Free Supplemental Brief - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-9

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 1 of 16

Defendant's Supplemental Exhibit 81

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-9

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 2 of 16

1 1 UNITED STATES CLAIMS COURT
2 Case No. 91-1362 C,

4 ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, 5 Plaintiff, 6
VS.

7 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 8 Defendant. 9 10
11

12 13
14 15

DEPOSITION OF TERREL JOHN AGY VOLUME I
October 21, 1992

16 Pursuant to Notice taken on behalf of Plaintiff at 150 17 East Tenth Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80203, at 9:50 a.m., before Judy L. Busbee, Registered Professional Reporter 18 and Notary Public within Colorado. 19 20
21

22 23
24

25

Agy-Plaintiffs Depo, CICt

Page 1

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-9

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 3 of 16

85 1 evaluation of Rockwell that we recommended to 2 Albuquerque. 3 Q. The supplemental agreement to the contract

4 refers to the Albuquerque operations' handbook for award 5 fee performance evaluation and review process. I am 6 handing you a document marked as Plaintiffs Exhibit 2, 7 which is entitled "Handbook for Award Fee Performance 8 Evaluation and Review Process, Albuquerque Operations 9 Office." And if you will look on the second page, it is 10 signed and approved by Herman E. Roser, Manager, 11 Albuquerque, dated June 24, 1977. Would you review this 12 document, and indicate to me when you have finished 13 reviewing it. 14 15 MR. RIGSBY: The whole thing? MR. KELLEY: Well, in as much detail as

16 Mr. Agy feels comfortable with discussing the document. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 A. I've reviewed it. Q. Have you ever seen this document before? A. I've seen something like it. Q. What was the document-A. It was-Q. --that you saw? A. The document I saw that we had a copy of

24 probably had this same cover sheet on it, but as I was 25 given it in 1989, when I started as a program analyst, it

Agy-Plaintiff's Depo, CICt

Page 85

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-9

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 4 of 16

86 1 had a lot of revisions to it, changed pages, and nobody 2 knew whether it was up to date or not. So I'm not sure 3 that the document that I have in front of me, which has 4 the initials of Mike Frietze on it, who is an Albuquerque 5 employee--they put it out, so they probably had an 6 up-to-date version, but I don't think we did. Basically, 7 no one seemed to know if we did or not. And they were in 8 the process of changing it again in 1989, and it was my 9 understanding that it was more or less in draft again at 10 that time. 11 Q. Was the document that you saw signed by

12 Mr. Herman Roser? 13 14 15 16 A. I don't recall. Q. Was it dated June 24, 1977? A. I don't recall that either. Q. How did you know there were changes to the

17 document? 18 A. As I recall, like I said, there was pages

19 that had been added to it, and correspondence in the file 20 that indicated that Albuquerque was in the process of 21 revising it, and had been in the process of revising it 22 for some time. It was in a state of flux, in other 23 words, and we--if there were questions about what we were 24 supposed to do, if it wasn't clear, I wasn't clear, 25 whether this addressed it or not, I would talk to Ted

Agy-Plaintift~s Depo, CICt

Page 86

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-9

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 5 of 16

87 1 Hill and ask him what his expectations were, and he would 2 let me know what he wanted. 3 Q. How could you tell the changes had been

4 added to the document? 5 A. Well, I believe I said that there were pages

6 that were--had been added. I guess I don't recall 7 exactly how 1 knew that. 8 9 Q. Were they numbered differently? A. I think there was some of the material that

10 was marked draft, and I believe it was a document similar 11 to this, but that someone had taken it and made a lot of 12 changes in it, and had marked draft on it, you know. And 13 so it was--and then also I had seen correspondence in the 14 file that indicated that it was under revision, you know. 15 So it wasn't a complete document like this, that appeared 16 to be, you know, something that was in force as 17 originally written in 1977. That wasn't the case. l8 19 Q. Was some of the text stricken out? A. I don't recall, but that's a possibility.

20 Seems like it was something like that. It's been a 21 while. 22 Q. Do you remember how it was that you first

23 came to see this document, or this document as revised? 24 A. I believe it was Ed Green's copy that was

25 left over after he left. He left it behind.

