Review of Contracting Issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory "Summarii?j; Detail -- - - stator-ac: - - - ftli?lftliTICC: . .. . . . lat Santila. We asked how he knew about the Sandie CPA. He repiIed that he W35 "0?5 sure how he remembered that there was an arrangement with Sandia and Heather Wilson. 2:5: tor-ac: . . ire of as rhas: Shh-2 We asked 3 i if he was aware of the specific services that Ms. Wilson was to provide and did he agree that such services were appropriate for the use of Dec-artment funds He replied that the original request had a brief statement ofwork in it. However requirements were needed or notquestion the program. He stated that Ms Wilson probably had ex_-ertise in the area based on her position in Congress. We asked t" i? '3 'r it was his idea for use ofSandia's Contract he didn't care if the CPA was used or not. He didn?t want duplicative efforts? like both laboratories were requesting some of the same efforts based on the statement of work. He was looking for ways for the laboratories to be more efficient. 32::5: {inf-KC} . - We aske was there such urgency to find a mechanism that LANL could use to acquIre Wilson's services. m5: {mm eplied that he didn know LANL wanted the agreement at that point in time. We asked if this tvpe of arrangement been made In the past at anv other sites. replied that there Is a whole suppl chain management effort, especiallv at Kansas Citv. He stated that there are both services contracts as well as supplies obtained through this effort. For exam le, there is a push to create staff augmentation contracts that evervone can use. We aske m: mm? hat his expectation was with regard to the issues of duplication. We asked if he expected a ecitic assessment to ensure that Ms. Wilson was not being reimbursed twice for the same service 3?1 '3 eplied that he didn't want the effort to be duplicative and didn?t want overhead charge twice. He stated that he expected their representatives to ensure that the effort was compieted. about deliverables, especially with regards to FAR 31.205.33ifl. Specificallv, he asked about the actual deliverables that Heather Wilson was going to provide as well as the workfreports LANS expected to receive. LANS response was that deliverables would be established in individual task assignments. This did not occur._ Revise: of Contracting Issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory siim' m" are: standpoint ofthe FAR requirements. He it was determine what the deliverabies were. aid replied that the were not required to follow the FAR. He stated that the FAR was not mandated and that not all FAR requirements flowed down to the I I aid that have their own process and procedures. However, he would have expected detailed invoices. I I tated that in 1995 there was a switch to best commercial practices. He stated that the can 0 ow commercial practices and the invoices might not be done either. We aske fhe had discussions with? 5?33? hr anvone from LANL's front office regarding their desire to ac uire Heather Wilson's services. He replied that he could not recall amt discussions. He stated that wouldn't have spoke to him, since he didn't rise to that level. We asked if he had discussions with anyone from Sandia's front office regarding LANLIs desire to acquire Heat er Wilson's services. He re-iied that that he couldn't recall having any discussions with anvone from Sandia's front office. We asked 333353 ?333?3353 if he had discussions with NNSA Sandie Site office personnel regarding his interest in havin 3 LANI. use Sandia 5 existing CPA contract :with Heather Witson. He replied that he did discuss the matter with'fh?: "5 3'33 3'3 3?33 He stated that she worked the subcontracting issues San ia. rt: :5 We asked how the direction to Sandia regarding the use of their CPA for LANL's purposes occurred. He replied that he didn't recall directing the site office at ali. tated that he just "hooked up" 3 3v} land the two contracting groups. II I 353: '3 anted to be "page; when he issued MINI. the denial letter. stated that 3?3 3 '3 '3 .nticipated some Push back from LANL. ozszte We askec be duplicative work performed bv the contractor. He replied that was the whole reason he had the two sites talk to each other; he wanted to avoid a duplication of efforts. 