DNA Identification in Mass Fatality Incidents
Steve Niezgoda
In the middle of a massive forensic and humanitarian effort, it’s easy to expect that suppliers and contractors will be on the same page as the managing laboratory. But that is a sure path to misunderstanding and disappointment on both sides. Having explicit contracts can help clarify expectations and set the basis for accountability that can curb cost overruns.
Working simultaneously with vendors, government agencies, and consultants can be challenging under the best of circumstances, but it becomes even more demanding when the laboratory is handling a mass fatality incident response. It is important to maintain open lines of communication with vendors. Regular written updates and status meetings are good tools. A meeting agenda—that is adhered to—helps keep everyone on track and serves as a paper trail of the project’s progress.
It is important to retain correspondence with vendors and to maintain documentation of decisions affecting vendors. For example, saving e-mail messages is an efficient way to document decisions.
It is very important for the laboratory director to consult with the laboratory’s contracting officer if the scope of work changes during the project because modifications to the contract (e.g., scope of work and fees) may be required. Working closely with the contracting officer during all stages of contract development may help to minimize future problems. The managing laboratory director can best control how tasks are performed when a contract with a vendor or consultant specifies needs and expectations. Although most vendors and consultants want to serve their clients to the best of their abilities, it is important to remember that vendor processes and approaches may conflict with the laboratory’s protocols. For example, a vendor laboratory may be most comfortable and experienced with a certain DNA testing procedure that is different from the method of analysis used by the managing laboratory.
A computer consultant, for example, may want to add a software feature that will delay making identifications, even though the feature may improve efficiencies in the long run. To the extent possible, it is best to avoid becoming a beta-test site—having to validate a new software program or piece of equipment—in the middle of a mass fatality incident response. When working with outside vendors, laboratory directors would be well advised to remember that they are the “customers” and they are ultimately responsible for the project’s success.
