ML20205C133
| ML20205C133 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/20/1984 |
| From: | Halman E, Wiggins E NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205C107 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-NRC-17-84-327, FOIA-84-853 NUDOCS 8509200148 | |
| Download: ML20205C133 (16) | |
Text
-
MEMORANDUM FOR: Contract File FROM: Elois Wiggins, Contracting Officer Administrative Contracts Branch Division of Contracts Office of Administration
SUBJECT:
TERMINATION FOR DEFAULT OF CONTRACT N0. NRC-17-84-327 WITH FREE STATE REPORTING, INC., FOR STEN 0 GRAPHIC REPORTING SERVICES IN THE WASHINGTON, D.C. METROPOLITAN AREA
Reference:
Federal Acquisition Regulations, Part 49, Subpart 49.402-S In accordance with FAR reference, the following is set forth as justification and documentation in support of Temination for Default of Contract No NRC-17-84-327 with Free State Reporting, Inc., for stenographic reporting services in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.
- 1. The Division of Contracts awarded a fixed price requirements contract on May 16, 1984 to Free State Reporting, Inc. (FSRI), for a 12 month period, at an estimated cost of $187,167.50. The contract provides for stenographic reporting services for meetings, briefings, hearings, presentations, workshops, depositions, and other proceedings before the Comission, its Hearing Panels and Comittees, and various other organizational components which take place in the Washington, D.C.
metropolitan area.
- 2. Since the award of the contract, transcripts have contained excess inaudibles, inaccurate and missing statements, incorrect identification of speakers, and no identification of speakers. Transcripts have been delivered late, impacting the hearing review processes of the Comissioners, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (ASLBP),
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel (ASLAP), and the Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS).
- 3. By letter dated July 20, 1984, FSRI was advised that their performance under this contract was unsatisfactory and in violation of the contract terms. They were requested to submit, in writing, any facts bearing on their performance deficiencies as well as the steps being initiated to correct these deficiencies.
[0,p 94- F53 BIRD 64-853 PDR D/I
i i
Contract File NRC-17-84-327 i
- 4. FSRI responded on July 31, 1984. A meeting was held on August 6, 1984 between FSRI and NRC to review the contractor's unsatisfactory perfonnance and the plans initiated or to be initiated by FSRI to improve performance. Mr. Becker cited the short notice given FSRI that they had been awarded the contract (contract awarded May 15 -
1984 with a start date of May 16,1984). Because of this, several transcribers were given work before they were screened. It was later discovered that they could not handle the highly technical i proceedings and the daily turn-around requirements. Mr. Becker said a screening process had been initiated, as well as a transcript audit procedure. FSRI hired a full time Production Manager to oversee the production of NRC transcripts.
As for the late deliveries, Mr. Becker stated that during start up, transcribers were turning in incomplete work; computer printers malfunctioned; two nights they experienced power failures; copy machine malfunctioned several times; copy machine was too slow; and NRC meetings ran longer than scheduled. To insure timely ;
deliveries, FSRI had screened out transcribers who turned in incomplete work; added qualified transcribers; added a high-speed l copier; and is using the old machine as backup.
- 5. By memorandum of August 23, 1984 Judge Marshall Miller, Administrative Judge, ASLBP, advised Mrs. Elva Leins, Project Officer, that the k transcript of proceedings held on August 16, 1984 was totally l unacceptable as the official record. The errors were so fundamental and numerous that they could not be corrected by errata sheets.
The closing arguments of counsel were substantially mistranscribed and the parties to the case were required to reconstruct their own arguments for the record of the proceedings.
- 6. By memorandum dated September 7,1984, Comissioner Thomas Roberts advised Samuel Chilk, Secretary to the Comission, that the transcripts he had reviewed were of particularly poor quality, filled with gaps, and errors, making it difficult for members of the public to determine what actually happened on issues that affect them.
