Assessing the Need for Independent Project Reviews in the Department of Energy (1998) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Pages 27-38
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 27... ...
Nevertheless, even though cost estimates and schedules would naturally tend to drift under these conditions, radical deviations from approved baselines should not become the norm. The overall purpose of an independent assessment process should be to determine, by a nonproponent body or individual, whether the scope of projects, Me underlying assumptions regarding technology and management, the cost and schedule baselines, and contingency provisions are valid and credible within the budgetary and administrative constraints under which DOE must function.
|
From page 28... ...
Although independent and external reviews are warranted In certain cases, they watt not automatically solve the problems. A single round of independent reviews or even a series of Hem is not He sole answer to achieving comprehensive process improvement.
|
From page 29... ...
Although DOE has developed comprehensive practice guides for the design and construction phases of a project, the department has not developed comparable guidance for the early conceptual and preconceptual phases of projects when there is a high potential for substantial savings In both cost and time. Although all projects should be subject to some form and intensity of nonproponent review, not all projects should be subject to an independent external review.
|
From page 30... ...
DOE should use screening criteria to identify projects that should be subject to independent review. The first step in the approved Statement of Task for this report is to develop a decision Damework for determining the need for independent reviews of DOE projects.
|
From page 31... ...
Once this initial round of independent project reviews is completed, the number to be undertaken in future years may decrease as DOE gains experience with the process and applies the lessons learned in the preconceptual and conceptual phases of newly emerging projects. The five secondary criteria are proposed to capture projects with TECs below $20 million with characteristics that present the highest risk to maintaining cost and schedule baselines.
|
From page 32... ...
DOE should chose as independent reviewers organizations or individuals that have the appropriate technical capability, are objective and detached from the project under review, and do not have other conflicts of interest or agenda. The organization or individual performing the Independent review should have, or have available, the requisite capabilities to address the technical disciplines involved (e.g., civil, environmental, and nuclear engineenng; high energy physics, and energy research)
|
From page 33... ...
of remediation and waste management projects were described earlier. USACE used a combination of Internal, DOE, and contract personnel under the direction of a USACE project manager to conduct reviews of individual projects.
|
From page 34... ...
It may be judicious for DOE to continue its agreement with USACE for reviewing environmental management projects and to use the Phase 2 study approach for reviewing environmental projects Rat are still in the conceptual phase. -- A, ~ Environmental restoration at a particular site or group of sites requires integrating numerous distinct activities, which must necessarily remain somewhat fluid to adjust to changes in the situation as Hey are revealed.
|
From page 35... ...
97-D-102 Dual Axis Radiographic Hydrodynamic Facility, LANL Design and construct a 38,200 square foot laboratory facility housing sophisticated x-ray, electronic, and optical machinery. 97-D-122 Nuclear Mater als Storage Facility Renovation, LANE Renovate a 30,400 square foot building completed in 1987 that did not meet standards, including standards for safety and security.
|
From page 36... ...
CDR Nuclear Material Safeguards and Security Upgrades, LANE Provide additional safeguards and improve existing security systems associated with the production of plutonium pits. CDR Tank Farm Support Services, F & H Areas.
|
From page 37... ...
The other projects identified as CDR projects, which are primarily for waste management and weapons fabrication, and projects included in the privatization of defense environmental management should be subjected to peer review by specifically constituted external teams with expertise in these technical areas. Projects 98-D-453, 97-D-122, 97-D-470, 96-D-104, 95-D-102, 93-D-~87 and 96-G-300, which are buildings and facilities, could be reviewed by orgari~tions experienced in the design and construction of similar facilities, such as USACE, the Naval Facilities Eng~neenng Command, or private contractors.
|
From page 38... ...
Therefore, In Implementing the independent reviews recommended In this report, the efficacy of the review, the type and scope of the review, and the body to conduct the review should be determined by a designated nonproponent element within DOE in consultation with the project manager. The establishment and tasks of the review body, as well as the disposition of review recommendations, should flow through higher levels of DOE and should not be under the sole direction ofthe project manager.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.