THIS OPINION WAS INITIALLY ISSUED UNDER PROTECTIVE ORDER 
AND IS BEING PUBLICLY RELEASED IN REDACTED FORM ON 
JULY 19, 2023
GRANTED IN PART:  June 28, 2023
CBCA 7056
WASHINGTON RIVER PROTECTION SOLUTIONS LLC,
Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,
Respondent.
Scott Arnold, Luke W. Meier, Robyn N. Burrows, and Amanda C. DeLaPerriere of 
Blank Rome LLP, Washington,  DC; and Michael J.  Montalbano of Blank Rome  LLP, 
Philadelphia, PA, counsel for Appellant.
Andrew J. Unsicker and P aul R. Davis, Office of Chief Counsel, Department of 
Energy, Richland, WA, counsel for Respondent.
Before Board Judges KULLBERG, ZISCHKAU, and SULLIVAN.
SULLIVAN, Board Judge.
Washington River Protection Solutions LLC (WRPS) appealed the decision of the 
Department of Energy (DOE) contracting officer that asserted a demand for repayment of 
purported unreasonable staff augmentation expenses incurred between 2009 and 2018.  
We find most of the challenged costs reasonable and grant the appeal in part.


REDACTED VERSION
CBCA 7056 2
Findings of Fact
In May 2008, DOE Office of River Protection awarded to WRPS the Tank Operations
Contract (TOC).  Exhibit 1 at 1.1  Located at DOE’s Hanford Site, there are 177 tanks
containing approximately fifty-three million gallons of radioactive and chemical hazardous
waste.  Id. at 27.  Pursuant to the TOC, WRPS was to conduct “operations and construction
activities necessary to store, retrieve and treat Hanford tank waste, store and dispose of
treated waste, and begin to close the Tank Farm waste management areas to protect the
Columbia River.”  Id. at 28.  This cleanup of the Hanford Site was part of what DOE
described as “the world’s largest environmental cleanup project.”  Id. at 27.  The contract
was a cost-plus-award-fee contract, and the expected contract price was more than $7 billion
over ten years of performance, which included a base period of five years and a total of five
additional option years.  Id. at 5, 10.  WRPS was obligated to “provide the personnel,
equipment, materials, supplies, and services, and do all things necessary for, or incident to,
providing its best efforts to perform all requirements of” the contract.  Id. at 5.
The focus of this dispute is WRPS’s use of contracted labor resources (CLRs) in its
performance of the contract.  CLRs are individuals hired through staff augmentation
subcontractors to perform a specific scope of work or to fill in for missing personnel on a
temporary basis under the direct supervision of a WRPS employee.  Transcript, Vol. 1 at 30. 
WRPS competes different labor categories among staff augmentation contractors and enters
into blanket master agreements (BMAs) that contain labor categories and rates.2  Id. at 79-80. 
Once BMAs are established, CLRs can be hired quickly, and WRPS does not incur the
training or separation costs that it would for a full-time employee, costs estimated to be
between $28,000 and $38,000.  Id. at 78, 80, 188.  CLRs also allow WRPS to accomplish
tasks when budget funds are available and to downsize quickly without additional cost when
budget funds are not available.  Id. at 186.  It also allowed WRPS to obtain the services of
contractors who would not take a full-time position.  Exhibit 37 at 20; see also Transcript,
Vol. 1 at 189-90.  WRPS hired 1224 CLRs in the first ten years of the contract, as compared
to the average 4300 full-time WRPS employees.  Exhibit 37 at 19; Transcript, Vol. 1 at 183. 
Very few of these CLRs worked full-time during any given year, and few worked more than
five years as a CLR.  Exhibit 37 at 16.  WRPS spent nine percent of its staffing dollars
paying for CLRs.  Transcript, Vol. 1 at 183-84.  WRPS planned on an annual basis its use
of full-time WRPS employees versus CLRs—plans that were shared with DOE.  Id. at 186.
1 All exhibits are found in the appeal file, unless otherwise noted.
2 WRPS also used blanket ordering agreements (BOAs), in which individual
CLR positions were competed.  Transcript, Vol 1 at 256-57.

REDACTED VERSION
CBCA 7056 3
Chronology of Dispute
In February 2020, DOE issued a notice of intent to disallow costs “related to
subcontractor backlog audits” through fiscal year 2018.  Exhibit 32.  DOE intended to
disallow $6 million for “contracted labor time recording (CLTR)” resources.  Id. at 2.  DOE
was “particularly concerned about the contractual compliance issues and cost impact due to
WRPS’s use of preferred candidates to acquire staff augmentation resources” because
“WRPS did not perform thorough technical reviews on preferred candidates or incumbents
and it has been found that some of these candidates were paid at inappropriately high rates.” 
Id. at 4.  The amount to be disallowed for these issues was based upon an audit report
prepared by the DOE Richland Finance organization (DOE Finance).  Id.
In the audit, DOE Finance examined the compensation records for forty-one
individuals hired as CLRs by WRPS that it had “judgmentally selected,” seeking CLRs that
had worked for WRPS for three or more years consecutively.  Exhibit 32 at 17; Transcript,
Vol. 3 at 37-38.  DOE Finance identified numerous concerns with the employment and
compensation for thirteen of these individuals, including concerns that WRPS did not have
effective controls to ensure that CLRs met minimum qualifications and that several CLRs
were paid rates higher than the rates agreed to on the subcontract through which they were
hired.  Exhibit 32 at 32-33.  DOE Finance was also concerned that none of the forty-one
CLRs had been subject to a “make versus buy” analysis to determine whether it was less
expensive to hire a new WRPS employee rather than filling the requirement with a CLR.  Id. 
DOE Finance did not provide a dollar figure that matched the $6 million amount in the notice
of disallowance; instead, DOE Finance recommended a settlement range between $5.75
million and $8 million.  Id. at 8.
In August 2020, WRPS provided a response to both the audit report and an
explanation of the reasonableness of the dollars expended for the thirteen individuals that
were the focus of the DOE audit.  Exhibit 37.
On December 10, 2020, DOE issued a contracting officer’s decision in which DOE
disallowed $6,025,069 because the costs were unreasonable.  Exhibit 45.3  DOE calculated
this amount by identifying specific costs to be disallowed for thirteen individuals for four
different reasons.  Id.  For five individuals, DOE identified a “high” and “low” amount that
were disallowed and averaged the figures.  Id. at 8.  The sum of the amounts calculated for 
3 DOE demanded payment within thirty days from the date of the December 10
letter.  The contract incorporated by reference the Interest clause, 48 CFR 52.232-17 (2020)
(Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.232-17).  Exhibits 1 at 158, 46 at 196.

REDACTED VERSION
CBCA 7056 4
the thirteen individuals was $3,012,534.  Id.  DOE multiplied this figure by two to derive the
final amount disallowed.  DOE applied this so-called “2x” factor because DOE, in its review,
found other instances of the same issues identified for the thirteen individuals, and the factor
would account for what DOE believed was “excessive pass-through” of subcontracting costs
related to CLRs.  Id. at 7.
Costs That DOE Sought to Disallow
DOE brought challenges to specific costs that can be grouped into four categories: 
1. The hourly rates paid to seven individuals exceeded the hourly rates that they
would have received purportedly as WRPS full-time equivalents (FTE).
2. The hourly rates paid to three individuals exceeded the rates set forth in the
BMAs competed among the staff augmentation subcontractors. 
3. Seven individuals purportedly did not meet the qualification requirements set
forth in the BMA for their positions.
4. The hourly rate paid to two individuals was increased “overnight” with
purportedly no reason for the increase.
The Board’s specific findings regarding the reasonableness of the dollars paid to each of
these individuals are detailed in appendix A to this opinion.  The Board sets forth below its
findings regarding these categories of deductions and some pertinent findings regarding
individuals.4 
CLR Rates Above WRPS FTE Rates
In 2019, the WRPS internal audit (WRPS-IA) organization performed an audit in
which the hourly rates of CLRs were compared to the hourly rates they would have been paid
as WRPS employees based upon their years of experience.  The auditor did not compare the
rates of specific positions or job classifications; instead, the auditor used the seniority-based
WRPS pay bands.  Transcript, Vol. 1 at 132.  While the rates paid to CLRs were both greater
and less than the rates paid to WRPS employees for years of experience, the auditor found
that, on average, the rates paid to CLRs were approximately three percent higher than the
4 The Board expects that appendix A will require extensive redaction before this
decision is released to the public.  Individuals are identified below by a “sample” number
assigned by DOE Finance.  The sample numbers are matched with the individual’s name in
appendix A.

