ML20212F776
| ML20212F776 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 03/03/1987 |
| From: | Roisman A JOINT INTERVENORS - COMANCHE PEAK, TRIAL LAWYERS FOR PUBLIC JUSTICE, P.C. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#187-2674 CPA, NUDOCS 8703050154 | |
| Download: ML20212F776 (32) | |
Text
-'
.w.
v jt,7f Mi Z OEILD J c fi ;,,
' UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 9mt; y
n Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board VI ER -4 P1 :53
'In the; Matter of
)
'j 1
, _,; j ((r$
)
BRANCP Texas. Utilities Electric Company-
)
Dkt. No. 50-445-CPA
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station,
)
Units-1 and 2)
)
)
}
,Jf>'
JOINT INTERVENORS' OPPOSITION TO F/
m-MOTIONS FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND MOTION TO COMPEL RE: GREGORY DISCOVERY (SETS 5 AND 6) 9 The center of the controversy between Joint Intervencrs and
' /
-TUEC is an audit being conducted for TUEC by Cresap, McCormick &
Paget,'the work plan for which is attached to this pleading.
See e
Permittees' Supplemental Responses to Meddie Gregory Interrogatories (Set 5), filed 2/10/87, answers 5b and Sh.
TURC
. claims openly, much as it did privately when it withheld the MAC I
v,
,e Report, that because this audit "was not commissioned for the purpose of addressing the type of issue as specified in the Contention in this docket" (Permittees' Supplemental Responses to Meddie Gregory Interrogatories (Set 5),
p.
2),1 it cannot be obtained in discovery.
This totally discredited line of b
reasoning is even less relevant in this proceeding because
.a
- .t.
i e:
I"'
8 Essentially the identical argument is made in response to Meddie Gregory Request for Production (Set 6) which apparently is addressed to the same audit as Set 5.
Permittees' Responses (and r
i Motion for Protective Order) to Intervenor Meddie Gregory I
i Requests for Production (Set 6).
+
1 8703050154 B70303 7)
/A PDR ADOCK 05000445 O
p-
?
\\>b concededly this proceeding squarely involves past management conduct and attitude whereas TUEC continues to insist in the OL docket that the past management conduct is not at issue.
TUEC also claims that the audit is a creature of its lawyer's L
litigation strategies and prepared for that lawyer and thus not discoverable.
In addition to the fact that the lawyer work product privilege is a very narrow exemption and not applicable when the party's need for the material is great and difficult to otherwise obtain, in this case the assertion is belied by the known facts about the audit.
Because TUEC's objections on grounds of relevancy and work product are so dependent on facts, facts which it has not fully disclosed in its objections, we turn first to the relevant facts.
Factual Backaround Apparently the audit which is the subject of Gregory Set 5 is the identical audit as.the audit which is the subject of Set 6.
In this pleading we make that assumption based on oral communications with TUEC's counsel.
TUEC should formally advise the Board and the parties of the connection between the audits which are the subject of Gregory Sets 5 and 6.
The terms of the audit which are the subject of these discovery requests are detailed in Attachment A to this motion and are entitled " Work Specification:
Retrospective Audi~c of the
~
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Project:
Texas Utilities 2
i
e Generating Company" (hereafter " Work Spec.").
At the outset the Work Spec. makes clear that the audit is being prepared for TEUC and not for its attorneys (Work Spec.,
p.
1):
TUEC is initiating a retrospective audit of the project management decisions during construction of CPSES The auditor performing the retrospective audit will present findings in a detailed written report to TUEC.
The auditor also may be called to provide expert testimony at public hearings in support of its findings.
[ Emphasis added.]
All the supervision of the audit is by TUGCO and all interim reports are to be made to TUGCO.
Work Spec.,
p.
9.
The use of the-audit as a basis for testimony is clearly secondary and not even covered in the_ original bid price but only on a contingent basis if requested.
Work Spec., pp. 14-15.
In short. TUEC and TUGCO are the solicitors, supervisors, and principal users of this audit, which is being prepared in the ordinary course of the TUEC business.
These facts as shown on the face of the Work Spec. and prepared at a time when there appeared to be no likelihood the audit would be sought in discovery, should be contrasted to the self-serving and unsupported assertion contained in TUEC's Supplemental Responses to Meddie Gregory Interrogatories (Set 5),
t
- p. 8 (2/10/87), that "[a]11 activities of such firm [the auditors], as they relate to Comanche Peak, are being performed under the direction of TU Electric legal counsel."
This answer will apparently be attested to by L.
Ed Powell who may well not have any personal knowledge of the actual facts upon which this 3
l
conclusory and self-serving answer is based.
See signature page of Permittees' Initial Responses to "Meddie Gregory's Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents (Set 5)"
(2/3/87).