Agy-Plaintiffs Depo, CICt

Page 87

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-9

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 6 of 16

1 2

88 Q. And who was Ed Green? A. Ed Green was the person who did the job that

3 I did prior to me becoming a program analyst. 4 Q. Why did you review the document at that

5 time? 6 A. Most likely it was because I was trying to

7 find out what the process was, understand the process 8 better. 9 Q. Did somebody refer you to the Albuquerque

10 handbook to get a better idea of the process? 1! A. As l recall, I saw reference to it in

12 the--that 128 we were just talking about, it addresses 13 it, but--which is probably when it first came to my 14 attention. It was in the file I found, so--in Ed Green's 15 file. In Ed Green's desk, I should say. 16 Q. In what ways did you use the Albuquerque

17 handbook which you had a copy? 18 A. Well, I was new at that time, and just

19 trying to learn the process. And since it was my 20 understanding that this thing was a draft in the process 21 of being changed, I usually went by the previous--how we 22 did it in the past. If ! had questions about that, if 23 that was proper, I would probably ask Barkmeier or Ted 24 Hill. 1 know I referred to this, and read this on 25 occasion, but ! didn't--like I said, it was in revision,

Agy-Plaintifl~s Depo, CICt

Page 88

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-9

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 7 of 16

89 1 so I wasn't sure whether it included the latest, latest 2 guidance. 3 Q. Is it true, then, that, to the extent the

4 handbook, or the version of the handbook you had, was not 5 clear as to how you should be performing your role, that 6 you discussed that with Mr. Barkmeier and Mr. Hill? 7 A. Yes. And it's also possible I may have

8 talked to them without looking to that handbook on 9 various questions too. 10 Q. Did you consider that the handbook was a

11 document which was to be followed closely in determining 12 Rockwell's award fee? 13 14 15 A. No, sir, I did not. Q. Why was that? A. Because it was my understanding it was in

!6 the process of being changed, and had been in the process 17 of being changed for several years, and during the time 18 that we were still under Albuquerque's direction, I don't 19 believe, it was ever put in final form, so-20 Q. Was it your understanding that, because the

21 handbook was being revised, that it did not carry force 22 in terms of providing a procedure for determining 23 Rockwell's award fee? 24 A. Well, not necessarily. It had some meaning,

25 but only to the people in Albuquerque--the people in

Agy-Plaintift~s Depo, CICt

Page 89

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-9

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 8 of 16

Defendant's Supplemental Exhibit 82

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-9

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 9 of 16

1 2 3 4 5

No. 91-1362 C

UNITED STATES CLAIMS COURT - ooo -

6 ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, 7 8 9 10 11 12 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Reported by: 25 ARLETTE McCLA1N, CSR #85 DEPOSITION OF
VS.

Plaintiff,

Defendant.

RUSH OSBORNE 1NLOW Tuesday, December 1 st, 1992 Albuquerque, New Mexico

Inlow-PlaintiWs Depo, CICt

Page 1

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-9

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 10 of 16

7O 1 2 3 4 A. To the best of my knowledge, he was, yes. Q. For both periods? A. Yes. Q. Let me direct your attention to the next page of

5 the handbook, which is page 25, and it is entitled, 6 "Schematic of Award Fee Evaluation and Review Process." 7 Does this schematic present an accurate picture of the award 8 fee process? 9 A. Not entirely. For instance, the block labeled

10 Performance Evaluation Committee, I don't recall during the 11 April and May 1989 period, that there was an Albuquerque 12 Performance Evaluation Committee that played a significant 13 role in getting the summary report ready for the PERB. 14 I believe, as we have discussed in some detail,

15 that the area office reports which had been reconciled with 16 the Albuquerque divisions went directly to the PERB without ! 7 any intervention by the PEC. 18 Q. Was there a Rocky Flats area office Performance

19 Evaluation Committee? 20 A. I think there still was at that time, but its

21 role was limited to gathering the input from the area office 22 staff and preparing the report for the area manager. 23 Q. Did you ever discuss with Mr. Whiteman the role

24 of the Rocky Flats Performance Evaluation Committee? 25 A. I don't recall any such conversation, no.

Inlow-Plaintiff's Depo, CICt

Page 70

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-9

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 11 of 16

71 1 Q. Other than the role of the Performance Evaluation

2 Committee, do you see anything else on this schematic that 3 you would have any comments on? 4 A. The schematic leaves out a lot of the details

5 that we have discussed, but ! think in general process flow 6 terms that it appears to be accurate. 7 Q. Does this schematic have any provision for input

8 or review by DOE headquarters? 9 10 A. Not explicitly in the schematic, no. Q. Were you aware at any point that this handbook,

11 which is dated June of 1977 was being revised? 12 A. Yes, I was. ! can't recall the specific date

13 when the revision process started, but there was 14 considerable effort by the Albuquerque Field Office staff to 15 try to update the handbook and bring it into what was 16 accepted practice at that time. 17 Q. Were these revisions taking place during your

18 tenure at Rocky Flats? 19 A. To the best of my memory the process had started,

20 but I don't think that any final revision had been issued by 21 that time. 22 23 Q. What revisions were being made? A. Well, in general terms, trying to update the

24 handbook to reflect things such as not having the 25 Performance Evaluation Committee that we had discussed, and Inlow-PlaintifPs Depo, CICt

Page 71

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-9

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 12 of 16

Defendant's Supplemental Exhibit 83

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-9

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 13 of 16

OOOl 1 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 !1 12 DEPOSITION OF:
X

ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, : : : Plaintiffs, : No. 91-1362C v. : Judge York : THE UNITED STATES, : : Defendants. : Friday, April 29, 1994 Washington, D.C.

13 14 HENSON MOORE,

15 a witness, called for examination by counsel for 16 the Plaintiff, pursuant to notice of counsel, 17 held at Chadbourne & Parke, 1101 Vermont Street, 18 N.W., Washington, D.C. at 8:30 a.m. on Friday, 19 April 29, 1994, before Thomas R. McPhail, CSR, 20 Notary Public when were present on behalf of the 21 parties:
22

Moore, Henson 4/29/1994 (Claim)

Page 1

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-9

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 14 of 16

0032 1 Q. In the first line of the letter, there is 2 a reference to conversation of last week, I 3 assume with Mr. Iacobellis. Do you remember what

4 was said in that conversation? 5 A. The best I can recall, he called very

6 concerned about that delay and the awarding of 7 the award fee and was asking for some kind of

8 guidance as to when this was going to be made. 9 Q. It is your recollection that

10 Mr. Iacobellis initiated this telephone call? 11 A. The best I can remember, yes. And I

12 assume he was looking for some kind of guidance, !3 which I gave him by letter. 14 Q. Do you recall if that conversation was the

15 first communication you ever had with 16 Mr. Iacobellis on the subject of award fees? 17 A. I don't know whether it was the first or

18 not. I don't recall. 19 Q. Is it possible that you initiated the call

20 to Mr. Iacobellis? 21 MR. KOLAR: Objection to the form of the

22 question. It calls for speculation and the

Moore, Henson 4/29/1994 (Claim)

Page 32

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-9

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 15 of 16

0034
1 Q. Do you have any recollection as to how 2 Mr. Iacobellis would have known that you had any 3 involvement in the award fee process at this

4 time? 5 A. I don't think it would have been hard for

6 him to find that out. All he had to do was to go 7 to Ed Goldberg, and at that point he would be 8 told, well, you understand these things are being 9 reviewed in the headquarters first. I don't know 10 when this press statement was made, but that 11 indicated that I was taking some role to play in 12 the award fee, so that was made before the 13 letter, June 19th according to this Lexis. 14 MR. KOLAR: June 17th.

15 BY MR. NEY: 16 17 Q. June 17th. A. So it would not have been hard for him to

18 find that out that, in fact, there was not going 19 to be an award fee made until it cleared my desk. 20 21 Q. Does that in any way refresh your recollection that perhaps, you tell me if it

22 refreshes your recollection, that Mr. Iacobellis

Moore, Henson 4/29/1994 (Claim)

Page 34

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-9

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 16 of 16

0035 1 was calling you in reaction to the press release? 2 3 A. I was there on the site during that same time period and saw him on two or three

4 occasions. We had two or three conferences about 5 6 7 8 what was going on, the difference in the culture, I met with him on that occasion, on several occasions to explain that very clearly what was expected. So I had no idea what would have

9 triggered a call, other than the fact that he's 10 concerned about the award fee. 11 Q. Do you recall saying anything to

12 Mr. Iacobellis on the subject of the award fee 13 other than what is set forth in Exhibit 64? 14 A. No. However, I just might add, I think it

15 is pretty obvious what was going on here, in 16 terms of it would have been somewhat ridiculous 17 for us to award award fees if, in fact, we had 18 our own knowledge that laws had been broken by 19 Rockwell and that was the reason for suspending 20 the fees at that point. 21 Q. And the statement you just made is you are

22 referring to the fact that there was a special

Moore, Henson 4/29/1994 (Claim)

Page 35