Document Number 163 Pro?le General Code: Name: Audi? Pian: Entire: Um}? Gmup: Type: Location: Scope: Onyin: Team eed' Manager: Sta)? Type: Review of Contracting Issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory 8136003 Review of Contracting Issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory Default Name. I Ema-damn!) LANL Default 2? LANL Aibuouerque Inspection Group Western inspection Region - {bite} AL @3153 Cur-Kc; Management Administration SingIe-F?rogramiSingle-Site Hotline i Allegation Inspections Staff Review of Contracting Issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory Schedule Actual! Start Date: 1 1i30i 201 2 Aciuai End Date: 3 Risk Risk: Medium Totai Risk Score: 0 inherent Risk: 0 Residual Risk 0 Objective Determine the facts and circumstances surrounding the allegation that LANS was directed to use a Task Order under an existing CPA between Sandie and Heather Wilson; the invoices submitted by Wilson did not contain the detail required; there was a lack of deliverables submitted by Wilson; there was pressure applied to the CO to approve the Wilson agreement; and there may be a duplication of work since Wilson has multiple agreements with NNSA activities. Background Planning (Scope/Method Potential Finding Jus?ficaa?ion) Review of Contracting Issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory I-?indmg Summary Cumufa?ve Payee! Histories Other Custom Properties . - - 002 Report Title Concerns with Consulting Contract Administration at Various Department Sites 001 Report Number 004 Responsible Office inspection 00? Project Type Allegation 008a Location i Sandia National Laboratories 008i: Location 2 Los Alamos National Laboratory 0080 Location 3 Nevada National Security Site 009 Follow-up 014 Potentially Sensitive with Pli 015 Conformance with GAG-AS 0 Review of Contracting Issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory 010 Classified Project 018 Total Days Suspended 0 019 Projeot Status Completed 011 Public Report 1 012 Potentially Classifiedi'Controlled 0 015 GPRA 0 E06 Report Type Blue 003 Published Report Date 2013-05-07 E5 Division/Region Western 01? Computer Generated Data 1 0213 Presidential Initiative a E4 GAO High Risk - 025 Secretarial Priorities . O26 OIG Challenges a Keyword 1 D13 Potentially Sensitive Information 0 027:) Keyword 2 02%: Keyword 3 - 02Td Keyword 4 0278 Keyword 5 0271? Keyword 6 027?9 Keyword 7' 02?h Keyword 8 02?i Keyword 9 Review of Contracting Issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory 02?j Keyword 10 020 Short Title LANL Contracting issues 008d Location 4 Oak Ridge National Laboratory Procedures Summer? .. Detail - 1 A.1.PRG Briefings, Meetings 8: Conference Purpose: Procedure Step: 1 Entrance Conference Tree: (bite: (on) Assigned To: (C) Prepared By: Reviewed By: [None] {None} PROPERTIES: Location: Frequency: Category 4: User Category: Categoryr 5 6 SCORECARD: Rating: Sample Size: To officially,r kick off the subject inspection, discuss scope and deliverables, and identify key points of contact. Source: Date: Location: [Type (or import) iist ofparticipan ts] Office of Inspector General participants: 1. inspection Team Leader] 2. Other participants: 1. [Audit Liaison] 2. Scope: Scope Entrance Conference held with entity management to officially start the subject inspection: Methodology - Discussed subject inspection with entity management to explain scope, deliverables, and Review of Contracting Issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory identify key points of Contact. Methodology: Details: Record of Work Done: 02-25-2012: TEMPLATE TO BE FOLLOWED TO DOCUMENT ENTRANCE CONFERENCE. MAKE APPROPRIATE CHANGES AND DELETIONS. Entrance Conference Review of Alleged Conflict of Interest involving Sandia National Laberato?es, NewMeirico {5135006} Objective: The objective of this inspection is to assess the facts and circumstances surrounding an allegation that Sandia National Laboratories {Sandie} may have acted improperly and specifically engaged in a conflict of interest with regard to work Performed for the Missile Defense Agency DA). Background: it is alleged that MDA