- 7. Of the 38 transcripts delivered af ter the August 6,1984 meeting, through September 14, 1984, 30 were delivered late and 10 were returned for correction of numerous errors and omissions. In several instances, the transcripts had to be returned to FSRI a second time due to the fact that the contractor only corrected those errors which had been marked by NRC to show the problem areas.
- 8. By letter dated September 14, 1984 FSRI was advised that the Government was considering tenninating the contract for default and
Contract File NRC-17-84-327 was affording FSRI the opportunity to present any facts as to why the contract should not be so terminated. During the cure period, three transcripts were delivered late.
- 9. FSRI's response to the Cure Notice, dated September 24, 1984, was forwarded to the Project Officer, SECY, ASLBP, ACRS, and OELD for review and comments. Their comments on specific FSRI statements are attached.
- 10. The Division of Contracts sought the views of SECY as to the adequacy of FSRI's proposed corrective measures. The Secretary requested an independent review by the other users (Chief Administrative Judge, ASLBP; Executive Director, ACRS; and Director, Division of Licensing, NRR) as to FSRI's performance on their portion of the contract and FSRI's proposed corrective measures. On October 11, 1984, the Secretary forwarded the replies from ASLBP and ACRS, as well as SECY's views, to the Director, Division of Contracts. The consensus of these users was that the contract be terminated as they were not convinced that FSRI would or could improve to a consistently acceptable level of perforwance.
- 11. In order to assure that the users had taken into consideration FSRI's performance since the issuance of the Cure Notice, the Contract Administrator, on October 15, 1984, contacted the users for their connents on the specific transcripts received since September 14, 1984. The results were:
SECY -
11 transcripts -
No problems reported ACRS -
8 transcripts - No improvement ASLBP -
8 transcripts -
2 unsatisfactory; I marginally acceptable; 5 acceptable NRR -
3 transcripts -
No problems reported
- 12. From the date of the Cure Notice, September 14, 1984 through October 23, 1984. 41 transcripts had been received from FSRI; six had been delivered late.
- 13. By memorandum dated October 17, 1984, Samuel Chilk, Secretary, again recommended the contract be terminated. Although the primary users of these stenographic services acknowledged some improvement in timeliness of delivery and accuracy, they did not believe Free State Reporting, Inc.'s corrective measures would be sufficient to produce long term, consistently satisfactory results given their overall performance and failure to respond adequately in their earlier attempts to correct deficiencies.
Contract File NRC-17-84-327 >
- 14. Based on the foregoing. I hertby determine that:
A. The late deliveries and submission of poor quality transcripts did not arise out of causes beyond the contractor's control, and therefore, failure to perfom is not excusable.
B. The steps initiated /taken by the contractor to ensure the :
correction of the perfomance problems encountered have not i demonstrated that the timeliness and quality of work can and will improve to an acceptable level.
C. The contract is in default.
/8 N ./ 3
- i a 1
/ Date Elois Wiggins, Contracting Officer i Administrative Contracts Branch Division of Contracts ,
Office of Administration !
i As required by SECY-80-136, dated March 11, 1980, Revision of Delegation of Authority to the Executive Director of Operations, the Director, Office of Administration, and the Director, Division of Contracts, I have reviewed the facts and the documentation in support thereof
, conc rnMg Contract No. NRC-17-84-327 with Free State Reporting, Inc.,
and / approve / / disapprove the Temination for Default of said contract. ~
/
l[ hJ/ b "f ll1-Date Edward L. Halman, Director Division of Contracts Office of Administration
. 4
, ~. ,- .
. NRC'S COMMENTS ON F5RI'S RESPONSE TO SEPTEMBER 14, 1984 CURE NOTICE (NRC-17-84-327)
F5RI Statement: At that meeting (August 6, 1984 between F5RI and NRC),
Pat Sullivan explained to David Becker that IJRC considered F5RI transcripts delivered af ter 8:15 a.m.
but before 9:00 a.m. to be timely.
NRC Co r.ent: Pat Sullivan did not tell David Becker at the August 6, 1984 meeting that fiRC considered FSRI transcripts delivered af ter 8:15 a.m. but before 9:00 a.m. to be timely deliveries. The NRC staff members present at that meeting did not hear any such state tnt.
FSRI Statement: Since F5RI's receipt of tiRC's revised instructions (September 5,1984) all but four FSRI transcripts have been delivered by 8:15 a.m.
NRC Coment: Twelve transcripts were delivered late between September 6, 1984 and September 24, 1984, the date l of your letter (Work Orders 129, 134, 135, 136, 137, 139, 140, 143, 146, 147, 158, and 159); two transcripts were over 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> late (Work Orders !
146 and 158).
i
' F5R) State:ent: Part of Work Order 139, which covered r. ore than si>
hour; of reporting, FSRI delivered to i.RC before 8:15 a.m. , but not withstanding tiR(.'s past pra-tice that partial deliveries to f1RC were acceptable, fiRC rejected that delivery. '
fiRC Coment: It is not fiRC's practice to accept partial deliveries.
F5RI had been instructed not to split the transcripts unless specifically instructed to do so at the hearing. :
F5RI Statement:
On several occasions, f5Rl's courier encountered delay l in delivering transcripts to offices within liRC's '
building due to the need to get Pat Sullivan or another designated NRC recipient to come to the 10th floor i Guard's Desk to receive the transcripts.
j r t L i
(
l t
l NRC Comment:
l There have been several occasions when Pat Sullivan was not available for receipt of transcripts. However.
if the courier was delayed while awaiting an NRC l
i recipient, those transcripts were acknowledged as being received at 8:15 a.m.
FSR1 Statement:
Among the ten Work Orders cited ir. your letter, F5R1 did not receive back for correction the tran',cript for Order 136.
NRC Corrnent:
! NRC incorrectly cited the transcript for Order 136; l it should have been Order 138. Order 138 resulted in an il page transcript of an Affirmation Session held on September 7, 1984.
It was returned for corrections for two reasons; it contained the wrong date for the meeting and Commissioner Zech's r,ame was not listed on the cover page although he was a speaker during the course of the meeting.
FSRI Statement: Of the nine remaining Orders, FSRI reviewed the transcripts for Orders 128,137,139, and 140, on which NRC marked what it regarded as errors, for compliance with the accuracy standard in the contract !
(not more than 1 error per 100 words of transcript, ,
excluding errors which do not change or obscure the j meaning of the testimony). TSRI found that all four transcripts reviewed clearly met that standard, with the exception of ten pages in Order 139 due to confusing Messrs. Ebersole's and Etherington's names, and pages 33E-344 of Order 140. As to the latter pages, horaver, FSRi found that the cause of its dif ficulty l was that neither its reporter nor its transcriber ,
! could understand the words of Mr. Liak, who had a thict foreign accent. The governing instructions f rom NRC l -
Presiding Officers prohibit F5R]'s reporters from interrupting ACRS proceedings to request clarification or enunciation of sounds. Under those circumstances, FSRI's best efforts to translate such sounds into English '
are all that can be required under the contract. ISRI believes that transcript 140 should not have been returned for correction.
NRC Coment:
i The transcript for Order 128 was rejected on
! September 7, 1984 due to the excess numbers of inaudibles, missing text, and errors. The returned transcript was marked to show the problem areas, not every error. F5R1 l apparently only corrected the NRC-marked errors and I
.' . :. s (
returned the transcript. As a result, the transcript was re-rejected on September 27, 1984.
Order 137 resulted in'a 4 page transcript of an y
Affirmation Session held on September 6. It was sent back for correction because it had several inaudibles and because Mr. Chilk's name was not listed on the cover page although he was the primary speaker of the meeting. Even the corrected transcript, when returned by FSRI, still contained two inaudibles on the first page; apparently, the contractor made no attempt to listen to his backup tapes and resolve those inaudibles.
Instead, he limited his " corrections" to those specific instances in which SECY had written in the right word /
words and the placement of Mr. Chilk's name on the cover page. .
