Free Supplemental Brief - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-7

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 1 of 27

Defendant's Supplemental Exhibit 75

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-7

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 2 of 27

DP-231:

W. M. ARENDALE (3-298%)

Award Fee Determination for the Period April I, 1989, through September 30, 1989, Rockwell International Corporation (RI). Acting Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs, DP-I

o ISSUE
I .am recommending a decrease in the award fe~ for RI as proposed by the Award Fee Determining Official (AFDO), Manager, Rocky Flats Office. The overall reduction in total fee is approximately 30% !ower than that proposed by the AFDO, and in our estimation more acurately reflects the level of performance of RI during the rating period. Specifically, we have recommended a total fee (award fee plus base fee) of $2,931,278 as compared to the AFDO recommendation of $~,176,077 (see attachment I). Comparison of the Headquarters and AFDO award fee determinations are provided in tabular format in the attachments for your convenience:

o BACKGROUND
The.AFDO has determined and recommended that RI be given a numerical rating of "85.55" for plant operations in its performance as operating contractor for the Rocky Flats Plant. This numerica! rating equates to an award fee of $3,11~,2~5 for plant operations. He has also recommended a numerica! rating of "89.25" and an award fee of $628,982 for the Plutonium Recovery Modification Project/Plutonium Recovery Option Verification Exercise (PRMP/PROVE). The available base fee ($%32,850) plus award fee ($7,791,300) for the period for both plant operations and PRMP/PROVE is $8,22%,150 and the AFDO has recommended a total fee of S~,176,077.

o DISCUSSION
Although the AFDO recommended amount represents only ~5.65% of the available award fee for plant operations and 6~.89% of the available award fee for PP~/PROVE, I recommend that a further reduction be made for plant operations that reflects the lack of concern and management for the environmental, safety, and health (ES&H) situation that existed at the Rocky Flats Plant during the appraisa! period. A further reduction in fee is also recommended for the performance in PRMP/PROVE which more accurately reflects the overall moderate improvement over the previous rating period.

o PLANT OPERATIONS
Concerning plant operations I base my position on the following: Many of the 230 safety concerns documented by external reviews (as wel! as by internal RI review) remained open during this period. This lack of priority E 000257

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-7

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 3 of 27

attention to safety and health by RI is a clear indictment of poor management. During this period, Environment, Safety, and Health (EH) representatives continued to report of ES&H problems in the following areas: Inadequacies of a fire protection prozram and a continuing presenc@ of fire hazards in Buildings 881 and ~60. Lack of radiolozical protection continued to exist in Buildings 707, 777, and 881. Deficiencies noted ranged from alpha radiation detectors not functioning to eleven glovebox shielding doors found open. Worker training deficiencies were noted throughout the plant as well as current and complete operating procedures. It was reported there. appeared to be no direct relationship or cross reference between the Operational Safety ~ Requirements, Operational Safety Analysis, and the Nuclear Materia! Safety Limits. There was no formalized conduct of operations as evidenced by: o o Lack of standards and criteria for operations; Lack of well documented procedures for operations; Lack of clear lines of responsibility for safe operations;
O

Lack of adequate work ethic and mental discipline within the work force; Lack of adequate on-floor supervision; Lack of ability to apply root cause analysis to investigations of unplanned events and to implement lessons-learned on a plant-wide basis.

o

The Department of Energy (DOE), through an independent assessment by Scientech, Inc., has identified several inadequate criticality safety conditions and practices at the Rocky Flats Plant. In addition, DOE is not satisfied with worker understanding of nuclear safety standards at the plant. I therefore recommend the numerical rating of "77.75" be given to RI for its performance under the Genera! Management category and "65.25" for its performance under the ES&H category, thus
E 000258

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-7

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 4 of 27

downgrading their overall performance rating from "85.55" to "82.19" for plant operations (see attachment 2). This equates to a tota! fee of $2,539,393 ($2,160,393 award fee + $379,000 base fee) for plant operations. This is a downgrade of $953,852 from the amount recommended by the AFDO. Our recommendation reflects a 31.67% award fee versus maximum award fee as compared to the ~5.65% recommended by the ~FDO.

o PRM~/PROVE
With respect to the performance for PRMP/PROVE and the specific areas of project management, schedule performance, design and technical quality, the contractor fel! substantially below the 90 or 91 rating given. Performance was satisfactory, but still require~ further improvement, and the rating should be in the range of 80-85 in these areas. Many products delivered in this t~~e frame required rework, and management was not totally responsive to the DOE requirements that were provided. The overall rating should be reduced from 89.25 to 83.00 (some improvement over last period) with a resultant reduction in fee of $290,9~7 (see attachment 3). The overall rating for the PRMP/PROVE performance is downgraded from the AFDO amount of "89.25" to "83.00". This equates to a total fee of $391,885 ($338,035 award fee + $53,850 base fee). This is a downgrade of $290,9&7 in award fee from the amount recommended by the AFDO. Our recommendation reflects a 34°87% award fee versus maximum fee as compared to the 6&.89% recommended by the AFDO.

o SUMMARY/RECOMMENDATION
Overall, ~I recommend awarding RI a total fee of S2,931,278 of which $432,850 is base fee. This is a reduction of $i,244,799 from the $$,176,077 total fee proposed by the AFDO of which $~32,850 was also base fee.- Our total recommended fee is approximately 30% lower than proposed by the AFDO (see attachment i). My intent to reduce the recommended fee has been co~]unicated to the Rocky Flats Office.

