ML20128K082
Text
_
' 6
'.o
/
' J.
MEMORANDUM FOR:
File FROM:
Teresa McLearen, Contract Administrator
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MEETING WITH TAYL0E ASSOCIATES ON' MAY 2, 1983 (CONTRACT N0. NRC-17-83-399)
ATTENDEES:
Ann Riley, Tayloe Associates Joseph Gallo, Tayloe Associates Rebecca Eyster, Tayloe Associates Patricia Smith, Contracting Officer, NRC Teresa McLearen, Contract Administrator, NRC The purpose of the meeting, which was requested by Taylce Associates, was to discuss (a) the delivery schedule in the contract and (b) ' invoices; the quality of the transcripts was also discussed.
Mr. Gallo brought up a problem they are having in meeting the delivery
. schedule set-forth in the contract. Specifically, the.In.dian Point hearings require delivery of the transcript to NRC Headquarters, Bethesda, Md., by-8:15 a.m.. of the second day after a hearing. Mr. Gallo stated that if a reporter completes the transcript by 7:00 or 8:00 p.m. (or later).on the day of the hearing, and takes the transcript to a delivery service the next morning, the delivery service will only guarantee delivery the next day (second day after the hearing) anywhere from 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
The transcript is delivered to the Contractor's
, downtown Washington office where it is reproduced and then the original transcript is delivered to NRC Headquarters, Bethesda. Mr. Gallo contended that delivery by 8:15 a.m. of the second day after a hearing is not reasonable.
The Contracting Officer noted that the previous contractor for this
~
service was able to deliver the transcripts'to NRC Headquarters, Bethesda, by 8:15 a.m. the day after the hearing.
Ms. Riley refuted this statement, saying she had worked for the previous contractor and that it was their practice to bring the original of the transcripts back to Washington at the end of the week for delivery to NRC Headquarters, Bethesda.
(NOTE: After the meeting I checked the previous contractor's file and found that, though the contract did not require next day, 8:15 a.m. delivery to Bethesda, in many instances, particularly with Indian Point proceedings, that delivery was met. This was confirmed by Mr.
Fitti,ASLBP.)
It was pointed out that NRC had received several Indian Point transcripts from Tayloe at the required delivery time. Ms. Riley stated that in those instances the contractor had used a special air courier service at the cost of $155,00 per delivery. She felt this cost was prohibitive.
8505310078~841115~
m.
^
~,
i
,. i.
File 4
' Mr. Gallo stated that they were anxious to do a good job and satisfy the NRC's requirements, but felt they were being penalized for not meeting an unrealistic schedule.
The Contracting Officer mentioned that this requirement was in the solicitation and was probably a factor preventing other reporting service companies from responding to our RFP. 7 In summary, Tayloe Associates will request, in writing, an amendment to the delivery schedule in the contract to permit an additional day for Headquarters, Bethesda, delivery. They will.also request this change be retroactive to cover all the Indian Point proceedings.
In the meantime, they will continue to bill the Indian Point transcripts on the daily rate even though the transcripts were not delivered on. time.
The Contract Administrator stated that if this were done, the invoices would be disallowed.
There was some confusion in processing the first set of invoices submitted by the contractor due to references in the contract to business days and calendar days. The NRC had originally disallowed costs on several invoices, however, after recalculatin, made additional payments on six invoices - (0010, 0019, 0020, 0024-0026.
A discussion was held on the Late or Defective Delivery article in the contract and the calculation of payment on late deliveries.
The Contract Administrator informed the contractor that hereafter NRC would not recalculate those invoices which bill at the wrong page rate.
These invoices will be disallowed and the contractor will have to rebill at the correct rate. The contractor agreed.
When the services of a subcontractor is used, the NRC had requested the contractor to identify, on the invoice, the name of the subcontractor.
This identification is necessary to monitor travel costs and to assure that only approved subcontractors are being used.
Mr. Gallo stated it was too much of a burden to type the name of the subcontractor on each invoice. However, they will in the future indicate,
~
on a cover note on each set of invoices submitted, the names of the subcontractors used for each hearing. The contractor will also submit the names of the subcontractors used on hearings already taken and billed.
-h-g ? Wy Ey'A s &x A d.-ac W: ML. n, r
y J"
72 &<.-.A 4.pdW.-l..,..<.dC.
'g v
t
'"' A f G 1 lrh' :ty G.Zz% m.Lk$gy:_
6
~ w~, mm,a
.u w..
% ~fu&,Y'..N,YWmn E, n _
W A
s, b,.g.
n
- a.
d
- File -
The contractor was shown sever &~
.xamples of problems the Project Officers wanted brought to their attention. There were instances of quadruple spacing and blank numbered pages. Ms. Riley said she would look into the spacing problem and that steps had been taken to correct the blank pages problem.
Also, the Indian Point transcript of March 22, 1983, contained many pages where words, sentences or entire paragraphs of text were missing.
Since the copy of the transcript which we brought to the meeting had been reproduced by NRC, the contractor charged that NRC!s reproduction was at fault, not their transcript.
(NOTE:
I later checked the " original" copy of that transcript received by ASLBP and.found that it too had the missing.
words,sentencesorentireparagraphs.)
Finally, Ms. Riley was requested to furnish the necessary information on their new subcontractor, Pauline James, so that the contractor may be -
- modified to include her on the list of approved subcontractors. She
- agreed.-
i e
u Y/6iO
%$tW4'.A / lf A/d<dm Date Teresa McLearen, Contract Administrator Administrative Contracts Branch Division of Contracts Reviewed and Approved:
[h3h3
$d.L 4. J
' Datel Patricia A. Smith Contracting Officer md 9
b 4
l L.
.