Free Supplemental Brief - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-6

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 1 of 16

Defendant's Supplemental Exhibit 69

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-6

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 2 of 16

Department of Energy
Aibu:~uerque Operalions Office P O. Be× 5400 Atbuquerque, New Mexico 87115

Hr. D. J. Sanchini Pre~dcnt Rockwell Xnternationa], hERO Eocky Flats P1a~t 1~. O. ~x 464 Goldem~ ¢0 80401

Dear Mr. Ssnchini~ Thii is in respuuse to your written ommenta dated October 25, 1989, conceming the Department's Award Fee Petformanca Evaluatio~ of Rockwell InternaeAonal for the p=~lud 0cto~r ~, 1988, ~hrough Marc~ 31, ~989, a= well as the oral presen~stlon of your VieWs concerning thia performance evaluation which was presented by your repre~entative~ at the Albuquer~ue Operatlon~ Office o= October 30~ 198~. After due consideration of the above-referenced information, I have deter~ulned that my original deter~natlon of a~ award fee in the total amount of $2,903,215.00 for the performance period no~ed above, shal~ remain u~chsn~ed. Accordingly, should you choose to do so, you may withdraw funds for an award fee in ~he above amount from your special bank account.
Sincerely,

D. P. Simonson, Manager, RI~ J. A. S~out, Chief Counse], 0C¢, AL C. ~, Troe11, A~sistant Manassr, J. ~. Boyal, ~Ireetor, CPD, AL

E 001527

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-6

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 3 of 16

666T00 ~t

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-6

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 4 of 16

Defendant's Supplemental Exhibit 70

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-6

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 5 of 16

1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLORADO

X UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, EX REL; ¯
Plaintiff, ¯ Civil Action ¯ No. 89-M-1154
-VS-

ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORP., ET AL, : 9 : Defendants. : 10 X 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 JOB NO. 106926

¯ PAGES 1 - 155

Deposition of W. HENSON MOORE Washington, D.C. Wednesday, April 15, 1998

Reported by: Nancy Bond Rowland

Moore-Defendant's Depo

Page 1

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-6

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 6 of 16

132

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 !0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

them by himself or he wasn't the last review of an award fee determination. Because of Rocky Flats they came to me, and for a while there as l remember all of them, whether those facilities were something I worked with or not, came to me for review to be sure the system was working like we had decided, the new system. Nancy Wolicki as I remember was the person who would receive it, review it, go into great details, come in and brief me, and they would make a decision whether we agreed or disagreed with the Operations Office's determination. In the early years I think there were a number of them we sent back and said "We don't agree" or we set a new number for it. That happened on the Rockwell award fee. Q You would get what, performance evaluation reports, kind of a short evaluation prepared by the Operations Office, and that would be reviewed by Nancy? A The way the system worked after we designed it was the fact when the Operations Office finished its work, and everything up to that point was done as it always had been done with the exception of this 51 Moore-Defendant's Depo

Page 132

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-6

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 7 of 16

Defendant' s Supplemental Exhibit 71

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-6

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 8 of 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 i0 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
VS.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. JAMES S. STONE,
Plaintiffs,

ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) 89 ) ) ) )

M 1154

TRIAL TO JURY - DAY 14 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS Proceedings held before the HONORABLE RICHARD P. MATSCH, U.S. District Judge for the District of Colorado, beginning at 8:55 a.m. on the 15th day of March, ~999, in Courtroom C-204, United States Courthouse, Denver, Colorado. APPEARANCES For the Plaintiffs: Maria T. Vullo, Esq. Jeannie S. Kang, Esq. Matthew Chevez, Esq. Robert E. Montgomery, Jr., Esq. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison 1285 Avenue of the Americas Suite 2607 New York, New York 10019

Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording; transcript produced by transcription service.

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-6

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 9 of 16

Twining - Redirect 1 2 3 4 matters is a reference to the period before or after the compliance agreement of 19867 A Q I don't know what the author was referring to.

3281

I'd like to show you or have you look again at Tab 56 in

5 6 7 8 9 I0 Ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25

the defendant's binder. It's Exhibit D173--I'm sorry, it's Tab 47; excuse me. And for the record -THE COURT: D173 is at 56. MR. KOLAR: I made a mistake. What I wanted him to look at is Tab 57 and it's Exhibit A513 for the record. THE COURT: Thank you. Okay. Q (by Mr. Kolar) Do you have that in front of you, Mr.