By agreement of counsel the signature page for other Set 5 answers will be filed at the conclusion of the answers.
The Work Spec. also makes abundantly clear that substantial evidence directly relevant to this proceeding has been generated and is being generated by the retrospective audit.
Among the objectives of the audit are (Work Spec.,
p.
2):
The principal objective of this engagement will be to obtain a comprehensive assessment of the management decisions during construction of CPSES.
The sub-objectives of this audit will be:
o To assess the overall performance of TUGCO in planning, engineering, constructing and licensing CPSES;
?a develop an increased understanding of the o
primary factors causing cost and schedule changes; o
To determine TUGCO's ability to control each of these factors and related events; To assess the performance of TUGCO mana'gement in o
identifying and responding to these factors [.]
In defining the scope of the audit the Work Spec. identifies the i
following as issues to be examined (Work Spec., pp. 5, 6,
7):
o Design Engineering Examine the processes and control mechanisms used by TUGCO to approve design changes, and 4
i r
to manage the performance of design engineering.
Evaluate the integration of engineering in support of both procurement and construction.
Assess the timeliness of response to NRC directives.
Review design coordination.
o Procurement Management Determine the adequacy of delivery scheduling, and quality inspections and controls.
o Construction Management Evaluate the interface between the engineering and construction functions.
Examine the processes by which the workforce (including craft, engineering, and administrative personnel) were monitored and controlled.
Assess the process of identifying and implementing productivity improvements.
l l
o Quality Assurance Program Review the organizational strategy and l
philosophy adopted by TUGCO for assuring quality at CPSES.
Examine the evolution of quality assurance organizations and procedures over the life of l
l Review contractual requirements for quality l
l assurance among prime contractors.
l 5
.~
o Licensing Management Examine TUGCO's management respones to changes in NRC regulatory. requirements and 4
the licensing process.
Review TUGCO's organization and responsibilities for licensing.
o Startup Management Review the overall strategy and approach adopted by TUGCO for startup.
4 Assess the organization structure used by TUGCO for startup.
Examine the process used by TUGCO to turnover completed systems.
Each of these issues that the audit is studying focusses on 1
matters which are directly relevant to the admitted contention in this proceeding.
For instance, one central argument advanced by Joint Intervenors is that the consistent refusal of TUEC to listen and respond to criticisms of their post hoc design review process is evidence of their refusal to follow safety requirements where they believed they could do a job faster and would not be~ caught.
The Design Engineering issues and some of 4
the Construction Management issues identified above go directly to this point and seek to discover the philosophy of the processes and control mechanisms to manage design.
Similarly, Procurement Management will study the adequacy of quality inspections and controls over vendors.
It was chuck Atchison's 6
1.
l l-
concerns about the lack of proper QA/QC inspections of Chicago Bridge & Iron delivered pipe supports that led to harassment of him and his eventual illegal discharge.
Surely the audit will explore what kind of management policies existed that allowed these conditions to exist, ignored Chuck Atchison's warnings, and punished him for his efforts.
We believe the evidence will show that TUEC management sought to suppress evidence of defects in vendor supplied materials because of the delay inherent in the correction of such defects.
Of course, the audit of the Quality Assurance Program is undeniably a part of the core issue of this hearing.
In sweeping under its blanket objection to discovery even that portion of the retrospective audit that will review "the organizational strategy and philosophy adopted by TUGCO for assuring quality at CPSES" (id.,
p.
6, (emphasis added)), TUEC exposes the objections for what they are -- a blatant delay tactice that reflects no genuine effort to promptly respond to legitimate discovery.
While other portions of the audit are less obviously relevant to the admitted contention than the sections listed above, it is by no means certain that they are not relevant.
For instance, Budgeting and Control (Work Spec.,
p.
7), while arguably related solely to internal financial activities irrelevant to safety, could include evidence of reliance on certain schedules and costs that were super-sensitive to the kind of delay which full compliance with NRC safety would entail.
This evidence would help to reinforce the argument that contrary 7
i
to TUEC's assertions its past problems were not the innocent mistakes of well-meaning incompetents but rather the deliberate actions of calculating managers who had tight budgets and schedules to meet.
In sum, the blanket assertion by TUEC that materials relevant to the retrospective audit are irrelevant to the issues in this proceeding is not supported by the only reliable evidence now available of the true nature of the audit.
The Work Spec. also discloses facts that do not match the discovery responses that TUEC has provided and reinforces the need to see the actual documents and not to accept TUEC's characterization of those documents.
For instance, in its Supplemental Responses to Meddie Gregory Interrogatories (Set 5),
p.
7 (2/10/87), TUEC states:
The work specification for the audit does not contemplate the receipt or review by Applicants of any
" tentative conclusions" since only a final conclusion is relevant or material to the purposes of the audit.
