Review of Contracting Issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory - Detail Svstem Responsibilitlesf?iuthorities are limited to readfwrite, Such as the case ofthe individual entering documents through scanning. The majority of personnel with access are limited to read onlv. As information is scanned, at new {unique} record is created. Additional scannings do not result in multiple revisions. One file does not replace another and each is noted in an index for each PO {Purchase Order]. POIS was established in this manner, about fifteen years ago, to serve as a vault. Deletions are not possible with the exception of those required for systematic maintenance by technical folks. Data accessible through POIS included several types of information such as the actual PU requisition fed to throu ,uter svstems. Invoices were separater scanned into the ms {invoice Approval System, se 6) interview). When a subcontract closed the buvers Procurement Specialist) hard copv file is submitted for scanning. Typically: the files are large. 03mm reiterated that documents can onlv be added to the system, not modified or deleted. stated that there was no war; to look at something like that. He did offer to provide me with a screen at of the index for the Wiison subcontract (see attached).{ H.101 IWith that, our conversation concluded on the POIS capabilities. - . . 6 linuired as to whether records of who viewed what and when were maintained bv the system. mi 5) Conclusion: Notes: Results 4: A.10.PRG LAM. Purpose: 6 Procedure Step: (bx MW JE Source: Type: Assigned To: gaging Scope: Prepared By: EIEIZOM Revrevved By: {None} Methodology: Review of Contracting Issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory -- betail - 5?35? PROPERTIES: Details: Location: Frequency: Record of Work Done: Category 4" 3?91 3? ?ll?ifn (C3 LAAGJ condUcted an interview 010316) 03mm Category: LAN [65? Ianl.ovi in her office at the Otowi 5 Building, os-ozsmoo. Category 6 one (bite SCORECARD: First (C3 provided an overview of the invoice processing system. She explained that when invoices Rating: are received they are scanned into the system. The IAS {invoice approval system) is updated during Sample Size: which the invoices are queued for the assigned invoice approver. The invoice approver checks the invoice with the terms of the subcontract to ensure that the provider is billing correctly given the type of purchase order The invoice approver then checks to see that funds are available, notes any discounts available (in this case, term net EU days]. The system routes the PO to proper invoice processor, requester and buyer who is required to log in periodically to determine whether an invoice requires action on their part. The IAS does not generate automatic email notifying individuals when action is neededSecondE12);E mt xplained that there is a Comment Log available if there are additional details that the invoice processor should know in processing invoices of a particular PD lie, the requirement for detailed invoices}. Eut, that it is the buyer who should probably check that the invoice complies with the subcontract terms. The buier enters the details into the notes section for the invoice processor, if any are necessary. We asked that 031(6) provide copies of all invoices for which there were notes in the Comment Log. Those invoices are included as attachment IAS Activity Reports. Third. we asked under what circumstances that an Envoice approver would send emails outside ofthe system given the availability of the Comment Log WE stated that there really was no reason to but that it is possible that the invoice approve: might. We also inquired as to whether she received any unusual directions with regard to the to which she replied that she had not. 030(5) Finally, we stated that we would like to speak to the invoice approver.(CJ mentioned that she was End advised us of her schedule this week. We mentioned that we would be contacting Review of Contracting issues at Les Alamos National Laboratory _Surnmang Eb) later to her role. $me (mm agreed to provide the AP5321 in effect during the Wilson P0 or a contact that would be able to provide it to us. {see Sample Size: Conclusion: Notes: Results 4: LANL Purpose: Cbl??l Procedure Step: (C) Source: Type: Assigned To: Scepe: Prepared By: 6f6f2014 Reviewed By: {Nor e} Methodology: PROPERTIES: Details: Location: Frequency: Record of Work Done: (10%?me (W) (at?)th Category 4: 0n Tues.de October ?3 2012. Aur itor (C1 LAAG, conducted an interview 0! I User Category: 031(6) (W'ch {66? (mm Elanlgovl. The interview took place in (W) fficei Category 5 Otowi Eiuilding, 63?0261. Also in attendance, for the first 15 minutes of our disc_u sion, was category 5 (WUch We alga Spoke mlrbir?i (bitritci ?65 (bits) 0:05)th Ianl. 0v} SCORECARD: in her office for the last few minutes of our discussion. Rating; Eb} - - . . According to the invoice approval svstem (JAE) (areInvOIces received from Heather Wilson for consulting services As such, we inquired he process in; which she processing invoices, her duties and responsibilities, and her interaction wit ot er LANS Review of Contracting issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory employees with regard to this subcontract. explained that invoices are canned nto the Oracle svstem upon receipt by a scannifi crew. The i?Ji?J TJEUECJ I invoice appears in the IAS queue for review and release to the requester and buverc described her review as consisting checking that sufficient funds were available for the PO, costs were divided as required ii.e., consulting and travel costs} and that the unit price is appropriate. She further explained that funding is entered or procuremnt when the subcontract is executed and logged into the system for the invoice processing. As example, noted the subcontract was incorrecth entered as