3" 3: 33?3" '3 tated that he had the expectation Review of Contracting issues at Lee Alanine National Laboratow .?liurnrnarer Reviewed By: one) PROPERWES: Location: Frequency: Category 4: User Category: Category 5 Cate gory 6 SCORECARD: Rating: Sample Size: Eatail Methodology: Details: Record of Wont Done: 031(6) @010 Los Alamos Site Office On September 23. 2012, inspectors 031(6) UBJETJECJ conducted an interview withlEbJE?J 00)?)ch let the Los Alamos Site Office. The interview took place at the Los Alamos Site Office. The purpose or the interview was to discuss a consulting subcontract awarded to Ms. Heather Wilson lav LANL. The interview was hasicallv as follows: 5) We asked about the chronologv of events that lead to LANL utilizing Sandia' CPA with Heather Wilson. eplied that a request came in from LANL. He stated that he reviewed the sow and found it to be very weak. 033(7) Istated that he went back to the laboratorv and told them that thou Were not clear enough on re ivera les {see A31 He said that beca eather Wilson, he decided to go to Headquarters for advice from upper management. it was ECJEGJ Iopinion that the contract served as a retainer-stated that- told him that Heat er Wi son had a consulting agreement with Sandia National Laboratorv in the form of a CPA. _aioi that he wanted to determine what the government was going to get for its $10,000 a month. He stated that there were people readily available that could provide the same type of advice as Ms. Wilson. . 5.. M63 .tatecl that LASQ was contacted by the la :ioratcirvl3 336 63 3 J: JZCJ land He stated that both individuals are no longer at the Site Office M63 (le JECJ [stated that. he was; told h?hese individuals not to just reject LANL 5 re use bat instead fact a wear. to get iE done it was at this time he decided to utilize the CPA. we Luho else he discussed the matter with He replied that he discussed the matter (W JKCJ land will] (bit JECJ [stated that the. CPA would limit work to that Which was actually done. He stated that he wanted to keep costs to a minimum. stated that he had a discussion with 6) '3 3 CJ bout a duplicationof efforts and that the use ofthe CPA would avoid this dupiication.F.1.PRG We asked 031(5) (bill) if Heather Wilson had approached LANL to provide consulting services. He replied that Review of Contracting Issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory ;?r'su'avmsw: -- -- Deceit i - 333:5: CHECK: he didn? know it Ms. Wilson approached LANL stated that it was never clear. She said that Ms. Wilson also owns a corporation, but was unsure if there was a connection between the companv and Ms- Wilson as a consultant. aw We aske Is role in attaching a task order to Sancia's CPA in order to acquire Heather Wilson's res: start: Services He replied t1at he served as the place then A believed that? He stated that once the vehicle CPA was in $153 KC: carr :5 ft (C wanted the Heather Wilson contract. [Inspector? 5 note; see A.8.5 for 5 response to request for Ms. Wilson's consulting services] $53353 $353 deduced that there were similar work efforts. He said that he had to trust that Sandie would discuss 331(5) 3:35:33: there was no coordination between the two laboratories. $3 3?3 3331733C3 tated that he had no idea that Sandia was not involved. He said that he assumed that both I?t 5333C 33C3 Iwere going to coordinate with Sandia.A33.a Review of Centre otirtg issuer at Lee Memos Nationai LaboratoryI Summary Detail 033(6) (thiJ . stated that he never had a part in the work efforts. He stated that he didn't believe that he saw the final contact. 53 73' C3 -tated that the laboratorv is the responsible partv. We asked ifaudits were condt cted. He replied that thev conduct file reviews in which thev randomlv pull 10 to 20 files a vear. EJEJJ said that IBISM does have an audit process in which thev review files four times each quarter to cnsure the the contracts are filed properiv. He stated that eSl?v'I is responsible for the detailed oversight. JJ CJ tated that he didn't know ifrtSI?v?I reviewed the Heather Wilson task order. stated that there are certain eitpectations for consultants. He said that there should be a solid Statement of Work and a solid deliverable. He believed that the process used for Heather Wilson's services was a wavr around the consultant process-id not believe that what occurred would have 0316) haoner ed with the current front office. We asked what happened to the draft memorandum to LANL. (air?) replied that the front office would not let him issue the letter. that he felt he was pressured by (bit?i (bit JECJ .ndl?th?J (in JECJ lespeciali Iv center in pushing the contract. 