The type of corrections required in this transcript are indicative of those which point to a very lax or nonexistent quality control program.
The transcripts for Orders 139 and 140 were returned to FSR1 twice for corrections because FSRI corrected only those errors NRC marked to show the problem areas.
FSR1 Statement: FSRI has not reviewed the transcripts for Orders 87, 101,115,119, and 122 because it does not have the copies NRC marked up for alleged errors. hevertheless.
FSRI recalls that the transcript for Order 115 contained a few erroneous acronyms and technical terns and was promptly corrected. The NRC person who returried the transcript for job 101 apologized to ,FSR1, mentioned that the proceeding was of especial importance te NRC, and thus, required perfection and requested that FSRI make -
specified revisions. FSRI returned the revised transcript the next day.
NRC Comment: The tran' script for Order 115 was returned because of incorrect pagination and the location of the site of the hearing was incorrect on the cover page.
Concerning Order 101, John Hoyle talked.to Mr. Becker personally about this transcript. The transcript was !
returned for revision because approximately 3 minutes of l the electronic. tape of the meeting had not been transcribed. l This gap occurred in the middle of the transcript and was a very serious error requiring immediate correction. The
^
t
, i' l
1 i
rest of the transcript was rather good and Mr. Hoyle told Becker that the transcript had shown considerable improvement. However, the fact that the rest of the tape was good does not mitigate the seriousness of r'5RI's failure to provide NRC a complete transcript in the first l
instance. This is clear evidence of the lack of a quality control program.
l F5R1 Statement: Orders 119 and 122 occurred on successive days, i
August 15 and 16,1984 and caused a surge of floppy disk work. The surge was enhanced by the fact that the meeting for Order 119 went for six hours instead of the planned two hours. "f 5RI's performance was
! reasonable under the circumstances. Furthermore, FSRI found that the Order 119 transcript is virtually error free for 170 pages and the balance is essentially the l
' single recurring error of misider.tification of a speaker."
NRC Comment:
Reference to floppy disk work appears to be irrelevant. ,
NRC has made no complaint with respect to late delivery or the accuracy of the floppy disk work.
Misidentification of speakers in the context of a i
Commission meeting usually is a very serious error. In
! Order 119, the misidentification focused primarily on Harold Denton and Herzel Plaine during an or.-the-record presentation by the parties in the TMI-I Restart proceeding. To have circulated this transcript to the IM1-1 restart parties anc to the Public Docunent Room I without correction would have produced major confusion 1 as to the position of the NRC technical staff.
l When such speaker misidentifications have becone common- ~
place, as they have in many F5RI transcripts, SECY must spend a substantial amount of time reviewing FSRl's work products agains t the electronic tapes. Such reviews are extremely costly both in terms of SECY staff time and in the necessary shifting of other priority work. SECY has no choice but to review each transcript quickly upon delivery to NRC because other organizational elements within HRC, parties to NRC proceedings when appropriate, and to the public, are expecting copies to be made available to them as soon as possible. There are no instances in which timeliness is not a factor for Commission meeting transcripts. '
- p. r,,.
.y.
.. ,.- ~
ll
. (
F5RI Statement: On August )),1984. F5R1 devised a quality control check list for reviewing transcripts prior to their delivery to NRC. Copies of that list were sent to NRC for comments but none were received. Since then, however, NRC has returned no transcripts for correction of items identified on FSRI's check list.
NRC Comment:
A letter dated August 13, 1984 was sent to Pat Sullivan from F5R1 with a Quality Control Check List Form as an attachment. She was asked to review and add anything that she deemed necessary. Concents were furnished on her behalf to.FSRI by Renea Bailey, Project Officer. .
Ms. Baily informed FSRI that disclaimers are only to be incorporateo in Conrnission meetings. She further requested that the floppy disk requirement be added to the quality control form. F5RI stated that the form would mir.imize the occurrence of errors in the assembly of trenscripts. But, on September 10, 1984, Pat Sullivan received the transcript for Order 338 with the wrong i date of the r.eeting on the cover.
