Technical Support for the Advisory Board on 

Radiation and Worker Health Review of 

NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Program 

Volume 2: Technical Approach to Sample Task 1 

Request for Proposal (RFP) 2003-N-00768 

Submitted to: 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Acquisition and Assistance Field Branch 

Attention: RFP 2003-N-00768 

P.O. Box 18070,626 Cochrans Mill Road 

Pittsburgh, PA 15236-0070 

Submitted by: 

SC&A,Inc. 

6858 Old Dominion Drive 

McLean, VA 22101 

June2,2003 
SC&A- Sample Task I Sol. No. 2003-N-00768 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. PREPARATION OF THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL .......................... 2 

2. TASK ORDER TEAM ................................................... 3 

3. TECHNICAL APPROACH ................................................ 7 

4. WORK HOUR ALLOCATION AND SCHEDULE OF DELIVERABLES ......... 11 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Sample Task I ........................................................ I 

Table 2. Matrix of Required Capabilities .......................................... 4 

Table 3. Assigned Case Managers ................................................ 7 

Table 4. Quality Assurance Checklist No. 1 for Data/Records Entry ..................... 8 

Table 5. Work Hour Allocation for Sample Task 1 ................................. 12 
SAMPLE TASK 1 

L"'DIVIDUAL DOSE RECONSTRUCTION REVIEW: 

20 BASIC REVIEWS 

This section presents SC&A's technical proposal for the sample task provided in Attachment E 

of the Solicitation. Extensive cross-reference is made to the procedures and checklists provided 

in Section 3 and Appendix C of Volume 1 - Technical Proposal, which provides detailed 

descriptions of the procedures and checklists we plan to use for basic and advanced reviews. 

This section presents a detailed work plan, levels of effort (costs are provided under a separate 

cover), and schedule for completing Basic Dose Reconstruction Reviews for the 20 cases listed 

in Table 1, assuming that five cases are required to be delivered in each quarter. (Some of the 

material restates points made in Section 3 (Technical Approach of Volume 1- Technical 

Proposal) to facilitate the review of this section without having to cross-reference too 

extensively.) 

Table 1. Sample Task 1 

l"Quarter 

Site 

No. of 

cases 

2"" Quarter 

Site 

No. of 

cases 

3"'Quarter 

Site 

No. of 

cases 

4"'Quarter 

Site 

No. of 

cases 

Hanford 2 Y-12 2 Savannah River 1 Rocky Flats 1 

IN EEL 1 Metals and 

Controls, MA 

I Combustion Eng .• Cf 1 LANL I 

Mal!inckrodt, 

MO 

I NUMEC,PA 1 Nevada Test Site 1 WRGrace, 1N 1 

Allied 

Chemical, Ill 

1 Linde Ceramics~ 

NY 

I Maywood,NJ 1 Pantex. TX I 

Harshaw Chemical, 

OH 

1 Lawrence 

Livermore,. CA 

1 

Total 5 5 5 5 

We recognize that the level of effort and time required for the performance of each basic review 

will decline as we develop more and more experience with the worker and site profiles. Hence, 

the level of effort and time required to perform each basic review, as described helow, takes into 

consideration the fact that, in the first year of the project, we will perform 70 basic reviews, 

70 advanced reviews, 10 blind dose reconstructions, 5 worker profile reviews, and 5 site profile 

reviews. The level of effort for each basic review reflects the average time required for each 

basic review among the 70 basic reviews performed during the first year and takes credit for 

"moving up the learning curve" as a result of performing all of this work, along with the two 

weeks invested in preparing the technical and cost proposal. 

Finally, as indicated in Section 2.1 and Section 4 of Volume 1 -Technical Proposal, we have a 

large, highly qualified staff to draw upon. In theory, we could assign a single person to each case 

and have all case reviews proceed in parallel. In this way, the entire set of 20 basic reviews could 

he completed in less than one month. However, we recognize that, along with these 20 basic 

reviews, we may have a number of advanced reviews, blind dose reconstructions, and perhaps a 

review of one or more site and worker profiles, and perhaps even one or more SEC petition 

reviews. As such, we will not have the luxury to move all 20 cases in paralleL Hence, we 

allocated resources taking into consideration that other Task Orders may be ongoing in parallel 

with this one. 
SC&A- Sample Task 1 2 Sol. No. 2003-N-00768 

1. PREPARATION OF THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL 

All Task Order Request Packages (TORPs) will be logged in, technical and cost proposals will 

be prepared, and work will commence upon receipt of an approved Task Order. All Task Orders 

will be processed, documented, and the work products delivered under a highly transparent, 

structured project management, and quality assurance process. Upon arrival at SC&A, the TORP 

will be date stamped, assigned a TORP number, and placed in the dedicated project file under 

lock and key under the control ofrecords management (see Volume 1 -Technical Proposal, 