53' JJ CJ stated that althouah he wasn 't intimidated b?ibe?J (be JECJ Ihe did feet uncomfortable, especiallv since he was new at LANL. .EEJEJJ EEJJ JEJJ [believed that contract with Ms. Wilsonldone,his ratings would cted nd emig the forced out. When asked If 163 MC) of Jo SJ JJCJ he repliedthatltwas not expressed butthat he had the feeling hewoi 6 ted He stated that he had seen retaliation occur there earlier which led him to his reasoning. nformed us that EJJ CJ left the laboratory about a 1_1__/2vears_ ago, while aroulnld two veers. ago?SEeFdf? We asked if Contracting Officers were allowed to direct laboratorv or contractor personnel in that manner that was done in the Juiv 1, 2009 memorandum. replied that contracting officers could give performance direction and that it was allowable to direct the contractor to utilize Sandia's CPA. We asked if I ANL's request and issuance of a task order attached to a [Pit acceptable per the Federal hcquisition Regulations or own internal guidance. -Oplied that the use of the CPA was acceptable per the FAR and that it was supposed to provide protection to the government. He stated that request to utilize Heather Wilson as a consultant was ok format-wise. However, the statement of work was inadequate. IEEJESJ not believe that the Statement of Work was ever fixed. i _I?l Review of Contracting Issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory I 3JE5J (CJ had Heather Wilson. employee! $103353 at this point, JGJ em toIEtiJf?J tbitti went to the the matter USJUJKCJ as pressured to approve a subcontract with Heather Wilson. this alone caused rum concern. summary. .-Detail,- Categorys Category 6 Race rd of Work Don e: II 6 7 SCORECARD: began the meeting bv presenting a list of concerns with the Heather Wiison contract {see Rating: attached}. Sampi?e Size: 0316) We asked about the chronologv of events that lead up to reporting to the Inspector General?s Of?ce. (c3 apiied that in August Public Affairs received an Associated Press FOIA request for all contracts Haiti. and discovered that LANL had a contract with Ms. ?v'ti'iisonlEEJEESJ EEJEUECJ I reported tha (W) (b30333) initiallvr didn?t approve the LANL reque t. However as a new 03W 0330333) stated that then went to his - nd to the Site Office Counsel. He stated that the; all agreed that ?nto it further. He stated that he gathered the ?les, which gave him more concern. inspector Generai's Office and up his ct ain of command and discussed lat Headquarters. M63 stated that he discussed the Eire) (bio) J5J Wilson- repli subcontract with Heather supervisors. 033(6) (13ij was involvec. We asked what infor'natiori asked which rinse personnel were' involved. He believed that matter With and mid the fullv supported his disclosure to the couidnentioned that due to their cooperative audit strategi?, thev never saw the specific invoices associated with the subcontract, which would have been needed in this case. We asked about the deliverables for the subcontract. (c3 Heather Wilson file from LANL and ask how the work was communicated and how it was delivered. It was opinion that after Ms. Wiison lost the election she reached into the Treasurv for a monev grab. Wilson. J6) JEGJ iso stated that he because it was the Lab's front office that requested the contract (bio?) CJ Cth?J EthiJ bei?J EthiJ rm also stated that He stated Iwould know and it should be reflected in stated that it we needed to get a copy of the EEJFEJ EEJEUECJ Ihad to confirm that there was a sole source contract with Heather as that the information is contained in April 1 request to the Site Office. We the decision?making process regarding the LANL reduest for a stated that he did not know which NN A 6J 7J CJ pnnel were e-mailsto his Headquarters] might also know who ere informed of the request on Mav Review of Contracting Issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory We asked if anvone at EANL might have in his decisior to ran_t a subcontract with Heather Wilso J6) Cl replied that the laborator has no influence on asked if any LANL personnel might have been coerced. 