Twining? A Q Yes, I do. Now, that's a--is that a draft of the letter that you

ultimately sent to Mr. Sanchini, informing him of your decision that the award fee would be 2.9 million, approximately? A It looks like the concurrence copy of the letter, which

I wouldn't call a draft. Q All right. So, and do you see the concurrence ladder on

the right-hand side of the document? A Q Yes, I do. Are there--is the purpose of that to show concurrence by

other people on your staff with your decision? A Yes.

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-6

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 10 of 16

Twining - Redirect

3282

1 2

Q

And, are some of the people listed there people who were

members of the PERB; I see Mr. Troell's name? Yes, they are. And, so. would it be fair to say when they initialed off

3 A 4 5 6 7
8 9 i0 Ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q

on this document they were telling you in essence that they concurred or they were recommending or agreeing with this figure and then you in turn adopted that? A Q Yes, that would be fair. You said that Secretary Watkins when he came in, brought

high expectations of contractors; is that right? A Q Yes, he did. Did he also bring high expectations, Mr. Twining, of

Department of Energy people who worked for him? A Q Yes, he did. And, Mr. Koenigs showed you some documents that talked Do you

about new expectations or revised expectations. recall that? A Q Yes. Was honesty from a contractor one of these new

expectations or had that always been an expectation? A I think that's always an expectation and I don't

remember Admiral Watkins talking about that. He had expectations of stricter conduct of operations, more discipline of the operations. Q But honesty was always an expectation; that was nothing

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-6

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 11 of 16

Defendant's Supplemental Exhibit 72

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-6

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 12 of 16

~o. G. J, Judge, EN-IO
We have reviewed the safety ~nd health aspects of the subject award fee ~eter~i~tion for Rock.ell ~nte~n~t~onal Corpora~Ion~ Contract No. DE-~CO~-76DP03533, ~or the ~eri~d o~ April I, I~8g through September 30~ 1989. Our co~n~ents are base~ ~on current knowledge of ~te operations ~n¢ludlng results of TSA's and corrective aCtfon plans~ ~nc~dent reporting and cor.rective ~ct~ons~. speclal revle~s Such ~S the Crlt~cality Safety Assessment~ Safety, heath and ~nagement revle~ of site oper~tions~ We essentially agree ~ith the narrmtive information concsrm(ng safety in the ~emorandum and its five attachments. However, sufficient ~tm is mot provided for us to ~nderstmnd ~hy the rating for Enviro~enta1~ ~fety ~md H~alth for the Plant for the ~urrent 5 ~nth ~rlod ~hould imcrea~e t~ 78 percent from a ~5,~5 percent r~ti~g for ~he previous 6 ~nth period. The ~ritten explanation ~n the ~e~ramdum s~ates: "As the eva~uati~n ~ndicates~ ~he c~ntractor's ~rfo~ance (n the safety ~rea comtinue to be umacceptable, Mo~ver~ this ~as ae~otia~ions'~ith ~PA ~nd the State on environmenta~ agre~n~s and ~ith these very ag~resslve ~gree~nts." The ~i~ht given this performance in the envirOm~ntal area must h~ve been significant to off~et she safe~y r~tlng and ~ncreaSe th~ overall Envlron~nta~ Safety and Mealsh Memlth rating. In a~dltlom, ~he r~Cent safe~y ~m~ b~alth revle~ ~dent~fled ~ong standing concern~ t~at are ~re ~xtenslvQ %ham those included ~n the a~ard fee determination: mm example i~ ~hm ~ack of a trac~ablm ~afe~ control system fr~ SAR's to Operational Safetx Requ~r~n~s ~o procedures, Yet, the RF Off~ce a~rd f~e det~fnation gave credit to Rockw~1 for ~klng every effort to ~et safety analysis require~nts ~tbln available resources. ?~at ~egree of effort Is mot apparent. ~e alSO question the General Manage~ent,r~ting o£ BI p~rce~t. Again, ~ do ~ot kno~ the relative ~e~ghts given to the ~nera% D~nage~ent noteworthy ~¢hlevements ~nd positive ~bservati~ns versus ~he re~atlve ~ights of ~be s~rious ~jor ~eficlencles, ~otable ~eflcIencles~ end nBgatlve ~bservat~ns.

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-6

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 13 of 16

Defendant's Supplemental Exhibit 73

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-6

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 14 of 16

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-6

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 15 of 16

Defendant's Supplemental Exhibit 74

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 205-6

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 16 of 16