3 ee Y i
l l
~" ~
r
/ *
,/ j-
,,,s .
s MEMORANDUit FOR: File FROM: Elois Wiggins, Contracting Officer Administrative Contracts Branch ,
Division of Contracts Office of Administration r-
SUBJECT:
TERMINATION FOR DEFAULT OF CONTRACT NO. NRC-17 .
WITH FREE STATE REPORTING, INC., FOR STEN 0GRAPHI ,
REPORTING SERVICES IN THE WASHINGTON, D.C. METROPL l AREA rh j . . s . 1. . , . ~~~ ** " ~ " = M
Reference:
Federal P+0surement Regulations, Paet-1-83 ? r 4-Sec+ ion--l-L%00 *t-/,
' ap . 4 1-;. u 2.-,- i In accordance with F,PR reference, the following is set forth as justification and documentation in support of Termination for Default of Contract No.
NRC-17-84-327 with Free State Reporting, Inc., for Stenographic Reporting Services in the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area.
1.
.The Division of Contracts awarded a fixed price requirements contract d p c G -. 4:. p< r.
on May 16, 1984 to Free State Reporting, Inc. (FSRI), at an estimated A
cost of 5187,167.50. The contract provides for stenographic reporting services for meetings, briefings, hearings, presentations-workshops, e
depositions, and other proceedings before the Commission, its Hearing Panels and Committees, and various other organizational components which take place in the. Washington, D.C. metropolitan area.
i
't et e
(- (7
- 2. Since the award of the contract, transcripts have contained excess inaudibles, inaccurate and missing statements, incorrect identification
.n ,6 A .L .r.J .c .+
of speakers, and speakers. net identi# icd. Transcripts have been delivered late, impacting the hearing review processes of the Commissioners, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (ASLBP),
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel (ASLAP), and the Advisory
..f.. : .
Committee on Reactor Safety (ACRS).
- 3. By letter dated July 20, 1984, FSRI was advised that their performance under this contract was unsatisfactory and in violation of the contract terms. They were requested to submit, in writing, any facts bearing on their performance deficiencies as well as the steps being initiated to correct these deficiencies.
4 FSRI responded on July 31, 1984. A meeting was held on August 6, 1984 between FSRI and NRC to review the contractor's unsatisfactory performance and the plans initiated or to be initiated by FSRI.to improve performance. Mr. Becker cited the short notice given FSRI a C
that they had been awarded the contract (contract awarded May 15, 1984 with_a start date of May 16,1984). Because of this, several --
transcibers were given work before they were screened. It was later e
4
- discovered that they could not handle the highly technical proceedings and the daily turn-around requirements. Mr. Becker said a screening process had been initiated, as well as a transcript audit procedure.
.{w // h.6 FSRI-had hired a A Production Manager to oversee the production of 5
L .____ _ __
( (.
s
- NRC transcripts, es -her--full -time assignment."
As for the late deliveries Mr. Becker stated that during start up, transcribers were turning in incomplete work; computer printers malfunctioned; two nights they experienced power failures; copy machine malfunctioned several times; copy machine was too slow; and NRC meetings ran longer than scheduled. To insure timely celiveries, FSRI had screened out transcribers who turned in incomplett work; added qualified transcribers; added a high-speed copier; and is using the old machine as back up.
- 5. By memorandum of August 23, 1984, Judge Marshall Miller, Administrative Judge, ASLBP, advised Mrs. Elva Leins, Project Officer, that the transcript of proceedings held on August 16, 1984 was totally unacceptable as the official record. The errors were so fundamental and numerous that they could not be corrected by errata sheets.
The closing arguments of counsel were substantially_ mistranscribed and the parties to the case were required to reconstruct their own arguments for the record of the proceeding:
e2
- 6. By memorandum dated September 7,1984, Commissioner Thomas Roberts advised _ Samuel Chilk, Secretary to the Commission, that the transcripts 4 he had reviewed were of particularly poor quality, filled with gaps, and errors, making it difficult for members of the public to determine what actually happened on issues that affect them.
r l
L_ -.