53' ?3 CJ replied that he observed e?mails in the file that were questioning the invoices. However, the invoices were approved because they were informed that 93(6) MU MU had approved the transaction. We discussed the fact that gm Icontacted LAMS Management concerning the subcontract with Heather Wilson. He stated that the discussion was vilithlUJJEESJ IBusiness Services, who asked if anvone was in trouble in his group. IKWJ 03le lreplied that there were no issues with the technical people. Conclusion: Notes: Results 4: A.8-PRG - NNSA Purpose: Procedure Step: Source: Type: . Assigned To: (?ll?i Scope: Prepared By: 6! El 2014 Reviewed By: {None} Methodology: PROPERTIES: Details: Location: We it Done: em" of thtotCJ . . Category 4: On October 31, 2012, Inspector conducted an interview User Category: telephonicailv with Los Alamos Site Office during the zoos time period. Category 5 The purpose of the interview was to discuss a consulting subcontract awarded to Ms. Heather Wilson bv t?fiat?egrorjiur 6' LANL. The interview was basicallv as follows: Review of Contracting issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory Emma? Detaii..' Eth?J SCORECARD: We asked about the chronology of events that led to LANL utilizing Sandia' CPA with Heather Wilson. beE Rating: (le Jlreplied that it came to his attention that LANS was interested' In acquiring Heather Wilson' 5 service Sample Size: en It was raised by the Laboratory duri meet weekly to give ?heads up" J: managers and the?: (th?J I 3JE5J (th?J statd as going to update LASD mana referred to an April 16, 2009 e?mail fro We asked 53' JJ replied than stated that the warrant came from JJ April 16, 2009 e-mail [see attachment J5J c; meeting. He expiained that LASD and he Laborator stated that these meeting include. EEJEJECJ i Manager. He recalled the next discussion about Heather Wilson [and theltht?J then mentioned an April 3, 2009 e-maii that was sent from Iconcerning a review of concerns raised by [in JJCJ e?maIl discusses the fact that the effort is an initiative sponsored by thelile?J UJJEJJECJ land it appeared that 53' CJ as personally working the issues [see Attachment 1). -, then discussed an Aprii22,2009e-mailfro Jtotc hfm5e ff 03K: JECJCJ 5J - (th?J - I - stated that it was during this meetIng that thel lasked why LANL dIdn utilize the San Ia contract and leverage the contract in order for LANL to receive services. bet?J a . to his The C?tht?J an E15103 reported that Heather Wilson had a contract with Sandie for similar servicesl (JDJEJJ rnakes the suggestion that LANE work with Sandia to utilize the CPA [see attachment . . 5J TJ CJ hen referred to an April 6, 2009 e-mail fro-hat discussed the fact that ement on the Heather Wilson request [see attachment 3 requesting more time to respond to Hethen questions {see attachment Istated that these quastions were sent in an if he had any discussions directly with Sandia National Laboratory officiam EJJ JJ may have had discussions with Sandie, because he had the "footbail." SJ CJ who was thelbet?J UBJEJJECJ had Review of Contracting issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory 'Summarv- I We asked if the laboratory tried to leverage either his or his recollection. thev did not to leverage his position. He stated that they woul s) land that it would be atvpical for them to try a different path than We asked it the find some way to make the request work. (W J. olictted (bJ EJDJETJECJ . IEJEJEEH utilizing the CPA We aske- EEK ?bx about the use of the CPA: had he seen the Laboratory.r use a mechanism in this manner ther Wilson. He replied that the Laboratorv does attach task orders for prior to the task orcer with Hes supplies. However, cool that We asked i 6) would've felt pressure to get the contract with He?_ stated that it was unusual to attach a task order for services. He said that it ha {in for example, the lab to Headquarters utilizing an interrentittir arrangement 5) stated IEJEEJ '5?)ij must have seen a bene?t to use the CPA, with less contracts and one contact point. assistance prior to denial. He said tha was looking for a way to make it work; thus deriving a solution fron' (bl if he was aware of the use of Sandia' CPA- He replied that he was aware but not involved in osition replied that, to ESJ TJ d?ve nut in a re-uest to TJ .0 him that replied that 33; input. We asked replied that there are different feedback loops: the aboratorv cculd got could ve come to himself 0 back to '3 3C) egain but would Instead go to Headquarters}. 