REDACTED VERSION
CBCA 7056 5
rates paid to WRPS employees.  Id. at 134.  The auditor examined only rates paid in 2018. 
Id. at 139.
Ten of the rates paid to CLRs exceeded the WRPS rates because the WRPS rates were
capped at twelve years of experience, and some CLRs had more than thirty years of
experience.  Transcript, Vol. 1 at 132.  The auditor compared these rates to comparable rates,
determined by years of experience and job title, in a database maintained by the General
Services Administration (GSA) and found the rates to be very similar and, therefore,
reasonable.  Id. at 136-37; Exhibit 721.
For seven individuals, DOE Finance purportedly used WRPS-IA’s analysis to
calculate the “excess” that these six individuals were paid between 2009 and 2018 on their
contracts.  However, the percentages that DOE-Finance used are not found on the WRPS-IA
auditor’s worksheet.  Compare Exhibit 45 with Exhibit 721.  The percentages used by DOE
Finance are lower in four instances and higher in two.  Id.  The seventh individual does not
appear on the WRPS-IA worksheet (sample 27).  Id.  In addition, DOE Finance used the
percentages across the eleven years of the contract, although WRPS-IA only examined the
rates in 2018.  Id.  Using these percentages purportedly derived by WRPS-IA, DOE Finance
totaled the costs paid to these individuals in the period 2009-2018 and then multiplied the
percentage “excess” to derive the difference between what the individual was paid and the
amount that supposedly would have been paid to a full-time WRPS employee.
DOE’s challenge to these costs appears to be rooted in the overarching concern that
WRPS was not conducting a “make versus buy” analysis for CLRs, meaning that it was not
looking at whether it was more cost effective to hire these individuals as full-time WRPS
employees or to contract with them as CLRs.  The DOE auditor conceded that he could not
quantify that concern directly.  Transcript, Vol. 3 at 249-50.  This calculation of the “excess”
cost does not compare the number of hours worked by the individuals to the number of hours
that a full-time employee would work.  None of these individuals worked more than 2000
hours per year consistently across the years.  Exhibit 45 at 10-21.
WRPS put forth evidence to demonstrate how the rates paid to each of the seven
individuals was reasonable.  Six of the seven individuals possessed specific technical skills
and experience with the tank farm operations that WRPS needed for performance of the
contract.  For example, two of the seven were work planners, a skill that was in short supply
and necessary for the planning of all work conducted on the contract.  See, e.g., Exhibit 627;
Transcript, Vol. 1 at 142.  Five of the seven were paid at the BMA rates, which are rates that
are determined by competition (samples 5, 6, 13, 24, and 29).

REDACTED VERSION
CBCA 7056 6
Rates That Exceeded BMA Caps
For three individuals, DOE seeks repayment of amounts paid at labor rates that
exceeded the contract rates in the negotiated BMAs on which the individuals were hired. 
DOE Finance did not consider the roles these individuals were hired to fill when challenging
these rates.
All three individuals were preferred candidates, requested by name by the WRPS
personnel performing the contract work (“the field”) because the individuals possessed
needed experience or skills to accomplish the scope of work.  Sample 4 was a subject matter
expert in computer applications needed for tank farm operations.  Transcript, Vol. 1 at
177-78.  Sample 27 was hired to assist WRPS because of his knowledge of the waste
treatment facility and its construction.  Id., Vol. 2 at 32; Exhibit 707.  Sample 30 had more
than thirty years of experience and specific Hanford experience sought by WRPS.  Exhibits
123, 125.
WRPS established that the rates paid to these individuals were reasonable through
comparison to historical prices or comparison to list prices, such as the GSA rates.  The rate
paid to sample 4 initially was compared to GSA rates for electrical engineers with both a
bachelors and masters degree in engineering and ten-to-fifteen years of experience.  The
subsequent rates were deemed reasonable because they were in line with the rates paid on
previous contracts.  The rates paid to sample 27 were determined to be reasonable because
they were in line with rates paid to the individual on prior contracts.  The rate on the first
contract with sample 27 was determined through competition and found to be reasonable
through comparison to other similar positions at Hanford.  The rates paid to sample 30 were
deemed reasonable based upon a comparison of his rate to two different GSA rates for
comparable engineers and another contract at WRPS.  Exhibit 693.  A WRPS executive
testified that WRPS could not have obtained the services of these individuals at the BMA
rates.  Transcript, Vol. 1 at 246, Vol. 2 at 47.
Purportedly Unqualified CLRs
DOE deemed amounts paid to seven individuals to be unreasonable because the
individual did not meet the degree requirements set forth in the BMA statement of work on
which they were hired.  DOE reasoned that, if the individual is not qualified for a position
with a corresponding rate, he or she is not worth that rate.  See Transcript, Vol. 3 at 17.
Several of the individuals were “preferred candidates,” sought by WRPS managers
doing the work in the field because of their specific expertise or knowledge of the scope of
work.  Transcript, Vol. 1 at 199-200.  Four of these individuals were subject matter experts

REDACTED VERSION
CBCA 7056 7
in their respective fields with numerous years of experience at Hanford or dealing with
DOE-specific procedures or issues (samples 4, 5, 12, and 23).  Sample 4 wrote the DOE
guidance on safety system software reports, and sample 5 developed DOE nuclear waste
surveillance programs.  Id. at 237-38, 253.  Sample 12 was an expert in safety analysis, and
sample 23 had extensive experience in instrument and control engineering and was qualified
to work in the area where the tanks were located.  Id. at 14, 284-85.  Samples 6 and 18 were
work planners, a specialty that was in short supply and critical to the safe execution of the
contract work.  Id. at 236.  Both of these individuals had extensive experience, including
specific experience at Hanford.  Id. at 326, 330; Exhibit 467.  While the BMA statement of
work may have required a college degree, in most cases the specific position description
against which the individuals were hired either stated that no degree was required or provided
an equivalent number of years of experience to satisfy the degree requirement.  See, e.g.,
Exhibit 519 (sample 12).
One individual challenged by DOE does not fit this mold.  DOE challenged the
qualifications of sample 29, an individual who was hired to work as a computer-aided design
(CAD) drafter.  The first contract required one year of experience and a technical school
certificate or degree.  The second contract did not specify required years of experience but
required a certificate or degree.  The third contract required certifications in AutoCAD and
3-D modeling packages and five to nine years of related experience.  A WRPS executive
testified that WRPS determined that sample 29 did have a technical degree after his
qualifications were challenged by DOE, Transcript, Vol. 2 at 50, but it is not clear when that
degree was awarded or that he was qualified at the time he was given the three contracts.
Overnight Rate Increases
DOE deemed costs for two individuals unreasonable because the hourly rates for the
individuals increased from one contract to another without an explanation as to why the rates
increased.
WRPS explained the reasons for the rate increases.  For sample 4, the rate increase
was $8.51 per hour in fiscal year 2018.  Exhibit 45 at 9.  The individual’s job responsibilities
increased in fiscal year 2018 and included management duties, thereby justifying the
increase.  Exhibit 365; Transcript, Vol. 1 at 248-49.  The rate for sample 21 increased by
$61.50 in fiscal year 2018, from $101.47 to $162.97 per hour, although the individual was
performing the same function and responsibilities.  Exhibit 45 at 15.  Sample 21 had been the
owner of her own company and was able to provide her services with very little overhead. 
Transcript, Vol. 2 at 8; Exhibit 37 at 99.  In fiscal year 2018, the individual disbanded her
company, and WRPS hired her through another staff augmentation subcontractor. 

REDACTED VERSION
CBCA 7056 8
Transcript, Vol. 2 at 8; Exhibit 685.  Both individuals were paid at the BMA rates that were
established through competition during the periods challenged by DOE.  Exhibits 363, 685.
DOE’s 2x Factor
The specific amounts that DOE challenged for the thirteen individuals totaled
$3 million.  Because DOE had identified other individuals with qualifications or other issues,
DOE doubled the amount sought to capture them.  DOE sought to be conservative in
applying this 2x factor.  Exhibit 45 at 7.  As the DOE auditor explained, it was not proper to
extrapolate because DOE had selected the original forty-one individuals to be audited based
upon tenure rather than sampling the entire pool.  Transcript, Vol. 3 at 74, 248.  DOE sought
to capture other issues, like excessive pass-through, which the DOE auditor acknowledged
had not been quantified.  Id. at 247.
Discussion
DOE challenges WRPS’s staff augmentation costs as unreasonable.  Regulation
assigns the burden to WRPS to prove the reasonableness of the costs.  “If an initial review
of the facts results in a challenge to the specific cost by the contracting officer or the
contracting officer’s representative, the burden of proof shall be upon the contractor to
establish that such cost is reasonable.”  FAR 31.201-3(a).  “Cost reasonableness is a question
of fact.”  Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. United States, 742 F.3d 967, 970 (Fed. Cir.
2014).  Costs must be reasonable to be allowable.  FAR 31.201-2(a)(1).
Cost reasonableness is determined by considering “if, in its nature and amount, [a
cost] does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of
competitive business.”  FAR 31.201-3(a).  Whether a cost “is reasonable depends upon a
variety of considerations and circumstances.”  FAR 31.201-3 (b); see Kellogg Brown & Root
Services, Inc. v. United States, 728 F.3d 1348, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2013), opinion corrected on
denial of reh’g, 563 F. App’x 769 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“The standard for assessing
reasonableness is flexible, allowing [consideration of] . . . many fact-intensive and
context-specific factors.”).  The regulation identifies four factors to be considered:
(1) Whether it is the type of cost generally recognized as ordinary and
necessary for the conduct of the contractor’s business or the contract
performance;
(2) Generally accepted sound business practices, arm’s-length bargaining,
and Federal and State laws and regulations;

REDACTED VERSION
CBCA 7056 9
(3) The contractor’s responsibilities to the Government, other customers,
the owners of the business, employees, and the public at large; and
(4) Any significant deviations from the contractor’s established practices.
FAR 31.201-3(b).
When reviewing for reasonableness, the Board is not “limited to considering the audit
findings on which [the government] based its . . . claim . . . .  A contractor may bolster its
case at the Board with ‘evidence to show that it acted reasonably’ in incurring costs, even if
such evidence is adduced only in or for the litigation.”  Mission Support Alliance, LLC v.
Department of Energy, CBCA 6477, 22-1 BCA ¶ 38,181, at 185,432 (citing Fluor
Intercontinental Inc., ASBCA 62550, 22-1 BCA ¶ 38,105, at 185,101), clarified and motion
for reconsideration denied, 22-1 BCA ¶ 38,210.  However, because it bears the burden of
proof for reasonableness, the contractor must provide something in the record about the
reasonableness of the challenged costs.  Mission Support Alliance, LLC, 22-1 BCA at
185,432.  Weak or circumstantial evidence that a contractor acted reasonably will not be
enough for the contractor to meet its burden of proof.  Mission Support Alliance, LLC, 22-1
BCA at 185,561.
The parties agree that the standard in FAR 15.404-1, which prescribes the proposal
analysis techniques for contracting officers to evaluate the reasonableness of offered price
proposals in negotiated procurements, also provides guidance for assessing the
reasonableness of the challenged costs.  Pursuant to FAR 15.404-1(b)(2), “[t]he Government
may use various price analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable
price,” including:  (i) price competition; (ii) historical prices; (iii) parametric estimating
methods; (iv) competitive published price lists; (v) independent Government cost estimates;
(vi) prices obtained through market research of same or similar items; and (vii) other data
other than certified cost or pricing data provided by the offeror.  According to regulation, the
first two methods at FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) are the “preferred techniques.  However, . . . the
contracting officer may use any of the remaining techniques appropriate to the circumstances
applicable to the acquisition.”  FAR 15.404-1(b)(3).  The designation of “preferred
techniques” has been interpreted to be “a suggestion, not a strict hierarchy.”  DynCorp
International, LLC v. United States, 10 F.4th 1300, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2021).  “The yardstick
by which sufficiency is measured here is not some specific rule, formula, calculation, or
detailed fact-finding.  Rather, it is the reasonable-discretion-informed appropriateness of the
technique under the circumstances.”  Id. at 1312.
WRPS has established that the costs challenged by DOE were reasonable.  WRPS
sought to fill specialized requirements with individuals with extensive experience in the

REDACTED VERSION
CBCA 7056 10
difficult world of nuclear waste management.  In the periods challenged by DOE, WRPS
paid ten of the thirteen individuals at the rates set in the BMAs, rates that are established
through competition, a proper method to determine reasonable prices.  See
FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(i).  For the three individuals that were paid above the BMA rate, those
costs were incurred to obtain experts in areas that WRPS needed to perform the contract, a
cost that would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of this challenging contract. 
FAR 31.201-3(a).  WRPS established that the higher rates that it incurred were reasonable
through comparison to historical pricing and competitive price lists (GSA rates), again
accepted methods to prove reasonableness.  FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(ii), (iv).
We find no merit in DOE’s challenge based upon what the individuals would have
been paid if hired as full-time WRPS employees.  The problems with DOE’s analysis on this
point are myriad—the analysis fails to account for the hours these individuals worked, is
based upon an analysis of 2018 rates, but applied across all years of the contract, and fails
to account for the years of experience that many of these individuals possessed.  To address
DOE’s larger concern about the need for a “make versus buy” analysis, WRPS has
established that these individuals were hired on an as-needed basis and that it would have
incurred additional costs if these individuals had been hired as full-time employees.
We find the overnight rate increases reasonable.  For one, the rate increase was tied
to an increase in responsibility.  For the other, although the functions were the same, the rate
paid was the BMA rate obtained through competition.
We find that all but one of the individuals was qualified for the position and rates at
which they were paid based upon the years of experience that they possessed.  The exception
is sample 29.  We agree that the costs identified by DOE based upon sample 29’s lack of
qualifications were unreasonable.  While we found that sample 29 did earn a degree, the
record is silent as to when that degree was earned, so we do not know whether sample 29 was
qualified at the time of his first contract.  Also, the third contract required five-to-nine years
of experience and a more specialized degree.  WRPS has not shown that sample 29 met these
qualifications.  Accordingly, WRPS has not shown that the costs incurred for sample 29 in
the amount of $80,275, are reasonable.
Although we find that WRPS has failed to establish the reasonableness for the costs
of sample 29 due to a lack of qualifications, we decline to apply DOE’s “2x factor” to this
amount.  While we appreciate that DOE was attempting to approximate the costs of other
problems it identified with its application of the “2x factor,” this approach does not comport
with the FAR requirement that the contracting officer identify a “specific cost” that was
challenged on reasonableness.  FAR 31.201-3.

REDACTED VERSION
CBCA 7056 11
Decision
The appeal is GRANTED IN PART.  WRPS shall repay DOE $80,275, plus interest
calculated in accordance with FAR 52.232-17.
   Marian E. Sullivan          
MARIAN E. SULLIVAN
Board Judge
We concur:
    H. Chuck Kullberg           Jonathan D. Zischkau    
H. CHUCK KULLBERG JONATHAN D. ZISCHKAU
Board Judge Board Judge

REDACTED VERSION
CBCA 7056 12
Appendix A - Findings Regarding Thirteen Individuals
DOE’s challenge to reasonableness of the contract labor resource (CLR) costs for
thirteen individuals is grouped into four categories:  (1) CLR rate that exceeded the blanket
master agreement (BMA) rate; (2) CLR rate which exceeded the full-time-equivalent (FTE)
rate of a WRPS employee; (3) CLRs who lacked the qualifications for the contracted rate;
and (4) overnight rate increases, two instances in which a CLR’s rate increased from one
contract to the next.  Exhibit 45 at 6-21.  Set forth below are the Board’s findings regarding
the thirteen individuals.
1.
 
 (Sam
ple 4)
DOE disallowed $213,325.79 paid to 
 
 
in fiscal years 2013–2018;
$177,438.52 in fiscal years 2013–2015 because 
 
 
rate exceeded the rate on the
BMA on which he was hired; $19,103 in fiscal years 2016 and 2017 because 
did not have a computer science degree and purportedly did not meet the qualification
requirements for the BMA; and $16,784.27 in fiscal year 2018 because 
 
 
rate
increased purportedly without a change in responsibilities.  Exhibit 45 at 9.
 
 
was an electrical engineer with a Bachelor of Science (B.S.) and a Master
of Science (M.S.) degree in electrical engineering.  Exhibit 167 at 3.  
 
 
had over
twenty years of experience as an electrical engineer, including Hanford-specific experience. 
Exhibit 167 at 3-6.  Doug Siron, who worked for WRPS as the assistant business manager
to the CFO and business manager, testified that 
 
 
was someone with “extensive
experience and was regarded [as] a subject matter expert as it related to computer
applications for the tank farms and for the DOE complex for the tank farm operations.” 
Transcript, Vol. 1 at 177-78.  
 
 
also held several patents in techniques for
monitoring tank farms and was a participating author of DOE guidance on safety system
software reports.  Id. at 237-38.  During the period at issue, 
 
 was hired on 
four
CLR subcontract releases:  49910-15, 49909-55, 59057, and 61834-6.5
The first release (49910-15) had a period of performance from November 26, 2012,
to May 31, 2013.  Exhibit 343.  DOE disallowed costs because 
 
 
rate exceeded
the BMA rates.  Under the statement of work, 
 
 
was to revise, enhance, and
support software used in plant safety.  Exhibit 333.  
 
 
was noncompetitively
5 CLRs were hired on “releases” issued under the BMAs.  Transcript, Vol. 1
at 38.


REDACTED VERSION
CBCA 7056 13
procured as the “preferred candidate”6 for a principal electrical engineer position.  Id. 
 
 
was subcontracted through 
 
. 
Exhibit 342.  
 