Unit EA (each) rather than a NTE [Not To Exceed] [see Example of Each A103 If coded as each; she can only release one invoice on this subcontract. When recode . NTE, which the maximum funds available, multiple invoices can be paid under the PO.contacted 6] to advise him of the situation and request an internal correction. She accessed and printed the emails for our information [see IAS Miscode Correspondence AIDA During our reviEw of the emails, we found the correspondence was limited to the coding correction. We asked if there were anv other emails she sentfreceive with reard to this PD. mic) mentioned there Were only a few [in total] and referred to her email account 0330 031 found and provided us with two emails exchanged with Wilson referencing signed invoices [see (bl I son emails A.10.5 Eb) . . Once [7)ch completes her initial review, the invoiceis reeased to the requester and buyer Ifbm] (mm Ifor review and approvalidisapproval. Whenreieases the invoice, the system generates a notification to the requester and buver that invoice requires action. The rec uester and louver logs into the svstem to access a queue of invoices for which each is responsiblel?bgs 3(6) 03) frequently enters pavment due date reminders into the Comment Log of the system. Additional informationlinstruction from the requester andfor buver can also be communicated to the invoice processor through the Comment Log. Once all necessarv approvals are received on an invoice, the invoice processor releases payment of the invoice [see was Activitv Reports pg 8 as exampleAJuz, second bookmark We obtained and reviewed each Ins Activitv Sheet with a comment [See Ins Activity Reportsn.10.2]. Aside from reminders of the invoice payment due date and two instances in which the invoice was short?paid for exceeding allowed travel costs, there were no comments of anv relevance to the current inspection. 03(5) Eb] At our request, (are) walked us through the process she uses when approving an invoice. We also asked to see each screen tab (Main. LineI Terms 8c Conditions, Special Proc Summarv and Add'l Data) relative Review of Contracting issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory to the PO (see was Miscode Correspondence pg 1 A1114 None of the available tabs provided detailed information on the subcontr ct term:r the requirement for detailed invoices, signed certification]. In fact, most fields were blank. (bl xplained that the svstem information she showed us was all the information she was provided in reviewing invoices. She reported not to have access to the subcontract files. Given the limited information of whic 0316) [bl reported to have access, we inquired as to how she knew not to approve/process the invoice with the unsigned certification explained thatidn't know until 0:?me Iemailed her iinsigne Invoice Emails A106 and res Activitv Reports, pg 4 A102 first bookmark]. At this point offered that she doesn't get a lot of training on the invoice requirements and has a lot of work that keeps her busy. Emma] Iprocessed two of the invoices and I met with her briefli?: he rferrEd her calendar and noted both davs were Fridavs so she would have processed the invoices as 5) er an to regularly has Fridav off. 5) 73 ?3 lso noted that she took no further action on either 0 release the invoices to the requester. She stated that she had not sent anv emails regarding the invoices or this subcontract. Finaliv, we inquired of as to whether anvone from LAMS had contacted her about this subcontract since it closed or during the period of performance. She answered that bevond the initial correct, invoice requiring signature and short pay, no one had. Conclusion: No tes: Resorts 4: A.10.PRG I LANL Purpose: Eb) Procedure Step: (TIC) 1 Source: Type: Review of Contracting Issues at Loo Alamos National Laboratory ion-imam . J: i netai't Assigned To: Eb] Scope: Prepared By: Reviewed By: [None] Methodoiogy: PROPERTIES: Date-its: Location: Frequency: Record of Work Done: Category 4: Date ?t Location: October 3, 2012 at 11:00 PM User Category: Conference Room 2001B, LANL Procurement Category 5 125 Central Park Square, Los Alamos, NM. Category 6 I arti t5' sconecneo: 363 C) lam, NM, {5.35} 56? Ego the) Rating: GIG InspectoriLEJmJ (WW Western Region Office, Albuquerque, NM, {505] 345 (him) 39mph? Size: DIG Auditoribii?i (?33 os lamos Audit Office, Los Mamas, umtsosi satu?bJ??J DJUJECJ (TJECJ Puroose: Obtain background on the Heather Wilson consulting subcontract at LANL. During the meeting, provided the following information: that he is a manager in the LANL Acquisition department and 6] C) is more show said that in 2099 when the issue came up that LANL senior managemem: wanted to initiate a consulting contract with Heather Wilson, his 5) l' 9 (him) I - E) aid that 7] directed him to draft a consulting agreement with, former Congresswoman, 5] I. Heather Wilson. aid he figured he was being tested since the contractor was a high profile individuals He understood that the National Securitv Division at LANL was the requester. Subsequentlv he found out the 033(6) @010 LANllbe??J lw as assigned as the rlical representative (COTE) on the future contracts - stated that he had discussions with his supervisor on what the statement of work would be along with other details necessaryr for the consultant contract. He provided this information in the Review of Contracting issuas at Los Alamos National Laboratory Summary -- Detail -- 'initial letter that he drafted to send to NNSA for approval. 3%be said he then drafted the contracting approval letter to the NNSA, Los Alamos Site Office Gall?)ch requesting that NNSA approve the consultant agreement With Heather Wilson as detailed. -aid the initial request to the NNSA Site Office was declined. He recalled there were several reasons stated by the contracting officer as to why, but he did not recall specifics at the time ofthis meeting. 