Hanford Site support services contractor Mission Support Alliance has earned almost $18.8 million in fees for fiscal 2015, but will not be paid until a dispute over past payments is resolved. The award fee earned is 89 percent of the $21 million available, according to a Department of Energy scorecard released this week. Mission Support Alliance holds a 10-year contract through fiscal 2019 to provide support services across the former plutonium production facility in Washington state, including portfolio management, information technology, security, fire protection, road maintenance, and management of the HAMMER training center.
Last week, a DOE Inspector General’s Office audit report revealed that the department has disallowed $63.5 million in profit payments to the company from 2010 to 2014. Lockheed Martin is a principal owner of Mission Support Alliance, which subcontracted information technology services to Lockheed Martin Services. DOE claimed Lockheed Martin Services was paid about $63.5 million in profit, which amounted to both Lockheed Martin-controlled companies being paid profit for the same work. In addition, the fee scorecard said Mission Support Alliance’s purchase of Homeland Protector insurance did not comply with the terms of its DOE contract. The department notified Mission Support Alliance in August that it was disallowing $1.3 million in costs for the first five years of its contract. Mission Support Alliance apparently purchased the insurance to comply with a Department of Homeland Security requirement related to anti-terrorism activity at Hanford. “These unallowable charges to DOE are significant, and DOE is seeking recovery and resolving through appropriate channels,” the DOE scorecard said. “Currently these two issues are in dispute and MSA has appealed to the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals.”
The 89 percent of fee earned by Mission Support Alliance was slightly better than for fiscal 2014, when it earned 87 percent of the possible incentive pay. Mission Support Alliance received an “excellent” rating in objective scoring, which covers meeting DOE targets for completed work. It earned 94 percent of the pay available in that category, or nearly $13.9 million. For the subjective portion of the scoring, it was rated as “very good.” The company qualified for 78 percent of the award available, or $4.9 million. “The contractor met or exceeded the majority of performance goals and objectives for the performance period,” the scorecard said.