 
BMA rate for a principal engineer in fiscal year 2013 was 
 
,
Exhibit 315 at 121, while the rates for the other BMA contract holders were 
 
. 
 Exhibits 84 at 12, 85 at 1.  For 
 
, 
 
 
proposed a rate of
 
.  Exhibit 342.
To determine the reasonableness of the proposed rate, WRPS examined two published
price lists through GSA Advantage, which is an online shopping and ordering system with
numerous GSA schedule contracts.  Exhibit 342.  Contract GS-23F-0345K listed a rate of
$137.95/hour for an Electrical Engineer IV, which had qualifications of a B.S. and M.S. in
electrical engineering and 10–15 years of minimum experience.  Exhibit 340.  Contract
GS-10F-0281K listed a rate of $133.16/hour for a Principal Engineer.  Exhibit 341.  Based
upon 
 
 
resume, experience, and comparative price lists, WRPS found
 
 
labor rate to be fair and reasonable at the time of award.  Exhibit 342.  After
receiving DOE’s notice of disallowance, WRPS’s further analysis confirmed that 
was a fair and reasonable rate.  Exhibit 37 at 47.7
For the second release (49909-55),8 covering October 1  to December 31, 2015, DOE
disallowed costs because, in addition to his rate exceeding the BMA rate, 
 
 
did
not meet the BMA requirement that the hired individual possess a computer-related degree. 
 
 
was contracted through 
 
 
at a rate of
 
 
to be a principal electrical engineer.  Exhibit 37 at 47.  The labor rates for fiscal
year 2016 are not included in the rate sheet that is in the record, but the 
 
 
rate for a
6 Preferred candidates were individuals who were requested by “the field,” or
the WRPS personnel who were working to clear the tanks.  Transcript, Vol. 1 at 13, 89-90,
199-200.
7 Exhibit 37 is WRPS’s response to the notice to disallow costs and was created
on August 6, 2020, after all of the contested CLR releases.  Throughout this appendix,
Exhibit 37 is often cited because either there is no contemporaneous documentation, or
Exhibit 37 contains information that is not in the contemporaneous documentation.
8 The procurement files for this release (49909-55) were not included in the
appeal file.  According to WRPS, the procurement files for this release and other releases
(38979-001, 38979-026, 38794-114, 49583-17, 37650-3, 39682-37, 39665-15, 49909-56, and
58818-23) were not included in the appeal file because DOE did not challenge them in the
final decision.  Demonstrative 2 at 1 n.1.  The information regarding these releases is gleaned
from WRPS’s August 6, 2020, letter to the contracting officer.  See Exhibit 37.


REDACTED VERSION
CBCA 7056 14
standard principal electrical engineer in fiscal year 2015 under the BMA was . 
Exhibit 92.  Although the rate of 
 
 
was above the BMA rate for a standard
principal electrical engineer, WRPS concluded that it was fair and reasonable because it was
consistent with 
 
 historical rates.  Exhibit 37 at 47.
For the third release (59057), covering a period of performance from February 1,
2016, through the end of fiscal year 2016, DOE disallowed costs because 
 
 did
not possess a computer-related degree.  Exhibit 45 at 9.  
 
 
was noncompetitively
procured to be a Program Support, Project Lead, and Computer System Analyst to provide
project lead and software quality services to support the software engineering process at a
rate of 
 
. 
 Exhibits 349, 356.  
 
 
was procured through 
 
. 
 Exhibit 356.  
 
, although
that fact was not known to WRPS until DOE pointed it out to WRPS.  Exhibit 32 at 24.  At
the time of procurement, WRPS did not request a conflict of interest disclosure statement
because “  is providing software-related services only.”  Exhibit 356 at 4.  WRPS
determined at the time of award that 
 
 
rate was fair and reasonable because it
was consistent with the rate paid for 
 
 work historically
.  Id. at 3.
For the fourth release (61834-6), covering fiscal year 2017, DOE disallowed costs
because 
 
 
received an overnight labor rate increase from 
 
 
to 
 
. 
Exhibit 45 at 9.  
 
 
was hired to serve as senior software project manager with
responsibility for oversight and manager responsibilities to reduce the backlog of required
software change requests, an increase in responsibility from his previous position.  Exhibit
365 at 1; Transcript, Vol. 1 at 248-49; Exhibits 37 at 48, 364.  
 
 
was the preferred
candidate on a request that required four years or greater in “Computer Science, Computer
Engineering, Software Engineering, Electrical Engineering, or related technical field or
discipline.”  Exhibit 362.  The request also required software and nuclear safety skills and
that the individual be qualified as “engineering technical staff for [the] tank farms” and as
a  “software technical support analyst.”   Id.  Because 
 
 
was paid at the BMA rate
( ), WRPS determined at the time of award that his rate was fair and reasonable. 
Exhibit 363.
2.
 
 (Sam
ple 5)
For five CLRs, DOE calculated two different estimated disallowance amounts based
upon different challenges and averaged those estimates to determine the amount to be
disallowed.  See, e.g., Exhibit 45 at 8 (contracting officer disallowance of 
costs).  For 
 
, 
DOE calculated the low amount to be $179,625.05 for fiscal years
2013–2018, and the high amount to be $284,796.06 for fiscal years 2009–2018, which


REDACTED VERSION
CBCA 7056 15
averaged to $232,210.50.  Id.9  DOE disallowed the low amount because it believed 
 was not qualified for the rates he received.  Id.  DOE calculated the high amount
based upon its interpretation of WRPS’s rate testing, which DOE believed showed that
 
 
was procured at a cost seventeen percent greater than an equivalent WRPS FTE
employee.  Id.; contra see Exhibit 721 (spreadsheet of WRPS’s rate testing results).
 
 
began working as an engineer in quality assurance and quality control
in 1973, and had worked as both a consultant and an engineer in quality assurance and
quality control from 1988–2016, with most of that time at Hanford for different contractors. 
Exhibit 433 at 3-7; see Exhibit 37 at 52.  
 
 
resume did not indicate he held a
degree, but WRPS reported that he had a Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) in education.  Compare
Exhibit 433 at 3-7 (
 
 
resume) with Exhibit 37 at 52 (WRPS’s response).  Mr.
Siron called 
 
 
a “subject-matter expert” because 
 
 
was used by DOE
as a consultant for the development of DOE nuclear waste surveillance programs. 
Transcript, Vol. 1 at 253.  
 
 
had four CLR subcontract releases for the period at
issue:  38979-001, 38979-026, 49908-6, and 58819-3.
Release 38979-001, for the period of performance from “date of award” through the
end of fiscal year 2010, was for a quality assurance engineer.10  Exhibit 37 at 51.  WRPS
contracted for 
 
 
services through 
 
, 
which held a basic
ordering agreement (BOA) for staff augmentation services.  WRPS competed the
requirement for six quality assurance engineers among three BOA holders.  Exhibit 37 at 51. 
 
 
was procured at a rate of 
 
, 
which was “the second lowest overall
cost.”  Id.  The position required a B.S. or B.A. in engineering or a related field, five or more
years of related experience, or an equivalent combination of experience and education.  Id. 
WRPS determined
 
 
met the technical qualifications based on his over thirty years
of experience in quality assurance.  Id.  WRPS determined the rate was fair and reasonable
because  rate was established through adequate price com petition.  Id.
9 DOE did not calculate average disallowance amounts for individuals.  Across
the five contested CLRs with two different amounts of costs disallowed, DOE produced a
low and high disallowance amount for the entire group, added these amounts together, and
divided by two to obtain an average.  The math is the same whether the average is applied
at the group or individual level.
10 It is unclear when this release was awarded, but it could not have been earlier
than fiscal year 2009, because DOE only challenged costs from fiscal years 2009–2018.  See
Exhibit 45 at 8.


REDACTED VERSION
CBCA 7056 16
The first release was extended another year, through the end of fiscal year 2012, at a
rate of 
 
, 
which is a 2.8% increase from the prior year’s labor rate.  Id.  The
second release (38979-026) was originally a two-week extension of 
 
 
first
release from October 1 to October 16, 2011, at a rate of 
 
.
11  Id.  This release was
extended to September 30, 2012, at a rate of 
 
, 
which is a 1.8% increase. 
Exhibit 37 at 51.
DOE argues 
 
 
was not qualified was for the positions he held from fiscal
years 2013–2018.  With release 49908-6, covering fiscal years 2013–2015, 
 
 
was
procured as a principal quality assistance engineer.  The solicitation was confusing; on it was
checked the box for principal engineer, which is a BMA labor and rate category that the
solicitation corresponded to a “BS Plus 15 Yrs Nuclear Exp.”  Exhibits 97, 428; see Exhibit
37 at 51.12  However, the release also stated the skills required were “10 years [quality
assistance] experience, 5 years [quality assistance] experience within tank farms.  Must have
welding and project management experience.”13  Although
 
 
did not have the B.S.
component for the general position,  was requested as the preferred candidate. 
Exhibit 97.  At the time of procurement, WRPS believed 
 
 
rate was fair and
reasonable because 
 
 
was procured through 
 
, 
a
BMA holder, at the BMA rate ( ).  Exhibit 428.
Under release 58819-3, which covered January 1, 2016, through March 19, 2018,
 
 
was procured as a “subject matter expert” quality assistance engineer.14  Exhibit
11 Even though the first release had previously been extended, a second release
was created because “the prior Release was funded by the Recovery Act and separate
accounting was needed for reporting purposes.”  Exhibit 37 at 51.
12 Although the staff augmentation and file summary memorandum show the
period of performance ending in fiscal year 2013, WRPS’s response indicates this release
was extended through fiscal year 2015.  Compare Exhibit 97 (staff augmentation document)
and Exhibit 428 (file summary memorandum) with Exhibit 37 at 51 (WRPS’s response).
13 This method of checking a box that corresponded to a BMA rate and
generalized degree and experience requirements but then further writing requirements in the
comments, some of which contradicted the generalized degree and experience requirements,
was how WRPS would write specialized job requirements for specific releases.
14 The subcontract release and file summary memorandum, which WRPS failed
to document at the time of contract agreement and was documented two months after the
beginning of performance, puts 
 
 
period of performance through the end of


REDACTED VERSION
CBCA 7056 17
434.  
 
 
services were procured through 
 
, 
a BMA holder, at the
BMA rate of 
 
 
in fiscal year 2016, 
 
 
in fiscal year 2017, and
 
 
in fiscal year 2018.  Exhibits 37 at 52, 434.  WRPS believed 
 
 
rate
to be fair and reasonable at the time of award because he was paid at the BMA rate.  Exhibit
434.
DOE calculated a deduction for the amount DOE believed 
 
 
was paid
above the FTE rate for fiscal years 2009–2018.  This amount was based upon DOE’s
interpretation of WRPS’s rate analysis, which was done to determine if CLR rates were
substantially higher than equivalent WRPS FTE rates.  See Exhibit 721 (WRPS-IA rate
analysis).  DOE believes this rate analysis showed 
 
 
rate was seventeen percent
greater than an equivalent WRPS FTE.  Exhibit 45 at 10.  
 
 
rate for fiscal year
2018 was 
 
. 
 Id.  According to DOE’s reasoning, 
 
 
should have been
paid no more than 
 
 
that year.  
 
 
also worked more than 2000 hours
in only two of those ten years.  Id.
3.
 
 (Sam
ple 6)
For 
 
, 
DOE disallowed $78,565.81, which was the average of the low amount
of $76,222.71, based on a challenge of amounts paid to 
 
 
in fiscal years 2010–2018
in excess of an equivalent WRPS FTE, and the high amount of $80,908.81, based on a
challenge of amounts paid to 
 
 
in fiscal years 2010–2012, during which DOE argues
he was not qualified for the rate he received.  Exhibit 45 at 8.
 
 
was a work planner with more than seventeen years of experience and had
worked at the Hanford site since 1999.  Exhibit 467.  
 
 
possessed a B.A. in criminal
law and justice.  Id.  As a work planner, 
 
 
was responsible for planning how the
projects to clean up the tank farm would proceed and was “instrumental” in ensuring work
would actually be performed.  Transcript, Vol. 1 at 267; Exhibit 467.  Five subcontract
releases are at issue:  38794-87, 38794-129, 49583-16, 49583-125, and 62218-09.
Release one (38794-87), for a performance period of June 7, 2010, through the end
of fiscal year 2010, was for a senior production control and work planner.  Exhibits 69, 442.
An option to extend the release for an additional year, through fiscal year 2011 at a three
percent escalation, was exercised.  Exhibits 69, 442.  
 
 
was paid at a rate of
 
 
in fiscal year 2010 and 
 
 
in fiscal year 2011.  Exhibit 45 at 11.  The
fiscal year 2016.  Exhibits 434, 435.  WRPS’s response indicates the contract was extended
into fiscal years 2017 and 2018.  Exhibit 37 at 52.


REDACTED VERSION
CBCA 7056 18
position required a “Bachelors Degree in Engineering, Business, or related field, and ten or
more years of experience Hanford Project work planning.”  Exhibit 436 at 3.  WRPS
solicited candidates from five BOA holders, Exhibit 442 at 2-3, and 
 
 
was procured
through a BOA with 
 
. 
 Exhibit 37 at 65.  
 
 
rate was lower
than his previous rate of 
 
 
on a release as a senior work planner with 
 
.
15 
Exhibits 68, 442.  WRPS determined at the time of award that 
 
 
rate was fair and
reasonable because the BOA was competed among five BOA holders and his labor rate was
comparable to his previous labor rate.  Exhibit 442 at 2.
Release two (37894-129), for performance in fiscal year 2012, was issued under the
same BOA with 
 
 
for a senior mechanical production control and work planner. 
Exhibits 37 at 66, 450.  This procurement was not competed; instead, 
 
 
was preferred
by the project.  Exhibit 450.  
 
 
labor rate was 
 
, 
which was a 1.7%
increase from his labor rate in fiscal year 2011 under the first release.  Id. at 2.  This release
had the same education and experience requirements.  Exhibit 72; see also Exhibit 37.  Based
on his historical prices, WRPS determined at the time of award that 
 
 
rate was fair
and reasonable.  Exhibit 450 at 2.
Release three (49583-16), for performance in fiscal year 2013, was for a senior
production control and work planner.  Exhibit 454.  
 
 
was paid 
 
, 
the rate
agreed upon in the BMA between 
 
 
and WRPS on which 
 
 
was hired.  Id.  This
release was extended through fiscal year 2014 at the BMA rate ( ), Exhibit 117,
and again through fiscal year 2015 at the BMA rate (
 
). 
 Exhibits 131, 132. 
WRPS determined at the time of award that 
 
 
rates were fair and reasonable
because he was paid at the BMA rates.  Exhibits 117, 131, 454.
Release four (49583-125), for performance from November 30, 2015, through the end
of fiscal year 2016, was for a senior mechanical production control and work planner. 
Exhibits 457, 459.  WRPS requested 
 
 
as a preferred candidate for the position of
preparing, coordinating, and facilitating work packages to support the tank farms and
supporting structures.  Exhibit 457 at 2.  As “Minimum Qualifications,” the position listed
“[a] Bachelor’s Degree in Engineering, Business or related field and eight or more years
related experience or a combination of education and experience.”  Id.  
 
 
was paid
the BMA rate ( ).  Exhibit 459.  Because 
 
 
was paid at the BMA rate,
WRPS concluded at the time of award that his rate was fair and reasonable.  Id.
15
 
 was the contractor bef
ore WRPS.


REDACTED VERSION
CBCA 7056 19
Release five (62218-9), with a period of performance of April 1, 2017, through the
end of fiscal year 2017, was for a senior work control planner.  Exhibit 182.  
 
 
was
paid the BMA rate ( ).  Exhibits 483, 484.  The release was extended through fiscal
year 2018, and  was paid the BMA rate ( ).  Exhibits 37 at 66, 176 at
4.  Because 
 
 
was paid at the BMA rate, WRPS concluded at the time of award that
his rate was fair and reasonable.  Exhibit 483.
DOE calculated a deduction for the amount 
 
 
was paid above the FTE rate for
fiscal years 2010–2018.  This amount was based upon DOE’s interpretation of WRPS’s rate
analysis, which was done to determine if CLR rates were substantially higher than equivalent
WRPS FTE rates.  See Exhibit 721 (WRPS-IA rate analysis).  DOE believes this analysis
shows 
 
 
was paid six percent in excess of an equivalent WRPS FTE.  Exhibit 45 at 8. 
 
 rate f
or 2018 was .  Id.  According to DOE’s reasoning, 
should have been paid no more than  that year.  In addition, 
 
 
never
worked more than 2000 hours in any of those nine years.  Id.
4.
 
 (Sam
ple 12) 
DOE disallowed $59,829 paid to 
 
 
because he did not meet the
qualifications on three of his releases (39681-92, 49910-02, and 49909-59) for fiscal years
2012–2016.  Exhibit 45 at 12.
 
 
worked as a principal engineer, with thirty years of experience that
included Hanford-specific experience.  Exhibit 76.  
 
 
did not possess a B.S. or
B.A.  Exhibit 37 at 69.  Mr. Siron described 
 
 
as “an expert” in safety analysis and
deemed 
 
 
to be “integral” to the project by ensuring “the workers, the public and
the environment are protected.”  Transcript, Vol. 1 at 284-85.
 
 
first release (39681-92), for the performance period of February 1 to
June 6, 2012, required him to work as a principal engineer with the skills to independently
solve engineering problems and lead other engineers.  Exhibits 66 at 15, 509.  
was specifically requested as a preferred candidate because of his “extensive experience.” 
Exhibit 507 at 3.  The position required a “minimum [of a] BS degree in Engineering
discipline PLUS 15 or more years engineering experience at a nuclear facility of Navy
Nuclear power.”  Exhibit 66 at 15.  According to WRPS, there is no record of 
release-specific statement of work (SOW) or requirements.  Exhibit 37 at 69.  The WRPS file
summary memorandum documenting 
 
 
hire does not indicate that 
lacked a degree or that the degree requirement had been waived.  Exhibit 509.  
was paid the BMA rate of 
 
, 
and based upon this fact, WRPS concluded, at the
time of award, that his rate was fair and reasonable.  Id.


REDACTED VERSION
CBCA 7056 20
 
 
second release (49910-02), for fiscal year 2013, also had 
working as a principal engineer.  Exhibit 100.  
 
 
was the preferred candidate and
the release had the box for principal engineer checked, which required a B.S. and fifteen
years of experience.  Exhibit 519.  However, the release also specified that “[t]he successful
candidate need not have a BS degree, but should have applicable work experience to function
as a Principal Engineer. . . . [and] should have demonstrated Hanford work experience.”  Id.
at 1.  
 
 
was procured through  and paid at a rate of  
 
, 
which was
above the BMA rate of 
 
 
with 
 
 
and higher than any of the other BMA rates.16 
Exhibits 86, 100.  At the time of award, WRPS determined that  rate was f air
and reasonable because 
 
 
rate was lower than his historical rate.  Exhibit 525
at 2.  The release was extended through fiscal years 2014 and 2015 at rates of 
and , respectively .
 
 
third release (49909-59), from October 1 to December 31, 2015, was
for a principal engineer.  Exhibit 515.  
 
 
was procured as a preferred candidate on
a BMA with 
 
. 
 Id.  
 
 
was paid at a rate of 
 
, 
which WRPS
determined, at the time of award, to be fair and reasonable based on his historical rates
because the rate was only a two percent increase from the rate from fiscal year 2015. 
Exhibits 144, 515.
5.  (Sample 13)
DOE disallowed $477,968.04 paid to 
 
 
in fiscal years 2010–2018 because
DOE believed WRPS’s rate testing showed that 
 
 
rate was twenty-nine percent
greater than an equivalent WRPS employee.  Exhibit 45 at 13 (contracting officer
disallowance of 
 
 
cost); contra see Exhibit 721 (spreadsheet of WRPS’s rate
testing results).
 
 
was a chemical engineer who had worked at the Hanford site since 1962. 
Exhibit 557 at 6-9.  
 
 
possessed a B.S. in chemical engineering.  Exhibit 557 at 6;
see also Exhibit 37 at 87.  Mr. Siron testified that “
 
 
was known for his
experience, 40 years of experience, of identifying the construction of waste tanks located out
at Hanford, and he had intimate knowledge about the formal leak assessment process.” 
Transcript, Vol. 1 at 314.  Because of his experience and WRPS’s need, 
 
 
rates
were consistently high and ranged from 
 
. 
 Exhibit 37 at 87-88. 
These rates were higher than comparable BMA rates.  For example, in fiscal year 2013, the
16 The other two BMA holders had rates at 
 
 
for a
principal electrical engineer.  Exhibits 84 at 12, 85 at 1.


REDACTED VERSION
CBCA 7056 21
BMA rates for a principal engineer were 
 
,
Exhibits 84 at 12, 85 at 1, 96 at 1, while 
 
 
was paid at the rate of 
 
. 
Exhibit 37 at 87.
DOE calculated a deduction for the amount 
 
 
was paid above the FTE rate
for fiscal years 2010–2015 and 2017–2018.  This amount was based upon DOE’s
interpretation of WRPS’s rate analysis, which was done to determine if CLR rates were
substantially higher than equivalent WRPS FTE rates.  See Exhibit 721 (WRPS-IA rate
analysis).  DOE believes this analysis shows 
 
 
rate in 2018 was twenty-nine
percent greater than an equivalent WRPS FTE.  Exhibit 45 at 13.  
 
 
rate for fiscal
year 2018 was 
 
. 
 Id.  According to DOE’s reasoning, 
 
 
should have
been paid no more than 
 
 
that year.  
 
 
never worked more than 2000
hours in a fiscal year.  Id.
6.
 
 (Sam
ple 18)
DOE sought to disallow $71,338, paid to 
 
 
in fiscal years 2010 and 2011,
because 
 
 
did not possess the B.S. degree required in the position description. 
Exhibit 45 at 14.
 
 
had “substantial work experience” as a senior work control planner, a
position that develops the work packages that other employees follow to ensure that the work
is accomplished safely and efficiently.  Transcript, Vol. 1 at 326, 330.  
 
 
was “the
only electrical work control planner for the [Tank] Farm.”  Id. at 326.
 
 
was the incumbent senior work control planner prior to fiscal year 2010. 
Exhibit 641 at 1.  Due to his past performance and the fact that he was “the only individual
qualified to perform the required electrical planning services,” 
 
 
was
noncompetitively procured for fiscal year 2010 to maintain his current position at a rate of
 
. 
 Exhibits 637 at 1, 641, 642.  WRPS extended the release for fiscal year 2011
at a rate of .  Exhibit 37 at 96.  WRPS compared 
 
 proposed rate to
other rates for work package planners and found that the lowest of the historical rates was
 
. 
 Exhibit 641 at 2.  Based upon this analysis, WRPS concluded, at the time of award,
that  rate was f air and reasonable.  Id.
7.
 
 (Sam
ple 21)
DOE sought to disallow $84,470 paid to 
 
 
in fiscal year 2018 because of
what DOE perceived to be an “overnight rate increase.”  Exhibit 45 at 15.  DOE asserted that


REDACTED VERSION
CBCA 7056 22
it was unreasonable that
 
 
rate went from
 
 
on one contract(56825)
to  on the next contract (61834-05), without any  change in scope of work.
In fiscal year 2015, 
 
 
was contracted (56825) through her own firm,
 
, 
on a non-competitive basis to work as a principal software quality consulting
engineer at the rate of 
 
. 
 Exhibits 37 at 99, 680.  The BMA rates for a principal
quality assurance engineer in fiscal year 2015 were 
 
. 
 Exhibits 84 at 12, 85 at 1, 96 at 1.  
 
 
was described by Mr. Siron
as “pretty much a one-man operation, so less overhead, less rate of charge,” so she was able
to price herself below the market rate.  Transcript, Vol. 2 at 8.  
 
 
contract was
extended for fiscal years 2016 and 2017 at a rate of 
 
. 
 Exhibit 37 at 99.  For
fiscal year 2018, 
 
 
decided against contracting herself through her own business
and, instead, contracted through 
 
. 
 Exhibit 685.  She was hired as a
software quality assurance specialist at a rate of 
 
, 
which was the BMA rate.  Id. at 2. 
Because the rate was in line with the BMA rate, WRPS determined, at the time of award, that
 
 labor rate was f
air and reasonable.  Exhibit 685.
8.
 
 (Sam
ple 23)
DOE sought to disallow $76,515 paid to  in fiscal years 2011–2016 across
three releases.  DOE calculated the amount based upon the difference in rates between a
principal electrical engineer, a position for which DOE believed 
 
 
was not qualified,
and an operations engineer, a difference of $8.25/hour.  Exhibit 45 at 16.
 
 
worked as a principal electrical engineer.  
 
 
did not possess a B.S.
or B.A. degree.  Exhibit 37 at 102; see also Exhibit 650 at 5-6.  
 
 
possessed
significant work experience in instrument and control engineering, including
Hanford-specific experience.  Exhibit 650 at 5-6.  Mr. Siron described 
 
 as 
“a very
experienced and knowledgeable individual that has worked out on the site for over 25 years
and has immense knowledge as it relates to instrument and control engineering.”  Transcript,
Vol. 2 at 13.  In particular, 
 
 
was trained and capable of entering the restricted zones
of the tank farms, which allowed him to “go in and troubleshoot areas that most engineers
that are not trained cannot.”  Id. at 14; Exhibit 37 at 102.
 
