Free Statement of Facts - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-3

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 1 of 44

EXHIBIT 6

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-3

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 2 of 44

~vFE~IV~ J~J~ I,

1989

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-3

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 3 of 44

83.

970.$206-~3 OTHER GOVER/~ENT CONTRACTORS 198~) ~AFR

84.

970.5204-45 TERMINATION ~APR1984~ (D~ATION)

~h~ Conc~actin~ Offtc~ nay a11ovaf~a~ ~cetp~ ~o~ c~e Contacting Of£1car oc a notice specifyin~ ~he Eaulcoc O~ficer sh~]~ d~cac~tne e~.y such tecmlna~ion is ~or the bes~ shallbe offocctd by d~liv~ of n notice of recognition

¢00855~

- 175 -

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-3

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 4 of 44

- 176 -

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-3

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 5 of 44

' ~ont~ac~D£-&CO4-76DF03~32

~ha Co~t~ctln~Offlcec ~ay ~eq~ir~ fo~ the pu~pos~ o£ £ull~

noc included

in (b)(Z)

above,

thn costs

o£ sscclin;

and pa~In~

(~)

Off£c=r; prov~d~l, hoverer, ch~c 1£ thn ~=mlnac~on is for dn£nult o~ th~ Contractor, thegn shall not ba included any

- 177 -

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-3

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 6 of 44

vho1~-b~ the Govar~m~n% b~s~ ~e and ~v~rd ~e o~ ch~ ~h~ Contractor Sh~L~ b~ p~or~c~d to and Includ~n~ the e~ecclva d&t~ o~ =uch termin~cion. The Co~t~¢~in~ O~£icer sh~ ~hen

equitable ad~u=tmenco~ the bn~ £ee ~nd av=rd ~ee, or, in the.

C008554

- 178 -

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-3

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 7 of 44

eppcoval of the Contcactln~ 0££1cac ~oc each sepacata cctp

- 179 -

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-3

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 8 of 44

EXHIBIT 7

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-3

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 9 of 44

1 2 3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT

DISTRICT COURT OF COLORADO

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, JAMES S. STONE,

and ex rel.

5 6 7 8 9 I0 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 For the Plaintiffs: MATSCH, beginning Courtroom Proceedings U.S. District vs. ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL

Plaintiffs, 89 CORPORATION, Defendants. et al., M 1154

TRIAL TO TRANSCRIPT

JURY - DAY 14 OF PROCEEDINGS

held Judge

before for

the the

HONORABLE

RICHARD

P.

District day

of Colorado, ~999, in

at 8:55 C-204,

a.m. United

on the States

15th

of March, Denver,

Courthouse,

Colorado.

APPEARANCES 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 195-3

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 10 of 44

Twining 1 2 3
4

- Direct any programmatic to the waste

~" audits been

3094

Q done,

To

your

knowledge, with VANEA's? any

have

for

example, in the have

respect

operations

costs

reflected A

I don't Thank THE MR. THE MR. THE MR. THE

knowledge

of

any

of those

audits.

5 6 7 8 9 i0 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 state your

you,

sir. Anything No Is he else of this witness? Your Honor.

COURT: CARROLL: COURT:

further excused? Yes, he

questions,

WILLIAMSON: COURT: CARROLL: COURT: Next,

is,

Your

Honor.

Agreed? Thank You may you step very down, much. you're excused.

please? Plaintiffs call Bruce Twining.

MR.

KOLAR:

BRUCE called first as duly THE a witness sworn, on was Would behalf examined you your

TWINING, of the and plaintiffs, having been

testified

as follows: Would and you spell

CLERK:

have full

a seat, name for

please? the

your last THE THE

first--or name?

record

WITNESS: CLERK:

Bruce Thank

Twining, you. These

T-W-I-N-I-N-G. are your exhibits.

DIRECT BY MR. KOLAR: morning, Mr.

EXAMINATION

Q

Good

Twining.

Where

do

you

presently

work?

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-3

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 11 of 44

Twining 1 2 3 Q made So would a decision that you on agree the with award

- Cross me, fee, sir, you that had as of the time

3137 you

information had been

indicating inadequate?

Rockwell's

pondcrete

performance

5 6 7 8 9 i0 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A Q you

Try

that

again. you agree as to with the me, amount $4.7 sir, that by the time

Okay. made fee the

Would

decision Rockwell,

of an million,

appropriate you had gotten been

award

for that

namely,

a report

Rockwell's its its

pondcrete

process

controls had been

had

inadequate, inadequate, that A Q there Yes. Okay. in

that that had

inspection storage multiple

procedures had on

procedures spills out

been the

inadequate,

been

pads?

And

you

factored

that be

information

into

your award fee

decision for A Q nature being it not? A Q with? A Well, Yes, And

terms

of what

would

an appropriate

Rockwell? Yes. Now, of if I could the just explore that with you, in just the briefly, fee was the

proceedings It was

resulted

award

determined.

actually

a multi-step

process, ~

it was. you relied heavily on the people on site, to begin

the

people

on site

actually

prepared

the

draft

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-3

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 12 of 44

Twining 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 performance performance Q site Okay. and evaluation evaluation And that see report board. was

- Cross and submitted that to the

3138

appropriate the

because

they

were

on was

could under?

exactly

conditions

that

Rockwell

operating A Q Yes. And

would under,

have

a sense it's

of what funding

constraints or whether

they

might

be

operating else? A Q Yes. And

whether

anything

then

those

people

reported

up to Mr.

Whiteman

who

prepared A Q heavily A Q people gave A I'm Yes.

a draft

report?

And, on

of

course, report?

you

trusted

his

abilities

and

you

relied

that I did. he

Yes, Then at input?

submitted

that

for

review

by

a lot and so

of

your and they

Albuquerque,

division

directors

on,

We had not sure

what that

was was

called the

a performance title then, who

evaluation but

board. the in

exact

it was

functional the various the they

managers things input knew

from that

Albuquerque went on at

also

had

interest Flats,

Rockwell, and

at Rocky testing what was it

taking what

from

the

area

manager it

against on

and

also

testing

against

going

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-3

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 13 of 44

Twining 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 i0 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Meinhardt. but Q say that that A Q I don't Then that I know that I talked

- Cross to him fairly of bottom frequently, award fees.

3253

remember do you see

specific he goes was

discussions on in the

paragraph I kind category,

to of cut that

the

"right its

grade

79"--I under a grade

apologize, the of ES&H

off--"for should Yes. --"and and the be

performance to

downgraded

65.25"--

effect it's

of that dow~l

is

to cut

Rockwell's Do you

award see

fee

further, that? A Q Yes. And

now

to $2.9

million."

he says

at

the

end,

"Admiral

Watkins

concurs

in this

recommendation." A Q sure Yes. Now that the the whole people idea most of the award fee process about time of the the was to make

knowledgeable the relevant

performance were fee. given

of the

contractor weight right.

during on the

period award

substantial A Q been that A that Q That's And out

assessment

the

people He

most wasn't

knowledgeable--had even the Secretary award fee?

Admiral of

Watkins at

there? was

Energy

time,

he--the he was I'm

time

of the

I believe period, Do you but

Secretary sure. he had

of Energy

toward

the

end

of

not

recall

whether

visited

the

plant

at

all

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-3

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 14 of 44

Twining 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Q became of new A Q that as A Q A to Rockwell; Yes. is that That's some about

- Redirect

3283

right? right. Mr. Goldberg in--was FBI and I think you said Flats

Sure. We Mr.

talked

Goldberg about

was the

brought day

started raid; is

at Rocky that right?

manager

of the

I believe And, Not THE THE you in

that's know

when

he ca~e he

in, got

yes. that Watkins assignment? --

whether--how I assume don't All

detail. No,

Admiral

COURT: WITNESS: Mr.

assu~ne. I don't know know. Mr. Goldberg when teams things

right. Do you Flats assist plant? was

(by

Kolar)

whether

manager with going

of Rocky him at to the

brought him in

a team--brought evaluating how

experts been

have A that Q A Q send work A Q Mr.

I believe came in at were

there the

a fairly time.

sizable

group

of people

same

.These Yes. And, out with Yes.

DOE people?

after

the Teams

FBI and

raid other

on

June

6, 1989 from

did

headquarters to plant?

Tiger Mr.

people

headquarters of the

Golduberg

in looking

at conditions

I think Goldberg

you sent

said you

something some input

about on had the

you

believed fee of

that

when

award

determination,

that

Mr.

Goldberg

learned

conditions

at

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-3

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 15 of 44

Twining 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 !0 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Rocky was A refute, that Q fair? A Q Yes. And, so, when from input, you received Flats that you that feel was you new?

- Redirect had not known about--that

3284 there

information There was

information There

that

I wasn't looked with. level

in at

a position of

to detail

really.

was--they familiar

a level

I wasn't So, they

normally went down

to a lower

of

details;

is that

input was visa level

from

him

and

then

subsequently that that

headquarters, now, to into this is

it your vis of the

understanding award than fee you had

determination, been A Q able Yes. Let me This to ask is

was

a lower account?

detail

to take

you

to look

back looks have

at

Tab

3 of A300.

the

defendant's a little

binder. difficult A Q that Rocky A Q second blocks

Exhibit--it Do you

like

It's

read.

that

open?

Yes. And, Mr. this I think had you sent said you was on one of the--is 3rd, 1988 a report about

Whiteman

August

Flats? Yes. And, Mr. Koenigs on on the directed first on you page July to that 22nd, a statement says, 1988. in the

paragraph spilled

"Pondcrete The State of

904

Pad

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-3

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 16 of 44

EXHIBIT 8

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-3

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 17 of 44

1 2 3 UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

5 6 7 8 9 10

ROCKWELL INTEP~NATIONAL CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,
VS.

No. 91-1362 C (Judge Yock) OF AMERICA,

UNITED

STATES

Defendant. i! 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Reported by: HARRIS BRUCE Go TWINING February 23, 1993 DEPOSITION OF:

Tuesday, i0:00

A.M.