[ Emphasis added.]
This should be compared to Work Spec.
p.
9, which provides:
3.
Project Procress Reports - The auditor will submit written bi-weekly progress reports to TUGCO.
These reports shall provide adequate information to allow TUGCO to reach accurate conclusions regarding the current status of the work.
The reports shall include, but not be limited to, a statement of work accomplished during the past period, a statement addressing the schedule of work and relative status, and a discussion of any unexpected developments and their impact on the schedule and work objective.
Any other pertinent subjects should also be addressed.
4.
Interim Technical Briefina - The auditor will, as required, hold interim technical briefing (s) concerning the audit.
The content of these 8
l I
briefings may_ include key facts, preliminary conclusions, emerging issues and. strengths, possible future recommendations, and other relevant technical matters.
5.
Draft Final Report - Ten (10) copies of the draft final report shall be submitted to TUGCO.
A period of two weeks after issuance of the draft report will be required to prepare comments on the report, and to allow for verification of facts before issuance of the final report.
It is apparent from this discrepancy alone that the discovery sought by Joint Intervenors is essential, if for no other reason than to test the truth of the statements made by TUEC in opposition to this discovery.
ARGUMENT The operative language on which TUEC relies in opposition to this discovery appears in 10 CFR 52.740(b) (2), which provides:
(2) Trial preparation materials.
A party may obtain discovery of documents and tangible things otherwise discoverable under paragraph (b) (1) of this section and 6
prepared in anticipation of or for the hearing by or for another party's representative (including his i
attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent) only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has substantial need of the materials in the preparation of this case and that he is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means.
In ordering discovery of such materials when the required showing has been made, l
the presiding officer shall protect against disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal authorities of an attorney or other representative of a party concerning the proceeding, i
j This language is essentially the same as that contained in the first paragraph of Rule 26 (b) (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Proedure, and thus the cases decided under that rule are relevant here.
9
^~
The trial preparation or attorney work product doctrine has been narrowly interpreted by the courts on the grounds that it obstructs the search for truth and provides only indirect and speculative benefits.
Resident Advisory Board v.
Rizzo, 97 F.R.D.
749, 752 (E.D.Pa. 1983); Lundy v.
Interfirst Corp., 105 F.R.D.
499, 504 (1985).
In order to withhold material alleged to be work product, a party must do more than assert an unspecific general claim.
The burden is on the party making the claim to identify specifically each item for which the claim is made and explain the basis for asserting that it was prepared in anticipation of litigation.
In Re Shopping Carts Antitrust Litiaation, 95 F.R.D.
299, 306 (S.D.N.Y. 1982); Compaanie Francaise d' Assurance v.
Phillips Petroleum, 105 F.R.D.
16, 41 (S.D.N.Y. 1984; 4 J. Moore, Federal Practice 26.64 [2] (1984).
'The. reason for providing this information is that the court, rather than the party, is supposed to determine whether to apply the work product doctrine, which is only a qualified privilege and must yield at times to the needs of the party seeking discovery.
TUEC does not specifically identify any documents with t
respect to which it seeks the work product privilege and actually claims listing of the documents would require divulging work product.
No justification for this bizarre theory is given and we certainly cannot think of one.
This Board cannot evaluate TUEC's argument if TUEC refuses to divulge the particular 10
documents and types of documents as to which it is making its claim.
In order to withhold particular documents. TUEC will have to show not only that they were aware of impending litigation, but that the primary reason for creating the document was to assist with the litigation.
United States v.
Gulf Oil Corp., 760 F.2d 292, 296 (TECA 1985).
Materials prepared in the ordinary course of business, rather than primarily for trial, are discoverable.
The defendant in Gulf argued that certain documents were attorney work product because their subject matter related to the litigation, and they were prepared in order to comply with federal securities laws.
The court held that they were not work product because they were not created primarily in preparation for litigation.2 Similarly, in Soeder v. General Dynamics Corporation, 90 F.R.D.
253 (D.Nev. 1980),
written materials prepared by a defendant aircraft manufacturer after one of its planes crashed was held not to be prepared in anticipation of litigation, even l
though the defendant reasonably expected to engage in litigation 1
after the crash.
The court held that since the defendant also i
wanted to improve its product, prevent adverse publicity, protect
(
its economic interests, and promote safety, the in-house report 2
See also discussion in Spaulding v. Denton, 68 F.R.D.
342, 345 (D. Del. 1975), suggesting that unless material ws prepared for or requested by an attorney it is generally not within the work product exception.
The court in Spauldina did exempt the material at issue there, but refrained from stating any general l
rule.
Id. at 346.
l 11 l
l
\\
had.been prepared in the ordinary course of business.
Technical documents are also likely to be outside the scope of work product claims.
Loctite Corps.
v.