 
 
first release (39682-24), for work performed from January 3 to August 1,
2011, was as a principal electrical engineer tasked with monitoring the tank farm and
upgrading the control system.  Exhibits 644 at 1, 647 at 1; see Exhibit 646.  
 
 
was
the preferred candidate for the position.  Exhibit 644 at 1.  The release checked the box for
a principal engineer that required a B.S. and fifteen years of nuclear experience, but the
written description of the minimum qualifications stated “[e]lectrical, mechanical, or


REDACTED VERSION
CBCA 7056 23
chemical engineer with an accredited degree and 2–5 years relative experience (15 years
relative without degree).”  Exhibit 644 at 1.  
 
 
was paid at the BMA rate
( ).  Exhibit 646 at 2.  At the time of award, WRPS determined that 
rate was fair and reasonable because he was a preferred candidate who was paid at the BMA
rate.  Exhibit 646.
 
 
second release (39682-39), for performance from October 11, 2011,
through the end of fiscal year 2012, was as a principal electrical engineer.17  Exhibits 652,
653.   was paid at the BMA rate ( ).  Exhibit 652 at 2.  Because of
 
 
support on the previous release and his payment at the BMA rate, WRPS
determined at the time of award that 
 
 
rate was fair and reasonable.  Exhibit 652.
 
 
third release (49910-3), for performance during fiscal year 2013, was as
a principal electrical engineer.  Again, the qualifications for the position were confusing. 
While the box that required a B.S. degree and fifteen years of nuclear experience was
checked, the position description also stated that 
 
 
was the preferred candidate
requested and that the position “[r]equires knowledge of WRPS Engineering procedures
including software quality assurance requirements for document preparation and change
control,” which  possessed.  Exhibit 658 at 1.  
 
 
was paid at a rate of
 
, 
which was higher than the established BMA but less than 
 
 
was paid
on his previous release.  Exhibit 662.  WRPS obtained 
 
 
services through 
 
,
which had a BMA with WRPS at a rate of 
 
 
for a principal electrical engineer. 
Exhibit 96.  The other two BMA holders had rates of 
 
 
for a
principal electrical engineer.  Exhibits 84 at 12, 85 at 1.  WRPS determined 
 
 
rate
was fair and reasonable, at the time of award, because the rate was less than his historical
rates on the previous BMA.  Exhibit 662 at 2.
9.
 
 (Sam
ple 24)
DOE disallowed $356,435, paid to 
 
 
in fiscal years 2014–2018, because
DOE believed WRPS’s rate testing showed that 
 
 
rate was thirty-two percent
greater than an equivalent WRPS employee.  Exhibit 45 at 17 (contracting officer
disallowance of 
 
 
costs); contra see Exhibit 721 (spreadsheet of WRPS’s rate
testing results).
17 This release was awarded non-competitively because it continued 
services from the prior fiscal year but required a new release due to a different funding
mechanism.  Exhibit 652 at 1.


REDACTED VERSION
CBCA 7056 24
 
 
was a radiation control health physicist who provided independent internal
audits of the Radiological Control Program (RadCon program) as prescribed under 10 CFR
835.102.  The RadCon program tracked and monitored the amount of radiation at the site to
ensure the safety of the people working out in the field.  Transcript, Vol. 2 at 27.  
had a M.S. in environmental sciences (risk assessment/toxicology) and a B.S. in nuclear
engineering.  Exhibit 37 at 114; also Exhibit 369.  
 
 was “uniquely
 qualified” for
the position because he had extensive experience at Hanford, other DOE nuclear sites, and
ten years of experience at the waste treatment plant.  Exhibit 369.  
 
 
services were
procured on two releases (54719 and 60173), on which he was paid rates of 
and 
 
. 
 Exhibit 381, 419.  WRPS did not compete 
 
 
releases; instead,
his rates were deemed reasonable based upon comparisons to a GSA schedule contract and
the prices he previously charged to another contractor.  Exhibits 381, 419.
DOE calculated a deduction for the amount 
 
 
was paid above the FTE rate
for fiscal years 2014–2018.  This amount was based upon DOE’s interpretation of WRPS’s
rate analysis, which was done to determine if CLR rates were substantially higher than
equivalent WRPS FTE rates.  See Exhibit 721 (WRPS rate analysis).  DOE believes this
analysis showed 
 
 
rate in fiscal year 2018 was thirty-two percent greater than an
equivalent WRPS FTE.  Exhibit 45 at 17.  
 
 
rate for fiscal year 2018 was
 
. 
 Id.  According to DOE’s reasoning, 
 
 
rate should have been
 
 
that fiscal year.  
 
 
never worked more than 1700 hours in a fiscal year. 
Id.
10.
 
 (Sam
ple 27)
For
 
, 
DOE calculated the low amount to be disallowed as $454,244.89 paid
in fiscal years 2013–2015, and the high amount to be disallowed as $595,457.40, paid in
fiscal years 2009–2018, which averaged to $524,851.15.  Exhibit 45 at 18.  DOE sought to
disallow the low amount because 
 
 
was paid a rate above the BMA rate.  Id.  DOE
calculated the high amount based upon DOE’s belief that WRPS’s rate testing showed that
 
 
was procured at a rate twenty-two percent higher than an equivalent WRPS FTE. 
Id.; contra see Exhibit 721 (spreadsheet of WRPS’s rate testing results).
 
 
had four releases (37650-3, 39682-1, 39682-37, and 49910-1) over fiscal
years 2009–2015, and an additional subcontract (58995) from fiscal years 2016–2018. 
Exhibit 37 at 120-21.  DOE sought to disallow $454,244.89 from one of these releases
(49910-1) because the rate paid to 
 
 exceeded the BMA rate.
On release 49910-1, WRPS contracted with 
 
 
for 
 
 
services for fiscal
year 2013 as a principal process/chemical engineer at a rate of 
 
. 
 Exhibit 102. 


REDACTED VERSION
CBCA 7056 25
 
 
was the preferred candidate for the position.  Exhibit 706 at 1.  The position was
to assist in the process of moving tank waste materials to the waste treatment facility and
“provide[] management, technical, and administrative functions only.  No hands-on field
work activities will be performed.”  Id. at 2.  Knowledge of the testing, commissioning, and
pre-operations activities involved was required.  Exhibit 707 at 1.  Mr. Siron testified that
 
 
“was very knowledgeable of the waste treatment plant facility and construction
that has to be integrated with the tank farms.”  Transcript, Vol. 2 at 32.
 
 
rates on the previous releases were 
 
 
(first release),
 
 
(second release), and 
 
 
(third release).  Exhibit 37 at 120-21.  The
rates for the second and third releases were deemed reasonable based upon 
 
 
rate
for the first release.  Exhibits 37 at 121, 65 at 2.  WRPS also compared 
 
 
rate to
the rate of a different subcontractor who worked as a “senior technical specialist” at a rate
of 
 
. 
 Exhibits 37 at 121, 65 at 2.  
 
 
first release was placed under a
BOA with 
 
. 
 Exhibit 730.  WRPS conducted
two price analyses to determine if
 
 
rate was reasonable prior to issuing the BOA: 
(1) WRPS found GSA rates for similar labor categories; and (2) WRPS examined and found
 
 
price data to be reasonable.  Exhibit 731 at 2; see also Exhibit 37 at 125.  Mr. Siron
testified that this price data analysis was an example of “analyzing data other than certified
cost or pricing data provided by the offeror for FAR [15.404-1(b)(2)(vii)].”  Transcript,
Vol. 2 at 42.  Based on these price analyses, WRPS found 
 
 
rate fair and
reasonable at the time of award.
For fiscal year 2013, the year for which 
 
 
rate was challenged, 
BMA rate for a principal process engineer was 
 
. 
 Exhibit 96.  The other two
BMA holders had rates of 
 
. 
 Exhibits 84 at 12, 85 at 1. 
Although 
 
 rate was m
ore than  BMA rate, W RPS concluded, at
the time of award, that the rate was fair and reasonable because the rate was less than
 
 was paid under his third release (39682-37).  Exhibit 103 at 2.
DOE calculated a deduction for the amount DOE believed 
 
 
was paid above
the FTE rate for fiscal years 2009–2018.  This amount was based upon DOE’s interpretation
of WRPS’s price analysis, which was done to determine if CLR rates were substantially
higher than equivalent WRPS FTE rates.  See Exhibit 721 (WRPS-IA rate analysis).  DOE
believed this rate analysis showed 
 
 
rate in fiscal year 2018 was twenty-two
percent greater than an equivalent WRPS FTE.  Exhibit 45 at 18.  
 
 
rate for fiscal
year 2018 was .  Id.  According to DOE’s reasoning, 
 
 
should have
been paid no more than 
 
. 
 
 
 
also never worked more than 2000 hours
in a fiscal year.  Id.


REDACTED VERSION
CBCA 7056 26
11.
 
 (Sam
ple 29) 
DOE sought to disallow $204,401.66 in costs paid to 
 
, 
which was an
average of a low amount of $80,275.99 that DOE calculated because  was not
qualified for the rates that he was paid in fiscal years 2012–2018, and a high amount of
$328,527.32 that DOE calculated based upon DOE’s belief that WRPS’s rate testing showed
that 
 
 
rate was thirty-two percent greater than an equivalent WRPS FTE for
fiscal years 2010–2018.  Exhibit 45 at 19; contra see Exhibit 721 (spreadsheet of WRPS’s
rate testing results).
DOE challenged 
 
 
qualifications for three releases, asserting that
 
 
did not have the educational degree required for those positions.  In the appeal
file, there are two resumes for 
 
, 
one from 2012 and one from 2015.  Exhibits
487, 496.  Both show that he attended ITT Technical Institute for Computer Aided Drafting
and Design in Spokane, Washington, but neither indicates whether or when he graduated. 
Id.  Also, both resumes list his experience working as a CAD drafter at Hanford as his only
work experience.  Id.  At the hearing, Mr. Siron testified that WRPS looked into the
discrepancies in 
 
 
resume by having their subcontractor, 
 
, 
conduct a
background check on 
 
.  Transcript, Vol. 2 at 50.  According to Mr. Siron, that
background check “confirmed that  obtained a degree and graduated with
honors.”  Id.  However, Mr. Siron did not testify as to when 
 
 
obtained his degree. 
Id.
On release 39681-99, for performance from June 13, 2012, through the end of fiscal
year 2012, 
 
 
was hired as a senior CAD drafter to prepare CAD drawings for the
radiation tanks.  Exhibits 486, 488 at 1; see Exhibit 37 at 131.  WRPS sought 
as the preferred candidate.  Exhibit 486.  The position required an individual with “1+ years’
of engineering & facility drafting experience,” and that the person “must be a graduate of a
recognized Jr. College or technical school with a certificate or degree in computer-aided
drafting.”  Id.  
 
 
was paid the BMA rate ( ), which WRPS deemed
reasonable at the time of contracting.  Exhibits 487 at 2, 488, 489.
On release 49909-5, for fiscal year 2013, 
 
 
worked as a senior CAD
drafter.18  
 
 
again was procured as a preferred candidate and the position required
18 On 
 
 
releases there is inconsistency in the documentation about
his exact job titles.  For example, the release specific SOW, Exhibit 495 at 1, put his job title
as “Senior CAD Drafter Engineering,” but checked a box labeled “Senior Drafter” while the
subcontract release, Exhibit 498, put his title as “CAD Designer,” and the file summary


REDACTED VERSION
CBCA 7056 27
“a degree or certificate in computer-aided drafting.”  Exhibit 495 at 2.  
 
 
was paid
at a rate of 
 
, 
which was below the BMA rate ( ).  Exhibits 37 at 132,
498.  This release was extended through fiscal year 2014 at 
 
, 
and from October 1
to December 31, 2015, at 
 
, 
rates which were below the BMA rate.  Exhibit 37
at 132.  At the time of award, WRPS found 
 
 
rate to be fair and reasonable
because it was lower than the BMA rate.  Id.
On release (58817-10), for a performance period of January 1, 2016, to the end of
fiscal year 2016, 
 
 
was again hired as a CAD designer.  Exhibit 506.  For this
release, in addition to challenging his qualifications based on his resume, DOE also asserted
that 
 
 did not have the required num
ber of years of experience for the position. 
The SOW for  incorporated the June 5, 2023, qualification requirements from
the applicable BMA, which included “certifications in AutoCAD and a 3-D modeling
package . . . and 5–9 years of related experience.”  Exhibit 501 at 2.  
 
 
was
identified as the preferred candidate.  Id. at 1.  
 
 
was paid at a rate of 
 
,
which was the BMA rate.  Exhibits 37 at 132, 505 at 2.  At the time of award, this rate was
determined to be fair and reasonable because 
 
 
was paid at the BMA rate. 
Exhibit 505.  This release was extended for fiscal year 2017 at  and for fiscal
year 2018 at , 19 both of which were at the BMA rate.  Exhibit 37 at 122.
DOE calculated a deduction for the amount DOE believed 
 
 
was paid
above the FTE rate for fiscal years 2010–2018.  This amount was based upon DOE’s
interpretation of WRPS’s price analysis, which was done to determine if CLR rates were
substantially higher than equivalent WRPS FTE rates.  See Exhibit 721 (WRPS-IA rate
analysis).  DOE believed this rate analysis showed 
 
 
rate in 2018 was thirty-two
percent greater than an equivalent WRPS FTE.  Exhibit 45 at 19.  
 
 
rate for
fiscal year 2018 was 
 
. 
 Id.  According to DOE’s reasoning,
 
 
should have
been paid no more than 
 
 
for fiscal year 2018.  
 
 
also worked more
than 2000 hours during only two of those nine fiscal years.  Id.
memorandum, Exhibit 497, also lists the title as “CAD Designer.”  
 
 
was paid at
a rate that would indicate he was a senior CAD drafter.
19 Both the BMA rate and 
 
 
rate for 2018 were revised to 
to accommodate a new state law requiring paid sick leave for non-exempt employees. 
Exhibit 37 at 132. 


REDACTED VERSION
CBCA 7056 28
12.
 
 (Sam
ple 30)
DOE sought to disallow $198,565, for amounts paid to 
 
 
above the
applicable BMA rates in fiscal years 2014 and 2015.
 
 
earned a B.S. in chemistry and an M.S. in chemical engineering.  Exhibit
123.  
 
 
possessed over thirty years of experience, including Hanford-specific
experience, and held three separate patents relating to nuclear safety processes.  Id.  WRPS
procured 
 
 
because he had “specialized skills needed by the field . . . [and] no
other candidates were determined technically acceptable.”  Exhibit 125 at 2.
For release 49910-30, covering April 7, 2014, through the end of fiscal year 2014,
 
 
was procured through 
 
 
as a principal process engineer at a rate of 
 
. 
Exhibit 125.  It appears that this release was extended, and 
 
 
was paid the same
rate in 2015.  Exhibit 45 at 20.  The qualifications for the position were a B.S. degree and
fifteen years of nuclear experience.  Exhibit 687.  The specific statement of work required
someone with experience in software design, development, and testing to support the process
control system simulator model.  Id.  
 
 
was the preferred candidate.  Exhibit 693.
At the time of  release,  BMA rate was 
 
; 
the other
two BMA holders had rates of 
 
. 
 Exhibits 84 at 12, 85 at 1, 96. 
When 
 
 
proposed to provide 
 
 
services, but at higher rates than the BMA
rates, WRPS procurement requested offers from all of the engineering staff augmentation
subcontractors.  Exhibit 693.  The field determined that none of the responding candidates
would meet its requirements.  Id.  
 
 
was again requested as a preferred candidate
because of the need for his specialized skills.  Id.  At hearing, Mr. Siron confirmed that
WRPS “resorted” to 
 
 
and his higher rate because amongst the BMA holders at
the BMA rate “[t]here was [sic] no technically qualified individuals.”  Transcript, Vol. 2
at 60.
Because 
 
 
rate was above the BMA rate, WRPS conducted a price
analysis in which it compared 
 
 
rate to four different rates, two different GSA
Schedule contracts, and the rates of two different WRPS subcontracts.  Exhibit 693 at 2.  The
GSA Schedule contracts that were compared are contract GS-10F-0370T for a principal
process engineer at 
 
 
and contract GS-35F-0092U for a senior principal process
engineer at
 
. 
 Id.  The two WRPS subcontracts are
 
 
49910-1 release
for his work as a principal process chemical engineer at a rate of 
 
 
and “definitized
rates” from 
 
 
for principal process
chemical engineer at 
 
. 
 Id.  Based upon this analysis, WRPS found
 
 rate to be f
air and reasonable at the award of the release.  Exhibit 125.


REDACTED VERSION
CBCA 7056 29
13.
 
 (Sam
ple 32) 
DOE produced two amounts for 
 
, 
the low amount of $336,865, the
amount disallowed because 
 
 
lacked the qualifications for the position in fiscal
year 2013; the high amount of $531,255.05, calculated based upon DOE’s belief that
WRPS’s rate testing showed that 
 
 
hourly rate was thirty-four percent greater
than an equivalent WRPS FTE employee for fiscal years 2013–2018.  Exhibit 45 at 21
(contracting officer disallowance of 
 
 
costs); contra see Exhibit 721
(spreadsheet of WRPS’s rate testing results).  In November 2019, WRPS agreed to pay back
$336,865 because 
 
 did not have the qualif
ications to be billed at the rate of a
project manager rather than a principal process engineer.  Exhibits 37 at 148, 45 at 21.
DOE calculated a deduction for the amount 
 
 
was paid above the FTE
rate for fiscal years 2013–2018.  Exhibit 45 at 10.  This amount was based upon DOE’s
interpretation of WRPS’s rate analysis, which was done to determine if CLR rates were
substantially higher than equivalent WRPS FTE rates.  See Exhibit 721 (WRPS’s rate
analysis).  DOE believes this analysis showed 
 
 rate in 2018 was 
thirty-four
percent greater than an equivalent WRPS FTE.  Exhibit 45 at 21.  
 
 
rate for
fiscal year 2018 was 
 
. 
 Id.  According to DOE’s reasoning, 
 
 
rate
should have been 
 
 
that year.  
 
 
never worked more than 2000 hours
in any of those six fiscal years.  Id.