BARB~_RAK. CSR # 93

1950 Sawtelle Blvd., Suite 320 Los Angeles, CA 90025 310/477-8867 FAX 310/478-8412

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-3

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 18 of 44

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 the would here. award that this was from

Q. the

Generally letter

the

PERB

was

perfectly

free

to deviate

of this MR.

handbook. Objection on grounds of

KOLAR:

vagueness. Q. A. laid That's I would out the fine. view You that may answer. as a guidance on where was we document, were in

handbook My opinion

process. this

process likely Q. fee

is that

handbook, and

which led

dated 1990

1977, revision. the and

becoming Would process one

obsolete, Mr.

to this for Take actual

you,

Twining, at

describe

me how your fee

worked to the

Albuquerque. of the

time to the

go from

step

issuance

M & O contractor. A. evolving. Q. Let's start with 1988 when you first arrived Well, again, I said the award fee process has been

A. worked for

In general, at that time is

my view that the

of how area fee

that

award was

fee

process

manager

responsible

pulling Q.

together Now, the

the area at

award manager the

report. with in Rockwell

in connection Flats

be the

manager

Rocky

facility

Colorado? A. report. Yes. In The area manager together actually a report, pulled he together have

pulling

would

Tearney

& Tearney

1-800-752-5178

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-3

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 19 of 44

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

considered would have

input also

from been

the

people

in his

area

office. from

He people

expected in

to consider

input

in functional For Quality product have

divisions example, that

Albuquerque. get input with from the Weapons of the He would to

he would would was

Division that

deal

the

quality plant.

Rockwell

producing input and from

in the our

been

expected kind our

to get of reviews people that come

ES & H people that people. had

reflect 9 i0 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 1O 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 not prepared PERB, the done by

the both

appraisals

been then

and

headquarters a draft PERB The sure

And

he would

incorporate He would to talk were then

into

report. meeting, other whether and be of the

to the report.

to that -and by and PERB to

members at this

which was

I'm Jim

not

time but

PERB was

chaired

Culpepper

or Charlie

Troell,

there on the the

a chairman and the had

other

functional would

assistant listen

managers to what

PERB,

as a whole make input it, you

area

manager

say, the

an assessment from their own

on whether functional

it fairly people,

characterized

as well

as whether

know, from

fairly their point of

characterized view. Q. A. sure Who

Rock~ell's

performance

were

the

members

of ~he

PERB? chairman, Troell and and I'm

Well, whether the

typically at that assistant

it would time it

be the

was for

Charlie

or Jim Weapons

Culpepper;

manager

Operations

Tearney

& Tearney

1-800-752-5178

±o

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-3

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 20 of 44

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

would ES

be on

the

PERB,

the

assistant managers site°

manager that

for have a functional

& H, all in

of our what is,

assistant

interest

went

on at the

There from the

I believe, Division,

a PERB but the

secretariat board

which

is

Contracts

itself have

is the an attorney time, I

decision-making advisor think. to the

body. PERB.

I think Again,

we probably was

that

changed

over

9 10 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 about we and but are gotten say, still and my

But changes given

the

PERB

reviews

what

the

area

manager

has

to am

it if appropriate, a report with

and

then

I was fee my

given

and

a proposed that,

award ask

determination questions. If not I

a briefing. concerns again But

I look been

through

haven't to reflect we are

reflected, input

the

PERB or the an

may

or may

meet ask.

the all

I have

questions award fee

when

finished,

I make

determination. And into at the time of this award fee, we had those just

a process

of formally for

sending

proposed

determinations Now,

to headquarters over time, what we the have

concurrence. much more formalized are that

gotten

determining going not we to

performance in in the was

objectives award back fee

be interested what the

process, period,

I am today

sure

practice performance PERB

in this or

review criteria,

those the

objectives, to them,

performance

agrees

they

run

them

Tearney

& Tearney

1-800-752-5178

21

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-3

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 21 of 44

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Albuquerque

who was the contracting

officer

Yes, it does. -- during 1989 you were the manager; correct? A. Yes. If you would turn to the following page, page of the award fee is that

Q.

number E 001040, there is a schematic evaluation

review process, showing how it starts and ends.

9 i0 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Take a moment to review that. A. Q. Yes. Now, does the paragraph that you read on the role officer, as well as the schematic, do

of the contracting

they comport with your understanding worked? A.

of how the process

Well, as I mentioned, during this period, there and that was getting in

had been another step in the process, concurrence this -from headquarters,

which is not included

Q.
A.

Which is not mentioned That's right.

here in this chart, is it?

Again, the other thing is I am not Maybe we did, maybe

sure at this point we didn't.

that we had PERBs.

MR. KOLAR: dated in 1977.

For the record,

this document

is

MR. NYE: That's

in the record,

yes.