( f t
- 7. Of the 38 transcripts delivered after the August 6,1984 meeting, -
i through September 14, 1984, 30 were delivered late and 10 were returned for correction of numerous errors and omissions. In several instances, i
the transcripts had to be returned to FSRI a second time due to 'he fact that the contractor only corrected those errors which had been marked by fiRC to show the problem areas.
E. By letter dated September 14, 1984, FSRI was advised that the Government was considering terminating the contract for default and was affording FSRI the opportunity to present any facts as to why the contract should ,
i' not be so terminated. During the cure period, three transcripts were delivered late.
i
{
- 9. FSRI's response to the Cure Notice, dated September 24, 1984, was forwarded to the Project Officer, SECY, ASLBP, ACRS, and OELD for review and comments. Their comments on specific FSRI statements are attached.
i
~R
- 10. The Division of Contracts sought the views of SECY as to the adequacy -
of FSRI's proposed corrective measures. The Secretary requested an __
r independent review by the other users (Chief Administrative Judge, d
. ASLBP; Executive Director, ACRS; and Director, Division of Licensing, HRR) as to FSRI's performance on their portion of the contract and FSRI's proposed corrective measures. On October 11, 1984, the
' Secretary forwarded the replies from ASLBP and ACRS, as well as
( (
SECY's views, to the Director, Division of Contracts. Thc consensus 4
of these users was that the contract be terminated as they were not convinced that F5R) would or could improve to a consistently acceptable level of performance.
i
- 11. In order to assure that the users had tal.en into consideration F5Rl's performance since the issuance of the Cure Notice, the Contract Administrator, on October 15, 1984, contacted the users for their comments on the specific transcripts received since September 14, 1984.
The results were:
SECY -
Il transcripts -
No problems reporteo ACRS -
8 transcripts -
No improvement ASLBP - 8 transcripts -
2 unsatisfactory; I marginally acceptable; 5 acceptable NRR -
3 transcripts -
No problems reported -
i
)
y
A.
( (
- 12. From the date of the Cure Notice, September 14, 1984 through October 23, 1984, 41 transcripts had been received from FSRl; six had been delivered late.
- 13. By memorandum dated October 17, 1984, Samuel Chill, Secretary, again recommended the contract be terminated. Although the primary users of these stenographic services acknowledged so.9e improvement in timeliness of delivery and accuracy, they did not believe Free State Reporting, Inc.'s corrective measures would be sufficient to produce long term, consistently satisfactory results given their overall performance and failure to respond adequately in their earlier attempts to correct deficiencies.
14 Based on the above, I hereby determine that:
A. The late deliveries and submission of poor quality transcripts did not arise out of causes beyond the contractor's control, tnd therefore, failure to perform is not excusable.
B. The steps initiated /taken by the contractor to ensure the ')
correction of the performance problems encountered have not -.
demonstrated that the timeliness and quality of work can and #
will improve to an acceptable level.
i
- e
~ '
C. The contract is in default.
.3 i
.~-
d*
Date Elois Wiggins, Contracting Officer Administrative Contracts Branch Division of Contracts Office of Administration As required by SECY-80-135, dated March 11, 1980, Revision of Delegation If Authority to the Executive Director of Operations, the Director, sffice of Administration, and the Director, Division of Contracts, I . i havn rc. viewed the facts and the documentation in support thereof concerning Contra t No. NRC-17-80-448-01 with International Verbatim Reporters, Inc. * '
Ond, ) approved ( ) disapproved the Termination for Default of said 3cnt'ra .
,<~ ,
()"! { f I -
Sf .3 f Y t 'V . . I I I
i Date dward L. Halman, Director Division of Contracts I.i ,..,- ./ , . ., ., <, 'j/ /*+