|
Contractor Remarks:
CONCURRENCE: I vehemently do not concur with this evaluation.
The
project evaluation by HDC is in diametrical opposition to HDC's own
internal documentation about this project. Please refer to HDC project
report by Lee Sheldon that is dated August 2006:
'A
REPORT ON THE RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND "PROOF OF CONCEPT"
DEMONSTRATION OF A TYPE 1 GENERATION UNIT OPTIMIZATION DEVICE'
Plus
Appendices A through M for more information.
(I
obtained a copy of this report through official channels under the Freedom
of Information Act.)
In
disagreement with HDC's position statement, the contractor’s position and a
few of the most egregious acts by HDC personnel are delineated below:
1.
All of the software source code developed at Government expense was
delivered to HDC by the contractor (ATECo) in accordance with the contract
terms.
2.
The main body of the Index Test Box source code was written at private
expense prior to engaging in this contract with HDC, and is lawfully
protected by U.S. Copyright TX-6-006-161. This Copyright was acquired at
the start of the contract period to protect the preexisting intellectual
property from potential improper ownership claims from the Government -
which did occur.
3.
The end-product was successfully field tested twice. The first test was at
McNary Dam in December 2005, and resulted in USACE personnel reporting on
January 25, 2006 to BPA HOT committee, “Although limited range testing,
results promising.” By way of explanation: the range of testing was limited
by court-ordered limits on turbine power output and inherent problems with
the substandard USACE HDC designed and developed Kaplan turbine blade
control equipment.
4.
Several “bugs” in the ITB software program were identified by the first
field test. These were corrected, and a second field test was conducted in
February 2006 at Ice Harbor Dam to verify the fixes. This second test
consisted of a parallel index test on a large Kaplan turbine, with
measurements taken concurrently using the USACE test equipment that is
typically used for index testing and the ITB, utilizing traditional USACE
index testing procedures to collect the data.
5.
As a result of this second field test, USACE personnel reported to the BPA
HOT committee on March 3, 2006 that “Results virtually identical to those
obtained using COE data acquisition system,” and the ITB was “Ready for
‘Unattended, automated’ data collection.
6.
Additionally, in the January 25, 2006 BPA HOT committee meeting, the USACE
Technical Lead (Rod Wittinger) and other engineers (Lee Sheldon & Dan
Ramirez) on HDC's project team submitted requests to purchase two
additional ITBs from ATECo, one with the OPC communication interface, and
another without the OPC communication capability for additional ITB testing
at Dworshak (N. Fork of Clearwater) and Chief Joseph (Columbia River)
hydroelectric plants.
7.
This plan was quashed by other HDC personnel in that meeting with more
clout who preferred to purchase the ITB technology from another, more
favored contractor (ACSI) that had previously provided control system
hardware and software for the GDACS control system. Unfortunately, the
other contractor did not possess the ITB technology so HDC personnel tried
to take it away from ATECo without paying for it. Failing at this, HDC set
about acquiring funding to hire ACSI to re-invent the ITB, which was
blocked by DOE IG complaints. Failing again, HDC next initiated the GBO
Project to re-invent the ITB technology with in-house personnel and re-hired
annuitants.
8.
So yes, the contractor has many complaints about the unethical business
practices of USACE HDC personnel, which were brought to the attention of
the project Technical Lead, the Contracting Officer’s Representative and
the Contracting Officer; all of which resulted in no resolution whatsoever.
The contractor believes the problems encountered are systemic and
organizational. These complaints are not without basis, as claimed in the
Government’s comment on this contract. Full documentation is available on
request.
9.
For example, in June 2005, at the end of the 1-year performance period of
the 5-year contract, HDC compelled ATECo to renegotiate and sign a modified
contract for a needed time extension and to adjust the deliverables to match
what transpired on this “Time and Material” contract. After a month of
haggling over deliverables and other terms with the Contracting Officer’s
Representative (COR), the contract was sent "around the signature
loop" at HDC for approvals.
10.
Before being delivered to ATECo for signature, the contract was delayed for
a week after the expiration of the 1-year period, and HDC said no more work
or payment would be authorized until the contract was signed. When the
contract was sent to ATECo for signature a week late, purported urgency
from HDC pressed for a quick turnaround with ATECo’s signature on it with
the statement, “No need to read the boiler plate, it’s the same as before.”
11.
However, when the boilerplate that accompanied the deliverables pages was
read in detail, we found that had been changed by stealth. It was not the
verbiage agreed to between the COR and ATECo.
12.
Paragraph 3.4.2.9 had been secretly changed, Paragraph 3.4.2.9a was added
and Ed Miska’s name supplanted Jeff Sedgwick and Rod Wittinger as the
Project Manger and the Technical lead on the project. All of these changes
were made personally by Ed Miska without the knowledge of the COR or ATECo
- according to Jason Loeffler, the CID investigator who responded to
ATECO’s DOD IG complaint about this contract tampering and deception by HDC
personnel.
13.
The original contract text:
3.4.2.9 Delivery of the prototype Type 1
Optimizer source code listing developed under this contract, and a final
report specifying objectives achieved, knowledge developed during the
project and recommendations.
3.4.2.10 Additional, complete, programmed Index
Test Boxes as called out in the Line Items.
Was
secretly changed by Ed Miska to say:
3.4.2.9 Delivery of the prototype Type 1
Optimizer source code listing developed under this contract, and a final
report specifying objectives achieved, knowledge developed during the
project and recommendations.
Current versions of the source code shall be delivered with any
revisions to be implemented at McNary and as requested for test versions
sent HDC, to be run on the HDC test bed or other PC’s. Final delivery of a complete package
shall be complete by August 20, 2005.
3.4.2.9a
With every delivery or software modification, the Contractor shall deliver
software source code.
3.4.2.10 Additional, complete, programmed Index
Test Boxes as called out in the Line Items.
14.
These changes were shown to my lawyer and my Congressman, who acquired
advice and a legal opinion from the House of Representatives’ Legal
Counsel. My lawyer said the deceptive changes would compel me to give the
software source code to HDC without compensation, and my Congressman and
the House’s lawyer advised that the original contract text already had the
needed provisions for time and funding extensions, and opined that the only
reason HDC wanted the modified contract was in order to get my signature on
a document that would compel me to give over the source code for the
software upon delivery of the test item at McNary Dam without compensation,
and that ATECo should litigate. Formal complaints were lodged with DOD IG,
USACE IG and DOE IG about this and other problems encountered by the
contractor on this project.
15.
The Index Test Box technology described in U.S. Patent# 4,794,544 works as
intended, has been under continuous development for over 10 years by the
contractor, and was demonstrated and proven to work successfully by USACE’s
own “Proof of Concept” testing in December 2005 at McNary Dam & again
in February 2006 at Ice Harbor Dam.
16.
HDC only bought one unit of the ITB, not the software source code or design
information to reproduce it and make their own replicas of it. However,
this design information was offered by ATECo for $750,000, but HDC
personnel desired to claim credit for inventing and developing this
technology, so they didn’t want to purchase it and acknowledge where the
technology came from.
17.
Despite this fact, in a job posting on the Internet dated 01/04/07, USACE
HDC claimed to have developed the ITB technology in-house instead of
purchasing it from ATECo. Subsequent FOIA requests to learn when/how/who
was credited with this learned that HDC had only purchased index-testing
technology from ATECo.
18.
In the September 2006 BPA HOT committee meeting, HDC personnel reported a
"successful "Proof of Concept" field test, and then falsely
presented the data graphs that were produced by ATECo with the ITB in the
two successful field tests cited above to the BPA HOT committee, with the
untrue claim these data graphs were the work-product of HDC's personnel.
This was done in order to acquire funding for a new in-house project to
replicate the ITB. HDC personnel then changed the project name to
“Gate-Blade Optimizer” (GBO) to hide the deception.
19.
The October 3, 2008 HOT Meeting minutes report that the “LabView based” GBO
has been abandoned. This project to replicate the ITB technology with the
newly contrived GBO squandered over $1.5 million of taxpayer funds, but was
unsuccessful in creating a working substitute for the original patented and
successfully "Proof of Concept" tested & demonstrated ITB
device that was purchased from the contractor.
20.
This situation and these actions were brought to the attention of DOE IG
and BPA HOT committee and management. At the time of this writing, it has
been over 8 months since BPA has held a HOT committee meeting, when in past
years meetings occurred every 1-2 months. We cannot know their minds, but
it would seem that BPA somewhat agreed with the contractor's claims that
HDC is not providing the best "bang for the buck" of the
Taxpayer's funds and has stopped underwriting HDC's unethical business
practices.
21.
Indeed, this is not a new problem - the ITB was first introduced to BPA and
USACE HDC in 1987 when BPA purchased the first production unit of the newly
patented ITB produced by Woodward Governor. BPA purchased one ITB and
demonstrated it at PGE-PHP-2 powerhouse near Portland Oregon. USACE HDC saw
it there, and apparently liked it because HDC engineers designed and built
their own "automated index test device" which was reported to BPA
by HDC engineers on March 27, 1990. No further information is available on
this device, so like the 2007 GBO project, it was not successful.
"Those
who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George
Santayana
But
on to new potential business:
22.
The Index Test Box does work, is still for sale, and is undergoing further
development to reach new markets.
23.
If USACE HDC has not yet acquired or developed the capability for
automatic, unattended data collection for index testing turbines as of yet,
perhaps the Government would like to try again to purchase this technology
from the original inventor and current purveyor.
24.
ITB technology is currently being purchased and utilized in two projects by
a private sector power company in Canada in order to optimize operating
efficiency of both vertical and horizontal bulb-type Kaplan turbines.
25.
Conclusion: The ITB purchased from ATECo on this contract was successful,
but procurement favoritism and deceptive practices on the part of
Government employees at USACE HDC continually attempted to purloin this
technology without paying for it. These acts destroyed what could have been
a successful project that would have resulted in the automated index
testing and 3-D cam optimization of all 113 Kaplan hydroelectric turbines
on the Snake and Columbia rivers.
26.
ATECo’s ITB worked as intended in 1985 at USACE’s Clarence Cannon
powerplant in Missouri, again at PGE PHP-2 powerplant in Portland Oregon in
1987, again at McNary powerplant in 2005 and again at Ice Harbor powerplant
in 2006.
27.
ATECo’s ITB works, and is still available to HDC, but the Government must
pay for this technology in order to acquire it.
The Government's
statement that ATECo's complaints are without basis is false.
Complete
documentation of all allegations has been collected, saved, cataloged and
is available for inspection on request.
For
more information, please see the ITB website at www.actuationtestequipment.com,
or call (815.335.1143).
Contractor Name: DOUGLAS ALBRIGHT
Title: PRESIDENT
Telephone Number: 815-335-1143
Fax Number: 815-335-1143
Email: DudleyDevices@aol.com
Date: 06/12/2009
|