e) There was some discussion regarding the results of the spiked sample analysis.
The decision of the DUOB was that the results gave them sufficient confidence to
proceed with tenders for the main contract. The seven laboratories that had
expressed an interest in the main contract would be invited to tender once the
Statement of Requirement was complete. The results of the analysis for U236 did
not appear to be entirely reliable from the preliminary results, and at one
laboratory there appeared to have been a problem of U236 contamination. It was
agreed that the Statement of Requirement would be based principally on the
U238/U235 ratio and that the SOR would not specify an accuracy for U236
Action 10.11. Secretary to proceed with main testing contract.
f) Jim Glennon asked what scope there would be for correcting any problems that
occurred once the main contracts were let. The Chairman pointed out that quality
procedures would be put in place as part of the contract. This would include
duplicating samples to ensure repeatability of results and also the testing of spiked
samples as in the pilot exercise. The Chairman stated that the SOR for the main
contract stipulated that the laboratories would establish QC procedures in
conjunction with the DUOB.
The subject of how the measured uranium level would relate to dose was
discussed. George Etherington undertook to produce a paper on this.
Action 10.12. George Etherington to produce a paper on relationship between
dose and measured level of DU.
g) It was agreed that the Chairman, Gideon Henderson and David Lewis would
write a summary paper to collate findings from the pilot study once all the final
reports had been received. This paper would summarise the whole pilot exercise
and results and would be published on the web. It was agreed that a meeting of the
pilot exercise laboratories should be held to discuss the results but there was
concern that there might be difficulties with this due to sensitivities regarding their
bids for the main contract. Malcolm Hooper asked about the differences in
methods used by the laboratories and noted that one laboratory did not seem to
have the same accuracy as the other laboratories. This will be covered in the pilot
Post meeting note: MOD Contracts Branch advise that there are no problems with
holding a ‘wash-up’ meeting with the laboratories as long as the discussions only
concern the pilot exercise.
Action 10.13. Produce a final report on the pilot exercise
h) Jim Glennon expressed concern that results of one of the laboratories did not
appear to be as good as for the others. He asked if this laboratory should be
allowed to tender for the main contract. The secretary explained that the main
contract was a separate requirement from the pilot study and had been advertised
separately. The seven organisations who had expressed an interest in the contract
had all been assessed (by David Lewis and Gideon Henderson) as suitable to bid
for the contract. The decision about which laboratories would get the main
contract would be taken by the DUOB based on the responses to the Invitation to
i) The Chairman pointed out that the results of the pilot exercise were confidential
and should not be discussed outside of the DUOB.
Draft Statement of Requirement for Main Testing Contract
a) Draft 11 of this Statement of Requirement was discussed. A large number of