Aligning the Governance Structure of the NNSA Laboratories to Meet 21st Century National Security Challenges (2015)

H

Conceptual Model for Facilitating the WFO Approval Process¹

The conceptual model proposed here under a system of Work Scope Agreements/Work Boundary Agreements (WSA/WBA) mentioned in Recommendation 4.1 would allow work to come into the NNSA laboratories with a significantly reduced amount of approval overhead. The responsibility for the safe, secure, and environmentally responsible execution of the work would be placed on the laboratories and their management and operating (M&O) contractor. A demonstrable, robust system of review and management would have to be in place at each laboratory for the system to be approved.

The notional Work Scope Agreement (WSA) in Box H.1 is a very limited example of the type of agreement that would allow maximum flexibility and efficiency in processing Interagency Orders (IOs, or Work for Others [WFO] contracts) while assuring that appropriate controls are in place to assure that legal and regulatory requirements are met. It outlines an agreement between one NNSA laboratory (LLNL) and one strategic partner agency (the Department of Defense [DOD]).

Note that these technical areas could be derived from descriptions of existing work from the determinations and findings (D&Fs) required in each WFO contract. A careful review of all current D&Fs would allow a comprehensive list of work that has already been attested by both

______________

¹ This appendix is based on material supplied by Dori Ellis, Associate Director at Large for Interagency Mission Enhancement, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, on September 17, 2014.

the Department of Energy (DOE) and DOD as meeting the federally funded research and development center criteria. This agreement could be reached annually, or over some longer period, as the types of work that the laboratories execute for DOD are consistent and based on the core capabilities and experience of the laboratory in question. It would be expected that there would be one WSA for each partnership between a laboratory and a strategic partner agency. Because more than 80 percent

of the WFO portfolio at LLNL is executed on behalf of three agencies, the number of individual transactions would be reduced dramatically.

WORK BOUNDARY AGREEMENT

The other half of the conceptual model between the NNSA laboratories, DOE, and other agencies is the WBA. This agreement would be between the DOE/NNSA and its laboratories. It covers those areas of operations requirements that must be met for the IOs to receive automatic approval (with an appropriate audit trail) from DOE. The WBAs would cover environment, safety, and health (ES&H), security, facility, project, and financial management, and any other appropriate operations requirements. All of these requirements are already documented in the individual contracts between the management and operating (M&O) contractors and DOE. If the Contract Assurance Systems are working properly, establishing the working envelope should be straightforward, although perhaps tedious the first time through.

Automatic approval of IOs would only be allowed if the laboratory attests that appropriate review has taken place and the project is in compliance with all requirements. For example, in ES&H a project review might include the following:

1. Review for compliance with DOE environmental, safety, and health requirements.
2. Assurance that the laboratory/facility contains all necessary ES&H approvals (laser interlocks, Operational Security Plan, Facility Safety Procedure, etc.) required for this type of work. The work will be performed in accordance with [the laboratory’s] Integrated Safety Management program.
3. Assurance that the development effort is within the existing safety basis of the facility in which it will be executed.
4. Pre-start reviews and standard laboratory ES&H protocols, as required.
5. Review for compliance to all applicable ES&H standards.
6. If needed, an Integrated Work Sheet as required by Integrated Safety Management System standards.

The requirements for the WBA could be obtained from the existing ES&H and other requirements that are levied on all recent projects. These agreements could be approved on the same schedule as the WSAs, with periodic renewals.

WORK STATEMENT

The work statement defines the effort and enables execution by the laboratory. It is typically refined by an iterative process between the sponsoring agency, the NNSA field office, and the laboratory. This process, which can be time consuming, would not change. However, in this model the work statement is only provided to DOE for information (i.e., not requiring approval) to ensure DOE cognizance that the work is within the boundary agreement.

EXCEPTIONS

Neither the WSA nor the WBA would allow the laboratories to do work that is not already routinely approved under the current review and approval system. Work outside of the norm—for example, work that requires expanding the safety basis of a facility, introducing Category I or Category II radioactive material onto the site, having explosives over a certain limit, requiring facility modification over a some limit, or other “off-normal” conditions, could be exempted from the pre-approval process and require additional review by the field office.