ML20128K624
Text
[
f 4,
tmitt o s1 Atts
- f,,..
.y hI
. nuci r An nt c.utAlony co*.".m.:.ron f, dVj WA'am;cton, o e usz V'!
i
=....
. F6a y g
LT10TE TO:
- Fil e FROM:
Edward I.. Halman,; Director Div.ision of Contracts Office of Administration
SUBJECT:
STE:203RAPHIC REPORTING On February 6,1584 Carlton I:anmerer, OCA, called to advise me that Anr. Riley -
of Tayloe Associates had' corresponded With Congressman Eevill's office, asserting that the NRC had failed to provide Tayloe sufficient notice that the NRC would not exercise the option to extend the Tayloe cor. tract for stenographic. reporting services.
As agreed with Mr. Kammerer, I called Ms. Riley on February 7,1934 to.nplain that the : contract does not require such notice.
Should the ::RC wish to exercise the option, a 30-day notification is required.
I felt that this latter. provision
,may.be the source of Ms. Riley's confusion. However, since the contract does not
. expire until March 15, 1984 the NRC could be considered timely cven under that
- interpretation of the clause.
~
Ms., Riley was extremely abusive in tone and in language.
Sh'e nic that she
~ ~ '
understood lthe ~ contractual requirements but the agency owed her tne courtesy of sucn' notification orior to notifying her competitors.
( Apcarently, Ms. Riley is referring to Alderson's assumption 'that this procurement would oe.comoeted based
~
upon a discussion that' Alderson had with Ms. Mattia. Ms. Mattia did not divulgs any_ information to Alderson. The advertisement for the follov.-or, procurement' was sent.to -CBD on January 5 1984, several days before Ms. Mattia's discussion
~
with Alderson.)
In response to her inquiry, I explained to Ms. Riley that the purpose of not exercising the option was so that.the NRC could obtain the cost benefits
- of competition for these services. Ms. Riley attributed more sinister motives to '
this decision and stated that any further correspondence would be through her lawyer.
)
4.hd@h
- vifec scr- - -
Division of Contracts Office of Administration 6
[
e