Fel-Pro, Inc., 667 F.2d 577, 582 (7th Cir., 1981).
In this case, the documents in question were prepared for the purpose of producing an objective view of the management of the plant.
If the audit were truly an attorney-directed report slanted to put the best light on the facts as would probably occur were TUEC preparing this material for litigation, it would fail to meet the test for a true audit as TUEC's own procedures governing audits make quite clear.
See Work Spec.,
p.
10,
" Independence of Auditor."
That this was intended to be an objective audit is evidenced by the fact that TUEC contemplated the involvement of the Texas Public Utilities Commission in the conduct of the audit.
Work Spec.,
p.
10.
This audit was prepared as a normal part of the business processes of TUEC.
Its use as a tool for litigation was only a possibility.
- Moreover, as the facts discussed above reveal, the audit was the creature of, controlled by, and for the benefit of TUEC, not its attorneys.
Thus it does not qualify as attorney work product.
Similarly, the documents produced here are not the opinions of or facts gathered by experts hired in anticipation of litigation.
Without this retrospective audit TUEC could not obtain a rate increase, a process through which it must go in order to survive.
Rate requests may become litigation but filing 12
requests for increases, like filing permit requests with the NRC, are not litigation.
TUEC claims that this Board's ruling on the scope of the MAC Report discovery in ' he OL has already foreclosed the discovery in this proceeding.
That hearing, unlike this one, was not then conceded, even by TUEC, to be focussed on management issues.
Moreover, the Board did not have the benefit of the Work Spec.,
which illustrates clearly that the data sought by CASE is extremely relevant to this hearing and that CASE is not attempting to do PUC discovery in this proceeding.
In addition, and with all due respect, we deem it highly unlikely that this Board would have ruled as it did in its July 22, 1985, MAC Discovery Order if it had seen the Work Spec. for this audit.
If we are correct, that underscores the need for full identification of the disputed documents and, if necessary, their in camera review by the Board as a prerequisite for any decision, which seeks to provide TUEC the protection it seeks here.
Finally, and most importantly, even if TUEC had met the initial test to qualify under the work product or expert opinion protection, those are limited privileges which can be overcome by a' compelling need for production.
If, as the Work Spec.
requires, this is a truly independent audit that takes a detailed look at TUEC's management policies and implementation of those policies as they relate to design, construction, QA/QC, and compliance with NRC regulations, it contains unique evidence available from no other source that goes to the root of the 13
issues in this proceeding.
In fact the data is so clearly on point that TUEC's failure to disclose it could produce the adverse inference that if disclosed it would be contrary to TUEC's position here.
We strongly urge this Board to recognize the singular value of the data sought by this discovery and order TUEC to promptly produce it.
Once before, a management audit was withheld from disclosure and, when finally it was produced, its significance was apparent.
We should not wait the seven years that we waited-for the MAC Report to see the cresap Audit or its initial work output.
Respectfully submitted, j
% $f Anthony Z. (o @n s
Trial Lawyers for Public Justice 2000 P Street, NW, Suite 611 Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 463-8600 Attorney for Joint Intervenors Dated:
March 3, 1987 l
i 14
f A
UNITED 6TATES DCCKETED UMC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS1ON Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. g g..y q p ),
In the Matter of
.)
)
-TiMAS UTILITIES GrNERATING COMPANY, 1
Dkt. Nos. 50-44b-CPA et-a1.
)
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Station, Unit 1)
)
CERTIFICnTE OF stRVICE 1'hereby certify tnat copies of JOINT INTERVENORS' OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS FOR PROTECTIVE ORDcR AND MOTION TO COMPEL Rt:
UREGORC DISCOVERY (SETS 5 AND b) were served today, March 3, 1987, by first class mail, or by hand where indicated by an asterisk, and by Federal Express where indicated by two asterisks, upon tne following:
Administrative Judge Peter Bloch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20556 Dr. Walter H. Jordan 681 West Outer Drive Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom 1107 West Knapp Stillwater, OK 74075 tiizabeth u. Johnson Oak Ridge National Laboratory P.O.
Box A, Building J500 Oak Ridge, TN 37830 2
Docketing & Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
205S5 E
-+--m
-c-.,w-----
y
---e
,e----e---.
Geary S..Mizuno,-Esq.
Office of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conunission 7735 Old Georgetown Road, loth' floor Washington, D.C.
20S65 Thomas G.
Dignan, Jr.
Ropes & Gray 22S Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 h.
A
-- w e g. me1S -
g 4
8 e
I f
1
i i
WORK SPECIFICATION RETROSPECTIVE AUDIT OF THE COMANCHE PEAK STFJJI ELECTRIC STATION PROJECT TET.AS UTILITIES CENERATI?ic COMP.Ofy e
f I
j-1 O a
4 RETROSPECTIVE AUDIT WORK SPECIFICATION TABLE OF CONTB'TS
_Section Description Page I
INTRODUCTION 1
II OrJECTIVES 2
III SCOPE 3
IV INFORMATION FOR CONTRACTORS8 V
P10P00AL REQUIRFJE.NTS 12 r
l l
l I
f l
?
L
I - INTRODl*CTION Texas Utilities Electric Company (TUEC) is the pri=ary owner licensee of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Statio unit nuclear generating station under construction in Hood and
,a two Soemervell Counties, Texas.
Unit 1 of CPSES is scheduled for commercial operation in 1985 and Unit 2 in 1986.
Texas Utilities Generatin Manager. g Company (TUCCO), a division of TUEC, TUEC's share of the total cost of the project is $3.31 is the CPSES Project billion.
TUEC will file a rate case with the Texas Public Utiliti (TPUC) to anticipation of thisrecover costs and expenses associated with thees Cocsission plant.
In race case, TUEC is initiating a audit of the project management decisions during constructi re trospective
~
covering the period from determination of need for the pla t on of CPSES the present.
through n
- The auditor performing the retrospective audit in a detailed written report will present findings to TUEC.
The auditor also may be called to provide expert findings.
testimony at public hearings in support of its by noon on December 4, 1984.Your firm is invited to submit a propo
, which is due You may chooseThis proposal should address all areas detailed in this request.
areas which, in your opinion, also warrant review and evalu tito address a a on.
e 4
I
_II - OBJECTIVES The principal objective of this engagement will be.co obtain a comprehensive assessment of-the construction of CPSES.
management decisions during The sub objectives of this audit will be:
Peak Steam Electric Station;To review TUEC's original dec o
e To assess the overall performance of TUCCO in planning o
engineering, constructing and licensing CPSES:
To develop an increased understanding of the primar-o causing cost and schedule changes; f factors To address the effects each factor identified above had on o
construction costs and schedule changes; and related events;To determine TUGCO's ability to control each o
and responding to these factors;To assess the performance o
To review TUIC's decisions to continue CPSES as cost and o
schedule changes occurred.
The audit of CPSES will necessarily entail prudency of TUGC0 management decisions throughoutjudgements as to the CPSES project.
For the purpose of this audit, prudency will be the history of the defined as a standard of reasonableness which takes into acco existing environment, available infor=ation, and practices used the i
by the electric utility industry at the time key management decisio were made.
ns 4
i l-I i-2 3
h
f III - SCOPE The-study will encompass an decisions.during assess =ent of the management construction of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station.
Specifically, the study should examine the following issues:
Decision to construct a nuclear' plant o
Load growth projections Alternatives considered Economic tradeoffs Fuel diversification CPSES Schedule and Cost o
g Review present schedule and cost projections.
Review the costs of the CPSES. project.
(
Identify and quantify schedule and cost revisions.
Establish primary factors for schedule and cost revisions.
Compare CPSES construction and cost performance with other comparable plants built during a similar period.
Project Pre-mobilization Planning o
From the date of the announcement of the CPSES project to i
efforts and early organization structure.the date,of mo i
Review the process that TUGC0 used to select prime contractors--Gibbs & Hill, 3rown & Root, and b'estinghouse.
l Review the responsibilities that TUGC0 assigned to Gibbs & Hill and Brown & Root for project organization during the mobilization process. planning and i
o - Project Organization and Manage =ent i
Review the current construc tion policies, and procedures.
nanagecent structure, I
l l
\\
3 I
PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND MANAGE'4ENT (CCNT'D of TUEC, TUCCO, Gibbs & Hill and Brown Project Manager, Architect / Engineer, and Constructor inception to the present.respectively, a,s these roles evolved fr Examine the continuity of personnel assigned throughout the. life of. CPSES by
- TUCCO, Gibbs & Hill, and Brown & Root.
- Review steps taken by TUCCO to secure a solid. base of nuclear experience for CPSES, and to expand it during the course of the project.
Review the project scheduling and control process including techniques and systems utilized.
Evaluate the coordination of engineering, materials availability, construction readiness, crafts availability, site workforce densities, and use of overtime.
Assess the use of tencking and expediting aids.
Review management cost and schedule status.information and reports pertaining to Review CPSES' cost control methods.
4 Contract Management o
Examine the contractor evaluation and selection processes, bid procedures, contract award project management procedures, contract monitoring procedures. review and approval procedures, and Review the contract terms and conditions used by TUCCO Examine the reasons for amendments and the process used by TUGC0 to amend contracts.and renegotiations, Review TUGC0 management control of contractors contractual provisions and other nanagement practices.through 4
o Design Engineering Determine the - level of engineering completed prior to mobilization of construction.
Examine the processes and control mechanisms used by TUCCO to approve desi8n changes, and to manage the performance of design engineering.
Review TUCCO's decision to assume control of engineering management.
Evaluate the integration of engineering in support of both procurement and construction.
Assess the timeliness of response to NRC directives.
Review design coordination.
Procurement Management o
Evaluate the bidding and procurement policies for plant equipment, building materials and supplies, construction equipment, and personnel services.
Assess the vendor selection process.
Determine the adequacy of delivery scheduling, and quality inspections and controls.
Examine procedures for expediting equipment and materials delivery.
Review the history of claims for materials, supplies and equipment.
Determine and evaluate the disposition of salvage.
o Construction Management Evaluate the interface be tween the engineering and construction functions.
Examine the processes by dhich the workforce (including craft, engineering, and administrative personnel), were monitored and controlled.
Review TUCCO's decision to assune direct responsibility of construction manangement.
5 W
~.
9 CONSTRUCTION !!ANAGDIENT (CONT'D.)
Evaluate work management practices, work methods, and work supervision.
Review work rules at CPSES and compare wage rates with other nuclear projects.
Evaluate productivity standards and performance measurement techniques utilized to measure progress.
Assess the process of identifying and implementing productivity improvements.
Review the materials loss prevention and security 3
program.
Quality Assurance Program 2
o i
Review the organizational strategy and philosophy adopted by TUCCO for assuring quality at CPSES.
Examine the evolution of quality assurance organi:ations and procedures over the life of CPSES.
Review contractual requirements for quality assurance among prime contractors.
Nuclear Fuel Management o
Evaluate the major contracts for obtaining finished nuclear fuel.
i Assess TUCCO's plans for management of the nuclear fuel cycle.
Investigate the plans for spent fuel storage.
o Licensing Management Review how the NRC licensing process has evolved over the last five years, and its effect on the CPSES project.
Review the impact of changes in NRC regulatorf requirements over the life of the CPSES project.
1 6
- f
1 LICD! SING 14ANAGE4 Err (CONT'D.)
Examine TUGCO's c:anagement response to changes in NRC-regulatory requirenents and the licensing process.
Review TUGCO's organiration and responsibilities for licensing.
o Budgeting and Control
~
Examine the project budgeting and control system utilized.
Evaluate responsibirity accounting, variance reporting, and cost tracking processes.
Assess the reliability of cash requirements estimating.
Review-the extent and effectiveness of auditing i
activities.
Startup Management o
Review the overall strategy and approach adopted by TUGC0 for startup.
Assess the organization structure used by TUGC0 for startup.
Examine the process used by TUCCO to turnover completed systems.
i e
7 1;'
IV - INFORMATION FOR CONTRACTORS APPROACH The audit will be initiated in a two part effort.
In the first part, the contractor will develop the administrative procedures, work plan,
- schedule, and support requirements necessary to implement the technical performance of the audit.
In the second
- part, the contractor will conduct the technical audit.
This two part approach will expedite performance of the audit with minimum disruption of ongoing construction project activities.
SCHEDULE ACTIVITY DATE DUE 1.
Deadline for Proposal 12-04-84 2.
Selection of auditor 12-07-84 3.
Initiate Part I 12-11-84 4.
Work Plan and Schedule 12-21-84 5.
Initiate Part II, Kickoff Heating 01-08-85 6.
Project Progress Reports Bi-Weekly i
7.
Interim Technical Briefing (s)
As Required 8.
Draft of Final Report 04-29-85 9.
Pinal Report 05-13-85
- 10. Provision of testimony for hearings As Required REPORTS AND DELIVERABLES
- 1. Work Plan - A detailed work plan for performance of the audit will be required within ten days of project initiation.
The Ucrk Plan shall be revised as necessary during the course of the project so that it remains current.
- 2. Schedule - A detailed schedule will be required within ten days of project initiation.
The schedule shall also be revised to remain current during the course of the project.
The schedule may be integrated with the work plan.
8 e**'
REPORTS AND DEL 1VERABLES (CONT'D.)
- 3. Project Progress Reoorts - The auditor wi?.1 submit written bi-weekly progress reports to TUGCO.
These reports shall provide adequate information to allow TUGC0 to reach accurate conclusions regarding the current status of the work.
The reports shall include, but not be limited to, a.
statement of work accomplished during the past period, a statement addressing the schedule of work and relative status, and a _ discussion of any unexpected developments and their impact on the schedule and work objective.
Any other pertinent subjects should also be addressed.
- 4. Interim Technical Briefing - The auditor will, as required, hold interin technical briefing (s) concerning the audit.
The content of these briefings may include key facts, preliminary conclusions, emerging issues and strengths, possible future recommendations, and other relevant technical matters.
5.. Draft Final Report - Ten (10) copies of the draft final report shall be submitted to TUCCO.
A period of two weeks after issuance of the draft report will be required to prepare comments on the
- report, and to allow for verification of facts before issuance of the final report.
- 6. Final Reoort - Forty (40) copies of the final report, plus one reproducible original vill be submitted to TUGCO.
- 7. Testimony The auditor must support his findings and conclusions with ~ written and oral testimony, if required, in future TPUC hearings.
The same principal personnel who performed the audit must provide the testimony.
[
TERMS'AND CONDITIONS
- 1. Public Disclosure - There will be no public disclosure of any data,
- findings, or conclusions by the auditor or subcontractors without specific written permission from the Company.
- 2. Disclosure of Procosal Contents - Information provided in the proposal will be held in confidence, and will not be revealed or discussed outside TUEC and its agents without i
auditor agreement.
1 9
i o*
,~
(_. '
Y
/.f,,('
}
TERMS AND CONDITIONS (CONT'D.)
J
- 3. Procosals - To be considered, the proposer must submit a complete - response to this tiork Specification..Each proposal must-be ' submitted in five copies.
No other distribution of the proposal shall be cade by the offeror.
- 3 Pro osal must be.
signed by. an official authorized to bind the offeror to itr
- L provisions.
Proposal must include a statement that the proposal is valid at least ninety (90) days.
j
/-
1
- 4. Accecrance of Procosal Content - TUGC0 reserves the right to
/
reject any or all proposals received, to negotiate.with.any respondent relating to this specification, or to cancel this specification in part or in its entirety.
TUGC0 reserves 5'
the right to request additional data to clarify 'any aspect k
ss of the proposal.
This document does not ecmmit TUGCO to g '
fj award a contract to or pay any cost incurred in preparation'
'of a proposal to this request.
t,'
/
- 5. Facilities and Procedures - TUGC0 will provide adequate work /'y office equipment, -and clerical support t.o assist the"J/
- space, auditor at the CPSES site and in the TUGC0 offices' TUGC0 ' #
will have procedures for scheduling interviews and sprovidirig
/
requested data; and the auditor will be.expectedito comply with all reasonable procedures.
3,
- 6. Indeoendence of Auditor - TUGC0 will not contract with any
~
firm that has within the past two (2) years performed a 44 i
-financial
- audit, a
management
- audit, a 'cotic truction management
- review, or any other management' consulti:q y
assistance for TUCCO, nor on behalf of anyi affiliate.,
'f subsidiary, holding or parent company.
Proposal.a tubhitted must contain a statement that no such relationship has4een in effect for the past two (2) years.
- 7. Role of the TPUC - Discussions are taking place between g.
TUGC0 and the Texas Public Utilities Commission (TPUC) regarding their possible oversight role in the CPSES audit.
i, i
The proposer 'should specifically state his willingness to perform the audit with TPUC oversight.
~ 's
- 8. Termination - TUCCO reserves the right to teictivate enis project prior to its completion by providing tu.ven (7) days written notice to the auditor.
s In the event of.ter=inatior(,;
the auditor shall be paid for services rendered up to the.
l time of termination.
l
~ j I
^
_ j
__s
.r b e
i m.
. I 10 k/
/
__m_._
__.._m
_,_m.____,_
.___..._,r._,._
i; s*
EVAI.UATION CRITERIA Proposals will be evaluated on the basis of technical merit and price.
Evaluation factors will include, as a minimum:
Experience of contractor fir:
o 2
Qualifications of key individuals assigned to this audit o
project Approach and work plan o
o Commitment to schedule Exceptions to proposal requirements.
o o Total price estimate TUCCO may require oral presentations.
If given, these presentations will be evaluated in the contract award. The TUCCO evaluation process will consider all the above factors in selecting an auditor.
The bid evaluation process may result in selection of other than the lowest price bidder.
t e
e
~%,
l.l
.s-i G
pc. -
i*/ '
i(,
r e
h.
II W'
,ie
~ ' - '
p t
.J
1-V - PROPOSAL REOUIREMENTS Q
Each offeror's ' proposal will address, as a minimum, the topics in this 3'
section.
The offeror's proposal may suggest alternative approaches i
but must clearly be responsive to the intent of Section II of this
,3-specification.
- s SCOPE OF WORK s
- 1. Anoroach - Describe your understanding of the purpose of the audit and your approach to its performance.
Indicate clearly how your approach win achieve the audit's objectives.
- 2. Work Plan - Describe the plan which will go rern performance of the audit.
This win include the sequence of major project activities, the specific techniques to be used in performing the audit, the records to be kept and the reports to be generated.
The work plan will define the participation and support expected of TUCCO for each
-discrete activity of the
- audit, including working relationships, documentation and data sources, and access to records and personnel.
It will also include a description of the analytical techniques to be used to evaluate data, obtained and to render conclusions.
A detailed work plan will be required within two weeks of contract award.
- 3. Organization - Describe the audit team organization. Indicate the functions of each part of the organization and how the
' organizational structure win support achievement of the audit.
objectives.
Identify the individuals to be assigned to key roles and the amount of time they will be assigned. to the project.
Substitution of named personnel win not be permitted without
~
prior written approval of TUGCO.
- 4. Deliverables - Provide a list of deliverables and a schedule for their delivery.
The deliverables, as a minimum will i
include those identified in Section IV.
The offeror may include additional deliverables which will enhance the quality of the audit project.
S. Schedule Include a schedule for the performance of the u
audit project.
The schedule will commit to the requirements of Section IV.
Further, the schedule will identify the major milestones for project perfor=ance and
' submittal of deliverables.
12 W
.h
2-
.. 'a SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS Identify the specific support requirements to be furnished by TUCCO to the contractor in performing the scope of work.
Include such items as clerical support, administrative support, word processing, office equipment, etc.
Support items not identified in the offeror's proposal will be assumed to be provided by the offeror and included in the offeror's price.
CONTRACTOR'S INFORMATION
- 1. Contact Information - Provide the name, mailing address and telephone nuccer of the' individual to contact if further information is needed.
- 2. Comeany Excerience Submit a
statement of similar management or operational audits conducted by the consultant's company in the previous five years.
Indicate specifically any audits of utilities.
Studies or projects referred to should be identified and the name of the client shown, including the name, address and telephone number of the responsible official of the client may be contacted, company or agency who
- 3. Professional -Experience Submit a
description of the qualifications of all p'.viessional personnel to be employed on the project.
Provide a summary for each individual including dates, clients, duties and level of responsibility for experience specifically relevant to the scope of this audit.
- 4. Subcontractors If any subcontractors are to be used, each-shall be identified in the~ proposal.
The work to be performed shall.be described as well as the dollar value share -thereof or monetary p'ercentage of said work compared to the entire price.
All such' subcontracts indicated in the proposal will be deemed consented to by TUCCO upon acceptance of the proposal.
Any additional or substituted
, subcontractors will require TUCCO's prior consent.
13 Y
o
, g.,
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
- 1. Cost Esticate Provide the information listed below for the scope of work with the exception of Provision of Testimony:
a._ Manpower Costs.
Itemize to show the following infor=ation for each category of personnel having a
different rate per hour:
1.
Category; e.g.,
project
- manager, senior consultant, etc.
2.
Estimated hours.
3.
Rate per hour.
4.
Total cost for each category and for all manpower needs.
- b. Out-of-Pocket Expenses Including Travel and lodging.
- c. Costs of Supplies and Materials.
- d. Other-Direct. Costs.
- e. General Administrative Burden or Overhead.
Indicate percentage and total.
- f. Fees.
- g. Total Bid Price.
- h. Period of Validity of the Bid Price (not less than 90 l
days).
The maximum co$ttract price quoted by the contractor shall include all items of work defined in che proposal except for the Provision of Testimony.
Should an unforeseen situation arise that requires rescheduling or that may cause a potential price increase, the situation should be described in writing to TUGC0; any resulting modification in the maximum price will l
be made only upon the mutual agreement between TUCCO and the I
contractor.
Barring any unforeseen events,,the contractor i_
will deliver the perfor=ance described in its proposal within I
that specific price quoted.
I l
14 l
tle
- *. e.s a
TEM!S AND CONDITIONS (CO?."I'D. )
- 2. Provision of Testicony - The contractor's support of the disclosure process anc provision of testimony will be on a time and materials basis.
A separate budget will be established at the end of the management audit.
If different than above, provide the races for performing this scope of - work.
These rates shall remain in effect for a period of not less than one year from the date of proposal
- 3. Invoices - The contractor will submit a copy of a typical invoice ~ with its proposal.
As a minimum, the following supporting documentation will be required.
Primary contractor's a.
record study charges; for keeping track of b.
Time sheets; s
c.
Travel expense documentation, i.e.,
receipts for hotels, airlines, rental cars, etc.;
d.
Schedule of intertiews actually conducted by the consultants during the billing period; r
Billing rates for each consultant involved.
e.
- 4. Accentance of Ter=s and conditions include a
specific statecent The proposal will accepting the terms and conditions identified in Part IV.
Exceptions taken to the terms and conditions will be considered during the evaluation process.
- 5. Indeoendence of Contractor - The proposal shall include I
the
, for
(
contractor and, if any, subcontractors, compliance with the independence requirements of Section IV.
a statenent of l
l ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Each offeror may include in its proposal. any additional infor=ation not l
specifically requested in this work specification.
Such information shall be considered in the evaluation at the dis TUGCO.
i cretion of i
IS
- - -