Section 2. 7 on Confidentiality and Security Provisions). As a means of tracking performance of 

each case or task comprising the TORP, the technical and cost proposal will be subdivided into 

individual cases, and, as required by each case, each case may be further subdivided into 

individual tasks, such as dose reconstruction review, worker profile review, interview record 

review, and site profile review. Filing and tracking the cost and performance of each TORP will 

be performed under the following work breakdown structure: 

Tier 1: Task Order Number 

Tier 2: Case Number 

Tier 3: Dose Reconstruction 

Tier 3: Worker Profile 

Tier 3: Interviews 

Tier 3: Site Profile 

Using a relational database, we can also sort according to site (e.g., Hanford, Savannah River, 

etc.), category of site (e.g., FUSRAP site, uranium processing facilities, etc.), category of 

exposure (e.g., external gamma, plutonium inhalation), or any other parameter that.will serve to 

appropriately identify the work package. 

While the task order filing system is being established, each key member of the project team (see 

Section 2-l of Volume 1- Technical Proposal) will receive copies of the TORP for initial 

inspection with respect to scope, schedule, and conflict-of-interest issues. A meeting will be held 

by the key members of the project team to discuss the TORP and any supporting records and 

documentation provided with the TORP. The meeting will be designed to accomplish the 

follo:wing objectives: 

• Identify questions and concerns to be discussed with the Project Officer and/or 

Advisory Board representatives 

• Identify the Case Managers for performing the work required by each case 

contained in the TORP 

• Prepare a schedule for completion and delivery of the technical and cost proposal 

in response to the TORP 

Under the direction of the Project Manager, a comprehensive technical and cost proposal will be 

prepared and delivered to the Project Officer within 14 calendar days of receiving the TORP. 

The following presents the technical proposal for this sample task order using the assumptions 

described in the above introduction. 
SC&A- Sample Task 1 3 SoL No. 2003-N-00768 

2. TASK ORDER TEAM 

Case Managers will be selected based on either their familiarity with the site or category of the 

site and/or special technical issues associated with the exposures (e.g., the case is limited to 

reviewing the dose reconstruction of a person who experienced internal exposures to inhaled 

plutonium and the associated bioassay data). For the 20 cases and 18 sites identified in the 

sample problem, we grouped the sites/cases into related categories. Table 2 presents a draft 

matrix that was prepared to help identify those individuals best suited to review each case. By 

mapping the information in Table 2 back onto Exhibit 4-1 in Volume 1 - Technical Proposal, we 

can begin to identify those individuals who are best qualified to serve as Case Managers for each 

basic review. For an actual TORP, the records provided with the cases should help to better 

define the qualifications of the Case Managers and technical specialists that will be assigned to 

each case. For the purpose of this sample task, we assigned case managers based on whether the 

exposures are anticipated to be primarily external versus internal. 

We expect that, for most basic reviews, only a single person (the Case Manager) will be assigned 

to perform the review, and the review will require, on average, about one week to complete from 

the date of authorization to proceed. The criteria for designating a Case Manager is the person's 

expertise with regard to the primary "dosimetric drivers" for the case (e.g., external gamma or 

neutron exposures and associated dosimetry or inhalation exposures to plutonium and associated 

bioassays, etc.). 1 However, even for basic reviews, it is likely that each case may require some 

additional specialty support to confirm the key findings of the review. 

The Case Manager for each case is presented in Table 3. Each Case Manager can draw upon any 

of the other specialists on the project team as needed to perform Tasks A, B, and C for the basic 

reviews, as delineated in Attachment E of the solicitation. 

We believe that after approval of the technical and cost proposal, a basic review will require 

about to complete, including the review, auditing the review package in accordance 

with our QA procedures, and then filing and delivery in accordance with our me-management 

procedures. Hence, from the date of authorization, the review, documentation, and delivery of 

each basic review will require about . More complex cases may require as many as 

1 As will be discussed in Sample Task 2, dealing with Advanced Reviews, the criteria for the selection of a 

Case Manager may give greater emphasis to familiarity with the site. 
SC&A - Sample Task I 4 Sol. No. 2003-N-00768 

Exposure Settings/Scenarios 

Plutonium, 

External External including NORM Thorium-232+ Other 

Site Cate11ory of Facilities 11amma neutron otherTRU (Ra!fh) Uranium Tritium ~ Internal 

Reactors .; .; .; .; 

Chemical processing .; .; .; .; .; 

High-level waste storage .; .; .; .; 

Hanford Fuel fabrication .; .; .; 

Plutonium finishing .; .; .; 

Nuclear fuel testing .; .; .; .; .; 

Environmental .; .; .; .; .; restoration 

Reactors .; .; .; .; 

Chemical processing .; .; .; .; .; 

INEEL Waste storage and .; .; .; .; .; disposal 

Environmental .; .; .; .; .; restoration 

Historically uranium and 

Mallinckrodt, more recently .; .; .; .; .; .; MO Radiopharmaceuticals 

and radiochemicals 

Allied Chemical, Uranium conversion .; .; IL 

Uranium enrichment .; .; 

Weapons component 

Y-12 manufacturing, .; .; .; .; .; 

disassembly and storage 

Waste management .; .; .; .; 

Table 2. Matrix of Required Capabilities 
SC&A - Sample Task I 5 Sol. No. 2003-N-00768 

Table 2. Matrix of Required Capabilities (continued) 

Exposure Settings/Scenarios 

Plutonium, 

Site Category of Facilities 

External 

gamma 

External 

neutron 

Including 

otherTRU 

NORM 

(Raffh) Uranium Tritium 

Thorium·232+ 

Progeny 

Other 

Internal 

Metals and 

Control, MA 

Uranium oils and fuel 

manufacturing ./ ./ 

NUMEC,PA Nuclear fuel fabrication ./ 

Linde Ceramics, 

NY FUSRAP ./ ./ 

Savannah River 

Reactors ./ ./ ./ ./ 

Fuel reprocessing and 

material recovery 

./ ./ ./ ./ ./ 

Plutonium processing ./ ./ 

Tritium processing ./ 

High- and low-level 

waste management, 

storage and disposal 

./ ./ ./ ./ ./ 

Combustion 

Engineering, CT Fuel fabrication ./ ./ 

Nevada Test Site 

Weapons testing ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ 

Neutron and gamma ray 

interaction studies ./ ./ 

Reactors ./ ./ ./ ./ 

Low-level waste 

management and 

disposal 

./ ./ ./ ./ ./ 

Maywood, NJ FUSRAP ./ ./ 

Harshaw 

Chemical, OH Uranium conversion ./ ./ 
Table 2. Matrix of Required Capabilities (continued) 

'" 

Site Category of Facilities 

. Exposure Settings/Scenarios 

External 

gamma 

External 

neutron 

Plutonium, 

including 

otherTRU 

NORM 

(RaiTh) Uranium Tritium 

Thorium·232+ 

Progeny 

Other 

Internal 

Rocky Flats 

Weapons components 

production 

Plutonium recovery and 

purification 

,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ 

,/ 

LANL 

Weapons research ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ 

Plutonium processing ,/ ,/ 

Nuclear fuel 

reprocessing ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ 

Polonium and actinium 

processing ,/ 

WRGrace, TN Rare earth metal facility ,/ ,/ 

Pantex, TX 

Nuclear weapons 

assembly, maintenance, 

and disassembly 

,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ 

Lawrence 

Livermore, CA 

Material test accelerator ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ 

Nuclear weapons 

research ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ ,/ 

SC&A • Sample Task I 6 SoL No. 2003-N-00768 
SC&A - Sample Task I 7 Sol. No. 2003-N-00768 

Table 3. Assigned Case Managers 

1" Quarter Site 3"' Site 

Hanford Y-12 Savannah River Rocky Flats 

INEEL M&C Combustion Eng., cr LANL -

Mallinckrodt, MO NUMEC Nevada Test Site WRGrace, 1N 

Allied Chemical Linde Ceramics Maywood,NJ Pantex, TX 

Harshaw Chemical, OH La\vrence Livermore~ CA 

3. TECHNICAL APPROACH 

The basic reviews for the 20 cases delineated in Sample Task 1 will be performed in accordance 

with the SOPs provided in Section 3 and Appendix C provided in Volume 1- Technical 

Proposal, which presents the procedures and checklists that will be used to perform reviews of 

the data collection process, claimant-interview reviews, external and internal dose-reconstrnction 

reviews, reviews of the relevant portions of NIOSH procedures/methods for conducting the dose 

reconstrnction for each case, worker-profile reviews, and site-profile reviews, to the extent to 

which the NIOSH worker-profile and site-profile databases were used to support the dose 

reconstrnction. The forms in Appendix C of Volume 1 represent the technical underpinning 

of all basic reviews that will be performed on this project. 

Review Data Collection 

SC&A will use the following procedure to determine: 

( 1) if NIOSH received all requested data for the DOE or A WE site from any relevant 

source or repository, and 

(2) whether the data used by NIOSH for the case were adequate to make a 

detefDlination with regard to probability of causation. 

The first step in the audit will be to confirm that the checklist in Table 4 (or the equivalent) was 

in fact completed by NIOSH . This step is defmed as a mini-review that establishes threshold 

criteria for use in determining whether the claim package can be docketed within our system. 

We have adopted this mini-review approach based on the methods used by the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission for accepting regulatory products (such as safety analysis reports and 

other types of license applications) for docketing and formal review. It is assumed that this first 

step is required to be performed by NIOSH as part of the requirements set forth in 42 CFR 82. If 

these steps were not taken by NIOSH, it would be inappropriate to docket the TORP and 

continue the audit. In fact, it may be most efficient for this step to be performed during the 

preparation of the technical proposal. 
SC&A - Sample Task I 8 Sol. No. 2003-N-00768 

Table 4. Quality Assurance Checklist No. 1 for Data/Records Entry 

The following form will be used for docketing claims packages for anditing: 

Claim No.: ___ _ 

Inspection No.:-----------------

Name of Inspector:______________ _ 

Name of Data Entry Personnel:__________ _ 

Date of Inspection:_______________ _ 

Location ofinspection: ______________ _ 

QA Manager Sign-off/date:___________ _ 

Data Entry Personnel Sign-off/Date:. _________ _ 

Data Entry Manager Sign-off/Date:._________ _ 

Perfonnance Objective Metric Method Pass/Fail 

Was claim or inquiry date-stamped on day of arrival? Check if post mark date 

corresponds with date stamp 

Was claim or inquiry entered into the case file database Compare date stamp with log 

management system within 7 calendar days of arrival? in date in database 

Was the electronic or hard copy of the data or record entered Judgment as to the 

correctly into the database? completeness and accuracy 

of the data/record as entered 

Were hard copies of claims or inquiries filed in accordance Determine if the hard copies 

with approved SOPs, including Privacy Act and security are physically located in the 

requirements? designated file as required to 

meet filing, privacy, and 

security requirements. 

Were the hard copy and electronic data and records returned Follow-up with NIOSH to 

to the NIOSH in accordance with approved SOPs? confmn receipt of returned 

files 

Do the data/records entry personnel meet the education, Check training and 

training, and experience requirements as reqnired by the qualifications records 

project? 

Do the data/records entry personnel meet the conflict of Check COI requirements and 

interest avoidance reqnirements as reqnired by the project? personnel background 

Is access to the electronic and hard copy files secured? Check to ensure that 

approved access controls are 

in place, including controls 

over the transmittal and 

reproduction of the material. 
SC&A- Sample Task l 9 SoL No. 2003-N-00768 

Table 4. Quality Assurance Checklist No. I for Data/Records Entry (continued) 

Performance Objective Metric Melhod Pass/Fail 

Did data entry employ double blind procedures to ensure Check the double blind entry 

data entry quality? files. 

Have back-up files been established at a secure physically Check to determine that 

sepanrtedlocation? back-up files exist at a 

physically separate and 

secure location. 

Have unambiguous linkages been established between Check for ability to find hard 

scanned files and their corresponding hard copies? copies of scanned recotds. 

Comments: 

Assuming that the claimant package passes the mini-review, it will then be docketed and be 

formally reviewed according to our procedures. 

With respect to the first step in the procedure to review data collection, we will review all 

correspondence between the Department of Labor and DOE regarding written requests for 

information in accordance with 20 CFR Part 30 and 42 CFR Part 82.10, and any additional 

records compiled by NIOSH relevant to internal and external exposures to ionizing radiation, 

including exposures from medical screening x-rays that were required as a condition of 

employment. 

At this point in the review process, no judgment will be made regarding the adequacy of the 

records. We will simply check (1) NIOSH correspondence requesting records, 

(2) correspondence that transmits those records, and/or (3) correspondence that provides for 

reasonable closure regarding the request for records. Reasonable closure is defined as 

correspondence that documents that the requested records either exist or do not exist. We expect 

that there will be occasions where one party believes that the requested records were not 

provided, while the other party believes that the requested records were in fact provided. These 

types of disputes can arise due to a breakdown in communication, usually based on judgments 

regarding what constitutes or does not constitute the composition of a given category of record. 

We will make judgments regarding these matters and incorporate our fmdings into the audit 

record. 

During the second step in the data collection review procedure, we will follow the guidance 

provided in 42 CFR Parts 82.15, 16, and 17. In this regard, we will review the record to 

determine whether NIOSH evaluated and documented the completeness and adequacy of the 

individual's monitoring data as required by Part 82_15 (a) and (b), add monitoring data as per part 
SC&A- Sample Task I 10 Sol. No. 2003-N-00768 

82.16, and supplement or substitute data as per Part 82.17. At this point in the review process, 

we will simply check that the record indicates that the tests for adequacy as delineated in 

Part 82.15, 16, and 17 were, in fact, performed and documented. This will be a pass/fail 

evaluation. 

The next step in the process will determine whether the collected data were adequate to make a 

determination regarding probability of causation. When the external and internal dosimetry 

records are complete and internally consistent based on inspection of the claimant's occupational 

exposure records and worker interview records, or if gaps/inconsistences can be resolved with 

co-worker records, worker profile databases, and/or site profile databases (including area and 

process monitoring records), one can assume the records are adequate for performing probability 

of causation calculations. However, there will be circumstances in which the records compiled 

under 42 CFR Parts 82.15, 16, and 17 will be incomplete and/or contradictory and, based on this 

initial document review, it appears that these data limitations would prevent the completion of a 

dose reconstruction. When these circumstances arise, we will witbhold judgment regarding the 

adequacy of data until the entire dose reconstruction process has been reviewed. 

After review of the entire individual dose reconstruction, a special meeting will be held to 

reassess the adequacy of the data used for determination of doses. The meeting will be recorded 

and a consensus judgment will be made, including minority opinions, and the judgments will be 

fully documented and transparent. The basic decision criteria that will be used to make these 

determinations will be identical to those used to evaluate SEC petitions. In both cases, the 

underlying decision criterion will be the inability to compile the input data required to :run IREP. 

In many cases, though dosimetry data are lacking, overwhelming circumstantial evidence (e.g., 

worker profile and site profile databases) may indicate that exposures could not have been large 

enough to result in a probability of causation of 0.5. Under these conditions, we would conclude 

that the data are adequate to make a determination with regard to probability of causation. 

However, if dosimetry data are lacking, but circumstantial data, which were not considered in the 

dose reconstruction, indicate that the potential existed for substantial exposures, we would 

conclude that the data are not adequate to develop input distributions for IREP (using· OCAS 

guidelines), and, therefore, not adequate to make a determination with regard to probability of 

causation. 

Review Interview and Documentation Provided by Claimant 

This part of the audit will involve a two-step process: 

( 1) Review of the adequacy of the standardized claimant interview form from the 

perspective of the claimant exposure records, worker profile, and site profile (as 

. appropriate for the case, site basic reviews may not need to include reviews of 

worker and site profile databases if those databases were not used by NIOSH to 

perform the dose reconstructions). 

The purpose of this review will be to determine if the form requests information 

that is adequate and sufficient as it relates to the issues attendant to the particular 

claim. Section 3 of Volume l of our proposal presents the methods that we will 
SC&A- Sample Task l II Sol. No. 2003-N-00768 

use to review the adequacy of the claimant interview forms as they apply to a 

particular case. A report will accompany this review and assign a pass/fail to this 

review~ 

(2) The completed form will be reviewed for completeness, internal consistency, and 

compatibility with other claimant records (and, if necessary, with l\'IOSH worker 

profile and site profile databases). 

Using the protocols provided in Section 3 and the checklist in Appendix C of 

Volume l of our proposal, we will determine whether NIOSH appropriately 

addressed all of the reported work history and events represented by the claimant 

including, but not limited to, incidents or occurrences, actual monitoring practices, 

and work practices. Areas of incompatibility will be identified and documented. 

A plan will then be put into place to achieve closure on incompatibilities. 

Unresolved incompatibilities will be documented and carried through the audit 

process in order to evaluate whether these incompatibilities could affect the 

outcome of the dose reconstruction in a substantive manner (e.g., have the 

potential to result in a possible reversal of an adjudicated decision). 

Review of Internal/External Dose Estimates and NJOSH Dose Reconstruction Procedures/ 

Methods 

Internal and external dose estimates as well as relevant portions of NIOSH procedures and 

methods for reconstructing dose for the case will be reviewed in accordance with the procedures 

and checklist provided in Appendix C of Volume I of our proposal for external and internal 

exposures. 

4. WORK HOUR ALLOCATION AND SCHEDULE OF DELIVERABLES 

Table 5 presents the work hour allocation by category of personnel for the 20 cases that comprise 

Sample Task l. Since the sample task does not include supporting records, we have not 

attempted to assign any specific category of specialty investigators to the tasks (i.e., we have not 

assigned work hours to specific scientific specialties as delineated in the box at the bottom half of 

Exhibit 2-1 of Volume 1). However, in anticipation that each case will require some level of 

specialty investigation, we assigned about I 0 percent of the level of effort to a non-designated 

specialty investigator. We estimate that, on average, approximately will be 

required to complete each basic review. This includes the review itself, and all management, 

quality assurance, and records management activities. This would appear to be a relatively low 

estimate for the average level of effort per basic review. However, since the basic reviews will 

be confined to records that already exist in the administrative record and will focus on those data 

used by the dose reconstructionist, we expect this level of effort to be adequate. 

The output of these reviews will be reports that address items A, B, and C of Attachment E of the 

solicitation. Our work products will also include completed audit forms with accompanying text 

that provides the following: 
SC&A- Sample Task I 12 Sol. No. 2003-N-00768 

• The degree to which the audit concurs with the reconstructed doses and the IREP 

input distributions provided in the administrative record and other material 

provided by NIOSH 

• A discussion of areas where the dose reconstruction for each individual case could 

be improved 

A discussion of areas where the overall dose reconstruction process could be 

improved 

Table 5. Work Hour Allocation for Sample Task 1 

Personnel 

20 Basic Reviews 

(Work H{)Qrs) 

Project Manager 

;;,.~· 

QA . 

Records Management 

Dose Reconstruction 

Dose Reconstruction Team 

Worker Profiles 

Interview Records 

Dose Reconstruction Team 

Site Profiles (if required) 

Uncertainty Analysis 

Specialty Investigator 

Total For Sample Task 1 * 

*The level of effort could mcrease 1f worker and Site profile rev1ews or spec.alty 

reviews are required. 

All audits will be documented and electronically filed in an approved relational databasemanagement system, and each inspection and audit finding will be accessible according to 

individual claim, inquiry identification numbers, or any other field in the database. 

Assuming that each basic review requires about 1 week or less to complete from the date of 

authorization, the 5 cases in the first quarter will require about to complete, since 3 of 

the 5 cases are assigned to the same person ( ). The same is true for the cases in the 

second quarter. For the third quarter, the 5 cases should be completed in since 

ouly 2 of the 5 cases are assigned to the same person ( ). The fourth quarter will 

require about to complete since 4 of the 5 cases are assigned to the same person (i.e., 

).