J. M. Barr Rear Admiral, U.S. Navy Deputy Assistant Secretary for Military Application Defense Programs

cc:

Dave Simonson, Manager, RFO

E 000259

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-7

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 5 of 27
0 o 0

¯ 7B101 NONIXBN 333 7B101 030N3NN003~
33~

030N3NNOO3~ % H108 3~O~d/dN~d OH 1NUTd H108 3OO~d/dl4~d O0~U 1NU7d

O0~GSG$ 000'ZZB'9~:

3~OUd/dH~d ~0~ 33~ O~UIIU NFINIXUN SNOI±U~3dO INNUgd ~0~ 3~ O~UMU

NF~NI×UN

7U101 OH

333 OUUHU

7U101

3~ O~UMU 00~U

33~ 3SU8

OH 5~5~3~ O0~U NOSI~UdI~O0 &~UI~NIIS ~86! ~0@ U38N31d3S 01 I 7]UdU OOIU3d 3H1 ~03 NOIIUWOd~O0 7UNO]1UNU31NI 773MH00~ HO~IUTf|OTUO 3~ O~UMU 030N3NHO03~

I IN3NHOU11U

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-7

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 6 of 27

334 O~WMW N[TNIXUN 5n5143,'~ 334 O~JUI.|W 030N3NN033~ 7.

0 0

7WI01 OH

334 O~W|IW

78101 OOdU

334 O~WM8

33d 3S88

0 ~EE~I6S$ 00~£~0~I$ 09Z'S~S$ 0

G x kkZ~SE 61"~ x SIO0~. 0"~ x 099~0~ 0"~ x ~SI601 0 INlOd W3d 334 O~UIIU

011~$615 SZO~OS£~I~ OOE~E~O~l$ 09Z~S~S~ O'

~S" x k~Z~SE O'S x SIOOZ~ O'S x 099~0~ O'S x 2SIGOI 0 1NIOd ~3d 3340~UMW

06-98 SB-IB 08-9L ~L-IZ OL-O

333 O~UIIU

334 OWUMU OOdU SZ'~8

03t.|~U3 SINIOd 3ONUW~O3~3d

6T'Z8 09"8 sg"EI S6"EI OS'EI S0"£I P~'6I 90 16 E6 06 S~'$9 SZ'ZZ

SS'SO 09"8 sg"EI S6"EI OS'~I 09"~I S~'O~ 98 16 ~6 06 OZ 18

00"I 01"0 S|'O SI'O SI'O 0~'0 S~'O

57UI01 SNOIIU~BdO 7UIOW3H3 SNOIIU~3dO 140110BOOed ±N3N35UNUH IS03

16 96 $6 80 S~'$9 IB

1117uno
HI7U3H ~133US ~IN3NNO~IhN3 IN3N3OUNUN 7U~3N3~

30U~3 ONIIU~ 30U~5 5NIIU~ 030N3NHO33~ 030H3NNOO3~ SHINON 9 1N3~WA3 SHINON 9 IN3~A3

31U~ HINON 9 SAOIA3~d SNOllB~3dO INUqd ~

1HOI3M 686IA4

U3MU 3OHUN~O3~I3d 7UHOIIONFI4

OH

O03U
~

OH SI-.ISU3~ 004U HOSIL4UdNO3 .~.~IU|,INI'IS 606l ?~ 1N3NIIOUIIU 'Oi~ ~3ON31d3S Ol I 71UdU O01~3d 3H1 ~0~ HO I IU8Od~lOO 7UNOI 1UN~I31N 1 773M~IOOLI NOIIUgFIOgU3 33~ O~IUI.IU 030N3HNOD3LI

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-7

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 7 of 27

F~ECOHHEHDED AWARD FEE CALCULATION. P.OCKWELL I NTERNAT IONAL CORPORRT I OH FOR THE PERIOD APRIL I TO SEPTEMBER 19B9 SUHHAR'f COHPARISON AFDO VEP, SUS ¯ PRMPIPPOVE ~

FUNCTIONAL PERFORMANCE AREA

FY1989 WEIGHT
0.25 0.15 0.15 0.20 0.15 0. I0 1.00

PREVIOUS 6 MONTH PATE
75 76 86 82 78 76 78.75 RFDO RHRRD FEE

AFO0 CURRENT 6 MOHTHS RECOMMENDED RATING GRADE
91 87 90 86 91 91 22.75 13.05 13.50 17.20 13.65 9.10 89.25

HO CURRENT 6 MONTHS RECOMMENDED RATING GRADE
80 87 85 BG 80 BO 20.00 13.05 12.75 17.20 12.00 B.O0 83.00 HQ

PROJECT MAHAGEMENT COST MANAGEMEHT SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE SUBCONTRACT MANAGEMENT DESIGN OUALITY TECHNICAL PRODUCT OUALITY
TOTALS