Tearney & Tearney 1-800-752-5178

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-3

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 22 of 44

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 i0 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 prior what the the page

Q. 1977

If you handbook, III-10, there is

would which

look

at the

handbook 30, number if

that you

superseded look is at

is Exhibit Bates

would

Roman

it bears

E 001096, "Role that

and

entitled,

a paragraph and

entitled, I would ask

of Fee you read that,

Determination Mr. Twining. A. Q. steps Yes. And

Official,"

on

the in

following the award

page fee

there

is a summary and

of ask

involved look

process,

I would

if you A. Q.

would

at that.

Yes. Now, does that the paragraph process comport to your as the

understanding summary? A.

of how

worked

as well

I think

that

paragraphs

is fairly

consistent

with

I said. Q. All right. So that 16, 1990 the handbook, as it no existed reference

to the

February

edition,

makes

to headquarters' A. Q. Exhibit 30, That's And

concurrence. right. 16, 1990 edition, which is

the February make

does

explicit

reference

to headquarters'

concurrence. A. Q. Yes. And I believe you have testified that the process

Tearney

& Tearney

1-800-752-5178

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-3

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 23 of 44

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

of

headquarters'

concurrence

was

an evolving

one;

is

that

fair? A. at the Yes. whole Basically fee that and PERB But when there process. there it was was One ought not a task force that looked

award was input,

of their to be unusual get a formalized for input me to from input, call

recommendations headquarters' and get input

or the before. exactly here But

to call

and

headquarters I don't ¯ that for it. know

a formalized we got you got

headquarters' from

guidance will that

headquarters forward we did

said,

"From

forward once we

send

these

concurrence." The Q. handbook

guidance, later.

revision point have that

would before

have the

come

so at some you would saying

February

1990 from would correct?

handbook, headquarters have to go A. Q. scene

received award for fee

some

directive

recom~aendations is that

to headquarters I believe Now, let's that's

concurrence;

the case. to 1988 when you you arrived you six on the were months a

go back and fee that

in Albuquerque, in both year award At for

I believe

testified for the

involved of fiscal formal A. absolutely

determinations point in time,

'88.

was

there

requirement I don't sure. went

headquarters' but

concurrence? think first so. I can't fee be

recall, I do not

I don't that

believe

award

determination

to headquarters.

Tearney

& Tearney

1-800-752-5178

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-3

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 24 of 44

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 i0 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 had that Q. for sure. started January Q. Secretary. A. after ended A. I

In '88. The got determination which that would would have for been the made right that

there,

have

been

period

in March Q. And award did A.

of '80. what about the second half of 1988, that would 30,

be the 1988,

fee

going

from

April

1 through for

September

that

go to headquarters recall. no because new I don't the

concurrence? I don't was came know really in in for

I don't say the

know. task

I would under of '89.

force which

administration,

As of the

time

that

Admiral

Watkins

became

the

Yes. MR. KOLAR: Give there off me a second, were please.

(WHEREUPON, held Now, the it's your

proceedings

the

record.) or your in 1988, recollection, concurrence informed made under for the from at

testimony, periods Was

two is

award not

fee

headquarters some point of

required.

headquarters that were being

the

determinations as the other

Rockwell, supervision Ao been

as well

M & O contractors

of Albuquerque? It was not -- before safety I came to Albuquerque, at Rockwell, at there Rocky

a technical

appraisal

Tearney

& Tearney

1-800-752-5178

25

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-3

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 25 of 44

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

Flats,

that

was issues and

very

critical, I got to

and

so one

of

the was

real

high

visibility protection safety

after

to Albuquerque the rest

radiation technical

the

response And

of that were

appraisal. that

I believe done during

there the

follow-up period that I was

appraisals there.

were

early

So there insight on and

were

other on what

headquarters was going

people on at the

that

had and

opinions of for

plant,

a number

occasions example,

I remember to get his

talking input

to Rich in the ES & H

Sterasteci, area.

Those developed interest doing That

kind

of inputs

could

also in

have

typically that what

been of

by individuals to headquarters, plants was not was

on the

PERB,

areas

were we

because, to meet

of course,

were

in the process And

a headquarters

program.

formalized. was in the context of 1988, I

that

response

take

it? A. Yes. So that in the in an informal would way, elicit either input you from or others

Q.
involved

process, as,

headquarters A. Q. PERB would

as well

I assume,

other

sources.

Yes. Getting make its back to my question, to though, you and in 1988, you would the

recommendation

Tearney

& Tearney

1-800-752-5178

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-3

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 26 of 44

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

being

changed Ao Q. No. And

at

all

by headquarters?

that

question under

covers

not

just

Rockwell control.

but

the

other

M & O contractors A. Q. I don't Do you recall recall

Albuquerque's happening. ever were

that

headquarters while you

changing at

an award

fee

determination A. No, but

decision

Savannah? been very point.

headquarters

wouldn't

have

interested Q. A. Q. came in

in a security What No. Now you about San

contract, Francisco?

really,

at that

testified 1989, more

that at some

when time

the

new

administration that fee process;

in January, became

after

headquarters is that A. Q. A. formed

involved

in the

award

a fair Yes. And

statement?

do you it at

recall like whole Jim that and

how

that

came there

about? was a task and force

Well, to look

was the

I said, award

fee

process was

make was and

recommendations, one of the people

and on

Culpepper, task the

who

my deputy, both

force,

who was

was

field

headquarters were perceived

people,

purpoge

to deal in

with the

what

as being

a number

of weaknesses

process. Q. And that task force came up with recommendations?

Tearney

& Tearney

1-800-752-5178

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-3

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 27 of 44

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 and guaranty Q. A.

Yes. Did it come up with so, a written but I don't report? -I wouldn't

I would it.

assume

You don't, Task forces

have a recollection? usually come up with written reports

recommendations. Q. You don't task have force a recollection report? did, but it's not something that I today of ever seeing

9 10 ii 12 13 14 15 ~6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

this

particular A. No. on. And

I probably

focused Q,

the

task

force,

its

report

then

went

to

headquarters? A. report Q. to you A, the task that went Yes, it was chartered by headquarters have. after that the word went and the

to headquarters, And at some point was sure

would in time

concurrence I can't be

required? of the exact before for form timing. we got I'm word not that sure the

was would

completely

finished

package Q. A. Q. A. Q.

go to headquarters remember what

concurrence. that word took?

Do you No,

I don't. it have been oral?

Could

A what? Was it verbal?

Tearney

& Tearney

1-800-752-5178

29

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-3

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 28 of 44

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

It could have been. Do you know if the M & O contractors that, beginning in 1989, required on award fees? A. Q. A. No, I don't. You never notified the contractors. headquarters' were notified was

concurrence

I don't know whether I did or not. You don't recall, is your testimony. No. Let me show you what has been marked as Deposition United States Department Modification of

Q.
9 i0 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A.

Q.

Exhibit i, which is entitled Energy Supplemental it is supplemental Agreement

Number M-128, and

agreement to contract

DE-ACO4-76DPO3533.

Have you ever seen Modification Mr. Twining? A. Qo A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. Yes.

Number 128 before,

And what is this modification? It's a fee and scope modification And this is the contract Yes. And on page 4, is that your signature? Yes, it is. What was the purpose of this modification? I know to the contract.

with Rockwell?

you used the words "fee and scope," but could you elaborate a little bit more on that?

Tearney & Tearney 1-800-752-5178

40

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-3

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 29 of 44

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 9 10 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 fee Exhibit Q. A. performance area manager. Q. 5.

MR.

KOLAR:

I would

like

a chance

to

look

at

Do you know It appears evaluation

what

this

document transmittal was

is? of that together draft by the

to be the report

that

put

so in this put

case

it would by the

be the Rocky

draft Flats

award area

fee

recommendation is that A. Q. A. Q. we will A. Q. a three how what correct? Yes. And Yes.

together

office;

this

would

then

be forwarded

to Albuquerque.

If you walk

would

just

bear this

with

me,

Mr.

Twining,

and

quickly

through

document.

Okay. If we go page you to page i, there is something entitled -and mean the

document

entitled this

"Performance document? to be

Evaluation," And I don't of

would it

characterize but is this

says,

supposed

a summary is the its

particular A. report Q. has

contractor's I would to say. Would say

performance, it's a summary

or what of what

purpose? of the

body

a document when you

like would

this send

accompany

your

award to the

determination

it ultimately

contractor?

Tearney

& Tearney

1-800-752-5178

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-3

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 30 of 44

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 the necessarily. A. whole Q. Ao summary "Performance clear. like This this?"

MR.

KOLAR:

Objection. when

The you

question say

is

not

particular

document,

"a document

MRo

NYE:

A document

that

is

entitled

Evaluation." ~o KOLAR: Not this particular one,

Again, PERB

that

has evolved to the

over

time.

Today

we

send

report

contractors.

Do you

recall

in 19897 and this might have had have sent not been the

I believe level

in 1909, that is

evaluation Again, this

we would it

to the been dealt

contractor. with by the Q° understand Albuquerque. A. Q. evaluation, Appraisal." A. Q. particular performance

a draft,

PERB

process. and the as we walk-through area office this, I fully to

I understand, that this is

recommendation

Okay. If we move there on, following the performance "Performance

is a document

entitled

Yes. And is it my understanding deals that with the that FPAs this -- this functional

document areas

or the about

we were

talking

earlier?

Tearney

& Tearney

1-800-752-5178

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-3

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 31 of 44

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 Q. grade? Q. functional the grade not the trying area is a draft. right? A. Q. them in

I believe Okay. This much And

both

documents

probably

did

that.

document detail°

that

you

are

referring

to now

covers

more

indeed

gives

an adjectival

grade;

is that

Yes. Along with a listing of achievements,

deficiencies, A. Q. general A. Yes.

and

pertinent

observations.

What

was the

grade

for

Rockwell

under

Plant

for

management Excellent. MR.

in this

document?

KOLAR:

And

again,

just

for

clarity,

this

MR. to trick

NYE:

I will

stipulate This is

to that. that

I am came from

anybody. went

a draft

office

that MR.

to Albuquerque. All right. 5, I think the and next what was

KOLAR: move area

If we could performance there? Excellent. And then the

on to page is cost

management,

next

page

is quality

control,

and

the.

Tearney

& Tearney

1-800-752-5178

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-3

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 32 of 44

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 9 10 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Can you

tell? MRo KOLAR: Objection, calls for speculation.

Qo A. discussed and

If you know° It appears before of and to be somebody's translating significant the opinion number on the area we

of achievements and significant

deficiencies into

achievement grade. whether the

deficiencies Q. deficiencies

an adjectival

so somebody and

is questioning equal

the

numbers grade?

of

sufficiencies KOLAR:

defined It

MR0 speculation, doesn't Q. A. Q. Plaintiff's seen know lack whose

Again,

I object. because

calls

for he

of foundation, handwriting what your

he has

testified

that

is. is?

Is that Yes. Let me

understanding

show

you

a document 6, and

that ask

has if

been you

marked ever

as

Deposition

Exhibit

have

it before. A. Q. I don't Let 91. think so. you what has been marked as Deposition Award and Fee it is

me show

Exhibit

It's

a two-page Bates numbers

document are

entitled

Recommendation, signed A. Q. A. by, it Yes.

E 000973, Charles

974,

would

appear

to be

Troell.

Is that I believe

his

signature?

so.

Tearney

& Tearney

1-800-752-5178

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-3

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 33 of 44

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 after

Q.

Now, its

would

this of

be the the

recommendation Flats area

of the office

PERB draft

it did

review

Rocky

recommendation? 5~o A. I would KOLAR: say If you know. to be part here° it wasn't -- the in of the

it appears isn't

recommendation. Q. report that I'll was

The show

report you

-- unfortunately wasn't was in one

produced and piece score

discovery, of the So that

it came

9 10 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25

different get to

pieces,

this

pieces. the

I will

a bigger what There

in a moment. on the plant?

PERB

recommended A. PERB

is no date

on this The at the 31,

document score top on it's

on when here for

this

response Q.

was

forthcoming. It does say

is 91.2. the period

91.2. 1 1988 Yes.

October A.

through

March

1989.

MR. is no date document on the

KOLAR: document

I think as to when

what this

he meant was

is there this

done,

was

issued. MR. NYE: grade Okay. is 91.2.

Q. A. Q. Ao right now,

But Yes, And

the

it is. what is the award and fee, this recommended is not base clear fee, award to me but it fee?

It appears because

to be,

it doesn't

have

the

Tearney

& Tearney

1-800-752-5178

53

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-3

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 34 of 44

1
2

Q.
A.

You

don't

remember

one

way

or the

other?

I don't Do its No. Have redo you

remember. remember if you asked the PERB to go back

3
4 5 6 7 8 9 i0 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that. sent this back and

Q.
redo A. Q. and A. to redo Q. A. Q.

report?

you

ever

asked

the

PERB

at Albuquerque

to go

its

report? asked questions that have caused the PERB

I have their

report. recall whether that happened in this case?

Do you No, And

I don't. you believe in this instance is you that would have for

a recommendation award A. fee period?

to headquarters,

correct,

I believe

this

is the

first

cycle

that

we did

Q. review A. Q. A. Q.

And that of the Yes. And Yes. And you PERB's

recommendation recommendation

would

have

reflected

your

to you?

possibly

changes

that

you

made

on your

own.

would

have

been

comfortable

with

that

recommendation A. Q. Based

prior

to sending

it to headquarters? I had up to that the PERB? point.

on the information would have come

Which

from

Tearney

& Tearney

1-800-752-5178

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-3

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 35 of 44

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

experience A. Richland. plutonium standpoint, Rocky. of what Q. position other the

with

Rocky

Flats was

prior in the

to June plutonium

6, 1989? business all that with knowledge at the

Mr, Goldberg There was

a lot in

of interaction department. have been

among From

facilities Mr.

the

Goldberg think he

would had at the

familiar

I don't went

personal time with have

day-to-day

on there,

he entered. Rocky Flats in his as to any

Subject at Hanford,

to dealing do you Mr.

any

information would 6? have

personal Flats No. And

knowledge operations

Goldberg

concerning

Rocky

prior

to June

how

long

did

Mr.

Goldberg

serve

as area

manager? A. I don't A year? I would Do you I would Simonson? Dave After did Simonson Mr. you or Bob Nelson. acting area with points office, manager him? out, and we we did at say know say most who of a year, replaced Dave but I don't know. recall.

Q.
A.

Q.
A.

him? Nelson or --

either

Q.
A. Q. Rocky

Goldberg have many,

became

Flats, A.

a lot but

of dealings memo the

Not

very to

as this

were

expected

continue

to support

Tearney

& Tearney

1-800-752-5178

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-3

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 36 of 44

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

reporting A. Q. Rocky

directly Yes. After still

to headquarters?

Mr. to

Goldberg's be under

appointment, the supervision

did you of

consider

Flats

Albuquerque? A. document. I considered That office this memo to be the effective and work. -we were

reported

to headquarters, make did things not

to do everything 9 i0 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 from been It calls Q. A. Mr. at for Q. A. Q. A. Q. Plaintiff's directed A. Q. A. Q. So the

we could answer

to help

is no, you

consider

No, I did not --- Rocky No. Let me show you a document It's July that has from been Mr. marked Troell as Flats to be under your jurisdiction.

Exhibit

49.

a memorandum 10, 1989.

to you, Okay. Have Yes,

dated

you

seen

this I have.

memorandum

before?

I think Mr.

Why did MR.

Troell

draft

this

memorandum? of Mr. foundation. Troell's mind.

KOLAR:

Objection, what was

lack in

testimony

about You can

Go ahead. As I recall Goldberg Rocky

answer. process, period had we got of the a recommendation that he had from

this

based and

on the

time

Flats,

we also

nonconcurrence

Tearney

& Tearney

1-800-752-5178

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-3

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 37 of 44

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

headquarters. Troell input° Q. i0, the talked

I believe to the PERB

there

was

a PERB about

meeting, Mr.

or

Mr.

members,

Goldberg's

so you date for

are

testifying memorandum, would

that Mr. have

sometime Goldberg, communicated an

before

July

on this

or somebody to award fee of

acting

Mr.

Goldberg, Mr.

Albuquerque 87.

that

Goldberg

was

proposing

9 i0 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25

Ao Q. A. Q. marked that

That's

right. what form that communication took?

Do you recall I believe Let Exhibit believe Yes. I note Yes. Mr. Mr. Mr. that right? Yes. Do you recall Troell's Troell's Troell, Mr. that

there you

was a letter. a document ask you that was is previously the letter

me show 14. you

I will

if that

you A, Q. A. Q. A. Q.

received.

letter

is dated

July

27.

memorandum memorandum in his

is dated is also

July not

10th.

signed. 10th, had of 87;

memorandum was

of July

knowledge is that A. Q. knowledge?

Goldberg

recommending

a grade

how

Mr.

Troell

obtained

that

Tearney

& Tearney

1-800-752-5178

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-3

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 38 of 44

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 after the 27 know. A. and the calls knew. Q. If for Mr. Troell's how -speculation,

MR. lack MR.

KOLAR:

Objection;

again

calls

for

of foundation. NYE: Well, that -if the refers foundation to a grade He either is of 87 and does or I'm

memorandum he learned

asking doesn't

he knows.

MR.

KOLAR:

I will it's

limit

my

objection how Mr.

to

speculation

because

asking

Troell

yo~

have

knowledge°

Don't

speculate.

If

you

I cannot date of

explain

the

date memo

on this being

memo July

being 10th.

July My from we

on Mr. this

Troell's is

recollection Goldberg, went into Q. subject A. Q. A. he the

process

we got

a recommendation and

PERB

considered with

that

recommendation, proposal. with '87? the letter. Mr.

headquarters Did you of his I don't Okay. The took have

a modified

conversations of

Goldberg

on

recommendation think so before

we got

conversations over at Rocky support new

that

I had were

with

Mr.

Goldberg, to have us

Flats,

trying

continue to deal been

to provide with in this

in areas

that

he wasn't that

equipped had

management Tuck memo.

arrangement

implemented

by the

Tearney

& Tearney

1-800-752-5178

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-3

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 39 of 44

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

anybody. Q. Mr. Goldberg A. explain the Did you do any up with form the My of an analysis grade of 87? and got a at it, was the going and that I cannot as to how

came No,

I didn't. my

recollection, is we PERB

dates, from

recollection the

recommendation PERB on at we had that advised Rocky

Goldberg, there was

looked

me that Flats

much been

more able

in what

than really, out of

we had to

to provide, the kind those raid.

no basis, coming and

argue

with

of findings first

were

Rocky and

Flats

after

several Q. A.

days

weeks findings

months

of the

What The

were

those? changing without -and filters having been this was with

levels

of detail,

significant managers really around

safety about

implications it; just the

building focusing time, on

know

we had around

radiological 771, and

protection, believe other

mostly

I don't of the

my staff issues

aware out

of the right

magnitude after the Q. understand its

of some raid.

that

came

so, it's the

your you

testimony believe i0, 87? must change

that, that had

while the

you don't prior to of

dates, to you

PERB,

memorandum from

of July on the they

received

some

form

rationale A. Q.

Goldberg sure PERB

I'm quite Did the

have. its report to you on the

ever

Tearney

& Tearney

1-800-752-5178

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-3

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 40 of 44

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 that, dated "As July A. 9 i0 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 people had position A. Mr. Q. memorandum, A. a little

Have Yes.

you

seen

this

document

before?

Is that Yes. You note

your

signature

on it?

that

in

the

third

paragraph to John

it

states

stated 10, Yes. Does

in my draft

memorandum

C. Tuck

'09"?

that

refresh went

your

recollection Tuck? way

that

that

indeed, I would

to Mr.

say that

that's we but

one

to interpret a draft

that.

I'm as

surprised

reference that... "I am not" a position

memorandum

an official Q. Twining

memorandum, You -state "am

that, in

-- you to offer

being an informed of our of

not

alternative changing Energy

to his

proposal, in the standards mean

especially application and level that

in view

philosophy performance What do you

of Department of DOE you

expectations." "not in a

by that,

were

to offer What looking before

an informed

alternative"? point there detail were many more

I meant at that the

is at this plant and

in intimate that since

than

there was site, no I

been

raid, and we

Albuquerque to the

longer didn't

in the have

loop way

didn't

have what

access they

any

to validate

are

finding.

So I

Tearney

& Tearney

1-800-752-5178

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-3

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 41 of 44

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

was

accepting were Qo

what

other

federal

employees, period

who after

were the to

on raid.

site,

discovering What is the

during purpose

this

of this

memorandum

Mr.

Meinhardt? A. Well, to the the purpose of this around a new and this memorandum my prior recom/nendation new who for was to

respond

nonconcurrence and to provide

recommendation, headquarters' reflected manager Q. any the

consideration, input from

recommendation was the acting area

Ed Goldberg

of Rocky At the

Flats. time you sent this memorandum, considering did you have

information award A. Q. fee?

that

headquarters

was

an even

lower

No. Let me show you a document Exhibit 150. that has been marked

Plaintiff's A. Q. A.

Deposition Okay. Who would

have

prepared tell

this

letter? is not an

Well,

I can't code

because

there our

organizational people. Q. these award A. Q.

on it,

but

probably

contracts

Did they fee

have

forms to

in their

word

processor

for

letters know.

contractors?

I don't

Do you know

when

this

letter

was

prepared?

Tearney

& Tearney

1-000-752-5170

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-3

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 42 of 44

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 this? from memo it is PERB they that

Q. attached A. Q. would

But

in Mr.

Goldberg's evaluation

July

27 letter

to you,

he

a performance Okay. Do you have

report?

believe

that

would

have

been 150

the report --

been MR.

attached

to Exhibit one

KOLAR:

Assuming of the

was

attached

to

that

exhibit. A.

It

was

just

a draft

document. in some know or been form our

The best

that

I recall

is that

reflected accepted Q.

on Goldberg's his performance you

input.

I don't

whether not. marked

evaluation that

report has

Let me show Exhibit Okay. Have No. It's It is file, are entitled you seen 84.

a document

Plaintiff's A. Q. A. Q. A. to

this

document

before

today,

sir?

"Executive

Summary." that I get, doing could the by well letter I have a

-- on contract a summary me that

actions

and

of what

we are This with

whatever have to

they that

asking

to decide. went along

been

description

Meinhardt. Q. So this, "Executive Summary," is that Is there would not have gone

Albuquerque A. NQ,

to headquarters; I don't think so.

right? an addressee on

Tearney

& Tearney

1-800-752-5178

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-3

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 43 of 44

iii

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

the

Meinhardt Q. Ao

letter? you show zero that that I'm to me? talking about are future the words that

Will The get can

says

if you you

an unsatisfactory get a zero did award

in any fee. give

award

fee

periods, Q. Ao Q. believe

What

grade

Meinhardt

Rockwell

for

ES & H?

65.25. And it's what grade did Goldberg in the either give Rockwell? memo. -I

referred MR.

to right Yes,

Meinhardt that or

KOLAR:

Ao

Seventy-nine, MR. MR. MR. THE

I guess. You're Yes. This It discusses doesn't a 79 Goldberg. have ES & H. the 79 that the details. asking for Goldberg now?

KOLAR: NYE: KOLAR: WITNESS: gave were

A. Q. Mr.

Goldberg And you gave?

Rockwell comfortable

with

Goldberg A. Q.

Yes. And you were comfortable with the 65.25 that

headquarters A. Q. recommended A.

gave? Yes. And by you were your PERB comfortable for was with the 81 that was

ES & H? a lot of additional information

Again,

there

Tearney

& Tearney

1-800-752-5178

112

Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL

Document 195-3

Filed 07/27/2006

Page 44 of 44

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

on the table. Q. At the time. At the time you were comfortable

with the 81? A. Yes. MR. KOLAR: Let me just clarify something.

Is there a similar proviso to the other two answers you gave, that you were comfortable, THE WITNESS: at the time? that

Based on the information

was coming out around Rocky Flats, I believe our PERB graded Rockwell time. Q. What input, or new information, as compared to Mr. Goldberg was provided on his ES & H by too high on the ES & H when they met the first

Mr. Meinhardt .reduction? A.

Just his letter. (THEREUPON, Deposition Exhibit Number 176

was marked for identification.) I will mark this as 176. Okay. Have you seen this fax before? Not the fax. Who is Mr. Cone? I believe he was one of our contracts And who is Mr. Larry Oliver? I don't know him. I think this indicates that he people.

Tearney & Tearney 1-800-752-5178