Replies to post #17879 on Optex Systems Holdings Inc. (OPXS)

[shell3]

Yes they wanted the product tested for several hours prior to delivery so they would know it would work once installed on the battle field, and must have been several hours of testing per unit, the opponents bid did not include this, guess they are just shipping the units and let that soldiers in the field install it and hopes it works, OPTEX had a valid complaint just didn't argue the right way, you can go back and read and ASBCA said that the 1st time, so I believe OPXS pushed the envelope to ASBCA thinking and still lost again, but why post Feb 11 2015, that their information is true to that date, this was for 1Q which was ended 12/28/2014 and it even states when filed 2/11/2015, here's the 1st line in the 2/11/2015 MD&A

This management's discussion and analysis reflects information known to management as at December 28, 2014 and through the date of this filing.

This can't be the same 11/6/2014 court filed paper in favor of OPXS, OPXS is not referring to this paper - there is more just need to find it - JMO

In November 2014, the ASBCA judge issued a decision in favor of Optex Systems Inc. against the government agency asserted position for a waiver of the claim. As of the date of this report issuance, we are awaiting a decision by the agency on their position in respect to the judge's ruling for the next phase of the appeal process

[fireopal]

ok thanks - thought what was in the proposal case was the standard clause referenced in recent judge decision (#11) where they made a special limitation clause for opxs but looks like the far numbers are different and i have no clue what they are so never mind lol