1-de CJ However (hm didn' believe that the la came has to him durin a meeting, the request might die there rHe said that [bi-:35? $5135:ch Ions but if he EEJE Ididn' relav those discussions to him. However, could not reca a disctISsion J5J (thT tated that stated thatIE?jiJf?J that if the risk was low, According risk.A83-eF.1.PRG We asked bei?J was used to push a small consulting contract. stated that i ften had concerns, either with Procurement, RFPs or was apprehensive and this apprehension was frequently triggered. libi'f?i' [would handle the issues himself. If the risk was medium (WW 3'0 [1th) mug 6J TJ CJ the Service Center for assistance. If the risk was high, ?53 would raise the issue with Iviewed the Heather Wilson contract as high IEEJEEJ f5) replied the [are] EVE El SID Review of Contracting Issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory Summary .. (hm Itechnical function was as a .: W. (WJ MENU and work issues and initiatives for the (him) lassumed that was why J6) C) was enaed in obtaining the services of Ms. Wilson. We asked if the laboratory could issue a retainer contract. implied that the legal Office could issue retainer contracts. but that was a se ate protocol. He said that he's not big on paving monev in advance of services being providedlEEJEm EEJEU stated that the FAR has special requirements that allow for retainers. However. he has only seen retainers used in international work in which the entity needed the money in order to ful?ll the request. Conclusion: Notes: Results 4: A.3.PRG - NNSA Purpose: .. 6 .. Procedure Step: Source: Type: Assigned To: Egg Scope.- Prepored By: (C) 6! El 2614 Reviewed By: {None} Methodology: PROPERTIES: Details: Location: Frequency: Record of Work Done: (131(6) (W) Cotegory4: On November 6 2012, inspector and conducted a telephonic interview of User Category: the Los Alamos Site Office. The purpose of the interview was to discuss Categorys a consulting task order awarded to Ms. Heather Wilson bv LANL. The interview was basically as follows: 6 category (bite 1 . Stated that he didn recall a lot of the details regarding LANL 5 request to have Heather Wilson SCORECARD: as a Consultant. He said that he thought the Laboratorv was going to use the Sandie contract and issue task Rating: orders against it. 53' ?3 tated that the LANL was working separately withl?bj?m I He _$ornpie Size: said that he was never a COR or took training as a COR. 0330333) Itook classes to be a COR and Review of Contracting Issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory sum-may a may have even been certified as a COR. WE stated that he counted to handle the LANL request. 161mm . '353 . . . set as the gov pushing to get a contract With Heather Wilson. He did not know how muc 36] DJ pushing-also didn?t know what motivated them to want a separate contract. He thought that the laboratory may have corporatelv wanted to be separate from Sandia. _stated that at the time of the request, Heather Wilson was a private citizen. However, he didn't know the rules on contracting with her other than she was a management consultant for the iaboratorv. 'Jo 3?ch stated that Sandia was the first to use Heather Wilson as a consultant, then LANL. When informed that Ms. Wiison also had dealing with other DOE entities, he replied that he didn?t know about the other entities. 6) 73 stated that there were no clear deliverables es_tab ished in the contract with Heathe Wilson. He said he didn't know what the laboratory's intent was. Who stated that J5.) rm may have involved Headquarters in on the discussion. He stated that 6] C) has a conserve .Ive individual. I. .. ed were any concerns expressed l'e lied that he couldn't recai - 03m (b3 ver coming to him or expressing any concerns. He stated Imav have gone t- @053 Ireplied that 03mg) Eb] 5] told him only on one instance that the laboratorv was interested in acquiring Heather Wilsonasked-if he had ever seen an arrangement like the one LANL had for Heather Wilson. He replied that LANL does use Sandie and other entities and issues task orders. However, this is mainlv for components. We discussed the LASI o-versiht of LANL's procurement process. We asked it LASD has no oversight on LANL's end result- '3 6] eplied that he didn?t know ifthat was true in general terms. He said that they do monitor the Laboratorv. For example, thev monitor construction contracts on a continuous basis. However, the Site Office wouldn?t have been triggered to monitor a contract like the Heather Wilson one. Review of Contracting Issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory iumma'rq saw Heather Wilson's name on a list of consulting agreements. She noted that this was around the time Ms. Wilson was leaving office and wondered if this agreement was a ?soft landing." '1 51') 7) C3 stated that she was aware of the Advice and Assistance contract Ms. Wilson had with Sandia with the Kevstone Company. .. 