ML20138M472
| ML20138M472 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/23/1995 |
| From: | Mace M NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Wheeler J ARIZONA, UNIV. OF, TUCSON, AZ |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20134P275 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-NRC-G-04-93-089, CON-NRC-G-4-93-89, FOIA-96-356 NUDOCS 9702250401 | |
| Download: ML20138M472 (3) | |
Text
l , l'Af:h (
\
1 i
2 a? 1995 -
Mr. James T. Wheeler, Director Office of Research and Contract Analysis. .-
The University of Arizona 7 2030 E. Speedway B1vd., #222 Tucson, Arizona 85719
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF TERMINATION FOR CAUSE, GRANT NO. NRC-04-93-089.
UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
Dear Mr. Wheeler:
This letter is to inform you that the subject grant is terminated in its entirety, effective May 31. 1995. This action is taken in accordance with the clause entitled " Suspension or Terminatim for Cause" under the NRC General Provisions for Grants and Cooperative Agreements Awarded to Institutions of Higher Education and Other Nonprofit Organizations. and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-110 Part 60.
As the grantee. you have failed to comply with certain terms and conditions of the grant instrument. Specifically. Section 2 of the NRC General Provisions provides:
Recipients are responsible for the performance under grants and other agreements and, where appropriate, ensure that time schedules are being ,
met, projected work units by time periods are being accomplished, and other performance goals are being achieved. ;
Subsection 2.a. " Frequency of Performance Reports", provides: l Performance reports will be submitted in letter format within 30 i I
calendar days after the end of every second calendar quarter and a final report no later than the expiration jate of the award period l indicated on the face page.
Block 10 of the Notice of Grant Award required submission of an Interim Report !
on December 31, 1994. A timely and adequate Interim Report was not submitted as required. Neither the March 16, 1995. report nor April 27, 1995, report conveyed the accomplishment of projected work or achievement of the project's !
performance goals.
- On January 3, 1995 Dr. Wayne C. Jouse, Principal Investigator, contacted l
Mr. Robert Brill, NRC Project Officer, by electronic mail, and inquired if the i bi-monthly report and Interim Report could be combined. Mr. Brill agreed to accept a combined report.
9702250401 970214 PDR FOIA JOUSE96-356 PDR
\
y On January 23, 1995. Dr. Jouse informed the NRC Project Officer, oy electronic ;
mail, that his department was closing and his graduate student had disappeared. He also stated that he was looking for a new position as a result.
As set forth in my letter to you dated March 8,1995, we requested that you i provide us WRh the Interim Report that was due on December 31,19%and a l detailed milestone plan outlining the steps you intended to take to improve l grant performance. The report you provided dated March 16, 1995 was determined inadequate as a sumation of a year's work. The combined bi-monthly and Interim Report consists of only 1/2-page of text and failed to describe the first year's accomplishments, discuss problems encountered or to discuss a plan for the second year's work.
l Dr. Jouse contacted Mr. Brill on April 10, 1995, via telephone. Mr. Brill advised him that the Interim Report was inadequate. I was advised that !
Dr. Jouse acknowledged his pucr management of the project, and that he had obtained assistance from another graduate student "that hated nuclear." but who reluctantly agreed to assist on the project. l Dr. Jouse later submitted what appeared to be a joint bi-monthly / Interim Report dated April 27, 1995 as an attempt to' correct the extremely poor quality of the three month late combined bi-monthly / Interim Report of _
March 16, 1995. The April 27th report was also determined to be unsatisfactory for the following reasons:
- 1. This late submittal did not adequately reflect the work accomplished and how well the performance goals for 1994 were achieved.
- 2. In identifying a significant difficulty encountered, the report simply stated the problem, with no discussion of how the grantee proposed to solve the problem. For example, on page 3, the report states "One of the difficulties we have encountered is that software-based system failures seem to be classified according to the nature of the patches needed to fix the bug.
On page 4, the problem with the fault Detector was identified. No solutions to these problems were proposed.
- 3. The report contains numerous unsubstantiated and general statements. For example, page 4 notes: "There are many paradigms available to automate this decision making process. . " The grantee did not explain which technique will be used, or if a decision has not been made as to techniques, what the basis of choice will be.
Overall, it was expected that the report would be a well reasoned treatise of progress to-date, communicating what had been learned, identifying problems encountered with proposed solutions, and defining how cnoices were made for competing techniques, including substantiated statements for the selected techniques.
l
MAY 231993 h3 As outlined in the examples above, the grantee has failed to adequately and !
timely communicate its technical perforrhance under this program. Accordingly, the grant is terminated effective May 31, 1995.
This is the final decision of the Grants Officer. You may appeal this ,
decision in accordance with the Dispute Review Procedure Clause under NRC :
General Provisions for Grants and Cooperative Agreements Awarded to Institutions of Higher Education and Other Nonprofit Organization, and OMB l Circular A-110. If you decide to appeal, you must., within 30 days from the date you receive this decision, mail your appeal to the Grants Officer. The notice shall indicate that an appeal is intended, reference this decision, and i identify the grant by number. l If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Ms. Shirley Crampton, of my staff, at (301) 415-6589.
Sincerely, Mary Mace, Grants Officer Technical Acquisition Branch 1 Division of Contracts Office Administration cc:
Peter F. Mather, Associate Director University of Arizona Office of Research and Contract Analysis 2030 Speedway B1vd., #222 Tucson, Pima County. Arizona 85719 Dr. Wayne C. Jouse. University of Arizona ,
George Martinez. University of Arizona J.G. Williams, University of Arizona DISTRIBUTION: l RBrill, P0. RES RTeichman, OGC JHalvorsen, RES CBerry Acctg. l MMace, TAB 1:DC Scrampton, TAB 1:DC '
Grant r/f
- Concurrence received by E-Mail dated 5/19/95 DOCUMENT NAME: Termin2 To rrceive a copy of this documer.t, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without enclosures "E" = Copy with encio,sures "N" = No copy 0FFICE ADM:DC: TAB 1 l RES* l OGC* 1 ADM:DC:# B,1 l AQtf:DG(DIR NAME SCrampton:saco v RBrill RTeichman MMace ! /v t BlWhtfan%
/95 05/ WE
~
DATE 05/:gH'95 65/ /95 05/ 0543 3/95 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
,