text: UNITED STATES CLAIMS COURT INTERNATIONAL GRAPHICS, Division of Moore Business Forms, Inc., Plaintiff v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant No. 586-83C 5 Cl. Ct. 100 Robert D. Wallick, Washington, D.C., attorney of record for plaintiff. Steptoe & Johnson, of counsel. Stephen Bergenholtz, Washington, D.C., with whom was Acting Assistant Attorney General Richard K. Willard, for defendant. OPINION ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE GIBSON, Judge: This matter comes before the court on plaintiff's first and second "Motion In Limine," filed February 29 and March 2, 1984. Said motions, and defendant's response thereto, come as the latest skirmish in a long series of procedural battles, pertaining to the cancellation of a solicitation (Program 174-S) by the Government Printing Office (GPO) for the printing and distribution of the Commerce Business Daily (CBD).1 Plaintiff's first motion seeks the exclusion from evidence in the forthcoming trial on the merits of a series of proposed exhibits filed by defendant and related testimony, which purport to estimate the in-house costs of performing the requirements of Program 114-S under the standards of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-76 (A-76).2 In its first motion, plaintiff contends that defendant's estimates and re-estimates in the exhibits it challenges constitute an ex post facto attempt to justify cancellation of its solicitation which contradict both A-76 and the general principles of fairness in government procurement. Plaintiff's second motion seeks the exclusion of all evidence (documentary and otherwise) directed at justifying the cancellation of the solicitation by utilizing the cost comparison standards of the August 4, 1983 amended version of A-76. It contends instead that only the 1979 version of A-76 (as amended by Transmittal Memoranda between 1980 and 1982) provides valid standards for comparison between in-house costs and commercial bids. The facts pertinent to plaintiff's present motions are set forth below. For the reasons stated hereinafter, this court must deny both of plaintiff's motions. FACTS On February 24, 1982, the GPO issued a solicitation styled Program 114-S, which advised in its letter of transmittal to prospective bidders as follows: ... The Government Printing Office is doing a feasibility/cost analysis for the requirements of the "Commerce Business Daily." This will be accomplished as outlined in OMB Circular No. A-76. This solicitation in in part for information and planning purposes and consequently, it may be that the Government will not award a contract on the basis of this solicitation.... (Emphasis added.) Subsequently, a pre-bid conference was held on Program 114-S on March 9, 1982, which was attended by prospective bidders, including plaintiff. The following bidder questions and GPO responses, pertinent to the issues herein, occurred: Q. Can you provide a copy of OMB Circular No. A-76 referred to in your letter of February 24, 1982? A. Yes. Q. Will provisions of A-76 be used as criteria for proposals? A. GPO is not bound by OMB A-76 but adopts its theory in principal [sic]. (Emphasis added.) In the February 24, 1982 solicitation, the GPO stated that it intended to issue a Single Award Term Contract for the publication and distribution of the CBD for the Department of Commerce by the method known as Two-Step Formal Advertising. Under this method, bidders were first invited to submit technical proposals, without pricing. Those bidders that submitted acceptable technical proposals were then to be issued formal Invitations for Bids (IFBs), under which they were to submit final price bids. The GPO did not complete its evaluation of technical proposals and issue its formal IFB under Step Two of the solicitation until August 15, 1983. The resulting IFB disclosed, inter alia, that bids must be submitted for all lots and for all items therein; however, defendant reserved the right to award "by lots or any combination thereof." The lots upon which bids were required were delineated into four categories as follows: Lot Description of Services Currently Services Sought Performed by 1 Editorial DOC 2 Typesetting Commercial Contractor ADP Capability DOC 3 Printing/Binding GPO 4 Subscription SOD3 Management Bids under the IFB were received from five commercial bidders, as well as the GPO itself, by September 16, 1983.Plaintiff submitted two bids, dated September 15, 1983. Its first bid was on all lots separately, and its alternate bid was for a total package price, pursuant to an option offered to bidders in a september 1983 amendment to the IFB. The GPO submitted in-house costs only on Lots 3 and 4, however, and utilized the low contractor price on Lots 1 and 2 for evaluation purposes. Bids were opened by the GPO's contracting officer on September 16, 1983. At this time, the bids of all bidders except plaintiff, defendant, and Jeffries Banknote Company were rejected as nonresponsive.4 Stemming from information and belief, plaintiff reasoned that the GPO imminently contemplated awarding Lots 1 and 2 of the contract to Jeffries Banknote Company and Lots 3 and 4 to itself. (Jeffries and the GPO were the apparent low bidders on the respective lots.) Accordingly, in a letter dated September 20, 1983, plaintiff protested, anticipatorily, the award of a contract to anyone other than itself, and requested the administrative review/appeal mandated by OMB Circular A-76.5 Whereas defendant did not honor plaintiff's request, plaintiff immediately applied for a temporary restraining order in this court on September 22, 1983, against the awarding of a contract to anyone other than itself. Because defendant stipulated that no award of a contract would be made until after a hearing on October 5, 1983, this application was denied as moot.Before the hearing could be held, however, defendant abruptly cancelled the solicitation on October 3, 1983. This was done because retention of the CBD production and distribution in-house, rather than outsourcing same, would allegedly effect a $1.2 million cost savings to the government over the five-year life of the contract. Thereafter, plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction restraining the cancellation of the solicitation under Program 114-S was heard, and was granted after a hearing on October 7, 1983. About that time and thereafter, defendant moved to dismiss and for summary judgment on October 3 and 20, 1983. These motions were subsequently denied by this court in an opinion filed on December 23, 1983, which held, inter alia, that a genuine issue of fact existed with respect to whether a $1.2 million cost savings existed. See International Graphics, 4 Cl. Ct. at 196. On January 12, 1984, defendant moved to suspend the proceedings to February 24, 1984, in order to complete an evaluation of the costs of Program 114-S in accordance with A-76. In said motion, defendant acknowledged that "there were some respects in which the GPO did not follow OMB Circular A-76 in its conduct of the Program 114-S solicitation," because it did not originally intend itself to be bound by A-76.It further admitted that "GPO's existing figures and evaluations are not amenable to study or comparison in terms of OMB Circular A-76," and that "if [its new A-76] evaluation concludes it would be more cost effective to contract out publication of the CBD, GPO will take all appropriate steps to restore the solicitation and award the contract to the lowest responsive responsible bidder." This motion was denied in a memorandum order filed January 20, 1984, on the grounds that (a) a suspension of proceedings could extend the resolution of this case for an intolerable period, and (b) defendant would, notwithstanding the denial, have more than the 43 days it requested, in order to do the necessary A-76 study, between the date of its motion and the initial trial date. After one short continuance of the trial date (from February 27 to March 1, 1984) and a concomitant extension of time for the submission of proposed exhibits and contentions of law and fact, the parties submitted their proposed exhibits by February 27, 1984. Included in defendant's proposed exhibits, as the apparent mainstay of its case, was a recently completed cost comparison by the GPO for Program 114-S, ostensibly prepared pursuant to the August 1983 updated version of A-76. Plaintiff then filed subject motions in limine on February 29, 1984 (the day prior to the scheduled trial) and on March 1, 1984 (after a continuance of the trial date had been ordered by the court), praying that the designated documentary evidence and related testimony be excluded from evidence, at the trial, under Rules 402 and 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE).6 The grounds postulated for said position were that such evidence is irrelevant and would (a) unfairly prejudice the plaintiff, (b) confuse the issues, and (c) waste time. DISCUSSION We observe, as our starting point, that a recent Claims Court decision has characterized the purpose of a motion in limine in the following manner: A motion in limine is a useful tool to prevent a party before trial from encumbering the record with irrelevant, immaterial or cumulative matters. Such a motion enables a court to rule in advance on the admissibility of documentary or testimonial evidence and thus expedite and render efficient a subsequent trial. (Emphasis added.) Baskett v. United States, 2 Cl. Ct. 356, 367-68 (1983). The courts and commentators favor the use of motions in limine in complex litigation as a means of "increasing trial efficiency and promoting improved accuracy of evidentiary determinations by virtue of the more thorough briefing and argument of the issues that are possible prior to the crush of trial." Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd., 505 F.Supp. 1125, 1140 (E.D. Pa. 1980); see authorities cited therein at 1141. In the instant case, the parties appear to hold diametrically opposite points of view with respect to what the proper issue(s) shall be at the forthcoming trial. Plaintiff essentially takes the position that since defendant did not did Lots 1 and 2 (but merely adopted the lowest bid of the lowest bidders for same) for purposes of determining whether it was justified in cancelling the solicitation, based on the alleged compelling need, defendant should be permitted simply to "correct" (not re-estimate ab initio) its bid on Lots 3 and 4 consistent with OMB Circular A-76, prevailing as of March 1982. With respect to Lots 1 and 2, plaintiff contends that fairness dictates that defendant not be permitted to bid lots ab initio, after all bids have been opened. So as not to offend the procurement process, it suggests that defendant should adopt its (plaintiff's) lowest bid on Lots 1 and 2, aggregate same with defendant's "corrected" bids on Lots 3 and 4, and determine who is the lowest bidder by comparing the foregoing with plaintiff's lowest package bid. Premised on the foregoing, plaintiff, in essence, takes the position that the only question before the court in the forthcoming trial on the merits is whether defendant's bid of September 15, 1983, modified and corrected in the foregoing manner respecting the fourt lots, is, in the aggregate, lower than plaintiff's package bid. Conversely, defendant admits that the study it made of the comparative costs of producing the CBD, prior to cancellation, was not done substantially pursuant to OMB Circular A-76, and therefore it has conducted an entirely new study pursuant to the 1983 version (most recent) of the OMB Circular. Defendant thus intends to introduce its new study into evidence as the methodology utilized in establishing the compelling reason for cancelling the solicitation based on a $1.2 million savings. Plaintiff's motions in limine therefore come to the court for the appropriate purpose of seeking an order excluding all evidence at trial that reflects a post-bid opening estimate of the cost of in-house production of the CBD, as well as all evidence of a cost comparison pursuant to the August 1983 version of A-76. It is this evidence that plaintiff avers is prejudicial, will confuse the issues, and waste time. I. In its first motion in limine, plaintiff contends that the defendant is bound, by the "Government procurement norm" and the then existing cost comparison principles of A-76, to conduct its cost comparison study prior to bid opening, and that any initial estimate (Lots 1 and 2) or "re-estimate" (Lots 3 and 4) of the government's costs subsequent to bid opening are therefore contrary to law and the implied contract. This contention receives threshould support from the fundamental principle in federal procurement law governing competitive bidding, that bids should not be submitted when a bidder or bidders have had the opportunity to see the bids of others. See 41 C.F.R. ¶1-2.401 (1983); R. Nash and J. Cibinic, Federal Procurement Law 223 (3d Ed. 1977). It is also supported by the Cost Comparison Handbook (both the 1979 and 1983 versions) which contemplates that the in- house cost estimate will be prepared by the concerned government agency prior to bid opening. See OMB Circular No. A-76, Supplement I (1979), at 7, ¶ D(2) and appendix 3; id. (revised 1983), at IV-3, ¶2(g) and appendix A. Defendant opposes plaintiff's position by contending that "all applicable authorities sanction the re-estimate of A-76 costs after bid opening." Underlying defendant's position is another pervading principle of federal procurement law, namely that "the policy of Congress [is] to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the procurement of goods, services and facilities by and for the executive branch of the Federal Government...." Pub. L. 91-129, 83 Stat. 269 (1969); see also R. Nash and J. Cibinic, supra, at 487. Therefore, defendant posits that a re-estimate of government costs of performing a contract should be permitted, even after bid opening, if the government reasonably believes that the most economical option has not yet been properly determined. At first blush, the present dispute reflects an apparent conflict between the foregoing two fundamental premises of government procurement law. However, the language of the 1979 and 1983 versions of the A-76 Cost Comparison Handbook clearly demonstrates that although it is intended that the government should compile its own costs prior to bid opening, the government must be given the opportunity to correct errors discovered in its cost comparison after bids have been opened. See OMB Circular No. A-76, Supplement No. 1 (1979), p. 8, ¶6; id. (1983), p. I-12, ¶ E(4). This result is mandated by the overriding purpose of A-76 -- to assure the most "economical performance of Federal activities," through "a comprehensive and valid comparison of the estimated cost to the Government of acquiring a product or service by contract and of providing it with in-house, Government resources." Id. (1979), p. 1; see id. (1983), p. IV-1. Moreover, this result is in accord with the general Congressional policy that agencies are not obliged in all circumstances to utilize a competitive bidding system, but only must do so "to the maximum extent practicable." Pub. L. 91-129, supra. In accord with this directive, decisions of the General Accounting Office (GAO), which have found A-76 cost comparisons erroneous, have consistently held that the agency that made the study should adjust its in-house cost estimate to reflect the effect of the correction of the error. See, e.g., Trend Western Technical Corporation, B-212410.2 84-1 CPD ¶ 29 (1983); Contract Services Co., B-208180.2, 83-2 CPD ¶ 331 (1983); Satellite Services, Inc., B-207180, 82-2 CPD ¶ 474 (1982). The reasoning underlying the GAO decisions, with which this court agrees and adopts,7 was stated as follows in the Trend Western case, supra: Implicit in our decision [to permit the government to correct its in-house cost estimate after bid opening] is the recognition that a government estimate provides a standard against which bids and proposals are evaluated. The government estimate thus is not subject to the same rules as are bids and proposals, such as the requirement that a bid be responsive.... Therefore, we cannot question the Army's position on its authority to correct the government estimate. (Emphasis added.) We note that plaintiff does not challenge the authority of the government to make "adjustments" or corrections of a previously completed A-76 study after bid opening. Instead, it attempts to draw a sharp distinction between the "correction" of errors in a pre-bid A-76 cost comparison study, which it concedes to be legitimate, and the initial estimation and/or "re-estimation" of in-house costs in a new A-76 study, which it strenuously contends to be contrary to law.8 Plaintiff, therefore, takes strong exception to defendant's preparing an in-house estimate for Lots 1 and 2, as well as the completion of the portion below Line 9 of the 1979 A-76 cost comparison form,9 because, prior to bid opening, the GPO did not submit bids on the first two lots and did not make the adjustments to its in-house cost estimate required by the portion below Line 9 of the 1979 cost comparison form. Plaintiff cites no authority for the foregoing distinction it makes, aside from the fact that the pertinent GAO decisions have expressly permitted adjustments or corrections to A-76 cost comparisons but have made no mention of "re-estimations". Plaintiff thus apparently seeks an order from this court to the effect that defendant's so-called "ex post facto" A-76 study is so unfair and prejudicial, as to be abusive of the procurement process, that defendant should be precluded from introducing it into evidence. We hasten to point out that the short answer to the foregoing is that the pleadings, affidavits, and evidence brought thus far to the court's attention belie such a hospitable conclusion. To the contrary, even though defendant now concedes that it did not conform substantially to the procedures of an A-76 study prior to its cancellation of October 3, 1983, the record indicates that such omission has consistently been premised on the good faith belief that it was not "bound" by A-76. This belief was expressed by GPO representatives, at the pre-proposal conference of March 9, 1982, ante litem motam, and was reiterated in statements on the record by various GPO officials in September and October, 1983. For examaple, according to the testimony of the contracting officer for Program 114-S, the GPO only believed that it was obligated to compare the overall cost of performing the contract in-house with that of the lowest private bidder(s), without having to follow in toto the technical cost comparison methodology of A-76. This perception of the responsible GPO official was also apparently based on the fact that A-76 does not apply to legislative agencies such as the GPO, as well as the specific language in A-76 excepting printing and binding activities under Title 44 from its coverage. See OMB Circular A-76, ¶6(d)(6) (1979); id., ¶7(b)(1983). In light of the foregoing facts and circumstances, as well as the presumption of regularity that attaches to actions of government officials, at this posture, no persuasive facts have been adduced to compel this court to find that defendant has so abused the procurement process as to preclude it from introducing evidence of its most recent A-76 study. In the circumstances of this case, a heavy burden is on the movant to so show and we find such a showing to be wanting. See Kalvar Corp. v. United States, 211 Ct. Cl. 192, 197-98, 543 F.2d 1298 (1976). The ultimate question in subject litigation is whether defendant had a "compelling reason" to cancel the solicitation under Program 114-S, pursuant to the GPO's Printing Procurement Regulations.10 See International Graphics 4 Cl. Ct. at 196. The subsidiary question thereto is how and by what method may defendant prove said fact. Defendant initially claimed that its decision to cancel the solicitation was justified by a cost savings of $1.2 million that would be effected thereby, and that it was not bound to follow A-76 in making its determination of cost savings. Following the issuance of this court's opinion on December 23, 1983, holding that defendant was bound to comply with the fundamental cost comparison principles of A-76 before it could cancel the solicitation because of cost savings achieved thereby, defendant conceded that its initial cancellation decision was not made pursuant to a defensible A-76 study. Hence, it subsequently undertook to perform such a study, committing itself, concomitantly, to award the contract to the lowest responsible/responsive private bidder if it found that outsourcing the contract was justified under the cost comparison principles of A-76.11 This court has found nothing contained in the general body of applicable procurement law (or in the cost comparison principles of A-76), nor has plaintiff so shown, which would prohibit defendant from exercising this statutory prerogative. II. Plaintiff's second motion in limine requests that the court exclude all of defendant's evidence (documentary and testimonial) pertaining to a cost comparison under Program 114-S which uses or relies upon the 1983 revised version of A-76. Instead, plaintiff contends that the proper methodology for determining the in-house cost and the standard for all cost comparisons of producing the CBO by defendant should be the 1979 version of the Circular, as amended until 1982. Plaintiff's position, seemingly, is premised primarily on this court's holding of December 23, 1983, that while A-76 does not apply per se to the GPO, the "cost comparison principles" of A-76 were incorporated into the implied contract of fairness running between the government and plaintiff. Consequently, it argues, in effect, that A-76 is only significant in subject solicitation to the extent that its cost comparison principles were incorporated into the foregoing implied contract, and that the events which gave rise to said implied contract occurred either in February 1982, when the solicitation under Program 114-S was disseminated, or in March 1982, when plaintiff's representative was allegedly given a copy of the then-prevailing version of A-76 (i.e., 1979) by the GPO's contracting officer. Hence, plaintiff argues that the subsequent revision of A-76, which became effective on August 4, 1983, had no legal effect on the implied contract between the parties, and therefore is not relevant to any present issue before this court. While it is true that the sole legal significance of A-76 in subject litigation is that its "fundamental cost comparison principles" were incorporated by reference into the implied contract of fairness under Program 114-S, plaintiff has no sustainable basis for contending that said implied contract arose in 1982.The implied contract on which plaintiff must rely is, of course, implied in fact, since this court has no jurisdiction over a contract implied in law. Merritt v. United States, 267 U.S. 338, 341 (1925); Algonac Mfg. Co. v. United States, 192 Ct. Cl. 649, 674, 428 F.2d 1241 (1970). The requirements for such an implied-in-fact contract were summarized, in pertinent part, as follows in Prevado Village Partnership v. United States, 3 Cl. Ct. 219, 223-24 (1983): To carry its burden in proving [the existence of an] implied-in- fact [contract], plaintiff must show the same mutual intent to contract, as well as the absence of any ambiguity in the offer and acceptance, as is required for an express contract. Plaintiff must show an agreement based upon a meeting of the minds that can be inferred, as a fact, from the conduct of the parties under existing circumstances which manifests their tacit understanding. A definite offer by one party and an unconditional acceptance by the other must be established to show an implied-in-fact contract. (Citations omitted.) (Emphasis added.) See also Baltimore & Ohio R.R. v. United States, 261 U.S. 592, 597 (1923); Algonac Mfg. Co., 194 Ct. Cl. at 673-74. In the context of the implied contract of fairness, the solicitation of February 24, 1982 can only be considered to be an "offer." The "acceptance" does not take place until the bids are submitted, because it is only then that there is a mutuality of intent to contract between the government and bidders. Moreover, "[i]t is the plaintiff's compliance with the solicitation that forms the consideration for the implied contract of fair dealing." Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. United States, 2 Cl. Ct. 373, 376 (1983). Hence, the implied contract of fairness between the government and bidders only arises upon the submission of bids. Id.; see also Alabama Metal Products, No. 610-83C, slip op. at 6 (Cl. Ct. Feb. 14, 1984). Although the solicitation in the instant case was issued on February 24, 1982, bids were not submitted until September 15, 1983. Thus, the implied contract of fairness with plaintiff in subject litigation arose on September 15, 1983, 42 days after the effective date (August 4, 1983) of the 1983 revision of A-76. Consequently, even if the theory were accepted that defendant's cost comparison must be made under the prevailing version of A-76 at the time the implied contract of fairness arose, defendant would not be restricted from utilizing the recent updated 1983 revision of A-76 in its cost comparison, since the implied-in- fact contract arose after the promulgation of the latest revised A-76. Moreover, plaintiff has no justifiable basis for contending that because some of the events that "gave rise to" subject implied contract occurred in February and March 1982, defendant should be restricted from applying all revisions of A-76 issued subsequent to that time. The solicitation that formed the basis for said implied-in-fact contract clearly indicated that the GPO's "cost/feasibility analysis" would be conducted "as outlined in OMB Circular No. A-76," but was void of any indication as to which version of A-76 would be applicable. In interpreting such ambiguous provisions, it is axiomatic that: The primary objective of contractual interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to the mutual intention of the contracting parties, and to this end a contract should be appraised as a whole--giving just consideration to the fundamental purposes of the parties and the surrounding factual circumstances at the time of execution. (Emphasis added.) Micrecord Corp. v. United States, 176 Ct. Cl. 46, 53, 361 F.2d 1000 (1966). On the other hand, this court has usually adopted the contractor's interpretation of an ambiguous contract drawn by the government, contra proferentum, if, and only if, the contractor actually and reasonably relied upon that construction at the time the contract was entered into. See Randolph Engineering Co. v. United States, 176 Ct. Cl. 872, 876, 367 F.2d 425 (1966). Assuming arguendo a claim of reliance, the question then is whether plaintiff, on the facts of this case, was reasonable in believing (at the time its bid was submitted on September 15, 1983) that defendant intended to utilize the cost comparison provisions of the 1979 version of A-76, rather than the 1983 version, in determining its in-house costs. The record, with respect to subject solicitation, shows that the fundamental objective of the government was clearly to determine, in the most efficacious manner, whether contracting out the production and distribution of the CBD or retaining same in-house was more cost-effective for the government. In view of the complexity entailed in such a determination, it is most reasonable to construe subject solicitation to mean than the government intended to utilize the most accurate state-of-the-art techniques available in making its cost comparison under A-76 (and no creditable evidence surfaced indicating that prospective bidders failed to so understand). The GPO's use of the recent 1983 revision of A-76, which was clearly meant to facilitate greater accuracy and simplicity in cost comparisons, would be most consistent with the foregoing interpretation. See 48 Fed. Reg. 1376 (1983). In this connection, it is especially significant to note that the Federal Register placed bidders on notice as early as January 12, 1983, of proposed changes in the 1979 version of A-76. This court is of the view that plaintiff must be held accountable for all knowledge affecting Program 114-S that would flow to a reasonably cognizant person at the time it submitted its bid on September 15, 1983. Against the foregoing background, it strains credulity that plaintiff could reasonably believe, at the time of submission of its bid, that defendant in applying the principles of A-76 would not follow the then-existing updated 1983 version of A-76. Moreover, it is apparent from all of plaintiff's submissions after bid opening, prior to this court's opinion of December 23, 1983, that plaintiff did not specifically rely on either the 1979 or 1983 versions of A-76 to the exclusion of then other, but instead referred to both versions while expressing no preference for either one.12 On these facts, this court must hold that plaintiff did not actually and reasonably rely, at the time of the submission of its bid, on the 1979 version of A-76 as being applicable to defendant's cost comparison. Consequently, plaintiff's attempts to make much of the alleged fact that defendant's contracting officer furnished its representative with the 1979 version of the A-76 Circular upon his request in March 1982, even if assumed to be true, in no respect limit the government's ability to utilize the more recent version of A-76 in its ultimate cost comparison analysis. Plaintiff also makes two other arguments that the 1979 version of A-76, rather than the 1983 version, should apply. First, it states that the government's initial A-76 study was in progress prior to the August 4, 1983 effective date of the 1983 version. Consequently, it argues that the following language from ¶12 of the 1983 Circular mandates that the earlier 1979 version be applied: This Circular and its supplements are effective immediately but need not be applied where a cost comparison was begun, using the March 1979 Circular, prior to the effective date [(August 4, 1983)]. (Emphasis added.) This argument is totally without merit. This court interprets the phrase "need not" to mean "may," that is to say, it is discretionary with the agency. Therefore, the only effect of the literal language of the Circular cited above is to permit the government to continue an A-76 study under the 1979 Circular if such was in progress as of August 4, 1983. Nothing contained in ¶12 or any other part of A-76 precludes the government from applying the 1983 version of the Circular. Secondly, plaintiff lists a number of instances in the defendant's preliminary motions, as well as the preliminary hearings, in which defendant referred to the 1979 version of the Circular. Consequently, plaintiff contends that these uses of the 1979 Circular constitute a "contemporaneous interpretation" by the GPO of the implied contract, which "conclusively confirms" that the 1979 Circular here pertains. This contention is equally devoid of substance. Throughout the period before the disposition of its motion for summary judgment, defendant unswervingly took the position that the GPO was not bound to conform to any version of A-76, and all references it made to the 1979 Circular were in support of this contention. Moreover, the references made to the 1979 version of A-76 by defendant were only made in response to plaintiff's assertions, using the 1979 version of the Circular, that the GPO was bound by the principles of A-76. It is clear that plaintiff's assertions, at this time, were made using the 1979 version "[f]or brevity's sake." See note 12, supra. Given the foregoing circumstances, this court will not deem defendant's references to the 1979 version of A-76 as a "contemporaneous interpretation" of same, but only as references similarly made for brevity's sake.13 Consequently, defendant's current use of the updated 1983 A-76 Circular in its pretrial submissions cannot be deemed to constitute a "blatant and arbitrary change of position... [which] demonstrates bad faith," as claimed by plaintiff. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's first and second motions in limine are denied. Accordingly, at the forthcoming trial on the merits, defendant shall be permitted to introduce evidence, documentary and otherwise, of its more recent A-76 cost comparison, and will also be permitted to utilize the provisions of the 1983 revision of A-76 as a standard for determining whether the cost savings it projects would result in fact from the cancellation of subject solicitation. IT IS SO ORDERED. April 18, 1984 _______________ 1 For a previous history of this case, see International Graphics v. United States, 4 Cl. Ct. 186 (1983). 2 OMB Circular A-76 was originally issued in 1966, for the purpose of "establish[ing] the policies and procedures used to determine whether needed commercial or industrial type work should be done by contract with private sources or in-house using Government personnel." See OMB Circular No. A-76, 44 Feb. Reg. 20,556, 20,557 (1979). The Circular was revised by seven Transmittal Memoranda (TM) between January 1967 and October 1982, most notably TM #4 (1979), which incorporated a completely revised version of the main body of the Circular as well as a new detailed Cost Comparison Handbook. On January 12, 1983, OMB published another proposed revision of the Circular in the Federal Register. See 48 Fed. Reg. 1376 (1983). The proposed changes were then adopted and implemented as OMB Circular No. A-76 (Revised) on August 4, 1983. 3 DOC is the Department of Commerce. SOD is the Superintendent of Documents. 4 Jeffries Banknote Company intervened in this action on September 29, 1983 (allowed on October 4, 1983), and subsequently withdrew by motion on February 29, 1984. 5 Plaintiff's letter made no mention of whether it thought that the 1979 (revised) or the 1983 updated versions of A-76 should apply in determining the base of GPO's estimate against which all bids would be measured. 6 Rule 402, FRE, provides, inter alia, that "[e]vidence which is not relevant is not admissible." Rule 403, FRE, provides, inter alia that "[a]lthough relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues,... or by consideration of undue... waste of time...." (Emphasis added.) 7 It is well settled that while this court is not bound by the decisions of the Comptroller General, it can adopt the views contained therein. See, e.g., Burroughs Corp. v. United States, 223 Ct. Cl. 53, 63, 617 F.2d 590 (1980). 8 Plaintiff specifically objects to a "re-estimation" of the in- house costs on Lot 3 and 4 (the only lots of Program 114-S on which the GPO made pre-bid estimates of its in-house costs) and an estimation, ab initio, on Lots 1 and 2 after bids have been opened. 9 The portion of the 1979 cost comparison form below Line 9, captioned "Performance by Contracting-Out (Chapter IV)", encompasses adjustments in the low bidder's contract price so as to include additional government costs that would be incurred from contracting out, such as contract administration and conversion costs, and deduct items such as federal income taxes that would be collected from the low bidder. This portion of the 1979 cost comparison form is comparable to the portion of the 1983 cost comparison form below Line 6. 10 Specifically, the GPO is required to have a "compelling reason" for cancellation by GPO Printing Procurement Regulation, § IV.2. 11 In essence, defendant has thus acted to correct an error, albeit a major error, in the initial cost comparison it made prior to cancellation, which, on these facts, is within the ambit of permissible agency actions under the Trend Western line of GAO cases, supra. 12 For example, in its motion for a preliminary injunction, in which plaintiff asserted that the GPO did not comply with A-76, it cited the 1979 version "[f]or brevity's sake,... except where there appear to be differences [with the 1983 revision] which might be significant in this action." Elsewhere in its motion, where the 1983 revision differed from the 1979 version, plaintiff cited the two versions, without expressing a view of which version should be applicable. 13 In this connection, it is noteworthy that those portions of the 1979 Circular cited by defendant in its preliminary motion of October 3, 1983 and the hearing of October 7, 1983 were retained in virtually identical form in the 1983 Circular.


text:
Some notion of non-harmfulness is a key feature of religious, ethical, and philosophical systems. In Buddhism, it is called ahimsa.
Summer in Northern Vermont is a battle between human and insect. The Deer Flies are especially active this time of year. If you are not familiar, deer flies are a triangle shape (very similar to a stealth bomber) and when they bite (or sting), I get a nice itchy welt. Admittedly, these welts don't persist long yet there is a clear sense that these creatures are feeding upon me.
While I am honored to play my part in the food chain, receiving their attention is hard to do with equanimity.
To practice ahimsa would require not killing these flies before they inflict damage upon my flesh. That is, I would have to let them munch away as I walk or run through the woods. Or I could spray myself with chemicals that might deter them.
There isn't a real threat to me. These aren't West Nile Virus carrying mosquitos (still better to deter them than to vigilantly scan and kill them manually), so why does it feel like a battle? The answer to this questions boils down to the notion of self that we carry around.
This self is a thing (like that fly) and it needs to be protected. Thus a battle emerges between man and fly. As I mentioned already, there is no mortal threat, so the treat is to my comfort level and my ego.
The hovering buzzing frenetic action of the files triggers archaic defense strategies that served our ancestors well eons ago but is of dubious value to me now. My battle with the flies requires energy (attention resources of vigilance, trying to catch them on the back of my neck before they bite, etc) and only serves to reinforce this solid notion of self.
Then there is the issue of harming other beings. Is it possible to live one's life without harming others? The Jains were (and are still) contemporaries of the Buddha. You might see them today wearing masks so they don't inadvertently swallow a bug.
The great saint Mahavira took their non harmfulness ideal to its logical conclusion and starved himself to death for to eat requires harming other living things, be they plant or animal.
Centuries ago, the microscopic world was not known yet we know today that we are occupied by about a couple of pounds of microorganisms in our microbiome. It is not possible to live without killing. Where do we draw the line?
Kurt Cobain wondered if eating fish was okay since they weren't supposed to have any feelings. That notions is coming into question now as a compelling and chilling episode of Fresh Air made clear.
In his fascinating book, The Mindful Carnivore, Tovar Ceruli an avowed vegan realized "I wasn't eating animals, but my vegetables were." This is the case because animals must be destroyed in the production of food, whether it is the ground hog in the garden or deer that feed on farm fields.
We tend to forgot that life is food. This is the natural way of things in the world. We are the only ones who can make choices based on ethical consciousness.
If, for example, birds and other predators didn't eat insects and all the insects of the world's offspring survived and reproduced, all of which survived, in a few generations the earth would be covered in several feet of insects!
This fact is not license for me to kill the deer flies. Each time I do, I perpetuate this illusory battle, that there is some one on my end to engage in that conflict.
The illusory, metaphorical nature of self is the subject of my next book project. I'm gathering a lot of field data every time I am in the woods. There are some days that awakening seems far away as I relish in the struggle. The flies can bite skin but they cannot bite "me" because that self is a fluid, unfolding, process of energy not some thing standing outside of experience.
Life presents this basic dilemma with almost every breath. Be fully present in the flow of experience or identify with this notion of self as some abstracted disembodied entity. It is only this latter notion of self that can suffer the slings and arrows of life.
I am connecting with mindfulness colleagues on LinkedIn (thank you!) and I am impressed, no, flabbergasted by the amount of people who have embraced mindfulness, made it the central focus of their lives.
It is humbling. My one voice in a chorus of multitudes. I am no one special. I would say, though, that my interest in mindfulness predates the current bandwagon by decades. I am not sure if this really means anything other than there a lot of newcomers to the movement/revolution. New energy is likely good energy. Not inferior. Yet, there are cautions.
Mindfulness is simple in concept, yet elusive in execution. There is a joke in mindfulness teaching circles that we are "selling water by the river." Everyone has a sense of mindfulness–an instinct if you will. What mindfulness teachers offer is a way to access this innate reserve at will and not just during exceptional moments.
When I train fellow clinicians (or really anyone), I encourage them to teach what you can own. Mindfulness is scalable. Anyone can introduce the technique to someone else, even a child can teach it. Yet, there is more to it than this and to be able to respond to questions and to embed the practice within the Buddha's larger set of teachings stems from our own direct, experiential understanding of the practice. The deeper our practice, the more we can teach.
What would the Buddha think of all the people devoted, explicitly or not, to this teachings.
Would he be pleased? Yes. Would he have some caveats? Yes. Definitely.
Caveat One: Mindfulness is more than a wellness technique and should be best viewed as an integral component in the process of self-transformation, perhaps even community- and world-transformation.
Caveat Two: Consistent with caveat one, the goal of mindfulness is not just relaxation, stress reduction, of feeling better. The goal of mindfulness practice is to experience our lives with fidelity, intimacy, and intelligence. Mindfulness practice is a discipline geared toward every moment of thought, feeling, and behavior. To be mindful, is to see clearly the good, the bad, and the ugly
Caveat Three: "Don't forget about me!" The Buddha didn't invent mindfulness but he perfected it as a set of meditation techniques (i.e., the Satipatthana Sutta). Mindfulness can and should be practiced in a secular context–as the Buddha intended it. In the quest for the secular application of mindfulness, we don't need to throw away the Buddha with the Buddhist bath water.
I salute the thousands of fellow mindfulness practitioners around the world. Thank you for the work that you are doing. We are all part of a broader project attempting to bring a little more wakefulness into the world, a little less reactivity, and a lot more joy.
The Buddha knew a thing or two about non-contingent self-worth. He recognized that we actively participate in the generation of feeling insulted. Words may be issues, yet without some kind of assent, acceptance, or appropriation, they cannot affect us.
This non-contingent sentiment is made beautifully clear in this passage from the Samyutta Nikaya. The Buddha creates a metaphor to the offering of food. Your guest may or may not take the food. The Buddha said this after he was insulted by a brahman, Akkosaka, notorious for his insults:
In the same way, brahman, that with which you have insulted me, who is not insulting,; that with which you have taunted me, how is not taunting; that with which you have berated me, who is not berating: that I don't accept from you. It's all your, brahman. It's all yours. (SN, 7:2)
This is a very modern take on the situation. The Buddha is acting as the first cognitive behavioral therapist and the same time he is emphasizing existential responsibility. Words can only "harm" if the receiver adopts a certain attitude.
Whoever returns insult to one who is insulting, returns taunts to one who is taunting, returns berating to one who is berating, is said to be eating together, sharing company with that person. But I am not eating together or sharing your company, brahman. It's all yours. It's all yours.
How much anguish has arisen from retaliating to insults? How much blood has been spilt making another pay for taunts?
Everyone is entitle to their opinions. In Mindfulness A to Z: 108 Insights for Awakening Now, I tell a story of a how someone said I looked like a "pimp" (I was wearing my best suit). These moments are little choices: indignation or letting be. Fortunately, that day I chose letting be and just had a good laugh.
The next time someone insults you, see if you can avert taking it personally.
I was recently asked to contribute to a Huff Po piece on 7 Ways Introverts Handle Heartbreak Differently by Brittany Wong. I found this article to be very helpful.
The other contributors prompted me to think about my own divorce process and how my introverted tendencies (back then still not fully realized) affected the way I handled that process.
I spoke of the need to withdraw and how meditation practice, invaluable always, was especially crucial during that tumultuous time. In retrospect, I understand now why it took many years before I was ready to re-engage with relationship. This had more to do with my introversion than the failure of marriage.
I, of course, remember how stressful the process was yet had forgotten how it was stressful in the ways that were heightened by introversion. After all the meetings, paperwork, and other matters of consequence, I was tapped out.
It was a brilliant sunshine day in May when everything was finally resolved. I remember how good that silent warmth felt on my skin and the sense of renewal it intimated, the new road ahead, as it were.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
"if UCSB students, alumni, faculty and staff want to channel their feelings into constructive action, here's a suggestion: ask the University of California Regents if its $88 billion endowment is contributing to gun violence by being invested in gun companies that fund the National Rifle Association (NRA) and obstruct common-sense gun policies. If it is, they should demand that the UC system divest itself from these merchants of death."…Continue
Added by Joan Denoo on May 27, 2014 at 10:15pm — 2 Comments
Hello fellow free thinkers, I was recently at a local muncipal government health clinic. There on a stand with information purtaining to the clinic, and it's services was a stack of issues from a local, "community monthly publication". The title is: "Changing Times", and evident by the cross accompaning the title, and the content within; this is a christian publication! This clinic is run by the local municipality, which in turn is part of the state's department of health & hospitals,…Continue
Added by Giuseppe D'Avanzo on October 1, 2011 at 3:25am — 1 Comment
Penn Jillette's Private Rock & Roll, Doughnut and Bacon Party
Friday 11:00pm
Be forewarned —
This really is Penn's private party. He's paying for everything and JREF has nothing to do with it. This party will be whatever Penn wants; it's not a JREF…
Added by Heather Henderson on June 21, 2011 at 12:52pm — 1 Comment
Added by Rev Hellbound Alleee on December 24, 2009 at 10:29am — No Comments
© 2016 Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes. Powered by


text:
DALLAS — A pair of sparkly, peekaboo shoes with heels 2 inches high are favorites of 6-year-old Helena Bell ever since she got them for a wedding.
"She's worn them to the point where the jewels have fallen off," says Helena's mother, Dana Bell of Woodland Hills, Calif. "It's not my preference, but I've stopped fighting it."
As images of 3-1⁄2-year-old Suri Cruise out and about in blingy heels circulated in magazines and the Internet, reactions to the grown-up look for not-so-old kids have ranged from cries of inappropriate to defense of a little girl's right to be girlie. Suri's mom, Katie Holmes, told Access Hollywood she considers the kitten heels supportive because they were made specifically for kids learning ballroom dancing.
Some doctors are concerned about possible injuries to young feet.
Dr. James W. Brodsky, a Dallas orthopedic surgeon and past president of the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society, says healthy shoes for kids are similar to healthy shoes for adults — not too high a heel, plenty of width in the toe box, soft natural materials to conform to the shape of the foot and good support.
The phenom falls in line with other trends in clothing, books, music and movies once reserved for older audiences trickling down the age ladder.
Lisa Spiegel, a counselor and director of Soho Parenting, a New York City parenting resource center, says worry about kids aging too fast is often on the minds of parents today. She says she hasn't noticed a prevalence of young girls wearing heels but does know parents contending with young girls wanting to wear makeup or dress in too-skimpy clothes.
"We really, really try to help families hold onto their better instincts that kids should be children and not little adults," she says.
— By Jamie Stengle | Associated Press


text:
MADISON, Alabama - Downtown Madison is in danger of losing Old Black Bear Brewing because its owners said they are running out time to relocate operations to Main Street.
The small brewery wants to be up and running in September because
that's the month owners Todd Seaton and Danny Levis said they will have reached
capacity at their current brewing center, Back Forty Beer Company, in Gadsden. Old Black Bear Brewing shares the equipment
with Back Forty.
Old Black Bear Brewing has new customers awaiting contracts for more beer, but those must wait till the new brew house is operating, Seaton added.
The plan for more than a year has been to move into the vacant building next to Bandito Burrito. In addition to its four types of beer, Old Black Bear Brewing would brew root beer and lemonade and feature a stage for live music. There also is a possibility of expanding into the Bandito Burrito location in the future and replacing the Mexican restaurant with a tap room restaurant.
The building needs extensive renovations, however, before the brewing equipment can be moved there. The biggest part of the renovations is the removal of a concrete, storm water drain pipe protruding through the floor. The pipe currently accepts storm water from the eastern end of Main Street.
The second phase of downtown redevelopment will reroute the storm water, allowing the pipe to be removed.
After the pipe's removal, building owner, Larry Anderson, said he will lower the floor and bring in all new plumbing, electrical and heating and cooling systems. That will take months, and there's practically no renovation work that can be done until the new floor is set with the new plumbing, he said.
In mid-May, the city council approved $47,500 for design work of the $1.5 million second phase of downtown redevelopment. Besides drainage improvements, work will include upgrading the parking lot on Garner Street, burying utilities, installing sidewalks/landscaping and replacing lighting. Most of the work will wait until after the Madison Street Festival in October.
Old Black Bear owners, who have already bought the new brewing equipment, are wondering why the city can't go ahead of do the drainage work this summer. That would allow Anderson to begin renovations for their new home without waiting another five months.
Seaton said he and Levis bought the equipment with the understanding that downtown Phase 2 would be completed by now. Though they love downtown Madison and want to be part of its re-birth, their business expansion can't wait much longer.
"We're always nervous about the business, especially when dealing with the city," Seaton said. "I think (city officials) are as equally excited as us about being down there. So far they have been great to work with. But I don't think there's any city out there that works in hurry."
District 3 Councilman D.J. Klein said he hopes to work out a solution for Old Black Bear Brewing because it would be a major attraction for downtown, as well as provide the three alcohol-selling businesses it needs to create an entertainment district.
But there are a couple of reasons for delaying construction, he said: One is not tearing up downtown before it can be repaired in time for Madison Street Festival. The second is having to wait until July for the state to announce Alabama Transportation Rehabilitation and Improvement Program grants.
The city recently borrowed $20 million to fund a long list of capital improvements, mostly road projects. Some of those projects are tied to ATRIP grants, and the city must hold its money until it knows which, if any, grants are awarded.
"We don't expect to get all of them funded," Klein said. "So that frees up some of those bond funds for projects like Phase 2 of downtown."
The city should study the possibility of "fast-tracking" the drainage improvements, he said, and he plans to meet with the design firm on June 13 to discuss how to do that.
"Once we come up with a plan and the cost of separating this from the overall Phase II project, then I can bring the information to council and get a formal decision, Klein said.
Mayor Troy Trulock also said he would love to see the two-year-old brewer on Main Street but doubted the drainage work could be completed on a schedule that meets business's September goal.
"There's some idea floating out there that this (drainage) work could be done in a week or two, and that's simply not true," he said. "We'd love to have (Old Black Bear Brewing) in Madison. If not downtown, we'll work with them to find another suitable location."


text:
Download of the 1956 Struth Commemorative booklet.
Updated Sunday, 24th September 2006
A classic download is now available.
Many thanks to the Gub for the original booklet and Cammy for resizing the scans and preparing them for PDF - they can be downloaded here:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=XWL2CPUX 8.10MB
Interact with us
Sponsored links


text:
Jon Ward
Jackson Ward - United States
The River City is home to an array of musical talent, yet the scene has found a new force to be reckoned with in Jackson Ward. Channelling original Country Music and hits from well known artists such as Alan Jackson and Brad Paisley, the band is winning crowds overnight with original songs like "Goodbye Trouble (Drink by Drink)".
Lead singer Tony Jackson's powerful vocals combined with the band's accomplished musicians - Jeff Richardson (rhythm guitar, VOX), Doug Walls (steel guitar, VOX), Bryan Mitchell (bass guitar), Jon Ward (Drums), Bob Breckencamp (lead guitar) - has created a musical experience that is virtually unparalleled while still remaining true to its country roots.
""I thoroughly enjoyed Jackson Ward's performance. Tony's voice is authentic and the band was engaging and unique in the classic country approach. Professional, personable and a great stage presence. Would definitely hire them again."
- Micki Long, President, Three One One Productions
"From the first show onward, Jackson Ward has never failed to bring the crowd to their feet and keep them coming back week after week for more. They have become a staple in the community and I can't wait to see what this dynamic group accomplishes next."
- Rob Hazelwood, Owner, Cullen's Cove - Richmond's voted Best Music Venue
With multiple successes such as being tapped to perform for "Virginia This Morning" and local venues filled to capacity, a loyal fan base is prepared to follow this talented band all the way to the top of the charts.
Jackson Ward's highly anticipated first EP is due to be released in Spring 2014.
Equipment Configuration
Reference Pure Series
Arctic White Finish (109)
20X18 bass drum
10X8 tom
12X9 tom
14X14 floor tom
16X16 floor tom
13x6.5 Reference Series snare
Kit 2:
Pearl Vision Maple (VML)
Piano Black (103)
20X18 bass drum
10X8 tom
12X9 tom
14X14 floor tom
16X16 floor tom
13X6.5 Reference Series snare
DR-503 ICON Rack
TH-1000S x 2 tom holder
CH-1000 x 6 boom arm
CH-2000S boom arm
S-1000 snare stand
D-1000SPN throne
H-2000 hi-hat stand
P-2002C pedal


text:
The feedyard employee used to haul cattle, but not anymore. He had been stopped for speeding a couple of times; in fact, his infractions were rather extreme. One time, he was cited for going 104 miles per hour in a 35-mile-per-hour zone.
When Don Tyler heard about this, he brought it up to the feedyard owners. He wondered why the employee was still there, given his egregious driving record. The owners explained that the employee was basically a good guy, but acknowledged that he did have a speeding problem
Tyler, who was visiting the feedyard as a management consultant, still couldn't understand why the employee had kept his job. Not only had the employee driven a semi-trailer truck with 80,000 pounds of livestock in an unsafe manner, but the truck had the farm's name written on the side, which sent a wrong message to the community. And, the other feedyard employees probably wondered why they should follow the rules when this particular employee had bent the rules to such an extent.
"It's one thing to drive 55 (miles per hour) in a 45 (mile-per-hour zone), but 100 in a 35-mile-per-hour zone goes from a breach of policy to a breach of ethics," says Tyler, employee-management specialist from
The days of family members providing all of the labor for the dairy are gone. And that means you can no longer assume that your employees know what you consider right from wrong unless you tell them. You need to inform them what you consider proper behavior.
Cost of bad behavior
Of course, this requires judgment on the employer's part. The employer walks a fine line between being prudent on one hand, intrusive on the other.
Does an employer have to tell his employees not to get into bar fights or bounce checks?
Certainly, if one of your employees establishes a pattern of bad behavior, it can affect his job performance. If you don't intervene and try to correct that behavior, it is a poor reflection on you as an employer.
Look at the current substance-abuse crisis in Major League Baseball. It might have been avoided if Major League Baseball had adopted a strong steroids policy years ago rather than waiting until the problem got out of hand.
In early January, there were press reports that former minor-league baseball players may sue Major League Baseball, claiming that they were denied a fair shot of making the majors because of steroids in the game. With this kind of ongoing fallout, it should be obvious that a strong steroids policy is in the owners' best interest from a financial standpoint — and it's not a matter of them simply trying to be dictatorial and control their players' private lives.
When a professional athlete spirals out of control, it can cost the entire team. With quarterback Michael Vick out of the lineup this past year, as a result of dog-fighting and federal conspiracy charges, the Atlanta Falcons became one of the worst teams in the National Football League.
Already used by some
Some farms have found it necessary to spell out which forms of behavior are acceptable and which are not.
Jon-De Farms, a 1,500-cow operation in
Rules are also in place for driving company vehicles. For instance, if a Jon-De Farms employee sees another employee driving too fast around the farm or in the community, he is supposed to bring it up immediately to a supervisor. "We don't even allow trucks to swing into McDonald's (restaurant)," says co-owner Liz Doornink, because driving into a congested area with a large vehicle, like a silage truck, could create a problem.
Safety comes first — not only at the farm but in the community, Doornink adds.
At Threemile Canyon Farms in
Threemile Canyon Farms has approximately 300 employees. (They milk 16,000 cows and farm 30,000 acres of irrigated cropland.) Having a code of conduct helps ensure that employees in a large organization such as this are treated in a fair and consistent manner, says General Manager Marty Myers.
"It sets the level of expectations, so everybody understands what's accepable behavior and what's not," Myers says.
"We want to be an employer of choice and recruit highly qualified people," he adds. Meanwhile, the recruits want to know that they are coming to work at a place with a high standard of behavior.
Owner's reputation at stake
Ultimately, the farm owner will have to decide what constitutes acceptable behavior.
For instance, he may decide that he doesn't want company vehicles driven to places that serve alcohol. If company vehicles are sitting outside a bar, the public may perceive that the company allows its employees to drink and drive — even if the employees are not actually drinking at the time.
Word gets around. How employees behave in the community or how fast they drive through town becomes public knowledge,
Perhaps if that feedyard (mentioned earlier) had had a strong policy in place, one of its employees wouldn't have been caught speeding 104 miles an hour in a 35-mile-an-hour zone.
Inform employees
Don Tyler, employee-management specialist in
It might go something like this, "We appreciate our employees' private lives and the time they spend away from the business, but we also recognize the image they portray has a reflection back on the business, and that is the reason our company won't tolerate any behavior that is a poor reflection on the business, and we can and will take corrective action up to and including termination."
Then, it is up to the owner to outline which behaviors are unacceptable — and make those known to employees.
At Jon-De Farm in
These rules are developed with the guidance of the barn managers. "It's not just us, the owners (making these policies)," she says. "A lot of our key employees are part of it."


text:
***This is NOT A SANDORKRAUT EVENT***
Fermenting Fridays at Dallas Farmer's Market – Pickles, Relish,& Chutney
A Do It Yourself Workshop – Pickles, Relish, and Chutney
These are condiments you can really use. We'll put together some fresh delicious vegetable pickles, spicy onion relish, and a fruit chutney that you can use to add a little punch to your meals. Once you learn to do this the possibilities are endless!
Everyone who attends will take home pint samples of each condiment and receive recipes by email of everything we cover in this workshop.
Samples will be provided of veggie pickles, fruit chutney, and onion relish to taste.
Where: Dallas Farmer's Market 1010 S. Pearl Expressway, Dallas, TX 75201 at the corner of Pearl Expwy and Farmers in the Multi Purpose Room on the second level. To park drive under the outdoor bridge between the two buildings and park in the rear. Enter the building on the right (where the Pegasus statue is) and take the elevator to the second level. Cross the outdoor bridge to enter the Multi Purpose Room.
When: Friday May 4th, 2012, 7-9 pm
Cost: $45/person


text:
There are no items in your cart at this time.
Walking the line between cutting-edge style and comfort is very hard, but Footwear etc. has brought together a collection of comfortable women's dress shoes intent on helping you to gracefully toe that line. Whether you've been searching for a new pair of classy suede heels or black leather booties, we have the selection for you. Comfort dress shoes for women from Clarks, Dansko, Earthies, BeautiFeel, Naot and more can be donned with confidence at the office or out on the town. Find your size in the proper width and feel the difference today!
Sign up to receive new arrival, sale & special event info from us.
Note: we do not share your personal information with anyone. Period.
"The "walking store" in the mall didn't have my size in the color that I wanted. They were ready to order it, but I thought Footwear etc. might have it. And you did! I don't have to wait two weeks for the store order and you saved me $40!! Thanks Footwear etc...I'll be back!"
©2016 Footwear Etc. All Rights Reserved. For any questions or assistance call 1-800-720-0572.


text:
SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. -- Kyle Kalis didn't come to Michigan to sit on the bench.
A former five-star offensive line prospect, viewed by many as a can't-miss player, Kalis didn't decommit from Ohio State and sign with Michigan to be removed from the starting lineup.
But midway through the 2013 season, that's exactly where he found himself.
Out of the starting lineup. On the bench.
Hurting. In more ways than one.
"I was mad, obviously," Kalis said Thursday in advance of Saturday's Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl (10:15 p.m., ESPN). "I wanted to play.
"But, looking back, I honestly think it was a good decision. It helped me."
But there's layers when it comes to why Kalis, a 6-foot-5, 297-pound redshirt freshman guard, looks back on his October benching in a positive light.
It's one part mental.
And one part physical.
"What a lot of people don't know, when I got benched, I was pretty banged up, I've had a lot of things happen to me (physically) this season," Kalis said. "I don't want to get too much into it, but it was my ankle, that was pretty bad, my back was pretty bad at one point.
"It was a bunch of stuff."
After starting Michigan's first six games at right guard, Kalis was removed during the middle of the team's overtime loss at Penn State on Oct. 12 -- leading to the second major offensive line shift of the season for the Wolverines.
The next week, against Indiana, Michigan removed Kalis and sophomore guard Chris Bryant in favor of redshirt freshman Erik Magnuson and walk-on Joey Burzynski.
And even after Burzynski went down with a season-ending injury in the first half, it wasn't Kalis who came off the bench to replace him -- it was freshman Kyle Bosch.
Kalis was, officially, out of the lineup. He was relegated to heavy goal-line and short-yardage packages, but that was it. He'd lost his starting job to a walk-on, and then to a true freshman.
From there, Kalis had two options.
He could pout or he could work.
He chose the latter.
"Kyle Kalis is going to be a good player, but he needs to be pushed just like everyone else needs to be pushed," Michigan offensive coordinator Al Borges said. "This kid's going to be a good football player, I'm 100 percent convinced with that.
"Nobody likes (being pulled). If it's me, I'm not going to like that. But what we tell them, and they listen: 'You're not going to pout your way back into the lineup, you're not going to scream your way back into the lineup. You're going to play your way back into the lineup.' And he understands that." ."
Kalis spent a total of four weeks out of Michigan's starting lineup, missing starts against Indiana, Michigan State, Nebraska and Northwestern.
For a month, he was a second-stringer. A player who came to Michigan to make an almost immediate physical impact up front, a can't-miss offensive line prospect, was watching a true freshman take his job.
But the longer it went on, the more driven he became.
"The minute I got sat down, I met with (offensive line coach Darrell) Funk and coach Borges and they just told me 'we know you're the guy, we recruited you for a reason, you are going to be the guy, but right now for a number of reasons, you're going to sit," Kalis explained. "But once that happened, a light clicked in my head that this is not going to just be given to me. And I never thought that to begin with, but I just kept working. I kept working. Doing the same things I was doing the entire time, but just focusing more and more. And that propelled me.
"Obviously it was emotional and frustrating, because it's like your job. It's what I worked for since I got here. So I lost that. ... But looking back, I kind of think it was like God looking out for me. It gave me time. I was still playing and practicing, but games are totally different than practices, and (everything) takes its toll on you."
The other source of frustration for Kalis during his time on the sidelines came from outside the program, as rumors started to surface that he was unhappy at Michigan and he wanted out.
Some questioned if Kalis, who does wear his heart on his sleeve, wasn't going to take being removed from the lineup lightly and that he might consider leaving school for another destination once the season ended.
He says he heard all of that. And he says, regardless of what people might believe, he still loves Michigan just as much as he did the day he signed his letter of intent.
"(Transferring) didn't really cross my mind, but I knew people were saying that and it kind of drove me and propelled me more (to get back into the starting lineup)," said Kalis, who eventually did work his way back into the starting lineup in week 11 against Iowa and will start at right guard in Saturday's Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl. "Personally, I'm a self-motivated kind of guy. But outside things like that make you kind of push yourself even more."
The 2013 season has been an up-and-down journey for the entire Michigan football team, but it's been especially rocky for the offensive line -- notably Kalis, Magnuson and the rest of Michigan's young interior.
The best way Kalis could describe was a "wild ride." But at the same time, he believes it was one that was necessary for the unit's growth.
Kalis, Magnuson and sophomore center Graham Glasgow all admitted that the struggles and the fire the group went through this season brought the entire offensive line position group together more as a unit, and the line's chemistry -- from top to bottom -- is much stronger than it was at the beginning of the season.
It wasn't fun. It wasn't pretty. It wasn't what they wanted, it wasn't what Michigan expects and it wasn't what fans tolerate.
But Kalis says 2013 was a lesson learned, and one that won't be repeated.
"It was rough, I'd be lying if I said it wasn't," Kalis said. "But, it was a learning experience, and it was one that we never want to go through again.
"And next year, we won't. I can promise you that. It won't happen again."
-- Download the Michigan football on MLive app for iPhone and Android
-- Download the Michigan basketball on MLive app for iPhone and Android
-- Follow Nick Baumgardner on Twitter
-- Like MLive's Michigan Wolverines Facebook


text:
BURTON — Atherton schools vehicles will soon be fueled by gasoline purchased through the city of Burton.
Mayor Paula Zelenko and Superintendent John Ploof came to a mutual agreement Friday under which the school district will purchase fuel for at least 10 vehicles from the city beginning Monday, as well as sharing equipment when needed and purchasing together when possible to cut costs.
"We estimate that Atherton Schools will save at least $10,000. In turn, the move helps the city save money because the increased volume of fuel will lower the per gallon cost," said Ploof.
The city and school district began meeting in March, Ploof said, to discuss ways of sharing services and cutting costs wherever possible.
By purchasing its fuel directly from the city, the district will avoid delivery charges. The city will monitor fuel use through cards assigned to the district vehicles.
Zelenko said the savings for the city will not be known until fuel is purchased and usage tracked over time.
Officials also agreed to share equipment with each other whenever possible.
Ploof said there had been some discussion of using city owned construction vehicles to do work on school parking lots this summer, but timing did not allow for usage.
"In future projects, we will be able to plan for that," said Zelenko, who noted other possible uses could include using city plows clearing school lots during heavy snow events.
The two sides may also combine on future purchases to cut costs on certain items.
"When there is a need to purchase a piece of equipment that is under utilized, the city and the school can share what each other has resulting in cost savings for both parties," said Zelenko.
Office supplies, for example, could also be jointly purchased through the county to save money, said Zelenko.
Ploof said the school district is always looking for opportunities where they can share services and save funding.
Atherton is already saving $35,000 through a one-year, $60,000 contract with Davison schools that pays Davison to prepare Atherton's annual budget presentation, audit preparation and monthly financial reports.


text:
I shot and edited this on the fly.... 4 hours.... very easy workflow in fcp. ( export appletv qt, then open that file in qt and save as a qt.... no fps conversion other then appletv codec.The Mercantile LoftsI took a SUV load of lights and c-stands but never set one up.... the client had such a short timeframe to get the job done that I just shot it all avail light.5d2 on indiesliderpro, canon ef 35mm L f1.4 ( mostly shot at f2 ) and 85mm f1.2 L @f2It could use some more work in 3-way color... but I'll get to it later.overall I'm surprised at how quick and easy it was to shoot vid with the 5d2.... I had the ex1 in the SUV just in case, but never brought it out. The client was a little freaked out at the sight of a little SLR on the slider... but after a quick test shot and a full screen play on the MBP 17"HD they were game.Probably my favorite thing about shooting with the 5d2 is the 10x lupe view on the back.... get absolute focus very easy. Also... the white balance scroll wheel function is a treat.... choose icon based presets, or kelvin degrees.I have some advise for anyone in the business of manufacturing lighting and camera support products for the indie market.... jump on the 5d2 band wagon ASAP! Start offering sliders, dollies, led lights, small par or fresnels..... you will sell a boat load if you market it right. I think the steadicam merlin will also find a new rebirth on the 5d2.
InterestingAre you a pro vid guy or a stills photographer ?it all looks good to me (technically)I dont know about video narative yet but there wasnt really an establishing shot - the outside of the building - does this matter ?The musak - is there a source for getting this stuff cheap/free without breaking copyright ?S
I'm primarily a commercial still photog... 20 years now.... but have delved into vid in the last few years.... now accounts for about half my billing.it was cold, ugly, and snowing outside.... my storyboard does have an outside shot though... will get on a sunny and decent day.the music is from soundtrack pros royalty free loops.
That indy slider - how long is it - it gives significant 'movement' to the image - very smoothDo you see ending using the EX1 - do you have a 35 adapter for it(cos I just bought a adapter and EX1 ! )How would it compare in terms of indoor - im finding that to shoot natural indoors (with the EX1 720p 50/th shutter) im mainly using F2.0 or 1.4 - is the 5d2 better 'ISO'It is interesting your comments about the steadycam etc - im playing in my studio with homemade indy sliders / dollies and for the Ex1/Letus they need to be built like tanks to be smooth - weight massivly against small dollys etcA merlin would be in my price range wheras a proper steaicam would not..S
Haha, very nice. They were probably like "WTF?" when you showed up with a still camera. A couple questions: Any problems with the 35L breathing? I notice my 24 f/1.4 breathes like crazy when I focus in video mode on the 5DII.Is that indie rail slide thing good for outdoors? will dust and dirt cause problems for it?
I have some advise for anyone in the business of manufacturing lighting and camera support products for the indie market.... jump on the 5d2 band wagon ASAP! Start offering sliders, dollies, led lights, small par or fresnels..... you will sell a boat load if you market it right. I think the steadicam merlin will also find a new rebirth on the 5d2.
There has been a raft of new continuous lights, cheap to expensive come out in the last few years, though most from leds, to flourescent don't pack a lot of punch. I am a little suprised that profoto dropped their line of hmi lights, since it was such a natural move for a still photographer to go from flash to continuous using the same modifiers.Regardless, I think you will see a lot of new stuff coming our way centered around these comobo cams, from lights, sleds, focus and lens adapters.
what is an indie slider?
*im not actually sure I like the camera to move - a stationary camera can add drama but that is a phillosophical discussion - I think clients are more wowed by a camera that moves
Its just a fashion, unless you find a really serious filmmaker.
I was watching 'The Leopard' by Visconti the other day and the lack of camera movement is jarring. Some classic movies can seem almost 'motionless' when you start watching, then as the drama and character involvement takes over you don't see it any more.
Utter nonsense. Besides the main reason cameras move more than they used to, is that equipment is so much better now. Particularly since the advent of the steadicam. And one of the first films to feature it [and upside down to boot] was 'The Shining' by Kubrick, one of the most serious of filmakers. Used well, movement is an important part of the story telling process.


text:
Alex Caccia – President, Marmalade, explains how his company works with BlackBerry to develop apps and how they plan to develop apps in the future.
Video: Partners at BlackBerry #DevCon Europe 2012
Now Available: Valentine's Day Theme Pack for Scrapbook
Scrapbook has released the Valentine's Day theme pack. Create Scrapbooks from wallpapers, photos and stickers with playful multi-touch gestures. Save your creations or share them on your Facebook wall. Browse your saved and sent Scrapbooks from a cool "clothes line" list
FREE Theme: Stitch by Pootermobile
Pootermobile has released a FREE theme for your BlackBerry! Stitch is a very clean and sharp theme that has me wanting to pick up my 9700 just to play with it.. It has been a while since The World Of Pootermobile has released a free theme. But when there is a free theme you it's […]
Using BlackBerry Theme Studio 6 to Build Themes for BlackBerry 7
Last week we let you know that RIM had been working on a theme tutorial for using Theme Studio 6 to build themes for BlackBerry 7 devices. Well they have finally release part 2 and part 3 of the "how To". Hit the break for more!
BB-Freaks Celebrate's their 2nd Anniversary! FREE Theme and Discount!!!
BB-Freaks is celebrating their 2 year anniversary and wants to give you a FREE theme and Discount!!! BB-Freaks has been one of my favorite theme developers for a while now,They have developed NotePad 2 Anniversary OS7 Theme along with a coupon code good for $1 off any of their themes in the NerdBerry Store! Use […]
Four New Videos From BlackBerry!
RIM has post four new video's on their BlackBerry YouTube channel and we thought you would like to check them out! The videos are titled Keeping families connected with BlackBerry 7, BlackBerry Roxy Lifestyle Store Opening, 'Go BBM' BlackBerry Plan from Vodafone India, Bollywood Hungama on the BlackBerry PlayBook . Hit the break and check […]
Ringtone and Theme Sections Now Available in App World for OS 7 Devices!
We let you know yesterday that RIM had released an walkthrough on creating themes for OS 7 devices using Theme Studio 6. Today I opened up App World on my Torch 9810 and see the there is now a ringtone and a theme section showing up on the device!
How To: Theme Your BlackBerry PlayBook with Updated DingleBerry Root Tool
The DingleBerry team has updated their PlayBook root exploit tool to v3.2.0! With this new update of DingleBerry gives users the ability to theme their PlayBooks! One of the custom scripts you can run is a command to substitute your own custom images for images depended on by the theme. And with that comes some new directions to help […]
Using BlackBerry Theme Studio 6 to Build Themes for BlackBerry 7 – Part 1
RIM has posted the following instructions for building themes using BlackBerry Theme Studio 6 to build themes for BlackBerry 7! BlackBerry® Theme Studio provides a suite of design tools that allow designers and developers to create themes for BlackBerry® smartphones. With BlackBerry Theme Studio v6.0, theme developers were able to target BlackBerry® smartphones running software […]
Free Basic OS7 Series Themes for BlackBerry OS 6/7 Devices from BB-Freaks!
If you are like me and love to theme your berry, then you will be happy to know that BB-Freaks has released a new theme series for BlackBerry OS 6 and 7 devices! The them comes in seven differant colors and are all wallpaper friendly!
Valentine's Day Theme For Your Blackberry 6 Device
Christmas and New Year's just passed, up next is Valentine's Day! Get this free theme from bbthemelab at Blackberry App World.
Talke Theme by BerryGoodThemes (BGT) Now FREE for a limited time!
BGT has introduce one of it newest themes Talke and best of all you can grab this application for free if you leave a review of the application! Hurry up and grab your free theme before this deal disappears
Theme Development for BlackBerry 7 Devices to Land on the Inside BlackBerry Blog this Month!
We have been waiting for RIM to say something about Theme Studio for BlackBerry 7 devices for a long time now… It looks like our wait may be over in the next couple of weeks! According to a Tweet from the @BlackBerryDev to @_Lucky45 "Full Details on themes for #BB7 will be hitting the BlackBerry […]
FREE: Three Premium Themes for Your BlackBerry From Walker Themes!
Walker Themes contacted me this morning to let me know that three of their premium themes are now available in the BlackBerry App World for FREE! This is a limited time offer so you better act now! HeartBeat Themes with Pink colour / Girly version, Heart unique clock font 1st done ever on BlackBerry® themes […]
Magmic Releases FREE Cosmos Theme For Blackberry Smartphones, OS 7 Included
Magmic has been working on OS7 themes without the Theme Builder 7, set to be released later this year. Well, now they have released an awesome cool new FREE Cosmos theme for your Blackberry Smartphone
Porsche Design BlackBerry P'9981 Theme from @drkapprentice – OS 7.1 Now Supported!
@drkapprentice has hit another homerun with the Porsche Design BlackBerry P'9981 Theme. When the Porsche Design BlackBerry P'9981 theme was extracted it only functioned on OS 7. Now the @drkapprentice has gotten his hands on this theme it runs on OS 7.1!
Porsche Design BlackBerry P'9981 Theme Extracted!
Yesterday we saw Porsche Design BlackBerry P'9981 release date and pricing, today we have the Porsche Design BlackBerry P'9981 theme that has been extracted! The theme only works on the BlackBerry Bold 9900/9930
HedoneDesign Releases Avio BlackBerry Theme for the BlackBerry Bold 9900/30!
HedoneDesign has released Avio a theme for your BlackBerry! Here is what HedoneDesign states about Avio: Wouldn't u like to Feel like your walking on an atlas or a spinning globe… Well, here we go… The mixture of airy artistic design of clouds and modern design of each icon (Mario face leads the icon for games – vintage […]


text:
EAST LANSING -- The Big Ten coaches and media have spoken.
All five members of the first team were the same for both media and coaches this season. In addition to Harris, the first team included Iowa's Roy Devyn Marble, Michigan's Nik Stauskas, Nebraska's Terran Petteway and Wisconsin's Frank Kaminsky.
Stauskas was a unanimous selection and was also named the Big Ten player of the year.
Harris -- who was voted the Big Ten freshman of the year last season -- leads the Spartans and ranks No. 3 in the conference in scoring at 17.5 points per game. He also leads Michigan State with 70 made 3-pointers on the season, averages 80.3 percent from the free-throw line and has 10 games of 20 points or more this season.
"He really held this team together," said Big Ten Network analyst Dave Revsine. "You think about all the guys that had injury issues and he's had injury issues in his career too. But when Adreian Payne, Branden Dawson and Keith Appling were out, Harris was really the one constant for them this year."
Harris is the only player who was on the preseason All-Big Ten team that made the postseason first team. The other preseason selections included Michigan's Mitch McGary, Michigan's Glenn Robinson III, Michigan State's Adreian Payne, Ohio State's Aaron Craft and Penn State's Tim Frazier.
Harris also was named to the 2013-2014 All-Defensive team as selected by the Big Ten coaches. Harris ranks third in the conference in steals with 1.9 per game. Other all-defensive team honorees include Ohio State's Aaron Craft, Ohio State's Shannon Scott, Purdue's A.J. Hammons and Wisconsin's Josh Gasser.
Michigan State's Payne -- a senior forward -- was named to the All-Big Ten second team by both the coaches and the media. Payne averaged 16.1 points and 7.5 rebounds per game but missed almost a month this season with a sprained foot.
Michigan State's Keith Appling and Denzel Valentine were both named honorable mention All-Big Ten by coaches and media.
All-Big Ten first team (Coaches and Media): Roy Devyn Marble, Iowa; Nik Stauskas, Michigan; Gary Harris, Michigan State; Terran Petteway, Nebraska; Frank Kaminsky, Wisconsin.
All-Big Ten second team (Media): Yogi Ferrell, Indiana; Caris LeVert, Michigan; Adreian Payne, Michigan State; Aaron Craft, Ohio State; D.J. Newbill, Penn State.
All-Big Ten second team (Coaches): Yogi Ferrell, Indiana; Caris LeVert, Michigan; Adreian Payne, Michigan State; D.J. Newbill, Penn State; Sam Dekker, Wisconsin.
All-Big Ten third team (Coaches): Noah Vonleh, Indiana; Aaron White, Iowa; Aaron Craft, Ohio State; LaQuinton Ross, Ohio State; Tim Frazier, Penn State.
Honorable Mention All-Big Ten (Coaches): Rayvonte Rice, Illinois;
Glenn Robinson III, Michigan; Keith Appling, Michigan State; Denzel Valentine, Michigan State; Andre Hollins, Minnesota; Shavon Shields, Nebraska; Drew Crawford, Northwestern A.J. Hammons, Purdue; Ben Brust, Wisconsin.
All-Defensive team (Coaches): Gary Harris, Michigan State; Aaron Craft, Ohio State; Shannon Scott, Ohio State; A.J. Hammons, Purdue; Josh Gasser, Wisconsin.
All-Big Ten freshman team (Coaches): Kendrick Nunn, Illinois; Noah Vonleh, Indiana; Derrick Walton, Jr., Michigan; Kendall Stephens, Purdue; Nigel Hayes, Wisconsin.
Player of the Year: Nik Stauskas, Michigan
Coach of the Year (Coaches): Tim Miles, Nebraska
Coach of the Year (Media): John Beilein, Michigan
Freshman of the Year: Noah Vonleh, Indiana
Defensive Player of the Year: Aaron Craft, Ohio State
Sixth Man of the Year (Coaches): Nigel Hayes, Wisconsin
-- Download the MSU football MLive app for iPhone and Android
-- Download the MSU basketball on MLive app for iPhone and Android
-- Follow Gillian Van Stratt on Twitter


text:
Billionaire Daniel Loeb oversees $8.9 billion at his hedge fund, Third Point LLC, which he established in 1995. Loeb has become known for his own brand of activism. Writing public letters to targeted corporate executives and board members, he seeks to affect changes at companies in which he invests. He did so with animal feed maker Agribrands -- adamantly opposing a proposed merger he believed to be too highly priced -- and coal miner Massey Energy -- resigning his board position due to CEO Don Blankenship's "poor risk management" before and after the West Virginia coal mine explosion in 2010. He also put pressure on Yahoo (NASDAQ:YHOO) CEO Scott Thompson over a Computer Science degree -- which Thompson did not hold, but for years was reported and assumed to possess -- resulting in the CEO's resignation in May 2012. Subsequently, Loeb and several of his picks received board seats at Yahoo.
Still, Loeb holds that his hedge fund is not an activist fund by nature. He asserts it is a global fund with a long/short event-driven approach, investing in companies that are going through corporate-level events, such as bankruptcies or spin-offs. Since its inception, his fund has returned 25% per year on average.
Third Point LLC recently released its 13F SEC filing, presenting Loeb's latest stock picks. Here is a quick overview of his four new picks paying meaningful dividends.
(click images to enlarge)
In the second quarter, Dan Loeb invested more than $77 million in 2.75 million shares of Coca-Cola Enterprises (NYSE:CCE). The company is the world's largest marketer, producer, and distributor of Coca-Cola products. It has exclusive rights to manufacture, sell, and distribute Coca-Cola brand beverages in Western Europe. In 2010, Coca-Cola Company (NYSE:KO) purchased its North American business. Over the past five years, Coca-Cola Enterprises' EPS and dividends grew at average rates of 15.9% and 19.3% per year, respectively. Analysts forecast that the company's EPS will expand at an average rate of 8.7% per year for the next five years.
The company's exposure to Western Europe, slowing European economies and a weak euro have adversely affected Coca-Cola Enterprises' performance so far this year. However, the company's operating earnings and cash flow have been holding up well. The stock is paying a dividend yield of 2.2% on a payout ratio of 28%. Its competitors PepsiCo (NYSE:PEP), Kraft Foods (KFT), and Danone (OTCQX:DANOY) pay dividend yields of 3.0%, 2.8%, and 3.0%, respectively. In terms of valuation, Coca-Cola Enterprises is selling at a major discount to its peers on average. The stock is trading at $29.67 a share, up 14% over the past year. Scout Capital Management had more than $230 million invested in the company at the end of first quarter.
Loeb also invested heavily in the health benefits company, WellPoint Inc. (WLP). This $54 million investment is part of Loeb's strategy to invest broadly in the U.S. health insurance companies, including UnitedHealth Group (NYSE:UNH), Cigna (NYSE:CI), Humana (NYSE:HUM), and Aetna (NYSE:AET). While many healthcare stocks are considered undervalued, some speculate that the noted strategy was likely a bet that President Obama's health-care overhaul bill would be overturned by the Supreme Court. The high court upheld the healthcare bill on June 28.
With respect to WellPoint specifically, the company has been paying a dividend since early 2011. Over the past five years, its EPS grew at an average annual rate of 8.5%. Analysts forecast that the company's EPS growth will accelerate to an average rate of 10% per year for the next five years. WellPoint pays a dividend yield of 2.0% on an extremely low payout ratio of 16%. The company's peers -- Aetna, Cigna, and UnitedHealth Group -- pay dividend yields of 1.9%, 0.1%, and 1.6%, respectively. WellPoint's stock is trading at a major discount to its peer group. It is also undervalued relative to its historical valuation metrics. At $57.27, the shares are down 1.4% over the past 12 months. Among fund managers, billionaire David Einhorn was also bullish about WellPoint in the second quarter.
LyondellBasell Industries NV (NYSE:LYB) is another one of Third Point's new second-quarter pick paying dividends. Loeb has invested more than $52 million in the world's third largest independent chemical company, which recently came out of bankruptcy reorganization. The company pays a dividend yield of 3.2% on a payout ratio of 45%. Its peers, Cabot Corporation (NYSE:CBT) and Huntsman Corporation (NYSE:HUN), pay dividend yields of 2.1% and 2.9%, respectively. Kraton Performance Polymers (NYSE:KRA) and American Pacific Corporation (NASDAQ:APFC) do not pay dividends.
Analysts have been scaling down the company's EPS expectations for the next five years. Two months ago, they were expecting LyondellBasell Industries NV to grow EPS at an average annual rate of 13.2% per year for the next five years. Now, that rate is averaging 8.6%. However, in the previous quarter, the company posted earnings that beat analysts' estimates. At the same time, the company mentioned a possibility of paying a special dividend, returning excess cash to shareholders. The company paid a special dividend of $4.5 per share in late November 2011. The stock is trading at a discount to its peers on average. At $49.24 a share, the stock is up 76% over the past year and at its new 52-week high. Viking Global reported owning more than $620 million worth of this stock.
As was the case with WellPoint, Aetna was also a possible bet on the outcome of President Obama's healthcare legislation in the Supreme Court. In the second quarter, Loeb reported owning almost $35 million worth of the stock. Over the past five years, the company saw its EPS and dividends grow at average annual rates of 12.0% and 76% per year, respectively. The brunt of the noted dividend boosts took place in 2011.
Analysts forecast that Aetna's EPS will expand at an average rate of 11% per year for the next half decade. The company has a strong balance sheet with moderate leverage. In 2011 alone, it generated enough free cash flow to make four acquisitions, repurchase a significant number of shares, and start paying a meaningful dividend. Going forward, the company is expected to grow smartly, although increases in medical costs and restrictions on premium rate increases will remain as constraints. The stock is currently yielding 1.9% on a payout ratio of 14%. Its peer, WellPoint, pays a marginally higher yield of 2.0%, while competitors Cigna and UnitedHealth Group pay lower dividend yields. The stock is undervalued relative to its peers based on several metrics, including price-to-earnings, price-to-book value, price-to-sales, and price-to-cash flow ratios. At $38.04 a share, the stock is up 7% over the past year. In the second quarter, billionaire David Einhorn was also bullish on this stock.
Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.