Another set of unfulfilled NNSA FOIA requests go to District Court
On May 9, 2019, my Attorney for FOIA matters filed "Rivera v. National Nuclear Security Administration et al" in CA Northern District Court. The complaint alleges failure to provide timely responses to 4 NNSA FOIA requests. In summary, the FOIAs requested the following records:
1. NNSA LFO Contracting Officer review of legal fee reimbursement allowability based on DOE Acquisition Letter AL 2016-06 that
requires review of underlying contractor misconduct in whistleblower cases
2. Career indefinite employee and supplemental labor employee lay offs at LLNL from June 1, 1984 to November 1, 2013
3. Records relating to the LLNL HEAF 10kg port glass rupture during an August 30, 2013 experiment
4. Legal fee reimbursements to LLNS for the period of May 18, 2018 to January 18, 2019 related to my whistleblower case
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/28150710/Rivera_v_National_Nuclear_Security_Administration_et_al
In my previous CA Northern District Court FOIA related proceeding regarding whistleblower related expenses, the NNSA did not provide the requested internal aggregate man-hour charges (available through project/task records) of LLNS employees related to my whistleblower case. These expenses may include internal man-hours charges for strategy meetings, testimony, depositions, coaching, statement construction, statement edits, investigation guidance etc., all charged to LLNS contracted funds. The use of contracted funds for this purpose did not require the oversight or approval of the NNSA. As such, these aggregate internal time charges were directly extracted from contracted funds without the need of a reimbursement allowability process.
Anthony Rivera
8 comments:
Hmm. There seems to be some kind of FOIA release:
https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2018cv01016/322761/40/0.pdf
According to the DOE Acquisition Letter AL 2016-06 requirements, the NNSA LFO Contracting Officer could have determined some or all of the legal fee reimbursements to LLNS were unallowable due to underlying contractor misconduct. However, if contractor misconduct was indeed confirmed, there doesn't appear to be a financial risk to LLNS to pay back those aggregate internal employee man-hours leveraged to help defend themselves against the whistleblower. Looks like DOE Acquisition Letter AL 2016-06 does not come close to capturing all tax payer funded expenditures that serve to incentivize contractor whistleblower retaliation.
This non-disclosed "under the radar" man-hour expenditure will further infuriate HSGAC Senators that are trying to prevent contractor incentives for whistleblower retaliation.
Yawn......
Why would anyone care about ruptured port glass at HEAF? Does anyone even use HEAF anymore?
"Yawn......"
Absolutely right! So what if LLNS used 300-500k of contracted funds to defend themselves against a whistleblower without the need of NNSA approval. Contractors are the winners babe! The NNSA doesn't need to know the details because we are in charge!
Ruptured port glass? Switch to sherry.
"Ruptured port glass? Switch to sherry."
Good one
Post a Comment