14

15

16

20

21

22

23

24

25

140

like a closed meeting.

MS. DIMUZIO: No, I’m sorry. No, I just
meant that, for clarification, when you were
speaking with the -- with the contractor that you
would -- you would know what procedures you wanted
or you would know what changes that you wanted to
-- to give to the contractor and therefore you
could --

DR. ZIEMER: No, but what I’m --

MS. DIMUZIO: ~- provide that to them.

DR. ZIEMER: -- saying is we may not know
that till we talk and the contractor --

MS. DIMUZIO: That‘’s true, too.

DR. ZIEMER: -- then wiil be there to hear
those debates, as will members of the public.

MS. DIMUZIO: Uh-huh.

DR. ZIEMER: Thank you.

MR. ELLIOTT: That is correct. Can I -- this
procedure for processing individual dose
reconstruction reviews that’s been handed out, has
that been approved? I mean has the Board taken
action on this? Is this still a draft or is this

DR. ZIEMER: No --

MR. ELLIOTT: You have -- I thought you had

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



12

13

14

15

uber

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

about maybe our criteria for reviewing it, but
all’s (inaudible) is then be ready to go with the
next step, which is going to be the selection of
the site profiles. Now that could also be done in
the conference call if we worked out a -- you
know, we may want to work out a procedure and we
may not be able to score that or, you know, do the
selection here with the information we have, but
then be able to do it by that time of that
conference call.

DR. ZIEMER: I would imagine that we could in
fact identify the sites yet today or tomorrow,
because we would know what the basis was going to
be. I don’t think that would be dependent on the
review procedure, per se. That's my -- Roy, then
Mark.

DR. DEHART: To begin with, I don’t want to
see a subcommittee taking the action on behalf of
the Board and -- with this being our initial
product under our contract. I think we all should
actively review that, and my recommendation would
be a panel or a workgroup to do the initial
review, prepare a summary -- point summary, and
that each of us be responsible for reviewing the

proposal -- the solution. And then conference

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



10
42
12
13
14
ea
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

136

What we want to avoid and what is a distinct
procurement ground -- ground rule here is that
individual members of the Board can't be giving
direction to the contractor, because that’s when
we get into an unauthorized procurement, the
contractor gets confused about what the desire of
the Board is, and you don’t want to be providing
direct-- what could be interpreted as direction.
So even a point of clarification might fall under
that. So I don’t know if Martha can help me out
here or if there are change order procedures we
could employ here or -- or what. But this is a
knotty issue here that you're wrestling with.

MS. DIMUZIO: I think there are probably a
couple of different options that you have. You
could look at sort of doing a two-tiered approach
to a conference call where the Board meets first,
discusses what changes they think need to be
completed, and then a half-hour, 45 minutes later
the contractor comes into the conversation on the
conference call and -- and you discuss it and --
and you resolve it that way, and sort of that
approach because I think it’s very important that
the Board has to -- and I'm sure it would -- but

with the contractor it has to speak with one voice

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



14

15

16

: BS

18

ra)

20

21

22

23

24

25

133

comments and we either approve it or we say go
back and take these comments into consideration.
I don't -- I don’t see us having a working group
that sits down and says this is what it ought to
lock like. That’s the contractor’s job.

DR. MELIUS: But I think we need to answer
Mark’s other question there ‘cause I think that's
more what -- at least what I was -- felt that he
was driving at was this issue of what if the
contractor seeks clarification this -- in dealing
with this contract before the meeting or in terms
of what is presented --

DR. ZIEMER: Oh, I’m sorry.

DR. MELIUS: -- to the Board. Yeah.

DR. ZIEMER: You mean before they submit

DR. MELIUS: Before they -- the con-- before
they submit and the con-- and the question come --
and -- or -- and then we have to deal with the
issue of afterwards, you know, how do we -- what

- what if we say well, the procedure needs to be

revised and submitted. I think we can -- could
delegate -- so that would be at our conference
call meeting. Do we -- we let the workgroup -- if

we delegate that to the workgroup, or more

appropriate we would -- may be more appropriate to

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



aT

18

19

20

22

23

24

25

132

call to resolve any issues or questions.

MR. GRIFFON: That's actually very close to
-- I mean that's what I was going to say is maybe
we could set up a workgroup to deal with, you
know, reviewing drafts with the contractor and
come to the conference call with a proposal from
the contractor, and then have the full Board vote
on, you know, the method for reviewing the site
profiles, the final product. But have a
workgroup, and that gives -- the workgroup would
have the flexibility to have some conference
calls, if need be, with the contractor.

The only question I! raise in that process is
if -- if the contractor, in working on this, has
questions or needs clarifications, I don't know
who can respond to those on behalf of the Board
ee

DR. ZIEMER: I want to make sure that the
Board is not expecting to develop the procedures.
That’s the contractor’s job. I don’t think we
need a workgroup to take the contractor's proposal
and redo it. What we need is the Board to react
to the contractor's proposal, and if they have
comments, the contractor can -- if this is an open

call, the contractor can be there, can hear the

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



16

hf

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

135

mean --

DR. ZIEMER: [It's problematical, depending on
the nature of the changes. If they're minor and
everybody agrees that if they make a certain group
of changes, they can proceed, that would be one
thing. If we said no, we want to see it again --
I mean that would be the Board's call at that
time. The issue of clarification -- I don’t know
how we address that from a legal point of view. I
can’t speak on behalf of the Board. The staff
can't. But if there’s a question on, you know,
what does -- what does something say, we can
probably provide that kind of clarification. You
have a solution there, Larry?

MR. ELLIOTT: I don‘t know if I have a
solution, but I do have to speak to some
procurement ground rules here so that everybody's
operating out of the same hymnal. One procurement
ground rule would be that for the Board to
interact with its contractor, there needs to be
some designated or delegated point of contact, and
maybe Martha can speak to this. Maybe there are
ways that that can be done in, you know, like a
change order fashion where it’s written -- written

direction is given to the Board.

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



10

Lt

12

13

14

20

21

22

23

24

25

127

up. You have a point to make?

DR, MELIUS: (Off microphone) (Inaudible).

DR. ZIEMER: Oh, ckay. Since -- the document
that was distributed is focused mainly on the
individual dose reconstructions, and since the
task that’s been awarded already has to do with
the site reviews, I wonder if it wouldn’t be more
appropriate for the moment for us to talk about
the site review issue since that’s already been
awarded and the clock is ticking. So could we
talk a little bit about the process for reviewing
and approving the procedures that are generated by
the contractor? Who has some input on that or
Giscussion or ideas or recommendations or
questions?

DR. MELIUS: I have a question. And it’s
been answered before, but I’ve forgotten, I'11
admit that. Is can we delegate approval to a
workgroup for an issue like this, that we would
get back a -- you know, a procedure, whatever,
from -- from the contractor for the site profile
reviews, can we delegate approval of that to a
workgroup?

DR. ZIEMER: I think that question of

delegating authority to act on behalf of the Board

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



w

uw

See

10

zt

12

13

14

16

pe

18

19

——

138

understand to whom they are receiving direction
from, you know, and -- and that, you know -- and
when there are questions and, you know, that kind
of stuff, how do we handle that, you know, I’m not
-- I’m not 100 percent positive, I’1l tell you
that right now. I mean I think it’s an issue.

DR. ZIEMER: Well, I'd like to ask this
question, and it may have ramifications beyond
this particular issue, but on something like this
where procedures are being developed -- the task
order's been awarded -- are the procedures not
okay for development in the open forum, or does
that require a closed session such as we had with
the cost proposal?

MR. ELLIOTT: No, that --

DR. ZIEMER: There's no proprietary
information at that point, is there?

MR. ELLIOTT: I think perhaps the way Martha
introduced that, with the Board talking and
discussing it and then bringing the contractor in,

might have led you to believe that you have a

closed session issue here You don't have a
closed session issue. The tasks have been
awarded. You know, the money's set aside for

those tasks, you know, based upon the award, so

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



ara

12

Sc §

14

18

2%

20

21

22

e

24

25

137

so that in a meeting where the -- in conference
call or a meeting where the Board and the
contractor's there, we don’t want to be giving
them mixed messages, even with, you know, just
comments that happen through -- through the
conference call or whatever. So I think it would
be important that -- that the Board, you know,
consider sort of some type of a two-tiered
approach. But you have to -- you know, Larry's
right, you do have to be cognizant that we can't
provide specific direction to the -- to -- to the
contractor. Excuse me, one individual cannot
provide specific direction to the contractor
‘cause we could just be getting into a phase where
they might be thinking that, you know, John Smith
of the Board said to do it this way and Jane Doe
of the Board said to do it this way and, you know
-- and how do we resolve this issue, So I think
it -- it is important that you guys resolve how
you’re going to resolve issues. I mean there’s
not a whole lot, from a procurement standpoint,
that I can tell you other than it has te be with
one voice, and clear direction and understanding
has to be given to the contractor on what they're

supposed to do. And they have to clearly

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



10

tea

12

13

14

18

19

20

21

134

delegate that to the Chairman to review --

DR. ZIEMER: It appears that --

DR. MELIUS: -- (Inaudible) we have to
schedule another conference call, I quess.

DR. ZIEMER: It appears that a workgroup, if
it did make comments, could not officially do so
on behalf of the Board.

MR. ELLIOTT: That is correct.

DR. ZIEMER: They could make individual --
they could reflect individual views, but it would
not be the view of the Board, necessarily, and
therefore the contractor would have -- be in a
difficult place of having to make a change that
somebody recommended that maybe the Board didn’t
like.

DR. MELIUS: Again, what about this
clarification issue? If not, I think we then need
to at least schedule a couple of conference calls
just on a contingency basis to make sure that, you
know, we're not delaying things because just --
you know -- again, suppose we get in the
conference call, there's a -- we say part A of
your procedure we don’t like, we think it should
be changed and so forth. Then do we need another

conference call to approve what they resubmit? 1

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



21
as
23

25

130

the next meeting.

MS. HOMER: Well, we're not -- we don’t have
to charter -- specifically charter a subcommittee.
We just need to prepare an establishment memo,

which is a two-page document.

DR. ZIEMER: This -- a procedure of the type
we're talking -- that is, the procedure that comes
from the contractor -- I believe the Board could

address in a conference call situation because if
-- if a subcommittee’s going to act on behalf of
the Board, don't they still have to go through
that same process, Cori?

MS. HOMER: Yes. Yes, they do.

DR. ZIEMBR: In terms of being announced and
50 on?

MS. HOMER: It does. Everything that happens
for a subcommittee must take place under the same
FACA guidelines as a full committee.

DR. MELIUS: And so -- that’s fine, what
was trying to get to was

DR. ZIEMER: So they would have to announce
it, anyway, in the Register and so on.

DR. MELIUS: I think our option is to do it
as a conference call, you know, given time for

review and so forth, then we probably should think

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



10

11

12

13

14

16

LY

18

22

23

24

25

141

approved this.

DR. ZIEMER: We approved -- we approved all
the procedures two or three meetings ago. I
believe we did.

DR. MELIUS: Can I make a recommendation
before we get more confused?

DR. ZIEMER: To make what a recommendation?

DR. MELIUS: For processing this first part
of task order two. I think what we need to do is
to schedule a conference call of the committee
roughly a month from now that would do the -- do
our review. We need to discuss our comments on
what the contractor submits to us, either resolve
at that meeting -- I think we need, as a
contingency, to have a follow-up conference call,
Say two weeks later or a week later, that -- that
would allow us to -- in case it's needed if they
need to resubmit something to the Board that is of
such a scope that we feel it cannot be delegated
to the -- you know, the Chair to review, And I
think that would take care of -- of this issue as
to -- I don’t think we need a separate workgroup
to deal with it, though. I think we should ask
that the members of the original workgroup who are

the ones I think we may end up relying on -- on

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



10

il

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

20

ake

22

23

24

129

DR. MELIUS: No, we're talking about -- I'm

just trying to work out the timetable for dealing

with this. We’re going to have -- presumably have
a report from the contractor in -- beginning of
March sometime. We don’t have another meeting
scheduled until April. That will -- what we

receive from the contractor, as I understand it,
is a -- their proposed procedure for doing site
profile reviews.

MS. HOMER: Uh-huh.

DR. MELIUS: I believe the way, and I don‘t
have the document in front of me, but I believe
that it presumes that once that is approved, then
-- then they would -- we would be able to assign
them site profiles to review, but they couldn't
really start that process until it’s approved. So
if -- and we don’t have time to set up a
subcommittee between -- and get a subcommittee
approved in the next 30 days, I don’t believe, if

MS. HOMER: It‘s possible.

DR. MELIUS: Well, we'd have to have the
charter agreed to at this meeting, so that’s one
option. And -- or we have to deal with the issue

of a workgroup or we either -- we either wait till

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



N

14

15

16

17

128

was answered last time. My recollection is it

be delegated to a subcommittee, but the

subcommittee -- you can’t delegate something till

the subcommittee is in place and exists. And t

appointment and approval of
through a process with the Agency.

DR. MELIUS: I’m aware of that answer, but

was that the answer on the workgrour
MS. HOMER: No. Excuse me, I’1l interrupt
but --
DR. ZIEMER: No, I think the workgroup cannot
act on behalf of the -- is that correct, Cori?

MS. HOMER: That's correct, we -- we really

the habit of providing

yation for a workgroup or a
subcommittee to act on behalf. We can do so for a
subcommittee, but I really -- although there’s no
specific guidance saying no, I really hesitate to
Say that we should do that or can do that. It’s a
practice we don’t want to get into. It's not
something that the Board would have to spend a lot
of time on, you know, approving or reviewing
something provided -- you know, a product or

recommendations provided by a workgroup. Are we

talking about something lengthy or

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES



Meck

12

13

14

16

5%

18

i9

20

22

23

24

25

133

we're not talking a closed session. We're talking
in open session,

Another ground rule, A working group cannor
be delegated authority to take action on the
Board, so keep that in mind. An individual, the
Chair of the Board -- I think -- could be
delegated that authority. You could teli your
Chair, handle these kinds of situations on behalf
of the Board. A subcommittee can have that
delegated authority, as well.

DR. ZIEMER: Well, as far -- as far as the
open discussion thing is -- for example, it seems
to me that we could have that open discussion,
whether it be face-to-face or on the phone, and
the contractor could hear what disagreements there
are. It's only what -- the final decision that we
agree to that becomes binding. I mean it’s like
any open meeting here, We may disagree on what to

do or how to proceed, and that’s all in the public

forum, it’s -- but if we finally agree to a
procedure and say okay, this -- and we vote on it,
if necessary, then the -- then the contractor
knows what's been approved. So I -- I would --

when I was hearing you say meet and talk first and

then have the contractor, it sounded like -- more

NANCY LEE & ASSOCIATES