PERFORMANCE POINTS ERRNEO

RNRRO FEE PER POINT

RHBRD FEE PER POIHT

RNARD FEE

0-70 71-75 76-80 81-85 86-90

0 15509 × 29079 × 38365 × 50404 ×

5.0 5.0 5.0 4.25

0 $77,545 $145,395 $191,825 $214,217 $628,982

0 15509 × 29079 × 38365 × 50404 ×

5.0 5.0 5.0 0.0

O, $77,545 $145,395 $115,095 0 $338,035 HB. TOTAL $391,885

BASE FEE $53,850 X RECOMMENDED RNARO FEE VEPSUS MAXIMUM A|.IARO FEE

AWARD FEE ~628,982
64.89X

RFDO TOTAL SGB2~B~2

RWRRO FEE $338,035
34.B7Z

XTOTAL RECOMMEMOEO AWARD FEE VERSUS TOTAL MAXIMUM FEE

GG.74X

'

3B.30X

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-7

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 8 of 27

Defendant's Supplemental Exhibit 76

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-7

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 9 of 27

SUMMARY MEMOPJU,K)UM SECRETARIAL ACTION REQUESTED BY:
Date: Orig. Office: Transmittal: DP-231 (M. Arendale, 3-2984) ACTION: Award Fee Determination for Rockwell International Corporation (RI) at the Rocky Flats Plant under Contract No. DE-AC0%-76DP03533, for the Period April 1 through September 30, 1989.

To:

Deputy Secretary, S-2

Issue: Timing: Discussion:

Should RI's Award Fee be reduced from $~,176,077 to $2,931,278? URGENT, prompt notification of award fee determination is required. A decrease is recommended in the award fee for RI as proposed by the Award Fee Determining Official (AFDO), Manager, Rocky Flats Office. The overall reduction in tota! fee is approximately 30% lower than that proposed by the AFDO, and in our estimation more accurately reflects the level of performance of RI during the rating period. Specifically, we have recommended a total fee (award fee plus base fee) of $2,931,278 as compared to the AFDO recommendation of $~,176,077.

Conclusion:

Concur in the Headquarters decrease in total fee for RI.

John C. Tuck Under Secretary

Agree Disagree Concurrence: EH Jan./ /90

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-7

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 10 of 27

DP-231: W. M. ARENDALE (3-298~)
Award Fee Determination for the Period April I, 1989, through September 30, 1989, Rockwell International Corporation (RI)o Acting Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs, DP-I

o ISSUE
I am recommending a decrease in the award fee for RI as proposed by the Award Fee Determining Official (AFDO), Manager, Rocky Flats Office. The overall reduction in total fee is approximately 30% lower than that proposed by the AFDO, and in our estimation more acurately reflects the level of performance of RI during the rating period. Specifically, we have recommended a total fee (award fee plus base fee) of $2,931,278 as compared to the AFDO recommendation of $~0176,077 (see attachment I). Comparison of the Headquarters and AFDO award fee determinations are provided in tabular format in the attachments for your convenience. o BACKGROUND The AFDO has determined and recommended that RI be given a numerical rating of "85.55" for plant operations in its performance as operating contractor for the Rocky Flats Plant. This numerical rating equates to an award fee of $3,11~,2~5 for plant operations. He has also recommended a nu~nerical rating of "89.25" and an award fee of $628,982 for the Plutonium Recovery Modification Project/PlutoniumRecovery Option Verification Exercise (PRM~/PROVE). The available base fee ($%32,850) plus award fee ($7,791,300) forthe period for both plant operations and PRMP/PROVE is $8,22%,150 and the AFDO has recommended a total fee of $~,176,077.

o DISCUSSION
Although the AFDO recommended amount represents only ~5.65% of the available award fee for plant operations and 6~.89% of the available award fee for PRMP/PROVE, I recommend that a further reduction be made for plant operations that reflects the lack of concern and management for the environmental, safety, and health (ES&H) situation that existed at the.Rocky Flats Plant during the appraisa! period. A further reduction in fee is also recommended for the performance in PRMP/PROVE which more accurately reflects the overall moderate improvement over the previous rating period.

o PLANT OPERATIONS
Concerning plant operations I base my position on the following: Many of the 230 safety concerns documented by external reviews (as well as by internal RI review) remained open during this period. This lack of priority
000266