031?} Isaid later LANL was directed to utilize a Sandia CPA contract that was already in place with tvls. Wilson, and to issues their specific task orders to the contractor under the current contract erms ard conditions. IHSDECtorEElg?fbl asked ifthis was a common approach to issuing these type of consultant agreements and he stated "no, not really? aid that their common type of consulting flair?"HT" agreement is Specific in nature along with he negotiated hourly rate; not a retainer type of arran tement as they currently had with Ms. Wilson. in said during the time period that he was establishing the agreement he had several occasions are he needed to communicate with 353 C3 aid he communicated With Heather Wilson both electronically and by telep tone. He said he recalled in one conversation regarding the invoices, that Ms. Wilson stated that she would not provide a detailed invoice since she does not do that for Sandia and she was not going to do it for them. I said she also stated that the $10,000 a month fee was not negotiable- That is er fee to government clients, and her regular fee to commercial accounts was much higher. El isaid he asked Ms. Wilson how many clients she currently had, since he was concerned about er hwing time to compiete the necessary hours as stipulated in the contract he was preparing. said he recalled that she did not exactly answer the question but rather offered that she wou not have more than five at the time of the LANL subcontract. said she asked Ms. Wilson if she would provide them with a copy of the transmittal letter that provided to congress that she was entering into a contract with the National Laboratories. (Elf) (b3 said she stated that she was inSulted that they would think she had not done the appropriate teps prior to negotiating these contracts. She said at if she had not completed the appropriate notification that she would be guilt of a felony. said she refused to provide the documentation as requested. - said that Ms. Wilson also disagreed with the hours that were stated in the current Sandie CPA contract {minimum of 50 hours) and said that she wanted it changed in the LANL contract to read {estimated 50 hours to be performed Review of Contracting Issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory - - - .v .. . teeters? - said that a deosion was made when the contract was completed that it would he transferred to CJ _Contracting of?cer in the Acquisition Department at LANL. for the dew to claw administration of the contract and to approve the invoices. Conclusion: Notes: Resorts 4: - Purpose: 6 Procedure Step: ?bx I Source: Type: Assigned To: Scope: Prepared By: 6/6! 20 14 Reviewed By: {None} Methodology: PROPERTIES: Details: Location: Frequency: Record of Work Done: Category 4: Date 3. Location: October 3, 2012 at 1:06 PM User Category: Conference Room 20010, LANL Procurement Category .5 125 Centre! Park Square, Los Alamos, NM. Category 6' Partici _arlt5: (103(5) SCORECARD: IEEJEGJ 665 EU Rating: Sample Size: GIG [Western Region Uffice,Albuq1er ue NM, (505} 84 imam DIG Audito Les Alamos Audit Office, (505: 567i Summary? Review of Contracting Issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory PUFEOSE: Meetinngisoussion with Legal Counsel regarding Heather Wilson Subcontract at LANL During the meeting 3 63 provided the following information: - was) Emmch lsaid that he understood that Ms. lWilson had a prior relationship with Los Alamos National Laboratory {Los Alamos] when the University of California had the contract. aid that he heard, in early 2009, that "the front learned to develop a consulting contract with Heather Wilson. He understood that She was to provic consulting type I serices to the National Seourity and Global Security Divisions at Los niamos aid he was told by "management? that Heather's experience was valuable, that she the laboratory and their mission, and that she could rin lot of background and experience to topics that LANL was currently interested in expandingaid their story was pretty convincing. 1- Wsaid one of his initial concerns was with the Statement of Work (BOW). HE did not 35 though it was specific or detailed enough. He said the Lab should consider developing tasks identifying work products since they were going to agree to pay the contractor 51o, one a month for consulting type services. 3 63 said he heard that NNSA had turned down the request sent by ASM [the acquisition department] for approval for the consultant contract. He then heard that they were being directed to utilize {piggyback} a current SNL contract with Ms. Wilson. 0 in the end, he said that the contract was to be a ?xed?abor rate contract where LANL would issue task orders under the SNL CPA and pay the contractor $10,000 each month for the work she provided. aid he was involved in the early discussions witregarding setting up the contract but that he did not participate in much more until they recently received a FDIA request regardin he o'k that Heather Wilson did for LANL. I Inspecto asked if he knew thatdid not provide the Laboratory with deiiverables during the 19 months that the contract ran. aid he was not aware of this fact, but he thought that they should have been somethl 1e develp sad as a result of her work with National Security issues. inspector aidthat (mm ad responded to the lG?s request for the deliverables that were none requrre.said he wishecilE?EiEgJJ (?33 would have consulted with him priorto making that statement to the IG. 0 It Review of Contracting Issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory ?jmmary' -. Detail I I Ithen asked (EKG) if he knew that the invoices were essentially blank and did not provide the necessar information as stipulated in CPR 31205-33, Professional and Consultant Service lsaid he became aware when they conducted research on the contract when the request came in. lEJl5J (?33 lstated that he thought that she should have provided more information and deta' a - invoices than were accepted. 0 Inspectthoithhat essentially the government does not know what services were provided since there were no deliverables nor did the invoices state what work product was realized from the $13,00 per month payment to the contractor;agreed and said these were legitimate questions and concerns. Insectorsked if he thought that was the best choice for the osrtron on the subcontract with Ms. Wilson. said he thought that the Global Security may have been a better choice since he would be working directly with the contractor on a daily, weekly or basis. In addition, it would be his department that would be directing the contract and not the "front office" also stated that he did not think that (mm would have had the time to interact with the contractor due to his other duties as [the Laboratory. - Him EbjmImentioned that he had recently heard that Heather had numerous contracts with other NNSA sites at the same time as the LAM contract. He said that he was wondering if there were duplicative eflorts in the ork rpduct she provided. Eb] Isaid that was a good question, she then asked 03m] Eb] if LANL knew that Ms. Wilson had these other contracts when she was working for them as a contractor; he stated that he did not. Conclusion: Motels: Results 4: - LANL Procedure Ste-p: CJ Purpose: Source: Review of Contracting issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory Type: Assigned To: Scope: Prepared By: (C) 6f6f2014 Reviewed By: {None} Methodology.- PROPERTIES: De toils: Location: Frequency: Record of Work Done: Category 4: Date 8; Location: October 3, 2012 at 2:00 PM User Category: Conference Room 2001B, LANL Procurement Category 5 125 Central Park Square, Los Alamos, NM. Category 6 Participants: . (3 03m) [b3 sconEcano, NW 3 (W I ILAHLJ - [505i 65? taro I 6) C) Rormo. lnspectorlrm Western Region Office, Albuquerque, NM, 84 Sample Size: DIG Auditor (Wm ?03 Los Alamos Audit Office, (505} as? Eb) (TJECJ EUECJ Purpose: Meeting} Discussion regarding Heather Wilson Subcontract at LANL During the meeting, (W) 0?30]th Iprovided the following information: IEWJ @03th 5? Consumng Contract that he was not the contracting officer. The contract as placed by I (W) MU said that the duties and responsibilities of the contract administrator are to issue revisions to the contract, to review the invoices prior to payment; to approve that they meet the contract speci?cations onlv. He said is the approving authority for the invoices and his responsibility is onlv to see that invo'ces do not go over the dollar amoUnt and the terms of the billing per the contract. - The GIG interviewing team stated that the invoices appeared to lack the necessary information for pavment per the Federal Acquisition Regulation SEES) aid that because it was a Review of Contracting Issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory consultant contract he felt that nothing else was needed on the invoices, with respect to details. It was his ?iderstar ding that this was the case with consultant contracts. 1 - inspector (bJ pointed out specific language that was included in the LANL contract regarding invoices. The information was located on: pg. 3 of the LANL Task Order, Section 12 Payment, Subsection 1: .. I I _.Datail - . . . A breakdown of the specific activities performed for LANE must be included on or with each invoice. LANG shalt pair the Subcontractor, upon submission of acceptable invoices . . . - (W) esponded that he saw the statement regarding invo es in the contract but that he Lsked if he contacted the thouht it was a mistake and should not be in there. Inspector 5) 3 73 or clarification and he stated "no, he did not?. He said he merer relied on the requesting organization to be accurate. saw) (mm said that the accounts pavable process for payment of the invoices at LANL starts when the contractor sends their completed invoices to the LAM Accounts Pavable Dept- They then scan the documentation into their data base which automaticaliv sends an email to the STR on the contract, which on this contract is that an invoice is awaiting their approval. The STR being the first line approval needs to go into the data base and electronically approve the invoice. The system is then setup to forward an email to the second line approving individual, on this contract iti?bi??i (bit?) to inform them that an invoice is awaiting their approval for pavment. (bit?i Cb) - said that he then goes into the data base and electronically reviews the invoice making sure that Eb] as alreadv approved the invoice for pavmerit. He then just reviews the information on the invoice that pertains to the contract terms and dollar amount. He does not think that he is supposed to verify any other information or lack of information with regards to the Review of Contracting issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory Summary - Detail The meeting odioined. invoices. He stated that this is the responsibility of the ?rst line approyer, 031(5) 03) On October 22, 2012, Inspecto (DEC) were the questions and his responses: Please see my responses in blue below. Thank you, 'i 5] 'i sent CW5) 031(5) an email to obtain clarification, The following bei?J Subiect: HW Company, LLC, contract 25054?001-09 If you recall during our meeting on October 3, 2012 where we discussed the above mentioned contract, there was a subject area in the contract that we were not clear about and would like to further discuss. Would you please review the questions and provide your responses: 1. On page 3, item it 12 Payment, subsection it states: I- The Subcontractor may submit billings Jfor the services performed. A breakdown ofthe speci?c activities performed for LANE must be inducted on or with each invoice. LANE shalt pay the Review of Contracting Issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory Emissary-ta: Subcontractor, upon submission of occeptobie invoices or vouchers. Question: You stated that you approved each invoice: after review bv the SDR, for payment to the Subcontractor. 