placed Sandie in the conflicting roleI of providing both technical oversight of work performed by Systems 8-K Processes Engineering Corporation to develop and successfully demonstrate associated objects (A0) and countermeasures (CM) for MBA, and then told Sandia to build and supply very similar ao/crvi products for MBA despite SPEC's successful demonstration. It is alleged that this appears to create an inherent conflict for a Government laboratory like Sandie to act as both a trusted technical oversight agent and a har dware supplier for MBA. in brie?ngs to the staffs of Congressman Lamar Smith and the House Armed Services Committee, Sandie program managers were said to have defended their actions as "simply following the direction of the Government, the Missile Defense Agency." Scope and Methodology: Identify/evaluate the specific agreements involving Sandie, SPEC and MDA that relate to the Review of Contracting Issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory allegation. Identify any direction provided to Sandia lav MBA. Collect and review Federal Acquisition Regulations, Department, and Sandia policies and procedures relating to the identification and mitigation of potential conflicts of interest involving work performed for other Federal entities such as MDA. Colic-ct and evaluate any conflict of interest evaluationsiassessments for the work in question. Interview NNSA, Sandie, MDA and SPEC officials as appropriate. Initial requ eat: for lnfurrna tip n: Identi?cation of a PDC for work performed for MBA involving Sandia, SPEC, AO's and CM's. A general overview of Sandia's processesx?managernent controls for identifying and mitigating potential con?icts of interest involving work performed for other Federal entities such as MDA . This should include a discussion on Sandia's responsibilities under Federal Acquisition Regulation 3531?, Federally Funded Research and Development Centers, to protect proprietarv data, act with independence and objectivitv, and perform in a manner free from any conflict of interest. This should also include the OCI review process for work performed for the Department of Defense under NNSAfSandia?s Work for Others (WFOJ program (possibly under the WFO IEither Federal Agency process), and how FAR Subpart 9.5, Organizational and Consultant Con?icts of interest, applies. All policies and procedures for the identification and mitigation of potential conflicts of interest involving work performed for other Federal entities such as MDA. All agreements for specific work involving Sandie, SPEC and MDA that relate to the allegation, including anv agreements on the protection and use of SPEC informationidata. Anv conflict of interest evaluationsfassessments for the work in question. Copies ofSandia brie?ngs to the staffs of Congressman Lamar Smith and the House Armed Services Committee on this issue. Conclusion: Review of Contracting Issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory Summary . The subiect inspection was officially kicked off as of Highlights discussed during the conference were: Key points of contact provided during the conference were: Procedure Step: 2 Decision Briefing (bile) To: Prepared By: {None} Reviewed By: {None} PROPERTIES: Location: Frequency: tL?otegroryr 4: User Category: Category 5 Category 6 5CD RECAR D: Rating: Sample Size: Notes?: Results 4: A.1.PRG - Briefings. Meetings 8: Conference Purpose: To determine management's decision in regard to the path forward on the subject inspection. Source: Scope: Methodology: Details: Record of Work Done: the below template as appropriate] DECISION BRIEFING [Insert Eastern or Western Region} Region InSpections Date: [Month Date, Year] Inspection Title: ["Insert Title-"J [Insert Project it Inspection Team: Lead Inspector .. [Insert Name] Team Leader [Insert Name] Vs'urnritarv-jjg, 1' I Review of Contracting Issues at Los Alamoe National Laboratory - Background: This is an allegation based in5pection concerning a Hotline complaint, dated Month, Date, Year}. [Add sumrnar?i.r of the allegatiOn or the details]. [Add information about the subjectfinspected element] eg. Sandia National Laboratories located on Kirtiand Air Force Base, Albuquerque, New Mexico, is a multi?program national security laboratory Obiective: To determine details] Scope and Methodology: 0 Review relevant criteria and associated documents relating in Interview Complainant for more information on the allegation. 0 Attend briefing bv Sandie personnel I Interview key personnel at - Obtain a brie?ng from the [inspected element] 0 Coordinate with the Office of Investigations. . Review the contract between Sandia and [Enter Contractor's Name] It Interview the Sandie Delegated Inspection Results [Preliminarv Fieiiwork): Criteria Review 0 DOE Order 414. It, Quality Assurance, states that an item is suspect when - DOE Guide Susoecthounterfeit Harms Guide, states that DOE and its contractors should Review of Contracting Issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory Resuits 4: A.1.PRG Briefingg. Meetings 8: Conference Purpose: Procedure Step: 3 Message Meeting Source: Type: Assigned To: mimic) Scepe: Prepared By: (No ne} Reviewed By: (None) Metho doiogy: ROPERTIES: Detoiis: Location: Frequency: Record Work Done: Category 4: User Category: Conciosion: Category 5 Category 6 Notes: SCURECARD: Resoits 4: Rating: Sompie Size: A.1.PRG Briefings, Meetings 8: Conference Purpose: Procedure Step: 4 Coordination Draft Report Source: eet ing Type: Assigned To: (THC) Prepared By: {None} Methodoiogy: Reviewed By: one] Detoiis: PROP ERTI ES: Location: Record of Work Done: Frequency: Review of Contracting Issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory FSur're'nar-y'sf. . . g-Detai! Category 4: Conclusion: User Category: Category 5 Notes: Category 6 Resufts 4: SCORECARD: Rotting: Sompfe Size: A.1.PRG Briefings. Mes-tines 3; Conference Purpose: To document an exit conference with Sandia National Laboratory Procedure Step: Exit Conference Sandia Type: Source: Assigned To: {'3}le Prepared By: (C) 5f6f2014 Scope: Reviewed By: Eff-3,! 2014 Methodology: PROPERTIES: Location: Details: Frequency: Category 4: Record of Work Done: User Category: On April 2, (blind?) Ifrom the Office of Inspector General, inspections, held an Categorys exit conference with members of Sandia national Laboratory, to include federal field of?ce and contractor Cotegory? labortory employees. In attendance wer M5: {mm SFOIME: ISFO one rec-ac: Ispd??i?i iSFOlats inc-ct: SCURECARD: (to: Chianti 3335?? iand ~n3353 Sandia ME: 5'39?? Rating: {mm The meeting was held at the Sandie Field Office. The results of the conference were Sompfe Size: essentially as follows: We updated the group on the fact that the Inspector General decided to forgo the coordination draft and go straight to ?nal draft for the report. We also informed the group that the report would not be issued as Of?cial Use Only, but instEad would be made publicaily available. We then briefed them on pertinent portions of the report that pertained to Sandia National Laboratories. We were asked to provide the Public Affairs Office 24 hour notice prior to the report being issued. We stated Review of Contracting issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory Summarv 1' -..-.. - -. .. - - - - .. .-- s. . . . .rathat this was unlikely, but that we would try and give advanced notice, if possible. We were also informed that a reporter from the Santa Fe newspaper was inquiring about Heather Wilson's involvement at Sandia and that they had requested copies of her invoices. Sandie officials informed the reporter that the information was proprietarv. We clari?ed the dollar amounts associated with Sandia. Specifically; we informed them that we combined the CPA amounts with the dollar amounts associated with initial consulting agreement and a one?time pavment ($4,500) made to Ms. Wilson while the revision to the CPA was being finalized. We stated that once the draft report was issued, the; would have 15 business davs to respond. Procedure Step: Exit Conference Oak Ridge Type: Assigned To: Egg; Prepared By: (C) 14 Reviewed By: BIEIZO 1:1 PROPERTIES: Location: Frequency: Category 4: User Category: Category 5 (.?iartegrorjir 6 Conclusion: Notes: Results 4: A.1-PRG - Briemwleetings 3. Conference Purpose: To document an exit conference held with Oak Ridge National Laboratorv Source: Scope: Methodology: Details: Record of Work Done: On April 4, 2013,I(bi(5) held an exit conference teleohonicallv with members oi the Oak Ridge Ottice and Oak Ridge National Laboratorv. In attendance werellhilell _l rtw?m Review of Contracting Issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory Summary - Detail a -- - -. a? - Chas: 3:317:32: CAE 33353 33353343 I SCORECARD: land 3:317:33: Rating: Sompie Size: We updated the group on the fact that the Inspector General decided to forgo the coordination draft and go straight to final draft for the report. We also informed the group that the report would not be issued as Official Use Univ, but instead would be made publicailv availabie. We then briefed them on pertinent portions of the report that pertained to Oak Ridge. ..- .. {inspector 5 note: a ?review of the Oak Ridge M110 contract reveals that FAR does apply through reference' In the Department of Energv Acquisition Regulations 970. 5232? 2 Payments and advances. i.A 4 4 H.1.PRGA.12.PRG We were also told that there was a deliverable for Heather Wilson' 5 participation in task panei discussions. Speci?cally, we were told that they had notes to the meetings. However the meetings were held in a SCIF a and rue notes are classi?ed at the level. A. 12. PRGilnspector' 5 Note: during our interview with r] ?bx Oak Ridge he informed us ofthese notes (A114 However. when the Inspector General's' Ice tried to arrange a viewing of these notes, we were told that no notes existed We were also told that theyr were unhappv being grouped together with other Laboratories in which serious concerns seen to exist- Thev stated that panel members have to be phvsicallv present at the meetings; and this presence is documented. We informed the Oak Ridge officials that once the draft report was issued, thev would have 15 business davs to respond. A33.f Co nciusion: Notes: Resorts 4: Review of Contracting Issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory Detail A.2.PRG - Background Information Procedure Step: Departmerttal Entity,?r Contractor Background Type: Assigned To: Prepared By: Reviewed By: PROPERTIES: Location: Frequency: Category 4: User Category.- Category 5 Category 6 SCORECARD: Rating: Sompie Size: {bite} {None} {None} Purpose: To determine pertinent background information about the Departmental entity andfor Contractor relevant to the subject inspection. Source: Scope: information deemed relevant to the subject inspection. Methodology: Researched, gathered, and prioritized pertinent background information in regard to the Departmental entity under review in the subject inSpection. Detor?is: Record of Work Done: Conciusion: The following Departmental entitfoontractor?s background information was determined to be usefui for the purposes of the subject inspectionsReview of Contracting Issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory Frequency: Notes: Resw'ts 4: A.3.PRG - Review of Prior Re ports Purpose: Procedure Step: DUE DIG Prior Reports Source: TYPE (bite) (In: Assigned To: Scope: Prepared By: {None} Reviewed By: {None} Methodology: RUPERTIES: De tails: Location: Frequency: Record of Work Done: Category 4.- User Category: Conclusion: Category 5 Category 6 Notes: SCORECARD: Resaits 4: Rating: Sample Size: A.3.PRG Review of Prior Reports Purpose: Procedure Step: GAO Prior Reports So orce: e: (We) To: Scope: Prepared By: (N no) Reviewed By: {None} Methodofogy: ROPERTI E5: Detoits: Location: Record of Work Done: Review of Contracting Issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory Sompie Size: Prepared By: {None} Methodofogy: Reviewed By: Non e] Deto?s: PROPERTIES: Location: Record of Work Done: Frequency: Category 4: Conclusion: User Cate gory: Category 5 Notes: Category 6 Results 4: SCORECARD: Rating: Samp!e Size: A.4.PRG Criteria (Laws. Regulations 8: Purpose: Directives! Source: Procedure Step: DOE Directives Type: Scope: Assigned To: gigs!? Prepared By: Methodofogy: RevieWed By: (Non e] Demo?s: FRO PERTIES: Location: Record of Work Done: Frequency: Category 4: Conciusr'on: User Category.- Cotegory 5 Notes: Category 6 Resorts 4: SCORECAR D: Rating: Review of Contracting issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory . Plans and Performance Results Procedure Step: Modernization Act of 2010 Type: I: 6 Assigned To: lbllil Prepared By: Reviewed By: PRO PE RTI ES: Location: Frequency: Category 4: User Category: Category 5 Category 6 SCORECARD: Rating: Sample Size: liummary Data-Ii .. A.5.PRG - Department Strategic! Financial Purpose: To determine whether the [inspected Departmentoi Entity] established an effective integrated performance measurement system for strategic planning, program and budget execution, and performance reporting in accordance with the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 Source: A.5.1 Public Law 111?352 Government Performance and Results Act Modernization Act of 2010 i Scope: Methodology: Details: Record of Work Done: Modernization Act of 2010 requires Federal agencies to develop strategic plans for how to establish agencyuievel goals and objectives, as well as annual program goals; define how it intends to achieve those goals; and demonstrate hovtr it will measure agency and program performance in achieving these goals. As such, The Department's strategic plans (A535), annual performance plans, and annual program performance reports comprise the main elements of GPRAMA. Together, these elements create a recurring cycle of planning, program execution, and reporting] Procedure Step: Strategic Plan ?es: Conciusion: Notes: Resuits 4: A.5-PRG - Department Strategic! Financial Purpose: Plans and Performance Results Source: 1.1.5.2 The Department's Strategic Plan, May 2011] A53 Department of Energy Strategic Plan Update Review of Contracting Issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory Procedure Step: Annual Performance/Financial Plans [jummary . Detail I . Assigned To: (THC) Prepared By: {Non e] Scope: Reviewed By: {None} Methodoiogy: PROPERTIES: Location: Details: Frequency: Category 4: Record of Work Done: User Category: Category 5 Con ciasion: Category 6 Notes: SCORECARD: Rating: Resaits 4: Sampie Size: A.5.PRG - Dega rtment Strategichina nclal Purpose: Plans and Performance Results Source: A.5.4 Department's FY 2011 Agency Financial Report, November 2011) 9.5.5 Department?s FY 2011 Annual Performance Report; February 2012} A.5.6 Department?s FY 2011 Summary of Performance and Financial Information, February Type: Assigned To: (W6) (WW0) 2012} Prepared By: [Nan e} Reviewed By: [No nel Scope: PROP ERTIES: Methodoio gy: Location: Frequency: Detoiis: Category 4: User Category: Record of Work Done: Category 5 Category 6 Conclusion: EORE CAR D: Notes: Review of Contracting Issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory .g'samm?ri- .. - Detail -. Rating: Sample Size: Resorts 4: A.5.PRG - Entitv Policies 8i. Procedures Purpose: Procedure Step: Review of entity?specific Source: poiicies, procedure; and practices: Type: Scope: Assigned To: Egg) Prepared By: {None} Methodoiogy: Reviewed By: {None} Detaiis: PROPERTIES: location: Record of Work Done: Frequency: Category 4: Conciusion: User Category: Category 5 Notes: Category 6 Results 4: SCORECARD: Rating: Sampi?e Size: - Entitv Strategic 8. Purpose: PerformancefFingnical Plans Source: Procedure Step: Review of entity?speci?c strategic plan Scope: Tree: (bus) {tum Assigned To: (C) Methodofogy: Prepared By: [None] Reviewed By: [None] Deraiis: Record of Work Done: Review of Contracting Issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory Location: Frequency: Concfusfon: Cateyory 4: User Category: Notes: Category 5 Category 6 Resufts 4: SCURECAR D: Rating: Sample Size: A.7.PRG - Entity Strategic El Purpose: PerformancefFinanical Plans Source: Procedure Step: Review of entity?speci?c performance/financial plans Scope: We: (be) Assigned To: (THC) Methodology: Prepared By: {Nan e] Reviewed By: {No ne] Detofrs: PROPERTIES: Record of Work Done: Location: Frequency: Conclusion: Category 4: User Category: Notes: Category 5 Category 6 Resorts 4: SCORECARD: Rating: Sampfe Size: A.S.PRG NNSA Purpose: Procedure Step: 33(5) Source: