.

2. Wax indignant. This is also known as the “How dare you?” gambit.

3. Characterize the charges as “rumors” or, better yet, “wild rumors.” If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through “rumors.” (If they tend to believe the “rumors” it must be because they are simply “paranoid” or “hysterical.”)

4. Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspects of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors (or plant false stories) and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike.

5. Call the skeptics names like “conspiracy theorist,” “nutcase,” “ranter,” “kook,” “crackpot,” and, of course, “rumor monger.” Be sure, too, to use heavily loaded verbs and adjectives when characterizing their charges and defending the “more reasonable” government and its defenders. You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned. For insurance, set up your own “skeptics” to shoot down.

6. Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money (compared to over-compensated adherents to the government line who, presumably, are not).

7. Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.

8. Dismiss the charges as “old news.”

9. Come half-clean. This is also known as “confession and avoidance” or “taking the limited hangout route.” This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal “mistakes.” This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken. With effective damage control, the fall-back position need only be peddled by stooge skeptics to carefully limited markets.

10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.

11. Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. E.g. We have a completely free press. If evidence exists that the Vince Foster “suicide” note was forged, they would have reported it. They haven’t reported it so there is no such evidence. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press who would report the leak.

12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely. E.g. If Foster was murdered, who did it and why?

13. Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or publicizing distractions.

14. Lightly report incriminating facts, and then make nothing of them. This is sometimes referred to as “bump and run” reporting.

15. Baldly and brazenly lie. A favorite way of doing this is to attribute the “facts” furnished the public to a plausible-sounding, but anonymous, source.

16. Expanding further on numbers 4 and 5, have your own stooges “expose” scandals and champion popular causes. Their job is to pre-empt real opponents and to play 99-yard football. A variation is to pay rich people for the job who will pretend to spend their own money.

17. Flood the Internet with agents. This is the answer to the question, “What could possibly motivate a person to spend hour upon hour on Internet news groups defending the government and/or the press and harassing genuine critics?” Don t the authorities have defenders enough in all the newspapers, magazines, radio, and television? One would think refusing to print critical letters and screening out serious callers or dumping them from radio talk shows would be control enough, but, obviously, it is not.

What have you understood?

WAR CRIMINAL Fundraising for ROMNEY?

Got a lead or evidence you would like to share? Please let us know at the email displayed at the home page.Thanks

12 July 2012 Stratfor Class Action Settlement

A sends:

Begin forwarded message:
> From:
> Date: 11 July 2012 14:35:30 GMT+02:00
> Subject: Stratfor Class Action Settlement
> Reply-To:
>
> IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
> A class action settlement
> involving Stratfor’s online service will provide benefits to those who qualify.
>
> A court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer.
>
> · There is a class action concerning whether Stratfor Enterprises, LLC, Strategic Forecasting, Inc, and George Friedman (together called “Stratfor”) improperly contributed to the loss of personal information that occurred when Stratfor’s servers were illegally hacked in December 2011.
> · A proposed settlement has been reached with Stratfor (the “Settlement”) and is pending Court approval.
> · Under the terms of the Settlement, you may be eligible for certain benefits if you qualify
> · Your legal rights are affected whether you act or do not act. Read this notice carefully.
> YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT:
>
> ASK TO BE EXCLUDED
> Get no compensation. The only option that allows you to individually sue Stratfor over the claims resolved by this Settlement.
> OBJECT
> Write to the Court about why you don’t agree with the Settlement.
> GO TO A HEARING
> Ask to speak in Court about the Settlement.
> DO NOTHING
> Receive benefits, if eligible. Give up rights.
>
> · These rights and options-and the deadlines to exercise them-are explained in this notice.
> · The Court in charge of this case still has to decide whether to approve the Settlement. If it does, and after any appeals are resolved, benefits will be distributed to those who qualify. Please be patient.
>
> QUESTIONS? CALL 1-866-322-4455 TOLL FREE, OR VISIT WWW.StratforSettlement.COM [URL is email tracking service Bluehornet.com, tracking-number clipped by Cryptome]
>
>
> BASIC INFORMATION
> 1. Why was this notice issued?
> 2. What is this lawsuit about?
> 3. Why is this a class action?
> 4. Why is there a Settlement?
> WHO IS IN THE SETTLEMENT
> 5. How do I know if I am part of the Settlement?
> 6. I’m still not sure I’m included.
> THE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS-WHAT YOU GET IF YOU QUALIFY
> 7. How do I qualify for compensation?
> 8. How can I receive the benefits?
> 9. When would I receive the benefits?
> 10. What am I giving up to get a benefit or stay in the Class?
> EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENT
> 11. How do I get out of the proposed Settlement?
> 12. If I don’t exclude myself, can I sue the Defendants and the other Released Parties for the same thing later?
> 13. If I exclude myself, can I get compensation from this Settlement?
> THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU
> 14. Do I have a lawyer in this case?
> 15. How will the lawyers be paid? If so, how much?
> OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT
> 16. How do I tell the Court if I do not like the proposed Settlement?
> 17. What’s the difference between objecting and excluding?
> THE COURT’S Settlement Fairness HEARING
> 18. When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the proposed Settlement?
> 19. Do I have to come to the hearing?
> 20. May I speak at the hearing?
> IF YOU DO NOTHING
> 21. What happens if I do nothing at all?
> GETTING MORE INFORMATION
> 22. Are there more details about the proposed Settlement?
>
> BASIC INFORMATION
>
> 1. Why was this notice issued?
> A Court authorized this notice because you have a right to know about a proposed nationwide settlement of this class action with Stratfor, including the right to claim benefits and about all of your options before the Court decides whether to give “final approval” to the Settlement. If the Court approves the Settlement, and after any appeals are resolved, benefits will be distributed to everyone who qualifies. This notice explains the lawsuit, the Settlement, your legal rights, what benefits are available, who may be eligible for the benefits, and how to receive the benefits.
> United States District Court Judge Denis R. Hurley in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York is overseeing this class action. The case is known as Sterling et al. v. Strategic Forecasting, Inc. et al. Case No. 2:12-cv-00297-DRH-ARL. The entities who sued are called the “Plaintiffs,” and the parties they sued are called the “Defendants” or “Stratfor.”
> The Settlement includes these Stratfor Companies: Stratfor Enterprises, LLC, Strategic Forecasting, Inc., Stratcap Management Company, LLC, and Stratfor Holdings, LLC and their officers and directors.
> 2. What is this lawsuit about?
> The lawsuit generally claims that Stratfor took improper action or improperly failed to take action both leading up to the hack and after the hack of their servers and Stratfor’s improper actions or omissions contributed to the theft of customer’s personal information, specifically their credit card numbers. Stratfor has denied all of these claims and maintains that they did not act wrongfully or unlawfully.
> 3. Why is this a class action?
> In a class action, one or more people called “Class Representatives” (in this case David Sterling and Sterling & Sterling, Inc.) sue on behalf of individuals who have similar claims. All these individuals are a “Class” or “Class Members.” A court resolves the issues for all Class Members, except for those who exclude themselves from the Class.
> 4. Why is there a Settlement?
> The Court did not decide in favor of the Plaintiffs or Stratfor. Instead, both sides agreed to settle in order to avoid the cost of a trial, and the people who qualify will get compensation. The Class Representatives and their attorneys believe the Settlement is best for all Class Members. The Settlement does not mean Stratfor admits any wrongdoing.
> WHO IS IN THE SETTLEMENT?
>
> To see if you are eligible for benefits from this Settlement, you first have to determine if you are a Class Member.
> 5. How do I know if I am a Class Member?
> The Class includes all individuals who were current or former subscribers to the Stratfor Service as of December 24, 2011.
> The Settlement excludes (1) Stratfor, or any entity in which Stratfor has a controlling interest, and its respective legal representatives, officers, directors, employees, assigns and successors; (2) the judge to whom this case is assigned and any member of the judge’s staff and immediate family; and (3) any person who, in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, properly executes and submits a timely request for exclusion from the Class.
> 6. What if I am still not sure if I am included?
> If you are not certain whether you are included in the Class, you may call the Settlement Administrator at toll free number 1-866-322-4455 with questions.
> THE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS-WHAT YOU GET IF YOU QUALIFY
>
> 7. How do I qualify for compensation?
> The Settlement will compensate eligible Class Members for Stratfor’s alleged improper actions or omissions in relation to the theft of customer’s personal information.
> To qualify for a benefit you must be a Class Member and have been a current or former paying subscriber to the Stratfor Service as of December 24, 2011, whose credit card number Stratfor had on file on December 24, 2011, and whose credit card information was obtained by third-parties due to the breach of Stratfor’s computer storage systems.
> Benefits to persons who qualify will be calculated as follows:
>
> If you were a current or former paying subscriber to the Stratfor Service on December 24, 2011, and you had credit card information on file with Stratfor on December 24, 2011, and your credit card information was obtained by third-parties due to the breach of Stratfor’s computer storage services, you are eligible for one month of access to the Stratfor Service, valued at $29.08, free of charge.
> If you were a current or former paying subscriber to the Stratfor Service on December 24, 2011, and Stratfor had your credit card number on file on December 24, 2011, and your credit card information was obtained by third-parties due to the breach of Stratfor’s computer storage systems, you are eligible for an “e-book” entitled “The Blue Book” published by Stratfor, valued at $12.99, free of charge.
> If you were a current or former paying subscriber to the Stratfor Service on December 24, 2011, and Stratfor had your credit card number on file on December 24, 2011, and your credit card information was obtained by third-parties due to the breach of Stratfor’s computer storage systems, you are eligible for a per-capita distribution of any monetary relief obtained (after costs and attorneys’ fees) from Stratfor’s Business and Management Indemnity Policy with Scottsdale Indemnity Company (“Scottsdale Action”) as further explained in the subsection III(F) of the Settlement Agreement.
> If you were a current paying subscriber or you were a former subscriber who re-subscribes, you will receive the additional benefit of Stratfor’s enhanced services, which will include the engagement of information technology (IT) companies, IT developers, and providers of IT data migration and development, to ensure the future safety of Stratfor subscribers.
>
>
> If you do not exclude yourself from the Class and remain a Class Member (as explained in Questions 12 and 13), the only benefits you could ever recover from Stratfor on any claim released in this Settlement are described in the above paragraphs. If you believe you are entitled to or want to seek a recovery larger than that described above, you must exclude yourself from the Class through the procedure described in Question 11 below.
>
> 8. How can I receive the benefits?
>
> If you do not opt out of the class and are eligible to receive benefits, and the Settlement is given final approval, you will be contacted by Stratfor to receive your benefits.
>
> 9. When would I receive the benefits?
> Benefits will be made available to eligible Class Members after the Court grants “final approval” of the Settlement, and any appeals are resolved. If the Court approves the Settlement after a Settlement Fairness Hearing on September 28, 2012 (see the section “The Court’s Settlement Fairness Hearing” below), there may be appeals. It’s always uncertain whether these appeals can be resolved, and resolving them can take time. Please be patient during this process.
> In addition, you can check the website or call the toll free number listed below in order to get a status update on the final approval of the Settlement, the claims administration process, and when the benefits will be made available.
>
> 10. What am I giving up to get a benefit or stay in the Settlement Class?
> If you stay in the Class, you will agree to “release and discharge” Stratfor as described in Section IX of the Settlement Agreement and Question 10. More specifically, Class Members will release the “Released Parties” (as defined below) for all “Settled Claims” (as defined below), including “Unknown Claims” (as defined below). The Settlement Agreement is available at http://www.StratforSettlement.com.
> “Settled Claims” means any claim, Unknown Claim, allegation, right, demand, action or cause of action for damages of any kind (including, but not limited to, compensatory, consequential, special, statutory, exemplary or punitive), injunctive relief, penalties, administrative remedies, or other form of relief based upon any statute, common law principle, rule or regulation of any governmental, regulatory or self-regulatory authority or organization or any other legal theory whatsoever, whether known or unknown, asserted or unasserted, latent or patent that (i) is, has been or could have been asserted by the Releasing Parties against the Released Parties arising from or relating to any of the matters, events or facts alleged in the Action and/or (ii) arises from or relates in any way to an alleged unauthorized disclosure to, or unauthorized acquisition by, any Person on or before December 24, 2011 of any information provided to Defendants by Plaintiffs and/or Settlement Class Members, including but not limited to claims based upon any statements or alleged misrepresentations or omissions in Defendants’ privacy statement and/or any alleged increased risk of identity theft or actual identity theft. This release does not release or purport to release any claims of any governmental entity. Upon the final approval of the Final Settlement, each Class Member shall be subject to and shall be bound by the Final Judgment, and shall be conclusively deemed to have expressly waived and released any and all Settled Claims that he, she, or it has or might have against Released Parties arising from or in any way related to any acts or omissions which have been alleged or which could have been alleged in the Action by the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves or on behalf of the Settlement Class, on behalf of a putative class or by a Class Member, to the full extent of res judicata protections. Provided, however, that the Settled Claims do not include any claim for enforcement of this Agreement and/or the Final Judgment.
