Document 195-16
Filed 07/27/2006
Page 1 of 32
EXHIBIT 31
Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
Document 195-16
Filed 07/27/2006
Page 2 of 32
0001 I IN THE UNITED STATES COURTOF FEDERAL CLAIMS ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL 3 CORPORATION, : 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 i1 i2 13 14 15 I6 17 I8 19 20 21 22 HENSON MOORE, a wimess,called for examination by counsel for the Plaintiff, pursuantt o notice of counsel, held at Chadboume Parke, 1 I01 Vem~ont & Street, N.W., Washington,D.C. at 8:30 a.m. on Friday, April 29, 1994, before Thomas McPhail, CSR, R. Notary Public whenwere present on behalfof the parties: DEPOSITIONOF: Friday, April 29, 1994 Washington, D.C. : : No. 91-1362C v. : Judge York : : THE UNITED STATES, : Defendants. : Plaintiffs,
Moore, Henson 4/29/1994
(Claim)
Page 1
Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
Document 195-16
Filed 07/27/2006
Page 3 of 32
0041 find fraud being committedby Roclc~vell? 2 A. I don't rememberthat. That is a pretty 3 heavy word. No, I don't remember. I don't 4 remember that being in there, Not to say it is 5 not, I just don't remember that. 6 Q. Okay. 7 8 A, But I don't think it was. Q. Do you recall if the report charged
9 Rockwellwith any misrepresentation of fact? I0 A. Fine line bet~veen was it done 11 intentionally or was it just not done. Signs of 12 commission versus omission. As I remember, there 13 were a lot of improper report makingand record 14 keeping. I don't think we ever concluded that 15 somebodywas trying to misled us. 16 Q. That is what I am asking. 17 A. But flaat there ~vere records that were not 18 being kept as they should have been. 19 Q. Do you recall when the headquarters 20 received the so-called Tiger Teamreport? 21 A. The Tiger Teamwas out there for a month. 22 No, I don't remember when, but I knowit took at
Moore, Henson 4/29/1994
(Claim)
Page 41
Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
Document 195-16
Filed 07/27/2006
Page 4 of 32
OO42 least a couple of months. 2 Q. And was the award fee ultimately made to 3 Rocl~vell after receipt of the Tiger Teamreport? 4 A. Wehave to go back and look at the record; 5 I just don't remember. 6 Q. Mr. Moore, I will represent to you that, 7 as I think I have said before, Mr. Twining-8 A. Yes. 9 Q. -- end of May, very end of May,
10 recommended headquarters an award fee; and, to 11 thereafter, Mr. Goldberg recommended lower a
12 award fee to Mr. Twining, which Mr. Twining then I3 endorsed and made further recommendationto 14 headquarters. Andultimately an award fee was 15 issued to Rockwell, which was lower than both I6 Mr. Twining's initial recommendationand
I7 Mr. Goldberg's subsequent recommendation. Do you I8 recall whythe award fee was reduced below both I9 of the t~vo prior recommendations? 20 A. Very obviously we didn't agree with them. 21 Andit mayvery well be that -- I assume wethen 22 had a report, or we had enoughinformation that I
Moore, Henson 4/29/1994
(Claim)
Page 42
Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
Document 195-16
Filed 07/27/2006
Page 5 of 32
0043 brought back or we got back verbally from the 2 people we sent out on the team out there, that 3 really had a chance to look into it even deeper 4 than Goldberg had at the time he madethe 5 determination. Wesent tbe best people we had in 6 tbe Departmentat tbis time, namesthat I 7 remember, whoare the best we had. AndI was 8 tbere, as I say, two weeksof the time, or tbree 9 of the time that they were tbere and were coming, I0 and additional ones came later. Andthere wasn't 11 mucbto smile about from what that team brought 12 back. Andso I can say that the best of my 13 memory we received additional information to is I4 what Ed Goldberg had. 15 Q. Doyou recall specifically what
16 information headquarters had that would cause 17 them to makean award fee determination lower 18 tban both Mr. Twining and Mr. Goldberg's I9 recommendation? 20 A. First Twiningwas operating in the old
21 culture. His was just, as I remember was it, 22 just like nothing had ever happened. Our trying
Moore, Henson 4/29/1994
(Claim)
Page 43
Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
Document 195-16
Filed 07/27/2006
Page 6 of 32
EXHIBIT 32
Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
Document 195-16
Filed 07/27/2006
Page 7 of 32
States Government
E}epartrnent of Energy Alouquerque Operations Office
,emora~dum
~ HAY t 1989
CPD
Albuquerque Operations Office (AL) Award Fee (AF) Determinations for Period October i, 1988, through March 31, 1989
TO;
