. "Appendix F: Summary of External Independent Reviews for National Nuclear Security Administration, Office of Environmental Management, and Office of Science Projects, FY 2001 Through FY 2003, Covering Only Baseline Validation." Progress in Improving Project Management at the Department of Energy: 2003 Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2004.
The following HTML text is provided to enhance online
readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML.
Please use the page image
as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.
Progress in Improving Project Management at the Department of Energy: 2003 Assessment
The East Research Campus area will become the scene of increasing construction activity as simultaneous projects conducted by different parties for different owners compete for utilities, space, and resources. The PEP does not include any description of a coordination effort or organization necessary to manage this complex project area.
The undated acquisition execution plan (AEP) lacks specificity, includes contradictory statements, and is inconsistent with other project documents.
The cost and schedule baselines cannot be determined from the documentation. The documents contain no consistent “official” set of cost and schedule figures.
The PEP does not adequately describe a baseline change control board function.
The configuration management process described in the PEP does not sufficiently describe the process used for configuration management, the coordination requirements with others, or the level of effort planned for this function.
The project cost estimates include wildly fluctuating contingency amounts as the project team endeavors to maintain the TEC.
Laboratory Systems Upgrades
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
The install and test control system costs are higher than normal, and Johnson Controls, Incorporated, the contractor designing the system and making preliminary cost estimates, is being considered for a sole-source procurement.
The productivity rates assumed for a number of construction activities appear overly conservative.
The contingency level in the project team’s estimate is higher than the level recommended in DOE guidance and does not appear justified.
The project team has not sufficiently defined milestones included in the schedule baseline to manage the project in accordance with the project baseline change control thresholds and DOE guidance.
Several key areas of the preliminary design were missing outline specifications, equipment specifications, general notes, and keyed notes.
The documentation did not meet the minimum requirements for receiving CD-2 approval.
There is no risk management plan. The Contingency and Risks section of the PEP does not sufficiently identify and quantify risks or define mitigation strategies.