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-7

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 11 of 27

attention to safety and health by RI is a clear indictment of poor management. During this period, Environment, Safety, and Health (EH) representatives continued to report of ES&H problems in the following areas: Inadequacies of a fire protection program and a continuing presenc~ of fire hazards in Buildings 881 and %60. Lack of radiological protection continued to exist in Buildings 707, 777, and 881. Deficiencies noted ranged from alpha radiation detectors not functioning to eleven glovebox shielding doors found open. Worker training deficiencies were noted throughout the plant as well as current and complete operating procedures. It was reported there appeared to be no direct relationship or cross reference between the Operational Safety Requirements, Operational Safety Analysis, and the Nuclear Material Safety Limits. There was no formalized conduct of operations as evidenced by: o o Lack of standards and criteria for operations; Lack of well documented procedures for operations; Lack of clear lines of responsibility for safe operations; Lack of adequate work ethic and mental, discipline within the work force; o Lack of adequate on-floor supervision; Lack of ability to apply root cause analysis to investigations of unplanned events and to .implement lessons-learned on a plant-wide basis. The Department of Energy (DOE), through an independent assessment by Scientech, Inc., has identified several inadequate criticality safety conditions and practices at the Rocky Flats Plant. In addition, DOE is not satisfied with worker understanding of nuclear safety standards at the plant. I therefore recommend the numerical rating of "77.75" be given to RI for its performance under the General Management category and "65.25" for its performance under the ES&H category, thus
E 000~67

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-7

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 12 of 27

downgrading their overall performance rating from "85.55" to "82.19" for plant operations (see attachment 2). This equates to a total fee of $2,539,393 ($2,160,393 award fee + $379,000 base fee) for plant operations. This is a downgrade of $953,852 from the amount recommended by the AFDO. Our recommendation reflects a 31.67% award fee versus maximum award fee as compared to the ~5.65% recommended by the AFDOo

o PRMP/PROVE
With respect to the performance for PRMP/PROVE and the specific areas of project management, schedule performance, design and technical quality, the contractor, fell substantially below the 90 or 91 rating given. Performance was satisfactory, but stil! required further improvement, and the rating should be in the range of 80-85 in these areas. Many products delivered in this time frame required rework, and management was not totally responsive to the DOE reqz~irements that were provided. The overal! rating should be reduced from 89.25 to 83.00 (some improvement over last period) with. a resultant reduction in fee of S290,9~7 (see attachment 3). The overall rating for the PRMP/PROVE performance is downgraded from the AFDO amount of "89.25" to "83.00". This equates to a total fee of $391,885 ($338,035 award fee + $53,850 base fee). This is a downgrade of $290,9~7 in award fee from the amount recommended by the AFDO. Our recommendation reflects a 34.87% award fee versus maximum fee as compared to the 6%.89% recommended by the AFDO.

O SiTMMARY/RECOMMENDATION
Overall, I recommend awarding RI a total fee of $2,931,278 of which $~32,850 is base fee. This is a reduction of $i,2%%,799 from the $&,176,077 total fee proposed by the AFDO of which $%32,850 was also base fee. Our total recommended fee is approximately 30% lower than proposed by the AFDO (see attachment I). My intent to reduce the recommended fee has been communicated to the Rocky Flats Office.

J. M. Barr Rear Admiral, U.S. Navy Deputy Assistant Secretary for Military Application Defense Programs

cc: Dave Simonson, Manager, RFO

E 000ZSB

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-7

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 13 of 27
0~ o 0 0

.78101 NNNI×BN

sns~3h
~3~ 7~I01 33~ ZLO "~E ZL8" I~E }:L9" I E X.I~O "BI~ }:GB" ~-9 X.S9 "Si, SOS~3h 333 O~WMW 030143N14003~ Z

HI08

3AO~d/dN~d IOH

INWTd

Hi08

3AO~dldN~d 00-I~

INBgd

OOI~' 16Z'Z$ 00~6965 000(~8~95

33_-I O~WIIW NrlNIXWN 78101 3AO~dldH~d ~03 3~ O~M~ NFINIX~N SNOIIUW3dO iNI'IWqd ~03 333,0~WIiB NFINIXBN

SBB ~ I 6E$

SEO ~ 0~£$

~8 ~ 8895

ZB6 ~ 8~95

0S8 ~ ES$

3AO~dldW~d

78101 [IH

333 O~BMB

7UlOI

333 O~WMW 00dW

333 3S88

OH SOS~3A OOd8 140SI~8d1403 88~I ~0~ U38H31d3S Ol I -I]UdW 00]~3d 3Hi I IN3NHOBIIW NO IIW]O0]W3 3~ O~WMW 03QN~NI.IOO3~

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-7

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 14 of 27

P.ECONHENDED AHAP.D FEE CALCULATION P.OCKHELL I NTEP`HAT [ OHFIL COP.POP.AT [ OH FOP. THE PE~!IO0 RPQIL I TO SEPTEHBEP. BO, 1989

ATTACHMENT 2

~.~.~.~ PLANT OPEP.ATIONS ~

FIJNCT[OI'IAL PE~FORHAI.ICE AI~EA

FY1989 .HEIGHT 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.15 0. I.5 0.10 1.00

PREVIOUS 6 NONTH RATE 81 65.25 BB 95 96 91 84.25 AFDO RHARO FEE 0 :;545,760 $1,023~300 $1,350,075 $195,110 $3,[14,245

RFO0 . HO CIJ~RENT 6 HONTHS CU#RENT 6 HONTHS #ECOHNENOEO ~ECOHHENDEO P.ATING G~AOE ~ATING GRADE 81 78 90 9:9 9l 86 20.25 15.60 13.50 13.95 13.65 8.60 85.55 HO AHAP.O FEE PER POIHT 0 109152 × 5.0 20.4660 × 5.0 270015 x 2.19 354744 × 0 AHAP.O FEE 0 $545,760 $1~023,300 $591,333 0 $2,160,393 HO RHR~B FEE $2,160,393 31.67X TOTAL $2~539,393 77.75 65.25 90 93 91 86 19.44 13.05 13.50 13.95 13.65 8.60 82.19.

GENEP.I~L HRNRGEHENT ENUI~ONHENT, SAFETY, HEALTH OUALITY COST HANRGENENT P~OOUCTION OPERATIONS CHEHCIRL OPEPATIOHS TOTALS

PEP.FORNANCE POINTS ERP.NEO 0-70 71-75 76-80 81-85 86-90

RHRP.O FEE PEP. POINT

0 10q152 × 5.0 204660 x 5.0 270015 x 5.0 354744 x .55

BASE FEE $379,000
0 0 0

RFDO RNRRB FEE TOTAL $3,114,245 45.65X 48.51X $3,493,245

X RECONHENOEO AHAP.D FEE VEP`SIJS MRXINUH ANARB FEE XTOI'AL RECOMMENDED AWRP.D FEE VE£SUS TOTAL MAXIMUM FEE

35.26%

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-7

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 15 of 27

I;!ECOHHEHDED AHR~D FEE CALCJLATI011 HOCKHELI_ IHTERHAT IOI'IRL ~ORPO~AT!OH FOP. THE PERIOD APRIL I TO SEPTEHBEP. 30, 1989 SIJHHARY COHPAF.'[SON AFBn_ ,~r-n,-,,,-,,r_~.:_...,_', HI,-]

ATTACHHENT .3

FUNCTIONAL PERFORHRNCE APER

F Y 19o9 HEIGHT 0.25 0.15 0.15 0.20 0.15 O. lO 1.00

PP.E'.,' I OI_IS 6 MONTH P.ATE 75 76 86 82 78 76 78.75 AFDO ANRRD FEE 0 $77,545 $145,395 $191,825 $214,217 $628,982

AFDO HO CI_IRP.ENT 6 HONTHS CUP.RENT 6 HONTHS RECI]NHENDED P.ECOHHENDED P`.AT I NG GRAOE P.AT I NG " GP.AOE 91 87 90 86 91 91 22.75 13.05 19.50 1.7.20 13.65 9.10 89.25 HO AHARD FEE PEP` POINT 0 15509 x ~9079:4 98965 × 50404 × 5.0 5.0 5.0 0.0 AHARD FEE 0 $77~545 $145,395 $115,095 0 $338,035 Fig .AHRRD FEE $B38,035 TOTAL $391,885 BO 87 85 8G BO 80 20.00 19.05 12.75 17.20 12.00 8.00 83.00

PP.OJECT HFINAGEHENT COST NANAGEHEHT SCHEDULE PEI~FORNANCE SUBCOHTRACT MFIHAGEItENT DES 181"I OUAL ITY TECHNICAL PRODUCT OUALITY TOTALS

PE#FORNANCE POINTS EARNED 0-70 71-75 76-80 81-85 86-90

AHARO FEE PE~ POINT

0 15509 × 5.0 2~1079 × 5.0 98365 × 5.0 50404 x 4.25

BASE FEE $53,850 o o o ~0 X RECOHHENOEO ANRRO FEE VERSUS HRXIHIJH RHR~O FEE ZTOTRL P`ECOHHEHOEO RNA#O FEE VERSUS TOTAL HRXIHUH FEE

AFOO AHARO FEE TOTAL $628,982 $682,892

66.74X

38.30X

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-7

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 16 of 27

Defendant's Supplemental Exhibit 77

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-7

15:41

US DOE OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 17 of 27

/I.Jnited States Government

Department. of Ener~;

~ATE:. February 22, 1990
R~PLY TO

AI-rNOI~; DP-Z31: W. M. ARENDALE (3-2984) Award Fee Determination for the Period April 1, 1989, througi~ September 30, 1989, Rockwell International Corporation (RI) Deputy Secretary, S-2

ISSUE
I am recommending a decrease in the award fee for RI as proposed by the Award Fee Determining Official (AFDO), Manager, Rocky Flats Office. The overall reduction in total fee is approximately 52 percent lower than that proposed by the AFDO and, in our estimation, more acurately reflects the level of performance of RI during the rating period. Specifically, we have recommended a total fee (award fee plus base .fee) of $2,012,489 as compared to the AFDO recommendation of $4,]76,077. For the previous 6-month period, RI was awarded a total fee of $3,336,065 (see attachment I). Comparisons of the Headquarters and AFDO award fee determinations are provided in tabular format in the attachments for your convenience.

BACKGROUND
The AFDO has determined and recommended that RI be given a numerical rating of "85.55" (good and almost very good) for plant operations in its performance as operating contractor for the Rocky Flats Plant. This numerical rating equates to an award fee of $3,114,245 for plant operations. He has alsorecommended a numerical rating of "89.25" (very good) and an award fee of $6~8,982 for the Plutonium Recovery Modification Project/Plutonium Recovery Option Verification Exercise (PRMP/PROVZ). The available base fee ($432,850) plus award fee ($7,791,300) for the period for bot~ plant operations and PRMP/PROVE is $8,224,150, and the AFDO has recommended a total fee of $4~176,077. The previous 6-month numerical rating was "84.25" (good) for plant operations which yielded an award fee of. $2,716,624, and the numerical rating for PRMP/PROVE was "7B,75" (moderately good) which yielded an award fee of $]86,591. DISCUSSION The AFDO recommended amount represents only 45.65 percent of the available award fee for plant Operations and 64.89 percent of the available award fee for PRMP/PROVE. I recommend that a further reduction be made for plant operatlons that reflects the d~ficiency in overall general management and, more specifically, the deficiency in management for the environmental, safety, and health (ES&H) situation that existed at the Rocky Flats Plant during the appraisal period. A further reduction in fee is also recommended for the performance in PRMP/PROVE which more accurately reflects the very slight improvement over the previous rating period. E 000017

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
,23/02/'B0

Document 205-7
15:47_

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 18 of 27

US DOE OFFICE OF GENERRL COUNSEL

I will outline my position in reducing the award fee for plant operations and PRMP/PROVE in greater detail on the following pages.

PLANT OPERATIONS
Concerning plant operations~ I base my position on the following: Many of the 230 safety concerns documented by external reviews (as well as by internal RI review) remained open during.this period. This continuing lack of priority attention to safety and health by RI is a clear indication of poor management. During this period, representatives from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety~ and Health (EH) continued to report of ES&H problems in the following areas: Inadequacies "of a fire protection program, and a continuing presence of fire hazards in Buildings 460 and 881. Lack of radiological protection c~ntinued to exist in Buildings 707, 777, and 88!. Deficiencies noted ranged from alpha radiation detectors not functioning to 11 glovebox shielding doors found open. Worker training deficiencies were noted throughout the plant as well as current and complete operating procedures. It was reported there appeared to be no direct relationship or cross reference between the Operational Safety Requirements, Operational Safety Analysis, and the Nuclear Material Safety Limits. The Building 771 filter incident on June Zl, 1989, revealed that it had been 11 months since filters were last changed in an area where filters are supposed to be changed every 6 months. 3. There was no formalized conduct of operations as evidenced by; o o o
0

Lack of standards and criteria for operations; Lack of well documented procedures for operations; Lack of clear lines of responsibility for safe operations;

Lack of adequate work ethic and mental discipline within the workforce;
Lack of adequate on-floor supervision; Lack of ability to apply root cause analysis to investigations of unplanned events and to implement lessonslearned on a plantwide basis.

o
0

I~ 000018

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-7

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 19 of 27

Lack of interest in improvement. There is a strong cultural sense that the plant has operated for 37 years and that there is no reason to change. New goals and reasons for change hay6 not been effectively conveyed by management. The Department of Energy (DOE), through an independent assessment by Scientech, Inc., has identified several inadequate criticality safety conditions and practices at the Rocky Flats Plant. In addition, DOE is not satisfied with worker understanding of nuclear safety standards at the plant. The RI Management Plan submitted to the Secretary failed to address bringing new management expertise or approaches. Instead, it only addressed tasks and accompanying resource requirements. I, therefore, recommend the numerical rating of "69" (marginal) be given So RI for its performance under the General Management category and "64" (unsatisfactory) for its performance under the. ES&H category, thus, downgrading their overall performance rating from "85.55" (good and almost very good) to "/8.4" (moderately good) for plant operations (see attachment 3). This equates to a total fee of $1,620,604 ($1,241,604 award fee plus $379,000 base fee) for plant operations. This is a downgrade of $1,872,641 from the amount recommended by the AFDO. Our recommendation reflects a 18.20 percent award fee versus maximum award fee as compared to the 45.65 percent recommended by the AFDO.

PRMP/PROVE
With respect to the performance for PRMP/PROVE and the specific areas of project management, schedule performance, design and technical quality, the contractor fell substantially below the "89.25" (very good) rating given. Performance, at best, was good, with required further improvement obviously necessary. The rating should be in the range of "80" to "85" (moderately good to good). Many products delivered in this timeframe required rework, and management was not totally responsive to the DOE requirements that were provided. The overall rating should be reduced from "89.Z5" (very good) to "83.00" (goodl, which is some improvement over last period, with a resultant reduction in fee of $290,947 (see attachment 4). The overall rating for the PRMP/PROVE performance is downgraded from the AFDO amount of "89.25" (very good) to "83.00" (good). This equates to a total fee of $391,885 ($338,035 award fee plus $53,850 base fee). Thls is a downgrade of $2g0,947 In award fee from the amount recommended by the AFDO. Our recommendation reflects a 34.87 percent award.~ee-versus maximum fee as compared to the 64.89% recommended by the AFDO.

000019

~.~°~

23/02/90 US COUNSEL Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL 15:43 Document 205-7 DOE OFFICE OF GENERAL Page 20 of 27005 Filed 10/30/2006

SUMMARY/RECOMMENDATION Overall, I recommend awarding RI a total fee of $2,012,489 of which $432,850 is base fee. This is a reduction of $2,163,5BB from the $4,176,077 total fee proposed by the AFDO of which $432,B50 was also base fee. Our total recommended fee is approximately 5~ percent lower than proposed by the AFDO (see attachment 2). My intent to reduce the recommended fee has been communicated to the Rocky Flats Office.

Under Secretary

4 Attachments cc w/atts: Manager, Rocky Flats Office

E 0000~0

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-7

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 21 of 27

±N87d SbO~d/dW~d 1NB7d 3AO~d/dN~d OH 003~ <&~zO£ 60l 6BiI/~) -- 001~3d SIHI

3AO~d/dN~d iN87d C6B/I~/~ Ol 8B/I/OI) 001~3d ISB7

OOE~I6Z'Z$
00~'696 $ 000'~Z8'9~

33~ O~UNU ~TWIXUW 7U±Oi
3AO~d/dNad ~03 339 0~W NRNIXSN SNOllU~3dO L~U7d ~03 333 ~UMU WRNIXSN

OH

0098

OOI~3d 15~7

OOI~3d ISB7 ISNISOa 686I ~OE ~38N31d35 Ol i 71~dN O0]~3d 3H1 NOI18~Od~03 7NNOI2~M~31NI 773M~30~ N01187~37~3 33d 0~9M8 03QN3NW033~

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-7

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 22 of 27
ATTACHMENT 2

RECOMMENDED ANRRO FEE CALCULATION ROCKNELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION FOR THE PERIOD APRIL i TO SEPTEMBER ]0, 1989 SU~BQY COMPARISON AFDO VERSUS HO

BASE FEE PLANT P~HP/P~OVE TOTAL $37~, 000 $ 53)850 $432,850

AFI]O ANAP, D FEE . $3, 114, 24S $ 628~982 $3,743,227

HO TOTAL $3,493,245 $ 682,832 ~4, [76,g77 ANAP-D FEE $[, 241, GO4 $ 338,035 ~L,579,639 $6,82~,000 $ 969,300 $7,791,300 TOTAL $[,G20,604 ~ 391,885 $2,012,489

MAXIMUM RNR~O FEE FO~ FLBHT OPERATIONS MAXIMUM RNRRO FEE FO~ PP~/PQOVE TOTAL MAXIMUM R~A~D FEE ~FO0 P£HPiP~OVE

PLANT RECOMMENDED ANARO FEE VERSUS FEE

BOTH

PLANT

HO P~HP/PROVE

BOTH

45.65X

64. BgX

48.04%

18.20X

34. B?%

20.27Z

% TOTRL RECOMMENDED FEE VERSUS 48.51% TOTAL MAXIMUM FEE

66.74X

50.78X

~2.50X

38.30X

24.47X

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-7

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 23 of 27

33~ N~N]XWN 7W101 srls~3n

33~ 0~I"I~I 030~3~1413~3~ %

7U10~

333 O~UMU

7U101

33~ O~UMU

333 3588

33~ OWUNU OH O~'SZ 0S'8 OS'SI 06"~] O8"Zl £~'ZI $8 06 98 ~9 89

1HIOd ~3d 33~ O~UMU

33~ O~UMU O0~U ~'f8

IHIOd ~3d 333 O~UMU

0~4~U3 SINIOb 3DNUN~O3~3d

~'$8 09"8 S9"8I OS'gt 09"~1 £Z'O~ g£ I6 06 8Z ~8

00"~ Ot'O £I'0 O~'O

57U101 SNOIIU~BdO 7UOIN3H3 SNOIIU~3dO NOI13QOO~d iN3N39UNUN ISO3 H17U3H '113JUS 1N3N39UNSN

[6 96 88 £~'S9 18
31U~ HLNON 9 S£OIA3~d

30B~9 9N]±U~ 30N~9 9NIIU~ O30NBNN033~ 030N3¼HO33~ SHINON 9 1N3~00 SH!NOH 9 1NB~i~493 , O0~B OH

1HOZ3M 6861&d

UB~U 33NUW~O4~3d 7UNOtlONFI4

~*~*~ SNOIIU~3dO INU7d ~

686~ 'OE ~38N31d35 Ol I ][BdB OOI~3d 3Hi NOIIU~Od~O3 7UNO]lUNa31NI 773MN00~ E 1N3WHOUlIU

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-7 Filed 10/30/2006 Page 24 of 27 £TTRCHI'tENT 4 RECOMMENDED BHBRO FEE CALCULATION
ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION , THE PERIOD APRIL I TO SEPq'EMBEQ 30, 1989 SUMMARY COMPAQISOM RFOOUE~SUS HO

FUN~TIONFIL PERFORMANCE BRER

PROJECT MANAGEMENT COST MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE SUBCONTRACT MANAGEMENT DESIGN OURLITY TECHNICAL PRODUCT QUALITY
TOTALS

0.25 0.15 0.15 0.20 0.15 0. i0 ~.OO

75 76 86 82 ?8 76 78.75

9[ 87 90 ~6 91 91

E2.75 13.05 [3.50 1~.20 13.~5 9.10 89.25

80 87 85 86 80 80

EO. O0 13.05 12.75 17,20 12.00 8.00 83.00

PERFORMANCE POINTS EARNED RNRED FEE PEP POINT 0-70 71-75 76-80 81-85 86-90 TOTRt.S ' 0 15509 ~ 5.0 29029 × 5.0 ~8~65 x 5.0 .50404 × 4.25

RHR~D FEE 0 $ 77,545 $145,395 $191,825' $214,2[7 $628,982

RNRRO FEE PER POINT 0 [5509 × 5 29079 × 5 38~65 x 3 50404 ~ 0

RHRQO FEE 0 $ 77,545 $145,395 $115,095 O $398,0~5

"

AFDO BASE FEE $53,Ek~0 X QECOMHENDEO AWARD FEE VERSUS MAXIMUM RNRgO FEE Z TOTAL RECOMMENDED RHRRD FEE UERSUS TOTAL MAXIMUM FEE RHR~D FEE ~628,982 TOTAL $682,832 RQRRD FEE $338,035

HO TOTAL $39[,885

64.BOx 66.74X

94.BVz

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-7

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 25 of 27

Defendant's Supplemental Exhibit 78

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-7

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 26 of 27

United States Government

Department of Energy
ES .90-003243

memorandum
SUMMARY MEMORANDUM
February 22, 1990 Orig. Office: Transmittal : SECRETARIAL ACTION REQUESTED BY: 02/27/90 DP-231 (M. Arendale, 3-2984)

ACTION: Award Fee Determination for Rockwell International Corporation (RI) at the Rocky Flats Plant under Contract No. DE-ACO4-76DP03533 for the Period April 1 through September 30, 1989.
Deputy Secretary, S-2 Should RI's award fee be reduced from $4,176,077 to $2,012,489? URGENT, prompt notification of award fee determination is required. A decrease i.s recommended in the award fee for RI as proposed by the Award Fee Determining Official (AFDO), Manager, Rocky Flats Office. The overall reduction in total fee is approximately 52 percent lower than that proposed by the AFDO and, in ourestimati.on,more accurately reflects the level of performance of RI during the rating period. Specifically, we have recommended a total fee (award fee plus base fee) of $2,012,489 as compared to the AFDO recommendation of $4,176,077. For the previous 6-month period, RI was awarded a total fee of $3,336,065 (see attachment I for comparison). Concur in the Headquarters decrease in total fee for RI.

To:

Issue:
Timing:. Discussion:

Recommendation:

John C. Tuck Under Secretary

Disagree Concurrence: EH/Brush Feb ./22/90

Date

Ino

E 001847

ES ~ 1325.15

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-7

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 27 of 27

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

DOCUMENT TRANSMITTAL FORM
CONTROL N'O.

E~90-003243
Jeputy Secretary

ACTS NO.

TYPE OF DOCUMENT/ADDRESSEE

ction Memorandum for approval by the ~BOM DP/US/Tuck
INFO

02/27/90 !02/22/90 ~1~hc SUBJECT Awarb~ Fee Determination for Rockwell: International Corp. at the Rocky Flats Plant for the period 04/01/89 through 09/30/89~ Contract No. DE-ACO4-76DP03533
TO
POLICY AND EVALUATION (PE) INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS (IA) CONSERVATION & SOLAR ENERGY NUCLEAR ENERGY (NE) FOSSIL ENERGY (FE)
, ,,

DATE SENT .~;,.)C~/

DATE DUE

TO
THE SECRETARY (S) DEPUTY SECRETARY (DS) UNDER SECRETARY (US) CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER (CF) THE SPECIAL ASSISTANT (SA) THE EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT (EA) DIR., OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (DOSE) PUBLIC AFFAIRS (PA} LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS (LA) INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS (IR) CONSUMER AFFAIRS {CA) GENERAL COUNSEL (GC) ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION (El) "~ONOMIC REGULATORY ADMIN. (RG) 'ECIAL COUNSEL (SO) HEARINGS AND APPEALS (HG)

TO

cO~Y TO

INFO COPY TO

DEFENSE PROGRAMS (DP) ENVIRONMENT (EV) RESOURCE APPLICATIONS (RA) ENS:RGY RESEARCH (ER) INSPECTOR GENERAL (IG) ADMINISTRATION (AD) CONTROLLER (CR) PROCUREMENT & CONTRACTS MGMT. (PR) EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY (EO) MINORITY ECONOMIC IMPACT (MI} BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS (CB)

- OS/May
ACTION REQUIRED (ES U~E ONLY) SIGNATURE APPROVAL INFORMATION

X
STAFF ACTION SLF~MARY OFF ICE NAME/I N ITIA LS DATE

2 3
4

X

CONCURRENCE COMMENTS AND/OR RECOMMENDATIONS OTHER (SEE REMARKS)

EH GC* EM* MA*

Brush Wakefield Duffy Fitzpatrick

02/22/90

5 6
7

REMARKS:

8 9 10

I ES CONTACT:

Desk I

6-9586

lc

DP simultaneously handcarried concurrence packages to these offices on 02/22/90, concurrences still outstanding
E 001848