Free Objection to Exhibit List - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:07-cv-00867-TCW

Document 35

Filed 07/31/2008

Page 1 of 13

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS AMERICAN ORDNANCE LLC, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 07-867C (Judge Wheeler)

DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED EXHIBITS Pursuant to the May 1, 2008, Pretrial Order, defendant, United States, respectfully provides the Court with its objections to the exhibits proposed by plaintiff, American Ordnance LLC ("AO"). Exhibit No. 1. Department of Defense Manual For the Performance of Contract Property Administration, dated December, 1991. 2. Request for Proposal ("RFP") ­ Solicitation Offer and Award for DAAE3096-R-0004, dated October 11, 1995 3. Memorandum, dated November 2, 1995, re: Army Authority to Issue Letter Contract Objection Irrelevant ­ Fed. R. Evid. ("Fed. R. Evid.") 402 This document constitutes parol evidence which is inadmissible in this case involving interpretation of an unambiguous contract. City of Tacoma v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994); Montefiore Hospital Assoc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 471 (1984). No objection.

Irrelevant ­ Fed. R. Evid. 402. This document constitutes parol evidence which is inadmissible in this case involving interpretation of an unambiguous contract. City of Tacoma v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994); Montefiore Hospital Assoc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 471 (1984).

Case 1:07-cv-00867-TCW

Document 35

Filed 07/31/2008

Page 2 of 13

4. Proposal, dated November 28, 1995, from Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co., Inc. ("MHC") 5. Letter Contract DAAE30-96-C-0013, dated December 12, 1995 (the "Letter Contract") 6. Fax Transmission, dated March 14, 1996, Negotiation Timeline/Action Items 7. E-mail, dated March 22, 1996, from Marilyn Daniel ("Daniel") to internal AO 8. Letter Contract Amendment P0001,dated April 30, 1996 9. Fax Transmission, dated May 16, 1996, forwarding Draft Facilitization Scope of Work 10. Letter, dated May 16, 1996, from David Banishefski ("Banishefski") to Mason & Hanger ("MHC") re CLIN 0001AA

Irrelevant ­ Fed. R. Evid. 402. This document constitutes parol evidence which is inadmissible in this case involving interpretation of an unambiguous contract. City of Tacoma v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994); Montefiore Hospital Assoc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 471 (1984). No objection.

Irrelevant ­ Fed. R. Evid. 402. This document constitutes parol evidence which is inadmissible in this case involving interpretation of an unambiguous contract. City of Tacoma v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994); Montefiore Hospital Assoc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 471 (1984). Hearsay ­ Fed. R. Evid. 801; Irrelevant ­ Fed. R. Evid. 402. This document constitutes parol evidence which is inadmissible in this case involving interpretation of an unambiguous contract. City of Tacoma v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994); Montefiore Hospital Assoc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 471 (1984). No objection.

Irrelevant ­ Fed. R. Evid. 402. This document constitutes parol evidence which is inadmissible in this case involving interpretation of an unambiguous contract. City of Tacoma v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994); Montefiore Hospital Assoc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 471 (1984). Irrelevant ­ Fed. R. Evid. 402. This document constitutes parol evidence which is inadmissible in this case involving interpretation of an unambiguous contract. City of Tacoma v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994); Montefiore Hospital Assoc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 471 (1984).

2

Case 1:07-cv-00867-TCW

Document 35

Filed 07/31/2008

Page 3 of 13

11. Memorandum, dated May 17, 1996, from Jeff Hibler ("Hibler") to Banashefski re: MHC Position on ARDEC Offer for Facilitization Statement of Work 12. E-mail, dated May 17, 1996, from D. Reed ("Reed") to Internal MCH re: M795 Proposal/ Negotiations 13. Memorandum, dated May 25, 1996, from Hibler to Banishefski 14. Fax Transmission, dated May 28, 1996, re: Internal MHC Discussion of draft Facilitization of Work 15. Letter, dated May 29, 1996, from Darl Heffelbower ("Heffelbower") to Banashefski 16. Letter, dated May 30, 1996, from Valerie Colello, ARDEC CO, to Marilyn Daniel of MHC

Irrelevant ­ Fed. R. Evid. 402. This document constitutes parol evidence which is inadmissible in this case involving interpretation of an unambiguous contract. City of Tacoma v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994); Montefiore Hospital Assoc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 471 (1984).

Hearsay Fed R. Evid. 801; Irrelevant ­ Fed. R. Evid. 402. This document constitutes parol evidence which is inadmissible in this case involving interpretation of an unambiguous contract. City of Tacoma v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994); Montefiore Hospital Assoc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 471 (1984). Hearsay ­ Fed. R. Evid. 801 ­ Irrelevant ­ Fed. R. Evid. 402. This document constitutes parol evidence which is inadmissible in this case involving interpretation of an unambiguous contract. City of Tacoma v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994); Montefiore Hospital Assoc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 471 (1984). Hearsay ­ Fed. R. Evid. 801;Irrelevant ­ Fed. R. Evid. 402. This document constitutes parol evidence which is inadmissible in this case involving interpretation of an unambiguous contract. City of Tacoma v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994); Montefiore Hospital Assoc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 471 (1984).

Hearsay ­ Fed. R. Evid. 801; Irrelevant ­ Fed. R. Evid. 402. This document constitutes parol evidence which is inadmissible in this case involving interpretation of an unambiguous contract. City of Tacoma v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994); Montefiore Hospital Assoc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 471 (1984). Irrelevant ­ Fed. R. Evid. 402. This document constitutes parol evidence which is inadmissible in this case involving interpretation of an unambiguous contract. City of Tacoma v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994); Montefiore Hospital Assoc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 471 (1984).

3

Case 1:07-cv-00867-TCW

Document 35

Filed 07/31/2008

Page 4 of 13

17. Memorandum, dated June 3, 1996, from Hibler to Steve Talmadge ("Talmadge") 18. Letter, dated June 5, 1996, from Colonel James Unterseher ("Unterseher"). 19. Memorandum, dated June 6, 1996 from Hibler to Internal MHC 20. Memorandum June 10, 1996, re: Internal MHC Discussion 21. Memorandum, dated June 10, 1996, from Hibler to Talmadge re: Action Items from Telephone Call of June 6, 1996. 22. Fax Transmission, dated June 14, 1996, from Mike Devine to Heffelbower 23. Letter, dated June 18, 1996, from Heffelbower to Unterseher.

Irrelevant ­ Fed. R. Evid. 402. This document constitutes parol evidence which is inadmissible in this case involving interpretation of an unambiguous contract. City of Tacoma v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994); Montefiore Hospital Assoc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 471 (1984). Hearsay ­ Fed. R. Evid. 801; Irrelevant ­ Fed. R. Evid. 402. This document constitutes parol evidence which is inadmissible in this case involving interpretation of an unambiguous contract. City of Tacoma v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994); Montefiore Hospital Assoc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 471 (1984). Hearsay ­ Fed. R. Evid. 801; Irrelevant ­ Fed. R. Evid. 402. This document constitutes parol evidence which is inadmissible in this case involving interpretation of an unambiguous contract. City of Tacoma v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994); Montefiore Hospital Assoc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 471 (1984). Hearsay ­ Fed. R. Evid. 801; Irrelevant ­ Fed. R. Evid. 402. This document constitutes parol evidence which is inadmissible in this case involving interpretation of an unambiguous contract. City of Tacoma v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994); Montefiore Hospital Assoc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 471 (1984). Hearsay ­ Fed. R. Evid. 801; Irrelevant ­ Fed. R. Evid. 402. This document constitutes parol evidence which is inadmissible in this case involving interpretation of an unambiguous contract. City of Tacoma v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994); Montefiore Hospital Assoc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 471 (1984).

Hearsay ­ Fed. R. Evid. 801; Irrelevant ­ Fed. R. Evid. 402. This document constitutes parol evidence which is inadmissible in this case involving interpretation of an unambiguous contract. City of Tacoma v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994); Montefiore Hospital Assoc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 471 (1984). Hearsay ­ Fed. R. Evid. 801; Irrelevant ­ Fed. R. Evid. 402. This document constitutes parol evidence which is inadmissible in this case involving interpretation of an unambiguous contract. City of Tacoma v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994); Montefiore Hospital Assoc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 471 (1984).

4

Case 1:07-cv-00867-TCW

Document 35

Filed 07/31/2008

Page 5 of 13

24. Memorandum, dated June 18, 1996, from Hibler to Talmadge re: Action Items for M795 Negotiations 25. Fax Transmission, dated June 20, 1996, from Talmadge to MHC 26. Meeting Summary, dated June 21, 1996, re: "Open Issues" as of June 25, 1996 27. Notes, dated June 25, 1996, of Reed

Hearsay ­ Fed. R. Evid. 801; Irrelevant ­ Fed. R. Evid. 402. This document constitutes parol evidence which is inadmissible in this case involving interpretation of an unambiguous contract. City of Tacoma v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994); Montefiore Hospital Assoc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 471 (1984). Irrelevant ­ Fed. R. Evid. 402. This document constitutes parol evidence which is inadmissible in this case involving interpretation of an unambiguous contract. City of Tacoma v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994); Montefiore Hospital Assoc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 471 (1984). Hearsay ­ Fed. R. Evid. 801; Irrelevant ­ Fed. R. Evid. 402. This document constitutes parol evidence which is inadmissible in this case involving interpretation of an unambiguous contract. City of Tacoma v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994); Montefiore Hospital Assoc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 471 (1984). Hearsay ­ Fed. R. Evid. 801; Irrelevant ­ Fed. R. Evid. 402. This document constitutes parol evidence which is inadmissible in this case involving interpretation of an unambiguous contract. City of Tacoma v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994); Montefiore Hospital Assoc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 471 (1984). Hearsay ­ Fed. R. Evid.801; Irrelevant ­ Fed. R. Evid. 402. This document constitutes parol evidence which is inadmissible in this case involving interpretation of an unambiguous contract. City of Tacoma v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994); Montefiore Hospital Assoc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 471 (1984). Hearsay ­ Fed. R. Evid. 801; Irrelevant ­ Fed. R. Evid. 402. This document constitutes parol evidence which is inadmissible in this case involving interpretation of an unambiguous contract. City of Tacoma v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994); Montefiore Hospital Assoc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 471 (1984). Hearsay ­ Fed. R. 801; Irrelevant ­ Fed. R. Evid. 402. This document constitutes parol evidence which is inadmissible in this case involving interpretation of an unambiguous contract. City of Tacoma v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994); Montefiore Hospital Assoc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 471 (1984).

28. Notes, dated June 26, 1996, of Reed

29. Notes, dated June 27, 1996, of Reed

30. Memorandum, dated June 29, 1996, from Hibler to Internal MHC

5

Case 1:07-cv-00867-TCW

Document 35

Filed 07/31/2008

Page 6 of 13

31. Memorandum, dated July 9, 1996, from Hibler to Internal MHC 32. Memorandum, dated July 10, 1996, from Hibler to Internal MHC 33. Letter dated July 17, 1996, from Hibler to Banashefski

Hearsay ­ Fed. R. Evid. 801; Irrelevant ­ Fed. R. Evid. 402. This document constitutes parol evidence which is inadmissible in this case involving interpretation of an unambiguous contract. City of Tacoma v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994); Montefiore Hospital Assoc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 471 (1984). Hearsay ­ Fed. R. Evid. 801; Irrelevant ­ Fed. R. Evid. 402. This document constitutes parol evidence which is inadmissible in this case involving interpretation of an unambiguous contract. City of Tacoma v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994); Montefiore Hospital Assoc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 471 (1984). Hearsay ­ Fed. R. Evid. 801; Irrelevant ­ Fed. R. Evid. 402. This document constitutes parol evidence which is inadmissible in this case involving interpretation of an unambiguous contract. City of Tacoma v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994); Montefiore Hospital Assoc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 471 (1984). Hearsay ­ Fed. R. Evid. 801; Irrelevant ­ Fed. R. Evid. 402. This document constitutes parol evidence which is inadmissible in this case involving interpretation of an unambiguous contract. City of Tacoma v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994); Montefiore Hospital Assoc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 471 (1984). Hearsay ­ Fed. R. Evid. 801; Irrelevant ­ Fed. R. Evid. 402. This document constitutes parol evidence which is inadmissible in this case involving interpretation of an unambiguous contract. City of Tacoma v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994); Montefiore Hospital Assoc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 471 (1984). No objection.

34. Memorandum, dated August 13, 1996, from Hibler to Internal MHC 35. Memorandum, dated August 14, 1996, from Hibler to Internal MHC 36. Definitized Contract, Modification PZ0001 to Contract No. DAAE30-96-C-0013, dated August 15, 1996 (the "M795 Contract") 37. Letter, dated August 19, 1996, from Hibler to Banashefski

Hearsay ­ Fed. R. Evid. 801; Irrelevant ­ Fed. R. Evid. 402. This document constitutes parol evidence which is inadmissible in this case involving interpretation of an unambiguous contract. City of Tacoma v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994); Montefiore Hospital Assoc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 471 (1984).

6

Case 1:07-cv-00867-TCW

Document 35

Filed 07/31/2008

Page 7 of 13

38. Memorandum, dated August 20, 1996, from Fred Taylor ("Taylor") (ACO) to Banishefski 39. September 4, 1996, E-mail from ACO Taylor to current ACO Nelson 40. E-mail, dated September 20, 1996, from ACO Taylor to Current ACO Nelson 41. Memorandum, dated October 7, 1996, from Banishefski to Taylor 42. Letter, dated February 18, 1997, from Banashefski to John Lohmann 43. Email, dated February 28, 1997 Internal MCH

Hearsay ­ Fed. R. Evid. 801; Irrelevant ­ Fed. R. Evid. 402. This document constitutes parol evidence which is inadmissible in this case involving interpretation of an unambiguous contract. City of Tacoma v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994); Montefiore Hospital Assoc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 471 (1984). Hearsay ­ Fed. R. Evid. 801; Irrelevant ­ Fed. R. Evid. 402. This document constitutes parol evidence which is inadmissible in this case involving interpretation of an unambiguous contract. City of Tacoma v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994); Montefiore Hospital Assoc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 471 (1984). Hearsay ­ Fed. R. Evid. 801; Irrelevant ­ Fed. R. Evid. 402. This document constitutes parol evidence which is inadmissible in this case involving interpretation of an unambiguous contract. City of Tacoma v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994); Montefiore Hospital Assoc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 471 (1984). Hearsay ­ Fed. R. Evid. 801; Irrelevant ­ Fed. R. Evid. 402. This document constitutes parol evidence which is inadmissible in this case involving interpretation of an unambiguous contract. City of Tacoma v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994); Montefiore Hospital Assoc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 471 (1984). Hearsay ­ Fed. R. Evid. 801; Irrelevant ­ Fed. R. Evid. 402. This document constitutes parol evidence which is inadmissible in this case involving interpretation of an unambiguous contract. City of Tacoma v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994); Montefiore Hospital Assoc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 471 (1984). Hearsay ­ Fed. R. Evid. 801; Irrelevant ­ Fed. R. Evid. 402. This document constitutes parol evidence which is inadmissible in this case involving interpretation of an unambiguous contract. City of Tacoma v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994); Montefiore Hospital Assoc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 471 (1984). Hearsay ­ Fed. R. Evid. 801; Irrelevant ­ Fed. R. Evid. 402. This document constitutes parol evidence which is inadmissible in this case involving interpretation of an unambiguous contract. City of Tacoma v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994); Montefiore Hospital Assoc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 471 (1984).

44. Letter dated March 3, 1997, from J.R. Lohmann to Talmdadge

7

Case 1:07-cv-00867-TCW

Document 35

Filed 07/31/2008

Page 8 of 13

45. Modification 0003 to M795 Contract, dated March 13, 1997 46. Letter, dated October 21, 1997, from Talmadge to MHC directing MHC to Submit Invoice 47. Invoice and form DD250 dated October 24, 1997 48. Memorandum, dated February 13, 1998

No objection.

Hearsay ­ Fed. R. Evid. 801; Irrelevant ­ Fed. R. Evid. 402. This document constitutes parol evidence which is inadmissible in this case involving interpretation of an unambiguous contract. City of Tacoma v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994); Montefiore Hospital Assoc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 471 (1984). No objection.

Hearsay ­ Fed. R. Evid. 801; Irrelevant ­ Fed. R. Evid. 402. This document constitutes parol evidence which is inadmissible in this case involving interpretation of an unambiguous contract. City of Tacoma v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994); Montefiore Hospital Assoc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 471 (1984). Hearsay ­ Fed. R. Evid. 801; Irrelevant ­ Fed. R. Evid. 402. This document constitutes parol evidence which is inadmissible in this case involving interpretation of an unambiguous contract. City of Tacoma v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994); Montefiore Hospital Assoc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 471 (1984). Hearsay ­ Fed. R. Evid. 801; Irrelevant ­ Fed. R. Evid. 402. This document constitutes parol evidence which is inadmissible in this case involving interpretation of an unambiguous contract. City of Tacoma v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994); Montefiore Hospital Assoc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 471 (1984). Hearsay ­ Fed. R. Evid. 801; Irrelevant ­ Fed. R. Evid. 402. This document constitutes parol evidence which is inadmissible in this case involving interpretation of an unambiguous contract. City of Tacoma v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994); Montefiore Hospital Assoc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 471 (1984). Hearsay ­ Fed. R. Evid. 801; Irrelevant ­ Fed. R. Evid. 402. This document constitutes parol evidence which is inadmissible in this case involving interpretation of an unambiguous contract. City of Tacoma v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994); Montefiore Hospital Assoc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 471 (1984).

49. Trudy Hallgren power point presentation

50. Letter, dated August 12, 1999, from Frank Evans, DCAA to Mickey Burkett ("Burkett") re: DCAA Review 51. Letter, dated September 14, 1999, from Burkett to DCAA 52. Property Audit Report dated November 10, 1999

8

Case 1:07-cv-00867-TCW

Document 35

Filed 07/31/2008

Page 9 of 13

53. Letter, dated November 15, 1999, from Frank Evans, DCAA, to Mickey Burkett 54. E-mail, dated July 13, 2000, Internal Government

Hearsay ­ Fed. R. Evid. 801; Irrelevant ­ Fed. R. Evid. 402. This document constitutes parol evidence which is inadmissible in this case involving interpretation of an unambiguous contract. City of Tacoma v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994); Montefiore Hospital Assoc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 471 (1984). Hearsay ­ Fed. R. Evid. 801; Irrelevant ­ Fed. R. Evid. 402. This document constitutes parol evidence which is inadmissible in this case involving interpretation of an unambiguous contract. City of Tacoma v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994); Montefiore Hospital Assoc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 471 (1984). Hearsay ­ Fed. R. Evid. 801; Irrelevant ­ Fed. R. Evid. 402. This document constitutes parol evidence which is inadmissible in this case involving interpretation of an unambiguous contract. City of Tacoma v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994); Montefiore Hospital Assoc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 471 (1984). No objection.

55. Letter, dated September 6, 2007, from Charles Smith to Kristin Barnard. 56. Contracting Officer's Final Decision letter, dated September 26, 2007 57. Letter dated October 26, 2007, from Charles Smith to Kristen Barnard 58. Printouts of Property Records from AO's Property System Database 59. Excerpts of Property Records from AO Manual Property Logbook

Hearsay ­ Fed. R. Evid. 801; Irrelevant ­ Fed. R. Evid. 402. This document constitutes parol evidence which is inadmissible in this case involving interpretation of an unambiguous contract. City of Tacoma v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994); Montefiore Hospital Assoc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 471 (1984). Hearsay ­ Fed. R. Evid. 801; Irrelevant ­ Fed. R. Evid. 402. This document constitutes parol evidence which is inadmissible in this case involving interpretation of an unambiguous contract. City of Tacoma v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994); Montefiore Hospital Assoc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 471 (1984). Hearsay ­ Fed. R. Evid. 801; Irrelevant ­ Fed. R. Evid. 402. This document constitutes parol evidence which is inadmissible in this case involving interpretation of an unambiguous contract. City of Tacoma v. United States, 31 F.3d 1130, 1134 (Fed.Cir.1994); Montefiore Hospital Assoc. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 471 (1984).

9

Case 1:07-cv-00867-TCW

Document 35

Filed 07/31/2008

Page 10 of 13

60. Federal Acquisition Regulation Provisions (Jan. 1, 1996)

Object to introduction of Federal Regulations as evidence. The regulations constitute legal authority, not evidence. Defendant objects on this basis to each section of the FAR identified by plaintiff as follows: FAR §§ 2.101; 16.202-1; 33.201; 33.206; 45.102; 45.104; 45.301; 45.302-6; 45.402; 45.505; 52.232.16; 52.245-2; 52.245-5; 52.245-7; 52.245-10; 52.254-11. Defendant objects to introduction of entire responses on the ground that plaintiff should be required to designate relevant portions of Government's responses.

61. Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production of Documents, and First Requests for Admissions 62. Talmadge Deposition Transcript

Defendant objects to the introduction of the deposition transcript of a witness who is available to testify. Defendant further objects to introduction of the entire deposition transcript. Appendix A, paragraph 15(b) and Rule of Court of Federal Claims 32(a)(2) & (3) set forth the proper procedure for introducing portions of deposition transcripts, which requires a party to designate specific portions of a transcript and show cause why the deposition testimony should be admitted. Defendant objects to the introduction of the deposition transcript of a witness who is available to testify. Defendant further objects to introduction of the entire deposition transcript. Appendix A, paragraph 15(b) and Rule of Court of Federal Claims 32(a)(2) & (3) set forth the proper procedure for introducing portions of deposition transcripts, which requires a party to designate specific portions of a transcript and show cause why the deposition testimony should be admitted. Defendant objects to the introduction of the deposition transcript of a witness who is available to testify. Defendant further objects to introduction of the entire deposition transcript. Appendix A, paragraph 15(b) and Rule of Court of Federal Claims 32(a)(2) & (3) set forth the proper procedure for introducing portions of deposition transcripts, which requires a party to designate specific portions of a transcript and show cause why the deposition testimony should be admitted.

63. Colello Deposition Transcript

64. James Nelson Deposition Transcript

10

Case 1:07-cv-00867-TCW

Document 35

Filed 07/31/2008

Page 11 of 13

65. Michael Walker Deposition Transcript

Defendant objects to the introduction of the deposition transcript of a witness who is available to testify. Defendant further objects to introduction of the entire deposition transcript. Appendix A, paragraph 15(b) and Rule of Court of Federal Claims 32(a)(2) & (3) set forth the proper procedure for introducing portions of deposition transcripts, which requires a party to designate specific portions of a transcript and show cause why the deposition testimony should be admitted. Defendant objects to the introduction of the deposition transcript of a witness who is available to testify. Defendant further objects to introduction of the entire deposition transcript. Appendix A, paragraph 15(b) and Rule of Court of Federal Claims 32(a)(2) & (3) set forth the proper procedure for introducing portions of deposition transcripts, which requires a party to designate specific portions of a transcript and show cause why the deposition testimony should be admitted. Defendant objects to the introduction of the deposition transcript of a witness who is available to testify. Defendant further objects to introduction of the entire deposition transcript. Appendix A, paragraph 15(b) and Rule of Court of Federal Claims 32(a)(2) & (3) set forth the proper procedure for introducing portions of deposition transcripts, which requires a party to designate specific portions of a transcript and show cause why the deposition testimony should be admitted. Defendant objects to the introduction of the deposition transcript of a witness who is available to testify. Defendant further objects to introduction of the entire deposition transcript. Appendix A, paragraph 15(b) and Rule of Court of Federal Claims 32(a)(2) & (3) set forth the proper procedure for introducing portions of deposition transcripts, which requires a party to designate specific portions of a transcript and show cause why the deposition testimony should be admitted.

66. Banashefski Deposition Transcript

67. Julie Solinski Deposition Transcript

68. Charles Smith Deposition Transcript

Respectfully submitted, GREGORY G. KATSAS Assistant Attorney General

11

Case 1:07-cv-00867-TCW

Document 35

Filed 07/31/2008

Page 12 of 13

JEANNE E. DAVIDSON Director /s/ Reginald T. Blades, Jr. REGINALD T. BLADES, JR. Assistant Director OF COUNSEL: James Mackey Ives Litigation Attorney General Litigation Branch Army Litigation Center 901 N. Stuart Street, Suite 400 Arlington, Virginia 22203 Larry Manecke U.S. Army Sustainment Command Office of Counsel AMSAS-GC Bldg. 390 1 Rock Island Arsenal Rock Island, Illinois 61299-6000 July 31, 2008 s/ Joan M. Stentiford JOAN M. STENTIFORD Trial Attorney Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division Department of Justice 1100 L Street, N.W. Attn: Classification Unit 8th Floor Washington, D.C. 20530 Telephone: (202) 616-0341 Fax: (202) 514-8624

Attorneys for Defendant

12

Case 1:07-cv-00867-TCW

Document 35

Filed 07/31/2008

Page 13 of 13

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that on this 31st day of July, 2008, the foregoing "DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED EXHIBITS," was filed electronically. I understand that notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court's system.

__/s/ Joan M. Stentiford JOAN M. STENTIFORD