>
> Included within the Settled Claims are Unknown Claims. “Unknown Claim” means any claim arising out of newly discovered facts and/or facts not now known but which could reasonably be discovered, and/or facts found hereafter to be other than or different from the facts now believed to be true. The Settled Claims defined above, include all Unknown Claims. Upon the final approval of the Final Settlement, each Class Member shall be subject to, and shall be bound by the Final Judgment, and shall be conclusively deemed to have expressly waived and released any and all Unknown Claims that he, she, or it has or might have against Released Parties arising from or in any way related to any acts or omissions which have been alleged or which could have been alleged in the Action by the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves or on behalf of the Settlement Class, on behalf of a putative class or by a Class Member, to the full extent of res judicata protections.
>
> “Released Party(ies)” means Defendants, their predecessors, successors, assigns, their past, present and future parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions, departments, and all of the past, present and future officers, directors, employees, stockholders, partners, agents, servants, successors, attorneys, auditors, consultants, representatives, and subrogees, of any and all of the forgoing. It is expressly understood that Scottsdale is not a Released Party.
>
> Unless you exclude yourself, you are staying in the Class, and that means the Court’s orders in this case will apply to you and legally bind you. Therefore, if you do not exclude yourself from the class and remain a Class Member, you will be giving up your right to sue Stratfor individually on any of the Settled Claims described above, including the Unknown Claims.
>
> If you have any questions, please visit the website or call the toll-free number.
> EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENT
>
> If you are a Class Member and you want to keep the right to sue Stratfor about the issues in this case or the Settled Claims, then you must take steps to remove yourself from the Settlement Class. This is called excluding yourself from-or is sometimes referred to as “opting out” of-the Settlement Class. If you want to preserve a right to pursue an independent legal remedy against Stratfor, you must exclude yourself from this Settlement by following the procedures described below.
>
> 11. How do I get out of the proposed Settlement?
> If you are a Class Member and you want to exclude yourself from the Settlement, you must send a letter by mail stating that you want to be excluded from the Settlement Class in Sterling et al. v. Strategic Forecasting, Inc. et al. You must include the case number (2:12-cv-00297-DRH-ARL), your full name, address, telephone number, email address, and signature. You must mail your request for exclusion postmarked by August 15, 2012 to:
>
> Exclusions
> Stratfor Settlement Administrator
> c/o BMC Group
> P.O. Box 2002
> Chanhassen, MN 55317-2002
>
> You cannot exclude yourself on the phone, by email, or at the website.
>
> Please understand that with only one exception, only you can request exclusion from the Class. That exception is that a request for exclusion may be submitted on behalf of deceased or incapacitated Class Member by his or her Legally Authorized Representative. While your lawyer may assist you, your lawyer cannot request exclusion from the Class on your behalf.
>
> Requests for exclusion that are on behalf of a group or class of persons are invalid and ineffective.
>
> 12. If I do not exclude myself, can I sue the Defendants and the other Released Parties for the Same thing later?
> No. As explained in Question 10, unless you exclude yourself, you give up any right to individually sue Stratfor for the claims that this Settlement resolves. You must exclude yourself from this Class to individually sue Stratfor over the claims resolved by this Settlement. Remember, the exclusion deadline is August 15, 2012.
>
> 13. If I exclude myself, can I get compensation from the proposed Settlement?
> No. If you exclude yourself, you cannot get compensation from the proposed Settlement.
> THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU
>
>
> 14. Do I have a lawyer in this case?
> The Court appointed Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik LLP to represent you and other Class Members as “Class Counsel.” You do not have to personally pay Class Counsel. If you want to be represented by your own lawyer, and have that lawyer appear in court for you in this case, you may hire one at your own expense. If you have questions about the Settlement or anything contained in this notice, you can visit the website or call the toll-free number.
>
> 15. Will the lawyers be paid? If so, how much?
> Class Counsel will file a petition for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. The Court will determine the amount of the award, but the total amount cannot exceed $400,000 less the costs of administering this Settlement, plus 1/3 of any recovery from the amount recovered from the Scottsdale Action.
> OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT
>
> If you are a Class Member, you can tell the Court if you don’t agree with the Settlement or some part of it.
>
> 16. How do I tell the Court that I do not like the proposed Settlement?
> If you don’t want the Court to approve the Settlement or want the Court to modify a portion of the Settlement, you must file a written objection in the case with the Eastern District of New York and send by email and physical copy to Plaintiffs’ Counsel and Defense Counsel as noted below. You must include the name of the case (Sterling et al. v. Strategic Forecasting, Inc. et al.), case number (Case No. 2:12-cv-00297-DRH-ARL), your full name, address, telephone number, your signature, the specific reasons why you object to the Settlement, and whether you or your attorney will appear at the Settlement Final Approval Hearing (See the section on the “Court’s Settlement Fairness Hearing” below).
> The objection must be mailed and delivered to the following addresses on or before September 07, 2012:
> Court Filing Address
> HON. DENIS R. HURLEY
> U. S. District Court
> Eastern District of New York
> Long Island Courthouse
> 100 Federal Plaza
> Central Islip, NY 11722-4438
> Plaintiffs’ Counsel:
> Hunter J. Shkolnik
> Adam J. Gana
> Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik, LLP
> 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7413
> New York, NY 10118
> Hunter@napolibern.com
> agana@napolibern.com
> Defense’s Counsel:
> Bill Cobb
> Jackson Walker L.L.P.
> 100 Congress Avenue, Suite 1100
> Austin, Texas 78701
> bcobb@jw.com
>
>
> You do not need to go to the Settlement Fairness Hearing to have your written objection considered by the Court. At the Settlement Fairness Hearing, any Settlement Class Member who has not previously submitted a request for exclusion from the Settlement Class may appear and be heard, to the extent allowed by the Court, to state any objection to the Settlement or Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s motion for reimbursement of expenses. Any such objector may appear in person or arrange, at that objector’s expense, for a lawyer to represent the objector at the Hearing.
>
> 17. What is the difference between objecting and excluding?
> Objecting is simply informing the Court that you don’t like something about the Settlement. You can object only if you stay in the Class. Excluding yourself is informing the Court that you don’t want to be part of the Class. If you exclude yourself, you have no basis to object because the case no longer affects you. If you do not exclude yourself from the Class, and object to the Settlement, you will be a member of the Class. If you object, you will not have another opportunity to exclude yourself and you will be bound by any judgment entered by the Court.
> THE COURT’S SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING
>
> The Court will hold a hearing to decide whether to grant final approval of the Settlement. You may attend and you may ask to speak, but you don’t have to.
>
> 18. When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the proposed Settlement?
> The Court has scheduled a Settlement Final Approval Hearing at 3:00 p.m., on September 28, 2012, at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Alfonse M. D’Amato United States Courthouse, 100 Federal Plaza, Central Islip, NY 11722. At this hearing the Court will consider whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate. At the Settlement Fairness Hearing, the Court also will consider the applications of Plaintiffs’ Counsel for attorneys’ fees and costs. The Court will take into consideration any written objections submitted in accordance with the instructions. The Court also will listen to Class Members who appear and speak at the hearing; but decisions regarding the conduct of the hearing will be made by the Court. After the hearing, the Court will decide whether to approve the settlements. We do not know how long these decisions will take.
>
> You should be aware that the Court may change the date and time of the Settlement Fairness Hearing. Thus, if you want to come to the hearing, you should check with Plaintiffs’ Counsel before coming to be sure that the date and/or time has not changed.
>
> 19. Do I have to come to the hearing?
> No. If you are a member of the Class, Class Counsel will represent you and will answer any questions that the Court may have. But, you are welcome to come at your own expense. If you send an objection, you don’t have to come to Court to talk about it. As long as you filed and mailed your written objection on time, the Court will consider it, but Class Counsel will not argue your objection on your behalf. You may also pay your own lawyer to attend, but it’s not necessary.
>
> 20. May I speak at the hearing?
> If you object to the Settlement, you may appear and speak at the Settlement Fairness Hearing. Persons who intend to object to the Settlement and who desire to call witnesses to testify or to introduce exhibits into evidence at the Settlement Fairness Hearing must submit a written objection as provided in the response to question 16, and must provide the identity of any witnesses they may call to testify and exhibits they intend to introduce into evidence at the Settlement Fairness Hearing. You cannot speak at the hearing if you excluded yourself from the Settlement Class.
> IF YOU DO NOTHING
>
> 21. What happens if I do nothing at all?
> If you do nothing and are an eligible Class Member, you will receive benefits as described in Question 7.
> GETTING MORE INFORMATION
>

View this document on Scribd


>
> 22. Are there more details about the proposed Settlement?
> This notice summarizes the proposed Settlement. More details are in a Settlement Agreement. You can get a copy of the Settlement Agreement at www.StratforSettlement.com [URL is email tracking service Bluehornet.com, tracking-number clipped by Cryptome]. You may call the toll-free number listed below or visit the website or write to the Claims Administrator at:
>
> Stratfor Settlement Administrator
> c/o BMC Group
> P.O. Box 2002
> Chanhassen, MN 55317-2002