ML20133A855
Text
_
f a
- ~.
~
MAR 2 21977 MEMORANDUM FOR:
File q
FROM:
Kellogg V. Morton, Chief, Research Contracts Branch
SUBJECT:
CONTRACTN0.AT(49-24)-03d5WITHBINDER/ELSTERASSOCIATES FOR CAREER COUNSELING The subject contract is to acquire counseling for fifty-nine (59) NRC employees and was entered into on July 26, 1976, with the expiration date of November 30, 1976. On November 30, 1976, the contract was rr.odified to extend the period of performance through December 30, 1976.
Total obligations for the performance period (approximately six months) was $4,500.
On Monday, March 14, 1977, I received a telephone call from Ms. Ruth Anderson, 2
Coordinator for the Federal Womens' Program, re extension of the subject contract. She was concerned that the Division of Contracts had not responded to her request for an extension of the contract.
I advised her that we had not received a request to modify the contract and told her I would check our records to verify nonreceipt of the request and get back to her. After checking our records, I verified the fact that no request had been received to extend the contract.
I asked Ms. Anderson to xerox a copy of her original request and provide it to me as quickly as possible.
I received requested xerox on March /10, 1977. There was no indication on that copy when the request was originally submitted to the Division of Contracts. Additionally, there was no scope of work or Contractor's proposal.
Funding for the extension period, which is to cover one year, is $2,400.
I telephoned Dick Allen, training officer, re this request and was advised by him that the request had not been submitted to his office for review and approval.
He indicated that his office had no objection to this procurement but stated that Ms. Anderson's office should be advised that in the future all such requests for training must be cleared through his office before submission to the Division of Contracts.
I informed Dick that I would request a proposal from the Contractor and upon its receipt would provide that document, along with Ms. Anderson's request, to him for approval. Although the services to be performed by the Contractor during the extension period are evidently the same as those covered in the subject contract, I am concerned about the difference
.in cost between the contract and the proposed modification ($4,500 vs. $2,400).
Evidently, the number of employees to be counseled dur_ing
'the period to be covered in the modification has been substantially reduced. However, the best way to verify this opinion is to obtain a renewal proposal from the Contractor.
It is apparent that Ms. Anderson FotA 45-ItL g72 9 850503 g
SATERN85-182 PDR i
= "
_ ; w
(
c C
CONTRACT NO. AT(49-24)-0395 BINDER /ELSTER ASSOCIATES e c
AN '
t[
_g
.and the Contractor have had discussions re this renewal, and the Contractor should be able to provide the needed answers in a definitive proposal.
I. telephoned the Contractor, Ms. Elaine Binder (986-1149), on March 21, 1977.
Although she was.finavailble, her office took my message and agreed to
.have,her' call rae as soon ps possible.
'Opon, receipt of the ContYactor's renewal proposal and subsequent negotiations ti;e subject contract will be extended for a period of one year and provids ??,400 in additicnal funding.
- u Y
+l
}'8 Kellogg Morton,' Chief
,a Research Contracts Branch
{
Division of Contracts 9
,-.. ~
,aw 5
if W
=
tmw %
+
%[
4.
~ '%,
'f'
?
p:.
g.-
' g +#}
,y
'n l.J'y [
q y.s
.s*
\\
k-x m
u
\\
+
1 Y.