Skip to main content

Provisional Reimbursement and Allowability of Costs Associated with Whistleblower Actions

Image
By
"Effective immediately, new rules on allowable DOE/NNSA Contractor reimbursement of whistleblower related expenses"

According to the DOE "acquisition letter" dated August 4, 2016, all DOE and NNSA Contracting Officers must deem Contractor reimbursement fees for whistleblower related litigation expenses unallowable, if wrongful conduct on the part of the Contractor has occurred. 

Reimbursement may still be unallowable if the Contractor gets off on a technicality, such as a statute of limitations ruling, IF wrongful conduct by the Contractor was likely, or if the Contractor has a history of wrongful conduct. 

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/08/f33/08-04-16_-_Acquisition_Letter_No._AL-2016-06.pdf

Comments

Anonymous said…
Until all related obstacles are properly addressed, the alleged intent of this "acquisition letter" is without value.
9/01/2016 3:26 PM
Anonymous said…
Yup, that's what "provisional" means. You have a firm grasp of the obvious.
9/05/2016 12:49 PM
Anonymous said…
I'm afraid you may have missed the concern of the poster. "Provisional reimbursement" as detailed in the "Acquisition Letter", means the contractor's reimbursement may be subject to review or reversal at a later time.

"Obstacles" to the effectiveness of the "Acquisition Letter" as the earlier poster mentioned, may relate to the 2016 GAO finding that DOE has failed to clearly define what contractor "retaliation" or "wrongful conduct" is.

Perhaps you do not have a firm grasp on that which is obvious to those willing to consider the greater situation.
9/05/2016 5:42 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

By scooby
Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...
155 comments
Read more

Trump is to gut the labs.

By scooby
The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.
124 comments
Read more

LLNL un-diversity

By scooby
Actual post from Dec. 15 from one of the streams. This is a real topic. As far as promoting women and minorities even if their qualifications are not as good as the white male scientists, I am all for it. We need diversity at the lab and if that is what it takes, so be it.  Quit your whining. Look around the lab, what do you see? White male geezers. How many African Americans do you see at the lab? Virtually none. LLNL is one of the MOST undiverse places you will see. Face it folks, LLNL is an institution of white male privilege and they don't want to give up their privileged positions. California, a state of majority Hispanics has the "crown jewel" LLNL nestled in the middle of it with very FEW Hispanics at all!
79 comments
Read more