Troy E. Wade, I!, Acting Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs, DP-I, HQ Albuquerque Operations Office has completed its award fee process for the subject period. The process includes staff level assessment against en Award Fee Plan by both Area Office and Albuquerque functional organizations, consolidation of those assessments by the Area Office Managers, review and modification as appropriate by the Performance Evaluation Review Board, and presentation to me for a final determination. My tentative findings for each contractor are highlighted below for your concurrence. The Performance Evaluation Reports, which will be sent to each contractor, are attached. Allied-Si~nal,, Inc. - Kansas City Plant Last Period AF-$4,512,510 This Period Proposed ~-$4,723,507 % of ~ Pooi-81.30% % of Total Fee Pooi-$4.60% % of .~-F Poo]-92.36% % of Total Fee Pooi-94.27%
Most Noteworthy Achievements Significant Improvement in Albuquerque P~nreeleceronics Operalion (AMO) Product Deliver# Completed Make-or-buy Baseline Capability Study Implemented Aggressive CoD~inuous Flow Manufa
Most Notable Deficiencies The Quality Plan for the 7e~:ss Instruments Life of Type P[ocuremenl has not been Implemented Unaccep[able Practices in Imdus~rial Hygiene and Radie!ogical Protection Programs Numerous Violations of the AMO Se~er Discharge Criteria Due ~o Operation of Elemen~ary ~eutraliza~ion Unit
Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
Document 195-16
Filed 07/27/2006
Page 8 of 32
Troy E. Wade
- 2 -
EG&G Mound Applied Tenhnolo$ies~ inc. - Mound Plant Last Period (Monsanto Research Company) AF-$3,061,848 This Period Proposed AF-$2,620,562 % of AF Pooi-76.37% % of Total Fee Pooi-80.54% % of AF Pooi-76.12% % of Total Fee Pooi-78.77%
Most Noteworthy Achievements Delivery Performance - 99.3% Significant Gains in Decontamination and Decommissioning Work Successfully Demonstrated Application of Continuous Flow Principles in Production of MC2990A Detonators Explosive Component Test Facility is Producing More Accurate and Repeatable Data in a Real-Time-Mode Corporate InitiaTive for Performance Improvement in ES&H Most Notable Deficiencies In the Quality Area, Three Systematic Material Control Practices Were Violated MC-3925 Time~ Wiih Unqualified Detonator Submitted for Acceptance ConTinue to Rave Elecnrical Related Incidents - Cutting Into Energized Circuit
General Electric Company (GEl - Pine]las Plant Last Period AF-$2,776,670 This Period Propose8 AF-$2,730,333 % of AF Poo]-89.70% % of Total Fee Pooi-90.54% % of AF Pooi-87.60% % of To~al Fee Pooi-88,61%
Mosz Noteworzh 7 Achievements Leader in Resource Management Operating with Less Funding Under Self-Imposed Manpower Constraints Assertlve/Effective Design Agency Relationship GE Fully Supports Cootinuous Flow Projects Timely Delivery of Parts for W85 ALT 902 Program Enabled the Department of Energy [o Meet Critical Schedule
Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
Document 195-16
Filed 07/27/2006
Page 9 of 32
Troy E. Wade Most Notmble Deficiencies -
-3-
AL Concerned About Adequacy ef and ~Aherence to Procedures in ES&H Shortage of GE Parts Delivery of RTG's Limited Life Shipments to the Savannah River Plant MC-3287 Clock Shipments to the Kansas City Plant
Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Company, Inc. - Pantex Plant Last Period AF-$2,357,666 This Period Proposed AF-$2,150,683 % of ~2 Pooi-79.18% % of Total Fee Pool-B2.85% % of kF Pooi-88.17% % of Total Fee Pooi-90.26%
Most Noteworthy Achievements Developed a Thorough and Complete ES&H Strategic Plan Eliminated 119 Items from Calibration Process Implemented a Training Aid Program Utilizing "Wax -~u!lets" Performed Superbly in Evaluation and Restart of W88 Program Implemented Spill Control and Countermeasures Plan
-
Most Notable Deficiencies Quality Assurance Sur%-ey on B61-7 Revealed Unacceptable Procedures, Instructions, Material Control, and Manufacturing Not Following Procedures in Construction Safety ~~n Inadvertent Deluge Trips Caused Significant Loss
Rockwell International Corporation - Rocky Plats Plant The Plutonium Recovery Modification Projea~ (PP/IP) an~ the Plutonium Recovery Option Verification Exercise (PROVE) have been split o~t for this and future periods to increase management focus on this critical [roject~ Rockweli's performance evaluation is therefore broken into Plant Operations and P~]~/PROVE. Plant Opera~ions Las~ Period AF-$4,790,073 This Period Proposed AF-$5,176,482 % of A7 Pooi-75.88% % of Total Fee Poo!-77.15% % of AF Pooi-76.53% % ot Tote/ Fee Pooi-77.14%
Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
Document 195-16
Filed 07/27/2006
Page 10 of 32
Troy E. Wade Most Noteworthy Achievements
-4-
-
Established Exemplary Standards for Operation of Building 771 NWQA Surveillance During Building 771 Restart Resulted in Improved Quality Significant Progress Made Toward Implementation of NQA-I S£andard k Nuclear Facility Operations Manual is Being Developed MadeSignlflcant Progress Toward Reducing Rate of Radiological Incidents Fosltive Steps Taken to Reduce Personnel Radiation Exposure
Most Notable Deficiencies Systems Problem in Quallty - Three Instances of Nonconforming Material Shutdown of Building 771 Created Major Disruption Unihteutional Chromic Acid Release Inadequate Oversight of Building 771 Operation After 1/19/89 Phased Restart Inadequate Project Staffing for PRMP PP~MP/PROVE Last Period - N/A This ,~erlo@ Proposed AF-$186,591 % of AF Pooi-19,25% ~ ~f Total Fee PooI-23.5~
Most Noteworth~ Achlevementa Precursor Plan Resulted in Improved Project Direction Resolved Several Problems Impacting Schedule Rapid and Effective Redirection to 3echtel Improved Use of Configuration Control System Initiated System to Idenlify Root Causes of Technical Problems
Most Notable Deficiencies Mamagement !n~ttemtion [c Technical, Cost, Schedule, and Manpower Requiremenls PROVE Cost Growth Continues Poor Quality PROVE Esgineering Glovebox Welding Problems - Lack of Technical Product Quality 'Inadequate Project Staffing PROVE Schedule Deterioration - 1/90 to 8/90
-
Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
Document 195-16
Filed 07/27/2006
Page 11 of 32
Troy E. Wade
5
MAY t 1£89 3
Hgstinbhouse Electric Corporation - WIPP Last Period AF-$1,408,590 This Period Proposed AF-$I,283,051 % of AF Pooi-87.73% % of Total Fee Pooi-89.17% % of AF POOI-86,95% % of Total Fee Pooi-88.49%
Most Noteworthy Achievements 18 Critical Path Construction Work Packages Completed Delivered a No-Migratlon Variance Petition to the Environmental Protection Agency "First-of-Its-Kind" TKUPACT Testing was Successfully Completed and Safety Analysis Report for Packaging Submitted Made Efficient Use of Existing Resources Audits and Unexpected Activities Supported with No Effect on Schedule Corporate Support for Operational Readiness Review Activity Most Notable Deficiencies Exhaust Filter Building Wall Damaged Due to Improperly Secured Door Radiological and Environmental Programs Need Attention N~merous Deficiencies in Fire Protection Program Unable to Complete a l[u~ber of Operational Readiness Review Items Please indicate your concurrence/nonconcurrence below. If you have questions or if additional information is required, please let me know.
Bruce G. lhrining Manager 6 Attachments
/ Cs,~cur
/__/ Noncoucur
Troy E. Wade, II Acting Assis[an~ Secretory fo~ Defense Programs
Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
Document 195-16
Filed 07/27/2006
Page 12 of 32
EXHIBIT3 3
Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
Document 195-16
Filed 07/27/2006
Page 13 of 32
~}ep~rtrnent Energy
Washington, 20585 DC
September 20, 1989
MEMORANDUM FOR
BruceG. Twining Manager Albuquerque Operations Office Award Fee Determination the PeriodOctoberI, 1988 for throughMarch31, 1989,Rockwell International Corporation (RI).
SUBJECT:
Reference made to your memorandum me dated August8, 1989, on this same is to subject. This Officehas carefully reviewed all of the documentation provided by your Officeregarding the AwardFee Determination the periodin for question. The Officeis essentially concurrence in with your recommendations, with an additional downward adjustment the area of Environment, in Safetyand Health(ES&H). The additional downward adjustment ES&H reflects to severalconcerns. Operations Building in 771 had to be stoppedduringOctober1988 due to inadequate safetyprocedures and radiological safetymarginsin the building. Although pursueda very aggressive RI corrections effortafter the fact,the mere existence this situation of demonstrated less than satisfactory attitudes, procedures, and awareness safetyissueson its part.Out of 230 of safetyconcerns documented external by reviewsand an internal reviewdone RI prior to the award fee period,91 were not addressed duringthe period.This furtherevidences lack of priorityattention a paid to ES&H. Duringthe period, new safetyconcerns, 32 including six classified Type 2 (serious), as were identified. Finally, the releaseof chromicacid from Building 444 into the plant'sholdingpondscouldhave resulted a majorenvironmental in incident. inoperable An alarm systemand deficient operator vigilance contributed significantly the seriousness this incident. to of Overall, there is strongevidence that throughout the award fee periodtherewas a continuing patternof lax attitudes, inadequate procedures, lack of consideration and of ES&Hissues. My Officehas concluded that the "moderately good"numerical grade of 79 given to RI for its performance underthe ES&H category downgraded a numerical be to grade of 65.25.Since ES&H carriesan evaluation weightof 20 percent, the overallratingfor the perioddrops from 87 to 84.25.This equatesto an award fee of $2,716,307 for the Plant.We have not changedthe awardfee of $186,591for PRMP/PROVE. Therefore, the total fee is $2,902,898. Admiral Watkins concursin this recommendation.
Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
Document 195-16
Filed 07/27/2006
Page 14 of 32
-2-
In orderto facilitate the dissemination this information RI and of to coordinate w~th the letterfrom AdmiralWatkinsto Chairman it Beallof today's date, we have attached copy of your draft letterto RI which a reflects our concerns the ES&H area. in
John L. Meinhardt ActingAssistant Secretary for DefensePrograms Attachment
Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
Document 195-16
Filed 07/27/2006
Page 15 of 32
Mr. Dominick J. Sanchini President Rocky Flats Plant North American Space Operations Rockwell International Corporation P.O. Box ~6~ Golden, CO 80~02 Dear Mr. Sanchini:
In accordance with Appendix D of Contract DE-AC0~-76DP03533, I hereby determine that Rockwell International Corporation (Rockwell) has earned an award fee of $2,716,307 for Plant and $186,591 for PRMP/PROVE, for a total of $2,902,898. The enclosed Performance Evaluation Report for the period October October I, 1988 through March 31, 1989 and a Memorandum from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs, provide the basis for my award fee determination. The award fee approved by the Department for payment to Rockwell was pursuant to an award fee plan previously developed to cover the period October I, 1988 to March 31, 1989. This was prior to the institution by the Department of stronger and tougher award fee plans to reward improvements in environment, safety and health (ES&H) and substantially increase the proportion of the fee attributable to ES&H performance. Under the old contract provisions, however, the Department was constrained as to the weight that might be given to ES&H performance in setting the fee for the six month period covered. In the old award fee plan, which includes this period, up to 20~ of the total amount of fee paid could be attributable to performance in the ES&H area. By reducing the award fee for ES&H to "Unsatisfactory", the Department is indicating to Rockwell that your ES&H performance is unacceptable. Under the new plan, failure in any important area may result in the payment of no award fee. As specified in the Cgntract, you may, within five working days after receipt of this letter, request an opportunity to present to me, or my designee, an analysis of your performance under the Contract. Otherwise, you may withdraw funds as a net award fee in the above amount from your Special Bank Account.
Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
Document 195-16
Filed 07/27/2006
Page 16 of 32
- 2 -
If you wish Rocky Flats arrangements
to meet with me, or my Area Office which will for you.
designee, coordinate
please those
contact
t~e
Sincerely,
Bruce G. Twining Manager Enclosures
Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
EIRL
Document 195-16
Filed 07/27/2006
Page 17 of 32
the
contract
~ard
~ee Plau~
and
the
~ollo~
~scuss~ou
of each
r~olut~on of probl~ by ~ell l~¢ed ~ ~Bulat£ons ~ ~ ~hi~%~
~ oft~ ¢o the
sl~. ~eda
R~ll Te~t
~s cecen~ly S£~. ~spite
~ ~e
c~t~uee
to
£nfl~ce
~ell~s
¢eq~sts
to
C~grees
for
addit£~¢l
~0
f~,
~11
~s
done
Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
Document 195-16
Filed 07/27/2006
Page 18 of 32
throu~ O~'a c~pleted the Salt ~trnct£on ~re concroll~ ~rfo~nce.
~n ~l~n S 771 ~ elsie,s. develo~ o~ pr~e~o Both pr~uc~ou proc~B~ +..
~11
~s
~lso
~c~s~ully
~ e~fort ~ng
~o develop
~ ~e~a~ion~l plied
Surety p~s
other
~m~ ¢~uced
~afety ~deq~te ~d~tely.
probl~s, pr~s
~r~t~ 'for
~Jor ~e a
d~p~o~
¢o the ~ ~d~t~on
¢~t~¢~ of d~
go~
~po~t~ d~a~ tr~
~thou~
~
~
~e~
the
~acharge El~nat£~ Sy~C~ ~t ~ols$£o~ for ~v~ey b~o~cal d~nd. ~egard~g ~he ~t Y£~ng ~e~ g~ll ~s ¢~ no ~¢¢£ou
TEL No. 505 846 4210 Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL Document 195-16 Filed 07/27/2006
Page 19 of 32
OFFiCiAL USE ONLY
The subcontrect
work
Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
Document 195-16
Filed 07/27/2006
Page 20 of 32
EXHIBIT 34
Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
Document 195-16
Filed 07/27/2006
Page 21 of 32
NEWS MEDIA CONTACT: Catherine Kaliniak,
202/586-5806
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE September 12, 1989
~ATKINS NAMES $1MONSON HE~ MANAGER OF ROCKY FLATS Secretary of Energy James D. ~atkins today announced the appointment of David P. Simonson Rocky Flats Office. Simon~or,, ~6, has been Acting Deputy Manager since July ]2, and will replace Acting Manager Edward S. Goldberg in mid-September. Goldberg will continue as Acting Manager in the as Manager-Designe~ of the
interim and then will return to the Hartford Operations Office. Goldberg has been on temporary assignment at Rocky Flats. Prior to his temporary assignment at Rocky Flats, Simonson had been Deputy Director of the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of NuclearMaterials Production, Defense Programs,
in Washington, D.C., since June ]988. "I am pleased-that Dave has accepted the tough assignment of Manager of Rocky Flats. He has made valuable contributions to the Department over the years, and I am confident that his knowledge and expertise ~ill be an asset to the Rocky Flats Office," said Admiral ~atkins. ¯
(MORE)
Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
Document 195-16
Filed 07/27/2006
Page 22 of 32
$imonson was graduateo from New ~exico State University with a Bachelor's degree tn Hechanical Engineering, end received his Haster's Degree in nuclear engineering from the Hassachusetts Institute of Technology in ~g68. That same year, he interned at fhe Atomic Energy Commission, predecessor agency to the DOE. From 1973 through June lgBS, Stmonson worked at DOE's Richland Operations Office in Richl~nd, ~ashington, where he served as an engineer and then manager ~n v~rlous reactor and production-related activities. Prior to leaving Richland, S~monson ~as Director of the Production Operations Division, ~h~ch ~s responsible ~or management Of a~1 production of defense nuclear materials at the DOE's Han~ord Site.
-DOE R-89o110
001345
Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
Document 195-16
Filed 07/27/2006
Page 23 of 32
EXHIBIT 35
Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
Document 195-16
Filed 07/27/2006
Page 24 of 32
United States Government
Department Ene of Rocky Flats
memorandum
DEC ~ 1989 0
,q F-pLY TO
ADM Rocky Fiats Office Award Determinations the Period April t through Fee for September30, 1989 John C. Tuck Acting Assistant Secretaryfor Defense Programs, DP-1, HQ Rocky Flats Office has completed awardfee (AF) evaluation of Rockwell its International for the subject period. Theprocessincludedstaff level asses.~ment against the Award Fee Plan, consolidation of those gssessments the by Performance Evaluation Committee, review andmodification as appropriate by the .Performance EvaluationReview Board, and presentation to mefor a final determination. Mytentative findingsare highlighted below yourconcurrence. for Attached the is summary Performance EvaluationRepot1 whichwill be sent to R0ckwellas v.,~=ll as supportinginformation developed during the awardfee p,~ocess. As shown the attachments,RockweJl'sperformance evaluated as equal to o: in was less than the last period performance all areas except two. The performance in on the PRMP projec', improved significantly over this last. periodresulting in a higher awardrecommendation the project, The secondarea of recommended for higher performance rat{rig is {n~d Environmental, Safety andHealth performance area. As the evaluationindicates, the contractor's performance the safety area in continuesto be unacceptable. However, this has beenoffset in our evaluation b.y the performance Rockwellin assisting With negotiations with EPA the S:ate of and on environmentalagreements in complyingwith these very aggressive and agreements. Rockwell Internationa]:Coroorafion Rocky Flats Plant A. Award Fee for Plant ,., Last Period _ This Period ProposedAF - $3,114,245 % of AF Pool- 45.65% %of Total Fee Pool- 48.51% E 000273
ActualAF- S2,716,624 % of AF Pool - 39.82% %of Total FeePool- 42...9 ,o
Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
Document 195-16
Filed 07/27/2006
Page 25 of 32
John C. Tuck
-2-
Most Notable Deficiencies .. Managements inability to effectively manage facility is seenas a this serious, major deficiency -- Little action takento containsaltcrete after precipitation events .- Inadequate attention to essential projects andsafety functions as a result of long term understaffing in the HS&E organization -- Implementationof non-weapons quality assurancerequirements are not progressingat the acceleratedrate expected Most Noteworthy Achievements in -- Showed, the C-Centerlineproject in Building 707, that an integrated operating phil0sophyis poseib{e -- Dramatic increase in PRMP project support by management Upgraded radiation instrumentation quality and performance --- Developedand implemented a plant-w{de ALARA program -- Positive and prompt responseto newagreements with and requirementsfrom the State of Colorado -- Developinga Nuclear Fec{lity Operat{onsManual B. Award Fee for PRMP/PROVE Period Actual AF- $186,591 % of AFPool - 19.25% % of Total Fee Pool -23.50% Most Noteworthy Achievements -- Dramatic increase in PRMP project support by management ¯ - Active role in establishingLANL technical personnel part of the as PRMP structure -- improved A-E cost control, commitments,and SOW development -- Significant progressin developingtechnical baseline for PRMP Most Notable Deficiencies cost control in the Cost and ScheduleReduction -- Unacceptable Precursor activity .- Schedule reports not providedin form ensuringtimely reporting accuracy to the overall project schedules :~ -- InadequateQA/QC oversight of gloveboxsubcontractor This Period ProposedAF - $628,982 % of AF Pool - 64.89% %of Total Fee Pool - 66.74%
Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL John C. Tuck
Document 195-16 -3-
Filed 07/27/2006
Page 26 of 32
Please indica~e your concurrence/nonconcurrence below. If you have questions or if additional information is required, please let meknow.
Manager 5 Attachments
[ J Concur
[ ] Nonconcur
John C. Tuck Acting Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs
Date "
Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
Document 195-16
Filed 07/27/2006
Page 27 of 32
PERFORMANCE APPRAI8~ ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION CONTRACT NO, DE-AC04-76DP03~33 FOR THE P~RIOD APRILl - SEFI~MBHR 1989 30, The overall performance ofRockwell International Coq~omtion (Rockwell) has been the at level Sansfactory theperiod l.~hrough of dunng April September 1989, 30, Thefollowingaxe seperate evaluationsof the performance Rockwell of rel~advpto..~e , management operationof the Rocky and Fiats Plant and the p~r~o.mm.n, Fr t.ne ~.!uton!um ce RecoveryModificationProJect (PRMP)/Plutonium Recovery Opoon verit~cauon ~xerclse (PROVE), the selected FunctionalPerformance in Areas(FFA's),Thefirst section covers Plant operations while the second section covers PRMP/PROVE,General The Management wasevaluated considea=ing ~PA performance both areas, for Theselected FPA's have been evaluated in accordance w~ththe contract Aw~I Plan, Fee and the followingsummary each FFA resulting awardfee emmed of and reflects an integratedassessment all factors. of PLANT QENERAIe MANAQEM-EN~: is considerable evidence of Rockwell management's There ¯ inability to effect~vely.mana.ge facility) andthis is seenby, DOE .be a serious,major this to deficiency. This deficlency is ma~fested lack of progressmintegranngsafe~ m responsibilityandaccountability all working at levels mad also by deficientlines of responsibility, procedures, discipline/work ethic, training, on-floor supervision,and problem investigationfi'esotution.Numerous incidents pro','ide evidenceof the above deficiencies. Additionally, despitean increase in nitrate concentrations the 750Pad, on little actionhas beentakento containsaltcrete after precipitationevents.Thepreparation for the annualDOE inventoryof Special Nucleax Materialat Rocky Flats wasunsatisfactory. TheC-Centerline Project in Building707 wasan outstanctingexample anintegrated of operatingphilosophy can assure safety whileprovidingfor the capability to confnue that operationsof a produc~on facility. Rockwell successfullycompleted complex a central telephone system acquisition. Rockwell'slogisticaI andsecuntysuppor~ofDOE "Tiger Team" activities and the Rocky Flats Office has been outstanding.Rockwell provided has valuable support to DOE teanas negotiating RCRMCERCLA agreementswith the Environmental Protection Agency ~PA)and the ColoradoDepartment Health (CDH). of Notableprogresswasmade five areas involve.rig systemautomation.Amalntermnce in workcontrol systemhas been automated implemented and whichenhancespl,mning processes,establishespriorities, supports integratedschedules prov.idesdeficiency .and tracking. Thequantity and quality of support to the PR~ project has mcrcased dramatically over this reportmg period. ENVIRONMENT, & HEAL'H-I: SAFETY Long term understaffing in the Health, Safety ~ndEnvironment organization resulted in less than adequate attention appliedto several essential projects andsafety functions.Rockwell unsuccessful reachingtheir Plantwas ha Performance for recordableinjuries and in reducingthe total number wor~lace Goal of contamination incidents. Rockwell continuesto haveproblems the constructionsafety in area. Rockwell failed to exercise an acceptablelevel of program management the in development of~cial recommendations restm"t of the Build.ing374 of for evaporator.A criticality safety assessment performed August, in 1989 morea many aspec,'s of the
000277
Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
Document 195-16
Filed 07/27/2006
Page 28 of 32
cridc,--dity safety pro~am whichneed improvement. Rockwell failed to exemise an acceptablelevel of pro~am management dealing with pondcreteand saltcrete. in Rockwell's oversight of the environmental subcontractorsperforming routine environmental re.on!toting is deficient. As identified in the DOE-HQ assessment team report, deficienciesmthe P,.FP effluent air monitoring program adverselyaffect may determinalSon ofradioacdve materials released to the a~"nosphere. Wasteshipments to Idaho and Nevada weremarked errors-in mmifest$ contaminationon waste by and packages which jeopardized future of offsite dispos~plans. the Rockwell positive actions to upgrade overall quality, capability, andperformance took the of the Rocky Flats radiation instrumentationsystemsin FY89.Rockwell developedand implementeda pl~twide ALARA LowAs ReasonablyAchievable) Programexceeding (As DOE requLremeats..Rockwell resented in a timely fashion to the newsurface water has release requkements u"nposed the State of Colom. Theextent of' the character~z.~fion by do. of subsurfacecontamination exceeded requirements the Agreement Principle has the of in withthe State of Colorado. Rockv,'ellprovided difficult andvaluableassistancein the negotiations of the impor~am Settlement Agreement Compllance ~d Order on Consent pertaining to interim status issues. Rockwell submitted requireddocumentation has all pertainingto environmental restoration on sc,hedule,. Rockwell prepareda detailed Five YearPI~ revision (8/31/89) in a very short tameperiod. A newRockwell Radiolo~cal Engineeringgroupwa~created in FY89 several notable tasks have akeadysuccessfully and been completed. ~ The plant-wide implementation of DOE non-weapons quality assurance requirements not progressed the acceleratedrate expected. has at TheR~ckwell Final ProductAcceptance groupis performing effectively after the first yeu of havingthe respons~bihty mosproductacceptance.Lot rejects and Final Product for Acceptance observationsdecreasedduringthe secondhalf of FY89. COST MANAGE~vf~NT; Rockwellprovided excellent support to both the Environmental Restoration and WasteManagement Five.Ye~Plan and to the M~emizadon Study. R~kweii~d an ex~aordin~job of collating info~afion, categorizing and document~n~ the l~ge numberof newfunding requkemen~ crea~ed by ~e ~PAinvestigation ~e " DO=T~g~ ~ms, ~d ~e DO~CDH AgeemenLAll v~ted cons~cuon line ~tem projects were includ~ in the Dep~ment's 199I budget ~quest. PRODUCTION OPERATIONS: processing of procured finished machined products The wasconsolidatedwithin Building,~ to reduceoverall process times and decreasecosts. Rockwell been effective in reducinghalogenated has solvent usage, andcontinuesto make p ogress w~thus.newschedulingphilosophy whichis des:fried to minimize work-ir~process inventories by managing bottlenecks. CHEMICAL OPERAT/ON$; Plutonium Recovery Operations and Production Operations have been working conjunctionto developthe NuclearFacility OperationManual, in which is to establish the standard excellence operations Rocky of for of Flats facilities. Asa result of the deIiverabIesthat Rockwell to compIete had before Building771 restar~ approv~ was granted, a number procedureswere chafed or developedand implemented. of This implementation successful, and the building management continuesto develop was team and implement improvements those procedures. to RoekweH's management controls and directives in areas suchas recoveryoperations planning, workbreakdown structure and schedulingsystems, and cost controI systems result in implementadonAnsmlladoa/o~ration and other problems.Therecontinues delays 2 E 000278 Agy:
Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
Document 195-16
Filed 07/27/2006
Page 29 of 32
to be a failure to establish performance for. processoperations,andto measure goals process performance; therefore, operations ~e not basehned providefor improved to performance. PR~/PROVE _
PROJECT MANAGEMENT: Rockwell has taken an acdve role in establishing Los Alamos NationalLaboratory technical personnelas a part of the PRMP structure. Provisional agreementwas reached by the Senior Management Review Boardon the baseline PRMP process technologies. ThePROVE project has experienc.eda visible improvement inoverall management has which resulteda more in disciphnedsuccessand oriented project. COST MANAGEMENT: Rockwell taken has positive acrlon reduce cost A-E to the of services, including rcduclng overhead, requiringA-E meet the to commitments, and upgrading control measures the over scope A-E of work. The Cost Schedule and Reduction Precursor activity incurred $100,000 without over cost any visible ordcllverable which product, intiicatcs anunacceptable cost lack of controls. SCH'E.DI.rLE PERFORMANCE; PROVE The test schedule been has prepared an as integrated between effort Plutonium .~.d.PROVE ~tions engineering. Detailed schedules been have developed activiues for prehmmary toPRMP construction andwhich will provide a solid for base performance measurement. Schedule reports not have been provided form ina which ensures reporting timely and accuracy overall tothe project schedules, SITBCON'f'~. CT MANAGEMENT: Rockwell taken, has positive action develop to an A-E Statement which ofWork providestheir for required services appropriateof atan level detail. Inadequate QualityAssuranc.c/.QualityControloversightof the glovcbox subcontractor resulted in extra costs anddeliverydelays to the Government. DESIGN OUALITY: Rockwell developed and implementeda Nonconformance Status ' Reporting Systemto support a PROVE OperationalReadiness Review.Rockwellnearly developed complete of System a set Design Descriptions which will significantly, increase the quality and completeness the conceptual of designdocumentation the project. for TECI.-IN~CAL PRODUCT OUALITY: PRMP made significanf~ogress in The has developin.g technicalbase,hewhich cxp.coted to supportthe future designand the is construcuon PRMP facditate the validationof the project. of and
Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
Document 195-16
Filed 07/27/2006
Page 30 of 32
RECOMMENDED AWARDFEE CALCULATION ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION FORTHE PERIOD APRIL 1 - SEPTEMBER 1989 30, PLANT
FUNCT(ONAL PERFORMANCE General Managemenl Environmental,Safety and Health Quality Cost Management P[oduction Operations ChemicalOperations
FY89 .25 20 ,15 ,15 .15 10 1.00
PREVIOUS 6 MONTHS '>0.25 15.60 13.50 13,95 13.65 ..~ 85.$5
81 65.25 88 95 96 ~ 84.25
81 78 90 93 91 86
PERFORMANCE Q71 76 81 86 7O 75 8o 85 90 $
AWARDFEE ~ 109,15Z x 204,660 x 270,015 x 354,744 x ..0$ 545,760 1,023,300 1,350,075 ~ $ 3,114,245
5.0 5.0 5.0 .55
$379,000
$,3,114,245
$3,493,245
J&&.S.E..Z~ $379,000
tV~XIMU~I ~ $6,822,000
~ $7,20'i ,000
45.65% 48.51%
% RECOMMENDED AWARD FEE VS. MAXIMUMAWARD FEE % OF TOTAL RECOMMENDED VS. TOTAL MAXIMUM FEES FEES
Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
Document 195-16
Filed 07/27/2006
Page 31 of 32
RI=COMMENDED AWARD FEE CALCULATION RQCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION FQR THEPI-:RIOD AF~RIL - S~=PTIEMBER 1989 1 30, PRMP/PROVE
FUNCTIONAL PERFORMANCE Project Managemenl Cost Management Schedule Pe~ormance SubContract Management DesignQuality Te~n~al Pr~um Quality ~
FY89 J~ .15 .15 ,~ .15
PREVIOUS 6 MONTHS 75 76 ~ 82 78 1 78.75
~I, JRRENT MONTN~ 6 MM N " R TI
91 87 ~ 86 91 9t
22.75 13.05 13.S0 17,~0 13.65
1,00
89.25
PERFORMANCE ¯ AWARD FEE 0-70 7~ - 75 76 - 60 81 - 85 66 - 90 $ -015,509 x 5.0 29,079 x 6,0 38,36~ x 5,0 50,404 x,4.25 -0. $ 77,545 145,395 191,825 ~ $ 628,982
$53,850
$628,982
$682,832
$53,8so
$e89,30o
$1,o2~, 16o
64.89% 66.74%
% RECOMMENDED AWARD FEE VS. MAXIMUMAWARD FEE % OF TOTAL R~COMMENDED VS. TOTAL, MAXIMUM FEES FEE8
Case 1:91-cv-01362-CFL
Document 195-16
Filed 07/27/2006
Page 32 of 32
R~COMME~NDE[D AWAF;D ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION FOR THEPIERIOD APRIL1 - SEPTSMSE~R 1989 30,
SUMMARY
PLANT PRMP/PROVE TOTAL
$379,000
$3J 14,245
$3,493,2,45
$432,850
$3,743,227
$4,176,077
MAXIMUM AWARD FEE FOR PLANT MAXIMUMAWARDFEE FOR PRMP/PROVE TOTAL MAXIMUMAWARD FEE $7,791,300
% RECOMMENDED AWARDFEE VS. MAXIMUMAWARD FEE
48,04%
FF:F_.DECIS!ON,%L - OFFICIo._ USE ONLY
000282
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms