26 Comments
⭠ Return to thread

Let me assist with some additional background on DoD contracts. The CDRL form shown that is dated 2001 is the date of the latest rev of that CDRL form. That same dated form will be used forever in every DOD contract originated from 2001 until it is revised. The date on the bottom row has NOTHING to do with the date of the contract. What matters is WHEN the CDRLs are due and what the CLINs specify. And no, these forms are not "copied". They are in a digital library to be used by the program office to enumerate the CDRLS for the contract. And no one individually numbered the pages. It is all done digitally and automatically and has been for decades.

The DI-ADMIN-81501 (called a Data Item Description, or DID) is likewise a common format specifying what data items are to be included in this type of report, specifying due date, frequency, etc in blocks 10-13.

Expand full comment

Furthermore, this is NOT a product development contract. It is a production, quality control, source management, delivery etc contract. The product referred to already existed at the time of this procurement.

Expand full comment

🤔 So to clarify, the product referred to in the document, was already in existence (sometime circa 2001) when this version of the contract was signed and dated in October/November 2020?

Yeah? Or am I confusing it?🤗

Expand full comment

No, the date of 2001 has NOTHING to do with the product or the procurement at all. It is the date of the FORM that the information was described on. The FORM was defined or updated in 2001. It was used (and probably still is) for all DoD and Federal procurements.

This contract was signed on 10/26/20. The product to be procured already existed and this contract was for the sole purpose of purchasing a whole lot of it. The product could have been developed at ANY time prior to the date of this contract. WHEN the product was actually developed is not described in this contract and is not pertinent to the procurement.

Expand full comment

Ahhhhhh. Thank you for clarifying that and taking the time to answer my question. I thought I was muddling it.

So while it's essentially just a code for procurement and not the date the product it's procuring was made, it still indicates that the said product was made prior to it being possible to manufacture the quantities involved, even under "warpspeed" BS protecol.😐😐

I've got that straight? Because I have the feeling that this will eventually go viral mediawise and a lot of peeps will also be confused, letting those accountable muddy the already muddied waters.🤷‍♀️🤦‍♀️BTJMO

Expand full comment

Getting closer! Nothing in the CDRL (the form with the 2001 date on the bottom) says anything at all about the product - it just describes a data item that the vendor (Lily) has to provide. The data item is a report. And it describes what must be covered in the report and how often it is to be delivered. That is all. The date at the bottom is just an artifact of the form and has no meaning at all for this or any other federal contract. Delivery dates specific to the contract are found in many parts of the contract.

Where I learned that the product to be procured already existed was when I took the link provided to the entire contract, I could tell from the descriptions therein that the ONLY work was to procure a LOT of the product, in large quantities, and the methods to ensure product quality and access to source materials, etc. Frequent reviews to see if there were problems in manufacturing or delivery, and ability to deliver on schedules. (Yes - This is where OpWarpSpeed comes into play - setting the schedules and accelerated deliveries) There was NO language describing development, test, evaluation of a new "thing" at all. If there were development of a new product, there would have been a LOT of other steps and requirements, and specifications of the required new product. So no, this was not a new product, but it was to be made in larger quantities and much faster. Hope that helps!

Expand full comment

Right. So that's inline with the original narrative of making a small batch of the product by approximately june/July 2020 (from memory), FDA EUA approval to move forward with larger quantity where the change in formula and GMP (resulting in e.coli, DNA and SV40 fragments contamination) occurring in around October 2020.

I'm wondering though, did Eli Lilly just produce the report or did they also be involved with the Pfizer-BioNtech product and just not get credited, receiving some other compensation?🤔🤔

Thank you, it helps🙏😊

Expand full comment

This production contract was for the monoclonal antibodies. There is no indication in the contract of when the product was developed or by what process. The contract (which has MANY deliverables & documents by the way - probably hundreds, not just the one shown in the article) has nothing specifically to do with the vaccine.

Expand full comment

Thank you for the clarification. Having worked at government entities in the past (universities) I was thinking that 2001 date looked like it was just the date of the last form revision. But the situation is still super odd.

Expand full comment

Same thing I thought for the same reason. In fact I do my form docs the same way, DTG to indicate form edits.

Expand full comment
Error