6 .. Istated that she contacted nd asked him to check into M5.Wilson's consulting arrangement. 033(6) (WW3 tated that she didn't know what 63 did with her request. asked again if 6) T) C) assistedlEEJE?J 55357359 in assisting LANL's efforts to bring Heather Wilson in as a consultant. She replie- at she did not assistlEbJEGJ I Conclusion: Notes: Results 4: A.8.PRG - NNSA Purpose: Procedure Step: 63 C3 two Scarce: Type: Assigned To: Scope: Prepared By: FEJKJJ EIEIZO 14 Reviewed By: [None] Methodology: PROPERTIES: Details: Location: Frequency: Record of Work Done: Category 4; User Category: Category 5 MgtO Contracting Support Division Category 5 5] 7] . . 0? October 4: 2012; EEJEJJECJ lam] Icontiucted an interview with SCORECARD: (W) interview took place in building 383, Albuquerque Review of Contracting Issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory Rating; Complex. The purpose of the interview was to discuss a consulting subcontract awarded to Ms. Heather Sample Size: Wilson by LANL. The interview was basicalh,f as follows: After introducing the subject of the interview first stated that Heather Wilson consulting with the laboratories was not wrong. She stated that in Ari] 2009. she had asked LANS to bring up the file on Heather Wilson's Statement of Work?tated that this request occurred during a purchasing system reviev; i631 dull a couple of files. She said that Heather Wilson had "caught her eve." After the said that she contacte- 55' review the contract. When asked if the request was in the form of an e?mail, she replied that it mat:r have been and that she would check her computer. 3 also stated that she recalled that she asked Sandia if they had anvthing. checking wit DJ 5) T) C) It was confirmed that Sandie did have a contract with Ms. Wilson. i - that her current role and responsibilities were. She replied that she was a ith the Contracting Support Division?stated that she was the epresentative in Albuquerque a'td implemented olicvr file reviews. She said that her reviews were for contracts over $25 million. We asked fshe had the same responsibilities in 2009. She rep ied that her reso were the same, although the dollar threshold may have been $20 million. M63 stated that normally she would not have seen the Heather Wilson subcontract. We asked if she had worked lat Los Alamos Site Of?ce, in the past. She replied that she had worked witHimeJ 03%de ainlv as a support to his efforts teaching him what he needed to know. stated thail 9 (6) (WT) had not been EEJEUECJ I (Q 32552le before; instead, he had been an auditor in the past. We stated that 6) informed us that he had asked 6) for her ass'stance in ?nding a way to brin_ Heather Wilson to LANL as a consultant. We asked her if she plaved a role in M63 Ebjm?cj efforts. EEJEEJ EEJEEJECJ l'eplied that she didn?t remember the events that way. She stated that she thought the contract was atreadv awarded. m?I 5 II We asked fshe worked on Sandia's CPAwith Heather Wilson. She repliedthat she didn?t do any work on the CPA. She stated that she was not assigned to Sandia at the time. We askedlEEJEGJ EEJETJECJ if she participated in anv discussions with the Sandie Site Office regarding LANL's request. She replied that she did not participate in any discussions. She stated that her group doesn't usuallv cross paths. Review of Contracting Issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory sum-m3?. I I. I I I: natal? I E. Jae JED chime; ISJ rJ cJ We discussed an April 3 e?mall from In which was cc'd. that she recalled the e-mail, but didn't recall if she really reviewed the contract. We a would've been EEJETJECJ Ireplied that it was probably due to her mentor status withl?gjgm a and that she was overseeind?bJE?J Istated the-probabl wanted her to take a look at the questions. She stated that she did review the e-mail, and believed tha?jgm @5059 as asking the appropriate questions. We discussed the purchasing system review. 6] stated that they had to approve LANE initial purchasing system when they took over in 2006. She stated that had simply Used the University of California's purchasin- stern. After the initial approval, they spent a lot of time looking at their procedures and clauses. ?stated that at the point of the discovery of Heather Wilson's subcontract, they were checking stuff they normally didn't see {contracts under $20 million}. She said in this we the would be able to tell if LAMS was following their system, We asked when this review occurred. 6] replied that it was in April 2009. We asked EEJEEJ EEJEUECJ Iwhy she contactedl?bjt?] 03)wa I She replied that they Were both interested in the subcontract. We asked if she had any concerns regarding the Heather Wilson contract. ?eplied that she just wanted to make sure the subcontract was fair in all things sole sourcin aricing agreement, We asked if there were any concerns with the Statement of Work?replied that she didn?t recall having a concern with the sow. We asked if there was any overlap with J5) T) C) request to review his questions and her discovery of the Heather Wilson subcontractl?l??l Ej?l?ilgcl replied that there was no overlap. We asked (W) if she ever had any conversationls] I subcontract. She replied that she did not have any contact wit 6) We asked if there was an thin- ?aw that caused concern. She replied that there was nothing. She stated that? was asking the right questions of the contractor such as did they iook at other sources, was there proper justification, what were they doing about the pricing, and was the travel consistent with their rates. She stated that she only looked at the questions and did not review or evaluate response. regarding the Heather Wilson Conciusion: Notes: Results 4: Review of Contracting Issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory A.8.PRG . NNSA Procedure Step: ECJ two Type: Assigned To: Egg Prepared By: (C) 5f6f2014 Reviewed By: {None} PROPERTIES: Location: Frequency: Category 4: User Category: Category .5 Category 6 5C0 RECAR D: Rating: Sample Size: Purpose: To document telephonic interview wit 5 JM ll 3 Los Alamos Site Office. Source: Scope: Methodoiogv: Details: Record of Work Done: (th?J C) . On Januarv 14, 2013, Inspectors an onducted a telephonic Interwew Eb]? will? at the Los Alamos Site foice. The purpose of the interview was to diScuss (bx allegation that he was ?pressured" into issuing a task order against a CPA awarded to Heather Wilson. The interview was hasicalltir as follows: 6) We confirmed with (C) that he felt pressured to take action on the LANL request for Ms. Heather Wilson's services. We asked FEES) (thr'J if he had any evidence. such as documents, e?mails, discussions with other individuals. which wou corroborate this pressure. He replied that one of the main thin-s that would corroborate the pressure was the original draft memorandum denying LANL's request. ?Stated that if you compared the original draft to what was actuallv issued, you would see a large discrepancv. He stated that he could not get the managers to sign off on the original draft memorandum. F.1.PRG We aske-it he discussed being pressured with anvone else. He replied that he did nc being pressured with anvone until the FOIA request came in. At that [.?lointlEEJE?J EBJEU Iinformed (W6) about the facts . - ir rnstances surrounding the 033(7) [stated that last week he'created a white paper for?at Headquarters. We asked why the white paper was :reated. He replied that he didn't know. We asked what information the white paper contained. EEJJESJ stated that it had the same information he provided to the Inspector General's of?ce. We askedl?cjlf?j lif he had anything in writing that discussed being pressured. He replied that there was Review of Contracting issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory .oetail'j- - - . not anything in writing, but thatlEbJE?J Iwanted to "make it happen."- Conclusion: Notes: Resuits 4: A.3.PRG - NNSA Procedure Step: Type: Assigned To: Prepared By: Reviewed By: PROPERTIES: Location: Frequency: Category 4: User Category: Category 5 Ca tegory 6 SCUR ECARD: Rating: Sample Size: Purpose: 5 TO d?cument JnterViEW With (by: Jib/1': Sandia Site Office. Source: Scope: Methodofogv: Detoiis: Record of Work Done: 03(6) 031wa . (23(2) 701-, inspector and interviewed {8&5thK National Nuclear Security Adm nistration, Sandia Site Office. The interview took place at language in R-ovisin {t that could be construed as lobbying. in response, Sandia 33had concerns on this revision as well. He stated that changes were macle. l?TifC I the Site Office, room 1320. The purpose of the interview was to discuss revision 5 of Contract Purchase Agreement 9051?1 awarded to Ms. Heather Wilson bv Sandia National Laboratory. The interview was basicallv as follows[Inspector's note: in a telephone conversation with-on January 23, he disclosed some reievant information. He stated that the reason he received the package because the contra ng the $100,000 threshold. He said that the package sent to him was Revision 4 of the CPA CJ tated sat a that based on the information in Revision 4, he came up with questions and concerns. here was stated that he kept the comments and responses. This document was sent to Inspector Eg??j 039 re) Review of Contracting Issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory Sample Size: aSHmmarv- - -D?t?il (13mgaskec how the "prohibited activities? issue was resolved. He replied that when he received revision 4 of the CPA, he concluded that the Statement of Work was very broad and it had an appearance of lobb in con ressi anal relations}. He stated that he had Sandia re-word the language in the Statement of Work. 3 63 5' C3 reiterated that the Site Office took so much time and worked with Sandie, but thev still did what theyr did prior to revision 5- He said that these actions were disconcerting. Conclusr'Om Notes: Results 4: A.9.PRG - SNL Purpose: A533 (W05) Procedure Step: e: Eb) Source: Assigned To: (133(3ch Prepared By: 2014 Scope: Reviewed By: {None} Methodology: Location: Details: Frequency: Category 4: Record of Work Done: 6] C) . - User Category: On November 15, 2012, Inspectors and Interviewed Category 5 (W) (b30333) at Sandia National Laboratorv. @(?mlwas accompanied Cotegory? (WW i rvi 1 Building 802, Sandia National Laboratory. The purpose of the interview was to scuss a consulting subcontract QDSIHJ awarded to Ms. Heather Wilson by Sandia National SCORECARD: Laboratorv. The interview was basicallv as follows: Rotting: a) 7] c3 We con?rmed the a) c; 'he Sandia Delegated Representative on the contract A93 bookmark We aske lwhat discussion took place and with whom that resulted in a purchase requisition for a subcontractor with this contractor. She replied that she was involved with some of the Review of Contracting Issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory discussions for the CP- - with Ms. Wilson. mone uppE' specificallv mentione an ?g 00) 5215?;ka We asked about the nature of the discussions. 6) Ireplied that thev discussed the need to change from a consulting contract to a CPA. She said that she was not sure who or what initiated the talks. However, it was decided that the CPA would be more effective than he consultine cont, ct. We asked if the EEJEAJ EEJETJECJ Legal department weighed in on the matter. 0333(5) 0313 replied thathJEGJ (bx JKCJ and were involved. 033(5) 6 6 We asked who wrote the sow for this consultant. ECJ 'eplied that (bx JE Ja ridEbj? ?bx I drafted the Statement of Work. She stated thatlibj??] was that one that ultimateld signed the 6] document- We asked if it was typical for upper ieve managers to draft 6) '3 was unsurelEggEc; E53 Irepiied that anvone can write the sow and that it depends on where the request is coming from and the expertise of the individual. We 35kt: ose decision was it that she assume the SDR role for this contract. CJ relied thatC Mb)? EEJE JECJ Idecided that she be the SDR for the contract. We asked- JEJ Wit sheC was aware of the SDR duties and responsibilities on this contract. She replied that she was aware of her duties and responsibilities. MAJ MU . - . (bite (bio) . We asked (C) if she directed the contractor on this contract. replted that she did direct Ms. Wilson through task orders. She stated that she coordinated with the end-users to a certain extent. (PW) (WU that sometimes Heather Wilson would work with the end users directlv. E.3.PRG In these cases .i 6) aid that she wouid he informed of these meeting lav either Heather Wilson or the end user. -xplained that she was not involved in the actual meetings and that the end user or Ms. Wilson would inform her of these meetings through informal discussions aske-f she inspected and accepted the deiiverables on the contract. She replied that she did inspect and accept the deliverables which consisted of meetings, discussions [menu which were classified], partici-ation in advisorv panels, planning sessions, and the National Securitv Speaker Series.D.3.PRG stated that there wasn't a white paper, reports or hard copy deliverables associated with the no] time] -tated that the deirverables she spoke of were meeting discussions, advisorv panel updates, strategic planning sessions, and National Securiti,r Speaker Series notes. She clarified that the deliverables