National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 7 Contract Management Metrics
Suggested Citation:"8 List of All Recommendations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Review of Effectiveness and Efficiency of Defense Environmental Cleanup Activities of the Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management: First Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26000.
×
Page 83
Suggested Citation:"8 List of All Recommendations." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Review of Effectiveness and Efficiency of Defense Environmental Cleanup Activities of the Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management: First Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26000.
×
Page 84

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

8 List of All Recommendations The recommendations in the report are here gathered in one place, listed by chapter. PROJECT MANAGEMENT POLICIES, PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES RECOMMENDATION 4-1: The committee recommends that DOE confirm, clarify, and expand DOE Order 413.3B to establish its applicability to all capital asset projects (not just construction and Major Instruments and Equipment and certain cleanup projects) and all EM projects, whether major systems projects or work carried out by a Management and Operating (M&O) contractor. The committee makes the following specific recommendations regarding the Order as well: 1. Pending the outcome of the NNSA pilot project, reduce the threshold value for applicability of Order 413.3B from $50 million to $20 million; 2. Continue applying the requirements of Order 413.3B to M&O contract work on capital asset projects—the latter including construction projects, major items of equipment and cleanup projects; 3. Clarify the definition related to project performance found at Section 3c(4), point 3 to calculate performance on aggregate value and not number of projects; and 4. Shift eligibility for project overruns, currently 10% per project, to be applied instead based on the aggregate value. RECOMMENDATION 4-2: DOE should clarify Order 413.3B to incorporate best practices with respect to dispute prevention and resolution, which will be of growing significance as EM implements the “end- state” contracting approach. Sources for such best practices include the Construction Industry Institute. RECOMMENDATION 4-3: EM should apply the requirements for Project Execution Plans equivalent to those in Order 413.3B to those projects that are not formally managed under Order 413.3B. PROJECT MANAGEMENT METRICS RECOMMENDATION 5-1: The committee recommends that as EM increases its project management (PM) and Office of Project Management (OPM) responsibilities using Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Delivery (IDIQ) contracts, it should share and compare best project management (PM) practices with others across the U.S. government. To implement this, EM should form a “Joint Task Force” or less formal cooperative structure with Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) and other Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) and Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) program management organizations. RECOMMENDATION 5-2: DOE EM should implement a modification to its EVMS system that captures the project’s temporal status more clearly and explicitly. Specifically, EM should immediately require that a revised Schedule Performance Index, SPI(t), which is the ratio of Scheduled Time of Work PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 8-1

Performed (STWP) and Actual Time of Work Performed (ATWP), be reported to accurately track schedule performance. RECOMMENDATION 5-3: DOE EM should explicitly include the percentage (%) of cost over (under) run in their Project Success metrics dashboard, rather than the current “green/yellow/red” metric to bring more transparency to cost performance. CONTRACT STRUCTURES RECOMMENDATION 6-1: EM should establish well-defined, outcomes-based intermediate end-states in its ten-year clean-up contracts. Any intermediate outcomes should have clear, measurable metrics to assess site-based (versus task-based) achievement of the defined end-states. EM should report progress on these metrics across the portfolio of end-state programs on a quarterly basis and such reports should represent a key EM performance measure. RECOMMENDATION 6-2: EM should structure task orders on a scale that is appropriate for defining intermediate outcomes, award fewer individual tasks. EM should apply to such task orders the same management oversight as currently required for a Major Systems Projects (MSP) exceeding the $750 million in total cost. CONTRACT MANAGEMENT METRICS RECOMMENDATION 7-1: To increase transparency in contractor performance evaluation the committee recommends that DOE-EM should ensure that the contracts it issues for cleanup work (1) create a consolidated set of unambiguous “subjective” criteria for similar types of cleanup activities, and (2) use these criteria in the evaluation of all contract performance across its portfolio. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION 8-2

Next: Appendixes »
Review of Effectiveness and Efficiency of Defense Environmental Cleanup Activities of the Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management: First Report Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $50.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and its predecessor agencies have conducted activities to develop atomic energy for civilian and defense purposes since the initiation of the World War II Manhattan Project in 1942. These activities took place at large federal land reservations of hundreds of square miles involving industrial-scale operations, but also at many smaller federal and non-federal sites such as uranium mines, materials processing and manufacturing facilities. The nuclear weapons and energy production activities at these facilities produced large quantities of radioactive and hazardous wastes and resulted in widespread groundwater and soil contamination at these sites. DOE initiated a concerted effort to clean up these sites beginning in the 1980s. Many of these sites have been remediated and are in long-term caretaker status, closed or repurposed for other uses.

Review of the Effectiveness and Efficiency of Defense Environmental Cleanup Activities of the Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management: First Report provides background information on the sites currently assigned to the DOE's Office of Environmental Management that are undergoing cleanup; discusses current practices for management and oversight of the cleanups; offers findings and recommendations on such practices and how progress is measured against them; and considers the contracts under which the cleanups proceed and how these have been and can be structured to include incentives for improved cost and schedule performance.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!