3. Did the invoices contain the information necessarx,r as stated in subsection above? No. b. it not then were thev approved for pavment? The services contained in Statement of Work were soier for advice and consultation services. Advice and consultation may not aiwavs be in written form. The invoices were approved for payment afte 93(5) [mm approval that services were rendered. c. If you had anv questions regarding the language in the contract, did you contact the F316) 03mm to discuss? No. Did you bring anyr issues or concerns regarding the invoices to anyone?s attention? There were no concerns or issues regarding the invoices. The invoice doliar amounts were paid in accordance with the negotiated terms, upon approvai by Eb) that the services had been rendered. Conciusion: Notes: Resuits 4: A.10.PRG LANL Pw?m? (tutti) (bit?) Procedure Step: (C3 2 Type: a Assigned To: Prepared By: stances Reviewed By: {None} To document interview Witt Source: Scope: Methodology: S_u mmarv PROPERTIES: Location: Frequency: {category 4: User Category: integer}! 5 Category 5 Rating: Sompie Size: Review of Contracting Issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory mum?.ncm??mm?u? _:Detail I conducted an interview 0330383) I The interview took place inllel?J 033(73ch I of?ce, Los Alamos National Laboratory. The purpose of the Detoiis: Record of Work Done: {in October 11, 2012, inspectors Ifblt?l land Ibe??J Ialong With Auditor 5) c; Los elamos National Laboratorvr interview was to discuss a consulting task order awarded to his. Heather Wilson bv LANL. The interview was basicailv as follows: 93(5) mm interview' by stating that several?months ago the frontoflicemade a strategic decision on and increase the market'share of these activities. #533 He stated that thev believed that the weapons program budget would be decreasin nd th wanted a better market share in WFD's that was also compatible with their weapons mission. stated that no one predicted how bad the last ?scal year was going to be. He Said that the laboratorv took a $360 million hit, were down 1200 jobs as well as $200 million in procurement spending. 5) C) 5) r'J tated that obtaining Heather Wilson as a consultant was not just "political patronage." _tated_t?nat Heather Wilson approached the laboratory 033053 (W1C) 039mm I believe or as ground and otfeted the services of her company, 'He said. that 6) c) weul ale LAM ex - and into WFO_.in_ihs Listens: and H.1.PRGivlr.ited iv'ls. Wilson's background in Congress, serving on the Air Force committee, her contacts wit in tanks and the policv world, and her intellect. He said that he respected her intelligence and that with people that fly at that level, you want their thoughts. Ema EEJEUECJ Istated that they went to the Los Alamos Site Office for approval of a consulting agreement with 33(5) @010 consulting agreement. He stated that they discussed the request wit 3 6] who informed them that Sandia already had a contract with Heather Wilson. Ilium] 03$]th Ftated that Ms. Wilson was paid a fee in a retainEr?tvpe agreement and that the statement 0 wor was generic. in addition, the deliverable cosisted of meeting and phone calls; there were no "hard" deliverables required of Ms. Wilsontated that they were more interested in ideas. in hindsight, he said that thew,r probablv should have at least asked for a montth report. (W) (b30383) said that during the period of performance there was no expectation that deliverables Review of Contracting leeues at Lee Alamos National Laboratory Summary Detail would be General. . 5; ii tated that Ms: wilson said "Here is how I can help Was not privy to the original conversation with 3 63 aid that he knew the agreement would raise eyebrows; therefore, when the task order was issued, he designated himself as the STR {Technical Representative). He stated that he didn't belteve in handing off the aereerr ent to others because someone might have to answer to people like the Inspector stated that he stands behind the agreement and believes that the laboratory got vaiue from the agreement. gig He stated that Heather Wilson has a lot of integrity and that as soon as she announced her candidacy for the Senate, she ended the relationship with the laboratory. We asked'who specifically did Heather Wilson?approach concerning a consulting agreement. replied that Heather Wilson approached directly and proposed an arrangement. said. however, that he He stated that she had clients that included "three letter" agencies and also conducted training components for National Security policy. He said that Ms. Wilson mentioned that she had work with Sandia. We asked how the pay was determined. 'replied that they used Sandia?s rate. He stated that he probably wouldn't have started at that rate. oitotbitatci ktatedthatlgilt?itbiw eltbit?i (12:101th 6 IGlobaI Security, order was not issued through Sandie. Primary Weapons, (bite) It ME) ?HEme (mam) Iail ut' Ize Ms. Wilson 5 services. 03mm] a recent security hire bylibjt?j land that bringing in Heather Wilson was a good fit. Ithe Sole Sourcetustification and identified himself as 6) CJ [mm [said that he thought Heather Wilson?s efforts would be cut across the laboratory {weapons security, global security. and Congressionai reiations}. He stated that he also knew that there was a risk that there would be outside interest in the agreement, and again referenced his appointmEnt as the STR stating that this "insulated against the risk." C) gain stated that he knows the laboratory got value and believed it to be commensurate with the dollar amount aid to Hea Sandia issued task orders to Heather EEJEUECJ i LANL did. 63 TJ CJ ssurned that Sandia would be aware of the work HWC, Ltt? was performing for Los Alamos in order to avoid any possibility of duplication and was surprised to learn that the Los Alamos task We asked who directed Heather Wilson on a month by month basis. 3 6] C) helmets) ANL, a??bi??i ?1030)th I ?meditate :her Wilson. After being informed that eplied that Sandia did a better job than rt: the eplied that Ms, Wilson's Review of Contracting Issues at Loa Alamos National Laboratory summed Detail? work was largely self-initiated. For example, Ms. Wilson might come across something from a think tank and present ideas to the laborator . He said that CW5) CW7) as the heaviest user of Ms. Wilson's services. (b3 61 a stated that 3 53 5' had the abilitv to ask Ms. Wilson for specifics. HoweverJEbi'E?J Isaid a tdn't do the contract administration. He said that there were no dowments taskingon what to do at; month. He stated that he didn't know that Sandie was utilizing speci?c tasks orders each month and their would?ve done it that wav if he had known. stated that it would take time to reconstruct Ms. Wilson's deliverales and that it would be a summarv of those individuals that Ms. Wilson interacted with. He said thautilized Ms. Wilson the most; however, he is no longer at the laboratory. tated at are is no specific documentation for Ms. Wilson's deliverables, but that he could explore e?mails and to compile deliverables. We stated that the FAR specifies the deliverables required for consultants and asked if he made a conscience decision and informed his. Wilson that nothing had to be in writing. He replied no; that it wasn't a conscience decision but that it was "his had'tated that he looked at the ?le and was disappointed because Ms. Wilson's services weren't well documented. He said that hejust assumed the Ivvould require Support for the allowabilitv of costs. there was no_ekDectation of documentation representing deliverable-s. He said that perhaps the (C116) a law] @0ch looked up at the "i?th floor" (where the Director's Office is located] and did not ask for support for the allowahilitv of costs because the Director's office had asked for the agreement. Iso stated that erha because Ms. Wilson is a public figure, they assorned not to ask for documentation. However,stated that he has no hesitation to be blunt with Ms. Wilson. He said that he laid out ail the expectations and perceived risks and talked to Ms. Wilson about it. We discussed Ms. Wilson's invoices. dmitted that there . - it administration of the invoices. I Weasked who__approved the invoices. unsure and needed to check on approved th a-invoices: Hie-stated that LANL has anautomated sustain and that he never sawa hard copv. (hm (bx?)th stated have submitted the invoice EEJEUECJ Is roun then to Accounting and, if needed, approval would come-tron?: him. He then acknowledged that Eb] Iha's a responsiiztilitvl to reviewthe invoices and verify that the work was completed. 033(6) 03' WW tated that he would check tosee howr the invoi'c'eslwerevalidated. We asked We recalled validating any invoices. He replied for the first two tolthree months of the agreement he had a lot of dialogue with Ms. Wilson regarding the hours she spent performing the worktd Review of Contracting Issues at Los Nantes National Laboratory Elli} slid. net-maintain thisdisciaias for metastases .inteires..-h..iass Shocked arise ohmber of'month's that-the contract went as and'the'?nal dollar'amou'nt at seas-tin so that he wasn't sereihat he saw all 19 intakes; .tlesaidthat he thinks tisareitletere'homestead) invoices-._ MH.1.PRGtated that he had a lot of conversations in which he would check to make sure Ms. Wilson was performing her duties. However, he said that he didn't maintain that relationship. He stated that he deducted that she worked 6 to 7 davs a month with LANL, 6 to davs a month with Sandia; and worked MB of the month with the DOD-Pthree letter" agencies. steisd'ihsthewes In addition,acknowledged the requirements of the task order for a' breakdown of the specifio activities performed for Los elamos-aswell as responsibilitv-for reviewing the'liniroipes prior'to authorizing pavments. aid that he did not authorize his. Wilson to submit invoices with no hours, and that he relied on "folks" in procurement to perform the administrative functions. We asked if anyone ever raised a concern on the invoices.reptied that concerns were never raised. He stated that they hold weekly meetings with the head of Procurement for anvthing over $100,000. 6) aid that no one ever said to him that the invoices contained information that was less than needed to support pavment. 'n . . acknowledged that the invoices were approved without the reurred detail and that payments 6) C) were authorized without requesting theldeliverahles required by the Faith. aid that he made some assumptions in the administration of the leson agreement, and reiterated that his. Witson had a lot of integritv, that a lot of his actions were based on trust, and that he relied on Ms. Wilson's reputation. acknowledged that he mav have gotten "lax." He said that you "can call me dumh, just don?t call me a criminai.? It 6 II We askedhout the possibilitv of a duplication of efforts by Heather Wiison. He stated that he told his Wilson that her doing something for Sandie did not mean that she did something for LANL. I 6] tated that Sandie provides more conventional hard products and her strategv wouid he on what Sandia's customers might want. 53' CJ assumed that Sandia would be aware of the work HWC, LLC was performing for Los Alamos in order to avoid any' possibility of duplication. He was surprised to learn that the Los hiamos task order was not issued through We asked if Heather Wilson was authorized to submit detailed invoices that were not consistent with the FAR. 6) C) eplied that he did not authorize Heather Wilson to submit detailed invoices that were not consistent with the FAR. He stated that he relied on Procurement and the EbJE5J I 33(5) (WW aid that this was an explanationand potato excuse. We asked if anyone ever raised-Va concern on W: Review of Contracting issues at Los Atamos National Laboratory ii?ummary Detail the invoices. CW5) (bit?) officials a libit?i (bit?) We asked if he ever had any conversation with there were discussions with l' 6) and assumptions were made by him and Ms, Wilson. We discusSed the Sandia can- stated that he didn't know if there Was any coordination between Sandia and LANL. He thought that perhaps this was why the payment and invoice was so lax. tated that typically the people who hold the paper are the ones that make the payment. After beini shown that LANL indeed made the payment, he stated that he would dig further with the 53 7) We aske 63 C3 the was familiar with a power point type presentation putt potential issues and risks associated with awarding a contract to Ms. Wiison. that it was probably brought to him or to nets-?fears teem showt- There trait with the arse. esteemed; (3m 0? lsaidthat he was unaware OfWiiat action he been takg'ijto in the power point presentation and was unsure i I not on way to get government buy in on an agreement with Ms. Wilson. [0315) 03mm Isttedthat he took too much comfort in the Sandia agreement. He stated that he also assumed that since the approved the use of the CPA if LANL followed it, they would be 5) (wa3 lreplied that concerns were never raised. He stated that they hold weekly meetings Wit1 the head of Procurement for anything over 5) TJ CJ tated that a lot of a?aliEJf?J EEJEU I sat dew (W5) mm?c) I replied that he the that he and ere helpful. We asked if he was aware that officials from DOE Headquarters were involved. He replied that he was not aware that Headquarters was involved oether Leal to it i3 ?3 repiieo? He stated that they went to governmen a 'ver seats; said that-he?did and found-a u;htthat asked if a market survey was done when preparing the Sole Source iustificatlon. eplied that he had a discussion with Heather Wilson on her pay in relation to the cm. in the end, they relied on the rate Sandia paid to Ms. Wilson. 6) i' C) eiterated that he was "nervous" on the invoices. He stated that he couldn't remember approving the invoices. He said that he has an asistat who oes through his emails and that perhaps she might have approved the invoices on his behalf. 3 53 stated that the invoices may have been approved without actually going through him. Review of Contracting Issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory Procedure Step: 5] t) Type: Assigned To: Prepared By: EC) 61.6}, 2014 Reviewed By: {Name} PROPERTIES: Location: Frequency: Category 4: User Category: Category 5 Category 5 SCORECARD: Rating: Sample Size: To document the interview with Source: Scope: ?sts-lumen" . 'D?t?ii Conciosron: Notes: Results 4: A.11.PRG - Nevada Purpose: Methodology: Details: (at held on December 10: 2012 Record of Work Done: confirmed that Heather Wilson was on (him) Eb} advisory panel. We asked (are) fshe was the individual who approved Ms. Wilso 1?s inuoic=s. She replied that she does approve the invoices, but that there was one ?nal approver after her. mm M53 state-cl that she believed that Ms. Wilson was still on the panel, since no contracts have been closed out. We asked Eb) (TJECJ to describe the invoicing process. She stated that after a meeting was held, the panel would fill out a sample survey, which is a form with a checklist of items to be ?lled out. This checklist Review of Contracting issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory Summer" .- includes date, air fare, hotel {receipts attached to form], transportation and miscellaneous costs. The form is given at the meeting to be filled out by the consultants. It is sent to Accounts Pavable, who sends it to travel. Here it is reviewed for and asurance that all regulations are complied with. From there, it is sent (bill) who it to Finally, it is sent back to Accounts Payable for pavment. We if she made ani,I adjustments. She replied that it comes to her with adjustments alreadv made. We asked in regards to the, Cl contract, did 6] review and approve the invoices I pavment. She replied that - id review and approve the invoices related to the Advisorv Panel. stated that Ms. Wilson as treated no differentli,r than any: other panel member. are (bitagci We askedwhen she reviewed the invoices and approved payment to the contractor, what work efforts did she verifv completed by the contractor during the time period of the invoice. She replied that the work effort was a dav meeting and she confirmed attendance at the meeting. stated that she participates in the meetings and is able to validate services rendered in this fashion. Cb) We asked about the detail reqwred through FAR 31.205-33. (are) stated that Ms. Wilson completes the first part of the invoice, confirming participation in the advisorv panel. However, ,3 :3 3' lstated that all the invoices for these dav meetings are the same. None ofthe panel members add tol invoice unless the,? are advised. She said that all members participate in the dim. ssions. We askeif minutes of the discussion were captured. She replied that thev were not 52(5) (will stated that there may be discos ions or recommendations captured Ml) lorlEbJE?j (WT/liq on the Advisorv Panel. Egg) (will stated that theirr do have an agenda for the panels, which would direct how the dav was to progress. We askedhow she verified that the work was completed. She replied that she would go back and make sure the consultants were taking credit for the specific day. she-said that she would also look at their airfare and validate the location that they should be coming from. ll? Eb] Istated that she would also look at the hotel charges to see if they were correct. Finally, she would 'oo at the airport parking and taxi to see if the costs made sense. (bi We asked EEJEUECJ Iwas still at the Nevada site. (THC) replied that 6) ll Cl last Derrember aut sat on the corporate boa I: anagers. She said that he could be reached at [Ell?l EEJEUECJ [com . She said that 6] was a consultant and could be reached at razors (Elm) (bl I U, atltbito @101th Icon}. Review of Contracting Issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory Summary . 5' Detail Finalliilfk?;C Jim] Emelstated that the Legal department reviewed the information to be captured on the invoices and agreec on what was needed for the advisory panel She said that the legal department couid be reached @033] at 702?295 (C) on ciosion: Notes: Resuits 4: A.12.PRG Dakridge Purpose: Procedure Step: consulting agreements Type: a Assigned To: Prepared By: (C) 616/2014 Reviewed By: {Nonel PROPERTIES: Location: Frequency: Category 4: User Category: Category 5 Category 6 SCORECAR D: Rating: Sompie Size: In addition, at Oak Ridge, two Firm-Fixed?PriceconsuItng agreements were awarded to HWC, LLC, requiring advisory services to the Global Security Directorate at Oak Ridge Source: Scope: Methodology: Details: Record of Work Done: Oak Ridge issued consulting agreement 4000105431 issuing two invoices and All; in addition, Oak Ridge issued consulting agreement 4000088848 (A123). Both were to participate in GED or Global Security.r Directorate meetings {seeA.12.3, bookmark 1 l_AS3.a Conclusion: No res: Resuits 4: _l Review of Contracting issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory Summary? 3 Detail - A.12.PRG - Oakridge Purpose: Procedure Step: prii 9 - Eb) (3 (bits) To: (133(7) Prepared By: (Cl Reviewed By: {None} PROPERTIES: Location: Frequency: Category 4: User Category: Category 5 Category 6 SEC) REGARD: Rating: Sampi'e Size: To document a telephonic discussion with members of Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Source: Scope: Methodoiogy: Details: Record of Work Done? [in April 9, 2013, lejra'rbirnrc; Iboth Inspectors with the Office of Inspector General held a telephonic meeting with members of Oak Ridge National Laboratory. In attendance EEJEUECJ I The purpose of the meeting was to discuss comments made during an exit bri Consulting Contract Administration at Various Department Sites." Specificallv IGlobal Securitxitbjt?l (b13333 Iisee i. fine hel on "Concerns with (bi stated during the exit conference that there were deliverables for Heather Wilson's participation in task panel discussions. Specifically. we were told that the; had notes to the meetings. However, the meetings were held in a SCIF and the notes are classified at the SCI level i. 033(6) 03) We stated to (Urci that there were not deliverables. We asked if there were indeed deliverables. A.1.PR that during our December telephonic meeting, he stated that there were deliverables however, when we made arrangements to view the deliverables 033(6) 03) infor '3 an email taro] M6) replied that the Panel reviews Oak Ridge's strategy and provides them with ?real?time" imput. He stated that te have "evewto-eve" contact with the panel and panel members provide advice throughout the meetings. stated that he heads round table discussions {usuallv two during the two dav meetings} and asks for panel member's inputstated that the panel's deliverables are in the form of notes taken bv those individuals listening to the panel member's input. He said that these notes are at the SCI level and that the meetings take place in a SCIF. We asked to review these notes. Initially (W) (b3 ETJECJ stated that the Program Review of Contracting Issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory 1:5? .. - - - person who could provide the notes was not available until next week. We replied that the notes neede to6 be made available to the Inspector General either todayr or tomorrow {April 9,110}. This was agreed to by JEGJ (C3 EEJEGJ EEJETJ I then brought up another matter from the exit conference. Specifically' it was stated that Oak RI ge i not have to abide by FAR provisions referenced in the report E53553 : arified that the statement was not accurate and that the FAR provisions did applv. However, stated that Since this was a fixedaprice contract, thev onlv had to follow the cost principles of the FAR. In addition, she claimed that because the honorarium falls below $3,003, the-v did not have to go through the procurement process [for approval]. We replied that we were not questioning the cost principles and applicabilibvt to the rather that there was not enough detail in the invoices and no deliverables provided as required by FAR 31.205?33. We stated that Oak Ridge would have the opportunttv to officially comment on the report when they received the draft copv. ill Conclusion: Notes: Results 4: C.1.PRG - Suhohie5tive - CPA Purpose: Procedure Step: New Item Source: Type: . . 6) To: Scope: Prepared By: {None} Reviewed By: {None} Methodology: PROPERTIES: Details: Location.- Frequency: Record of Work Done: Category 4: Review of Contracting Issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory Summary Detail' User Category: Conciusiori: Category 5 Category 6 Notes: SCURECARD: Resuits 4: Rating: Sampie Size: D.1.PRG Subohiectiue - Invoices Purpose: Procedure Step: New Item Source: Tree: (bus: Assigned To: Scope: Prepared By: {None} Reviewed By: (None) Methodoiogy: PROPERTIES: Detoiis: Location: Frequency: Record of Work Done: Category 4: User Category: Conciusio n; Category 5 Category 6 Notes: SCORECARD: Resuits 4: Rating: Sample Size: D.2.PRG LANL Purpose: Procedure Step: New Item Source: We" (bii?lib) Assigned To: {53 my?? Scope: Prepared By: {Milne} Reviewed By: {None} Methodoiogy: