The PDF version 
Display Related Directives to this directive.
Display Reference Documents to this directive.
U.S. Department of Energy GUIDE
Washington, D.C. 20585 DOE G 413.3-1
9-23-08
MANAGING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
USING SYSTEMS ENGINEERING
FOR USE WITH
DOE O 413.3A
[This Guide describes suggested nonmandatory approaches for
meeting requirements. Guides are not requirements documents and
are not construed as requirements in any audit or appraisal for
compliance with the parent Policy, Order, Notice, or Manual.]
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1. Goal
The goal of this Guide is to provide the Department of Energy's
federal project directors (FPDs) with the knowledge,
methodologies, and tools needed to meet Order 413.3A's
requirement that they plan, implement and complete their assigned
project(s) using a Systems Engineering approach.1 This
requirement is particularly significant because Systems
Engineering is the only specific engineering discipline imposed
on the FPDs by the Department's directives; and because it
provides the FPDs with a methodology that they can use to fulfill
the following other responsibilities that DOE O 413.3A imposes on
them to:
? demonstrate initiative in incorporating and managing an
appropriate level of risk to ensure best value for the
government";2
? "ensure that safety is fully integrated into design and
construction for high-risk; high-hazard, and Hazard Category
1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities";3
? ensure that design, construction, environmental, safety,
security, health, and quality comply with the contract,
public law, regulations, and Executive orders;4
? plan and implement a Quality Assurance Program for the
project5;
? initiate development and implementation of key project
documentation;6 and
? clearly define the roles and responsibilities of the
Integrated Project Team relative to the contractor
management team.7
The intent of this Guide is to provide the FPDs and the
Integrated Project Teams (IPTs) with a better understanding of—
? how reports and tasks required by DOE O 413.3A can be
brought together as a system,
? how the different DOE O 413.3A guides come together as a
system,
? how other DOE rules and directives interface with the
project development process, and
? how to use systems engineering lessons learned from past
projects.
These tools, knowledge and insight can help to improve project
performance by avoiding systems level integration deficiencies.
1.2. Applicability.
The Guide is applicable to any DOE capital asset acquisition
project having a total project cost of $20 million or greater. It
may also prove useful to program managers facing similar
challenges.
1.3. What is Systems Engineering?
Attachment 3 of DOE O 413.3A, defines Systems Engineering as:
"A proven, disciplined approach that supports
management in clearly defining the mission or problem;
managing system functions and requirements; identifying
and managing risk; establishing bases for informed
decision-making; and verifying products and services
meet customer needs"
According to the Order, Systems Engineering is utilized:
? upon approval of mission need to analyze alternative
concepts based on user requirements, risks, costs, and other
constraints to arrive at a recommended alternative; 8
? in the Project Definition Phase to integrate requirements
analysis, risk identification and analysis, acquisition
strategies, and concept exploration to evolve a
cost-effective, preferred solution to meet a mission need;9
? in the Execution Phase to balance requirements, cost,
schedule, and other factors to optimize the design, cost,
and capabilities that satisfy the mission need;10
? to integrate the design and safety basis;11 and
? to plan, implement, and complete a project.
1.4. Links with Other Directives
DOE O 420.1B also requires that all DOE federal and contractor
elements responsible for design and construction of Hazard
Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities have a Systems
Engineering Program12 that uses configuration management to:
? develop and maintain consistency among system requirements
and performance criteria, documentation, and physical
configuration of the structures, systems, and components
within the scope of the program;
? integrate the elements of system requirements and
performance criteria, system assessments, change control,
work control, and documentation control;
? compile and keep current system design basis documentation
and supporting documents using formal change control and
work control processes;
? identify and consolidate key design documents to support
facility safety basis development and documentation;
? periodically assess:
- the ability to perform design and safety functions,
- physical configuration for conformity to system
documentation, and
- system and component performance as compared to
established performance criteria; and
? test each system after modification to ensure its continued
capability to fulfill system requirements.
DOE G 420.1-1, Nonreactor Nuclear Safety Design Criteria and
Explosives Safety Criteria Guide, dated 3-28-00, adds the
following systems engineering activities relating to nuclear
safety:
? identifying and integrating facility nuclear safety
requirements,
? coordinating multidisciplinary teamwork in implementing
facility safety requirements,
? providing nuclear safety-related interface management,
? providing configuration management to include the
establishment of baseline management, and
? coordinating technical reviews of the facility nuclear
safety features.
The application of systems engineering to nuclear safety in
facility design should be graded commensurate with the facility
hazards and complexity. The goal is to ensure that systems
engineering activities include consideration of the appropriate
facility safety features.13
1.5. Overlapping Systems Engineering and Safety Principles and
Practices
Other safety and quality assurance requirements and
recommendations in DOE O 413.3A and other DOE rules and
directives often overlap with Systems Engineering principles and
practices. For example:
? "Missions are translated into work, expectations are set,
tasks are identified and prioritized, and resources are
allocated." (DOE P 450.4, Safety Management System, page 2)
? "Incorporate applicable requirements and design bases in
design work and design changes." [10 CFR 830.122, Section
(f)(2) and DOE O 414.1C, Quality Assurance, paragraph 4f(2)]
? "Applicable standards and requirements are identified and
agreed-upon, controls to prevent/mitigate hazards are
identified, the safety envelope is established, and controls
are implemented." (DOE P 450.4, Safety Management System,
page 3)
? "Resources shall be effectively allocated to address safety,
programmatic, and operational considerations. Protecting the
public, the workers, and the environment shall be a priority
whenever activities are planned and performed." (DOE P
450.4, Safety Management System, page 2)
? "Competence commensurate with Responsibility - Personnel
shall possess the experience, knowledge, skills, and
abilities necessary to discharge their responsibilities"
[DOE P 450.4, Safety Management System, page 2) and
DOE O 413.3A, paragraph 5k(6)(c)]
? "Identify and control design interfaces." [10 CFR 830.122,
Section (f)(3) and DOE O 414.1C, Quality Assurance,
paragraph 4f(1)]
? Ensure "effective communication among all project
stakeholders." (DOE O 413.3A, paragraph 5a)
? "Risk Management is an essential element of every project.
The DOE risk management approach must be analytical, forward
looking, structured, informative, and continuous. Risk
assessments are started as early in the project life cycle
as possible and should identify critical technical,
performance, schedule, and cost risks." [DOE O 413.3A,
paragraph 5k(11)]
? "Verify/validate work before approval and implementation of
the design." [DOE O 414.1C, Quality Assurance, paragraph
4f(5)]
? "Verify/validate the adequacy of design products using
individuals or groups other than those who performed the
work." [10 CFR 830.122, Section (f)(4) and DOE O 414.1C,
Quality Assurance, paragraph 4f(4)]
Additional embedded materials and linkages are identified in
Attachments 2, 3, 4 and 5.
Some requirements do not specify a point in a project by which
they should be met. This Guide addresses those points at which
compliance should be attained.
1.6. Differences in Terminology
Functional requirements and performance requirements are defined
differently and have significantly different contexts from domain
to domain and in different Departmental directives. These
differences will be pointed out, where possible, to avoid
confusion.
1.7. How this Guide is Structured
The Guide's structure mirrors the project evolution process
outlined in DOE O 413.3A and the above definitions of Systems
Engineering to the extent possible. Specific actions that should
be taken at each step in the project evolution are addressed in
separate sections in the approximate sequence in which it would
be performed; however, it should be recognized that many of the
actions are iterative in nature and should be undertaken in
parallel and would have to be undertaken in a different sequence
if an architect-engineer is utilized to develop the alternative
design concepts. Issues such as verifying that products and
services meet customers’ needs that are integral to each step of
the project evolution process are, by necessity, addressed in
increments as they emerge.
Unlike the other 413-series Guides, this one begins from a higher
level starting point to look at how all DOE directives (i.e., the
various components that comprise DOE's management system) come
together as a project evolves.
The FPD and the IPT roles and responsibilities for design and
construction management are addressed with attention placed on
the front-end of a project since the Department, as owner is
responsible for defining the mission and the associated
requirements; obtaining the human, financial, and technical
capabilities needed to meets those requirements; and planning the
project so as to deliver the greatest net value.
1.8. Sources of Information
The Guide presents acceptable methods for implementing the
Systems Engineering requirements specified in DOE O 413.3A
together with supplemental information about these methods
including lessons learned. This information flows from other
Government agencies’ procedures; professional societies'
presentations and publications; national and international
consensus standards; texts; doctorate dissertations; and, lessons
learned from independent reviews and research studies of failed
or troubled projects.
The quality and quantity of the research in the field has
promoted an extensive evolution of Systems Engineering in the
past decade. Principles and practices that are new include
attention to interdependency and uncertainty management.
2.0 ASSEMBLE AND CHARTER THE INTEGRATED PROJECT TEAM
IPT assembly and chartering is one of the first actions taken on
a project because the IPT performs the bulk of the activities in
the project definition phase (i.e., the phase between Critical
Decision 0 and Critical Decision 1). DOE O 413.3A specifies four
separate requirements in regards to the assembly and chartering
of the IPT. Specifically:
? FPDs clearly define IPT roles and responsibilities relative
to the contractor management team14
? The Charter specifies IPT decision making authority.15
? The Charter provides the IPT’s operating guidance.16
? "Competence (shall be) commensurate with Responsibility -
Personnel shall possess the experience, knowledge, skills
and abilities necessary to discharge their
responsibilities."17
The actions associated with these four requirements are
frequently interdependent and should be considered and responded
to in toto.
Responsibility for assembly of the IPT and the development of the
Charter depends upon whether an FPD has been appointed. The
program manager or the head of the field organizations
establishes the IPT and prepares the initial Charter if a
permanent FPD has not been approved. These same individuals
formally concur with the Charter if a permanent FPD has been
approved because the bulk of the project's staffing will be taken
from their organizations. IPT assignments on larger projects
typically require all, or nearly all, of the IPT member's time
and can last for several years. Both IPT membership and the
Charter must be approved by the Secretarial Acquisition Executive
or the Acquisition Executive.18 The Secretarial Acquisition
Executive or the acquisition executive should evaluate whether
the proposed staffing is adequate for the complexity and
importance of the project before approving these documents.
On more complex projects, the Charter and the IPT staffing plan
are likely to be modified and re-approved several times over the
course of the project to accommodate membership needs and
activities the IPT should perform. Updates and new requests for
approval should be integrated with the Critical Decision approval
process.
3.0 PRE- CONCEPTUAL PLANNING
Pre-conceptual or up-front planning is initiated as either the
final activity prior to Critical Decision 0 or the first activity
immediately after19 Critical Decision 0 approval and is the
beginning of systems engineering. This multifaceted effort
entails simultaneously defining the end product the project will
deliver and how the design and construction activities will be
undertaken and managed. Both efforts are tightly intertwined. The
precise method of undertaking and managing the design and
construction efforts depends upon the end product. And,
conversely, the end product has to be compatible with what the
designers, constructers, and management teams are actually
capable of delivering successfully.
The FPD20 and the IPT perform the bulk of pre-conceptual planning
and ensure that the two efforts are aligned through a series of
iterative steps starting with capturing the project requirements
and ending with determining the appropriate project development
strategies.
Each of these steps is defined below together with the specific
action(s) that should be taken at the completion of the step.
3.1. Capture Project Requirements
Identifying project requirements is fundamental to systems
engineering and is integral to or a prerequisite for nearly all
of the tasks identified in DOE O 413.3A. It is impossible to
develop a meaningful Risk Management Plan, Project Execution
Plan, Acquisition Strategy, or the alternative design concepts
needed for Critical Decision 1 approval without previously
identifying the requirements associated with the project.
Similarly, the probability of the architect and engineering
firms’ developing an acceptable design solution or the necessary
depth of specifications and drawings are nil if they do not know
the Department's requirements.
Project requirements are the primary means of communicating the
Department's expectations to the organizational elements involved
in the project. Accordingly, they should enfold all of the major
aspects of the project, provide the depth of information each
user needs to perform their particular role, and be available for
the user at the right point in time.
3.1.1.Enfold All Major Aspects of the Project
Project requirements fall into two categories. The first is
comprised of those attributes that the project is expected to
demonstrate once it is completed (e.g., mission related
requirements such as storage capacity and production rates,
operational requirements such as mean-time-to-failure, and
requirements that are adjunct to the mission but of major
importance such as safety and security).
The second category is comprised of procedural requirements the
deal solely with project delivery (e.g., calculation methods,
reports and data to be developed and submitted at specific
stages, approvals that must be received, codes and standards to
meet, mandatory reviews, and specific design approaches.
Both categories can be fully defined only by:
? identifying all of the project stakeholders and their
expectations, priorities and values;
? identifying the laws, rules, directives, and standards with
which the project must comply; and
? working backward from the project mission and other end
goals.
3.1.1.1.Project End Product
The Mission Need Statement is the starting point when capturing
requirements related to the end product of the project in that it
"translates an identified performance gap into functional
requirements that cannot be met though other than material
means."21 The Mission Need Statement generally addresses only one
or two aspects of mission related requirements and does not
provide enough information to allow a valid comparison of
alternative conceptual approaches. Additional information is
needed on the operational and life cycle aspects of the mission
including:
? quality;
? processing;
? operability;
? reliability/dependability;
? maintainability and reparability;
? availability;
? flexibility, agility, adaptability, upgradeability;
? survivability;
? durability;
? adaptability;
? decommissioning, deconability and disposition,
? sustainability;
? survivability; and
? testability.
These topics are most readily determined by seeking input from
stakeholders that will use or be impacted by the project and
undertaking a function analysis of the mission. Internal
functions most frequently impacted by the project include
management and operating contractors’ safety, environmental, and
health; security; maintenance; utility or plant; and
transportation organizations. External organizations likely to be
impacted by the project are generally the same as internal
organizations and include both state and local governments.
The identification of such operational and life cycle
requirements is particularly important when there is not an
accepted industry-wide norm to utilize in the absence of
definitive information. Much of the "requirement creep" on
projects can be traced to a failure to capture operational and
life cycle requirements.
3.1.1.2.Adjunct Goals and Recommendations
Adjunct areas of focus such as safety, environmental protection,
security, contracting, value management, and energy efficiency
have mandatory goals and requirements, and non-mandatory design
and procedural preferences to be folded into both the final
product and the project delivery process. Many objectives and
requirements associated with adjunct areas are defined in
government rules, policies and regulations; DOE directives and
standards; and, contract terms and conditions. For example:
3.1.1.2.1. Quality Assurance
DOE G 414.1-2A, Quality Assurance Management System, sets forth
the following recommendations pertaining to design:
? "A design process should be established that provides
appropriate control of design inputs, outputs,
verification, configuration and design changes, and
technical and administrative interfaces."
? "The design of systems, structures, and components;
software; and processes should be subject to design process
controls and verification requirements appropriate to the
level of risk the item presents to the public, the
environment, and project success."
? "Designs should provide for appropriate acceptance,
inspection, testing, and maintenance criteria to ensure
continuing reliability and safety of the items."
? "The designer should consider the expected use and life
expectancy of the items to allow appropriate disassembly
and disposal requirements to be addressed."
? "Aspects critical to the performance, safety, or
reliability of the designed items should be identified
during the design phase."
3.1.1.2.2. Safeguards and Security
DOE G 413.3-3, Safeguards and Security for Program and Project
Management, indicates that the following should be developed
during the project definition stage:
? threat assessment,
? materials control and accountability,
? physical security,
? information security,
? personnel security,
? cyber security,
? barriers,
? access controls,
? explosives, and
? communication.
3.1.1.2.3. Fire Protection
DOE O 420.1B, Facility Safety, establishes fire protection design
requirements pertaining to:
? water supplies,
? noncombustible construction materials,
? fire-rated construction and barriers, including penetration
sealants,
? automatic fire extinguishing systems,
? redundant fire protection systems,
? the separation of redundant safety class systems,
? fire alarm and signaling systems,
? emergency egress and illumination,
? physical access and standpipes for fire department
intervention,
? prevention of accidental release of contaminated products of
combustion and fire fighting water, and
? fire protection and safety system interfaces.
DOE Standard (DOE-STD) 1189, Integration of Safety into the
Design Process, states:
? A Fire Hazards Analysis (FHA) is required for all Hazard
Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities or facilities that
present unique or significant fire risks. A FHA requires a
comprehensive evaluation of fire hazards, including
postulation of fire accident scenarios and estimates of
potential consequences (i.e., maximum credible fire loss).
? "In the conceptual design, a preliminary FHA provides fire
protection strategy alternatives for control or mitigation
of accident consequences. Fire protection strategies will
dictate design requirement."
? "For designs that do not comply with appropriate NFPA
Standards, Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) review and
acceptance of design outputs relevant to fire protection and
life safety are required. Appropriate interfaces with the
AHJ should be anticipated and planned."
DOE G 420.1-3, Implementation Guide for DOE Fire Protection and
Emergency Services Programs for Use with DOE O 420.1B, Facility
Management, defines acceptable methods to implement the fire
protection requirements in DOE O 420.1B, including:
? fire protection designs,
? water supplies,
? automatic fire suppression,
? fire suppression system confinement or containment,
? fire protection system classifications, and
? the NEPA codes and standards likely to be applicable.
DOE-STD-1066-99, Fire Protection Design Criteria, provides
guidance on:
? water supply and distribution systems,
? automatic sprinkler systems,
? fire alarm systems,
? structural fire protection,
? life safety,
? electrical equipment,
? general process hazard fire protection,
? special hazards,
? nuclear filter plenum fire protection, and
? glovebox fire protection.
DOE O 440.1B, Worker Protection Program for DOE (including
National Nuclear Security Administration) Federal Employees
provides requirements on:
? What constitutes an acceptable fire protection program.
? Life safety codes.
3.1.1.2.4. Sustainability
DOE O 430.2B, Departmental Energy, Renewable Energy and
Transportation Management, requires that capital asset
construction or major renovation projects:
? Attain U.S. Green Building Council Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) Gold certification.
? Incorporate the Guiding Principles of Executive Order
13423.
? Incorporate renewable energy equipment into building design
to the maximum extent feasible.
3.1.1.2.5. Value Engineering
DOE O 430.1B, Real Property Asset Management:
? Requires that the contractor use value engineering
techniques in a tailored manner to reduce DOE's real
property asset ownership costs (e.g., acquisition,
operations, maintenance, and disposal) while maintaining the
necessary level of performance and safety.
? Invokes the requirements contained in22
- Office of Management and Budget Circular A-131, Value
Engineering.
- P.L. 104-106, Section 4306, Value Engineering for
Federal Agencies.
- ASTM Practice 1699.00, Standard Practice for Performing
Value Analysis for Buildings and Building Systems.
3.1.1.3.Project Delivery Procedures
Procedural requirements defining how the project is to be
developed are found in the same source documents as the adjunct
goals. It is generally not enough; however, to just state that
the project should be developed in accordance with these source
documents. A good share of the compliance problems that are
surfaced during the various project reviews can be traced to a
simple lack of awareness of procedural requirements. While
reviews correct this lack of awareness, downstream corrections
are always more costly than ensuring that the performing parties
have a full understanding of the requirement before starting
work. One of the keys to project success is the degree to which
the procedural requirements can be clearly linked to the specific
tasks to be performed in each project phase.
The establishment of such linkages is complicated by the fact
that many of the procedural requirements contained in the source
documents are situational in nature and only come into play if a
particular condition is found to exist as the project unfolds.
This is particularly significant from a project planning and
management standpoint since both the information needed to
determine if the triggering condition exists and the actual
determination typically resides outside of the functional
disciple/organizational element that is undertaking the impacted
design. This creates an interdependence that can have a major
impact on the manner in which the project is executed. Such
interdependence is discussed in section 3.4.2.2.4.3.
3.2. Concurrent with Requirements Capture
A number of different activities should be performed concurrently
with the requirements identification process just described.
These activities are described below.
3.2.1.Determine the Depth to Which the Requirements Are Defined
Requirements at front-end of the project are typically defined to
one of the following three increasing depths.
3.2.1.1.Performance Issues
Performance applies to end result but not the means, the
processes or procedures by which it can be achieved. Performance
requirements provide great latitude for innovation but only
minimum bases for either the Department or contractors to
estimate project scope, cost, and schedule. Even more important,
they typically do not provide a measuring stick for determining
progress or the acceptability of the end result.
3.2.1.2.Functional Issues
Functional requirements have varied definitions in DOE directives
and are in most cases sub-elements that have the same two basic
limitations as performance requirements in that they normally do
not provide a measuring stick for progress assessment or a means
of determining the acceptability of the final product.
3.2.1.3.Detailed or Procedural Issues
Detailed requirements or procedural requirements focus as much on
how work is to be performed, as what is to be produced. They can
appear in different forms including Departmental and consensus
standards, design criteria, and state and local codes.
3.2.2.Determine if the Depth of Definition Is Adequate and
Address Any Gaps
There are two opposing perspectives regarding the depth to which
project requirements (end product and adjunct requirements)
should be refined. The first is based on the premise that
detailed requirements will overly constrain the private sector
(the architect/engineering firms, the equipment suppliers, and
the constructors) who should do the work and will result in
higher project costs. The second perspective is based on the
premise that detailed requirements are the only way of ensuring
that the end product will perform as needed and are, therefore,
essential.
The situation determines which of these two perspectives is
correct . Detailed requirements are normally not warranted on
projects that can be successfully delivered using proven designs
and commercially available components or systems. They are
warranted and are in some cases essential:
? on atypical projects that are pushing the state of art;
? when confronted with high risk environments/missions;
? when needed to ensure that individual designers will
produce the correct end product. (Highly capable designers
do not need detailed requirements. Designers that do not
have extensive knowledge and experience, however, do need
prescriptive requirements.); and
? when it is questionable whether the necessary level of
fabrication, or construction experience is available in the
market place.
These situations are common on Hazard Category 1, 2, or 3 nuclear
facilities. Experienced with design breakage, construction
rework, and technical disputes suggest a need for deeper levels
of requirements. Some of the sub-areas that have proven
particularly troublesome are listed in Attachment 1.
The FPD and the IPT should decide, at this point in
pre-conceptual planning, what depth of refinement is appropriate
in each of the listed sub-areas and address any gaps when
evaluating conceptual alternatives, developing acquisition
strategy, writing the project execution risk management plans,
identifying tasks that should be completed prior to initiation of
preliminary design, and scoping the project execution phase.
Design criteria constitute the deepest level of refinement
normally justified at this stage of project development.
Dedicated writing teams composed of true subject matter experts
from the government, the management and operating contractor and
the private sector are essential when developing design criteria
level requirements. Architect/engineering firm personnel who will
be executing the design should also be included on the writing
team, if at all possible.
3.2.3.Identify and Address Any Missing Requirements
While the list of operational requirements that have been
extracted from the mission stakeholders and the list of
procedural requirements extracted from the adjunct stakeholders
and the Department's directives may appear all inclusive, it is
inevitable that some critical requirements were either overlooked
or could not be ascertained. Operating requirements typically
prove to be extremely difficult to define.
Both DOE and management and operating contractor organizations
are built around specific missions and adjunct goals such as
safety, security, environmental protection, procurement, etc. The
spokespersons or champions for these areas are easily
identifiable and can generally supply a fairly complete list of
their procedural requirements. They are generally less able to
define how requirements are likely to change before the project
has been completed; i.e., the importance of maintaining
flexibility. Even more important, it is normally difficult, if
not impossible, to find an individual that understands all the
site wide needs and uncertainties and can translate these into
project level operating and flexibility requirements.
The FPD and the IPT need to determine the potential consequences
the missing and/or unstable requirements may have on the project
and factor their conclusions into the Risk Management Plan, the
Project Execution Plan, the Acquisition Strategy, the evaluation
of conceptual alternatives, and the list of activities that
should be performed prior to the initiation of preliminary
design.
3.2.4.Identify and Address Technology and/or Design Solution
Limitations
New technologies, new material applications, and/or new design
concepts may be necessary to satisfy an end product requirement
on projects that are "pushing the bubble" or may be desired on
more conventional projects to improve efficiency. Technology
readiness level (TRL) analyses should be utilized when comparing
requirements against available technical capabilities, material
applications, and currently available design solutions. The TRL
encompasses key factors such as scale-up and operating
environment that are applicable to both of these constraints.
The acceptability of a TRL depends upon:
• how critical the system is to mission success or safety;
• the probability that the technology will prove successful;
• the availability of a proven backup technology or design
concept that can be substituted if the new technology or
design solution cannot be elevated to TRL 5 or higher by
Critical Decisions 2; and
• the cost, schedule, and performance penalty that will be
incurred if the backup solution should be utilized.
A TRL of less than 3 at the pre-conceptual stage of a project
normally warrants management scrutiny.
The potential impact of a technology gap on a project is, in many
ways, greater than on a program because project design is
performed under an Architect-Engineer Services contract while the
maturation and demonstration of the new technology would normally
be performed by either the M&O or a totally separate contractor.
This introduces yet another coordination complexity.
3.2.5.Identify and Address Market Related Limitations
Analytical tools, properly qualified engineering and construction
forces, and materials will be needed to meet the requirements.
The availability of these items should be taken into
consideration when planning the project. Failing to recognize a
lack of availability in any of these areas can result in reduced
downstream competition with accompanying higher cost for the
government, quality problems, and longer schedules.
This initial determination of available capabilities will serve
as a forerunner for the more rigorous individual evaluations that
the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) require for
architect/engineering services and should focus on the same areas
as those evaluations. These include:
? "Specialized experience and technical competence in the
type of work required …"
? "Past performance on contracts with Government agencies
and private industry…"23
The FAR's position regarding discussions with potential suppliers
has changed in recent years. The December 2007 edition now
states:
"Potential offerors should be given an opportunity to
comment on agency requirements or to recommend application
and tailoring of requirements documents and alternative
approaches. Requiring agencies should apply specifications,
standards, and related documents initially for guidance
only, making final decisions on the application and
tailoring of these documents as a product of the design and
development process. Requiring agencies should not dictate
detailed design solutions prematurely."24
This change provides an opportunity for an improved understanding
of market constraints.
3.2.6.Identify and Address Internal Staffing Limitations
DOE and the M&O contractors staffing limitations result from the
aging of the work force and the decline of the nuclear power
industry over the past three decades. These limitations are
particularly severe in regards to certain individual
requirements and are highlighted in numerous reports. Heavy
workload demands and staff shortages make it difficult to assume
that in-house M&O staffing will be available just because it may
be present somewhere in the M&O contractor's organization.
Possible methods of compensating for internal staffing
limitations are addressed later in the Guide as part of a
broader discussion.
3.3. Determine the Net Effect of Individual Requirements
The challenge of meeting a requirement can change dramatically
when it is seen as part of a total set of requirements that must
be satisfied. What may have been simple can become complex and
the complexity of the development effort has a direct bearing on
both the levels of skills that will be needed to successfully
undertake the project and the type of tools and procedures that
should be used. The greater the complexity, the higher the skill
levels needed. While there is not a universally accepted method
of dividing complexity into its various sub-elements or
translating complexity into cost and schedule estimates, the
following breakout provides enough of a yardstick to support
parametric comparisons and should be used as a starting point.
3.3.1.Physical Complexity
Physical or detail complexity is a reflection of the number of
components and number of networks that link them together.
Projects involving many different goals, requirements,
constraints, stakeholders, organizations, individuals,
technologies, or components are probably physically complex.
Physical complexity cannot, however, be determined simply by
adding up numbers. The physical complexity of a facility
composed of 1,000 different components may, for example, be
greater from a designer perspective than the physical complexity
of a facility composed of four identical assembly lines each
composed of 500 components even though the latter contains twice
the total number of components.
Numbers can be particularly misleading in the case of
organizational elements. Most senior FPD are, for example,
capable of successfully overseeing and communicating with seven
directly reporting sub-organizations. The FPD's level of their
success will, however, decline sharply if those organizations
are vertically stacked as descending levels subcontractors. Both
downward and upward communications will be reinterpreted at each
organizational boundary it passes through and will soon take on
a totally different content and meaning than originally
intended.
Similarly, physical complexity can increase nearly exponentially
once an individual's or an organization's limits are reached.
The challenge of coordinating 30 different contractors is far
more than twice as difficult as coordinating 15 different
contractors; a fact that has contributed to many project
problems.
3.3.2.Combinatorial Complexity
The degree to which the different goals, requirements,
organizations, individuals, technologies, and components can be
aligned can have an even greater bearing on staffing skill levels
than the physical complexity of the project since misalignments
make it more difficult to arrive at a mutually acceptable
solution.
DOE has experienced particular difficulties when attempting to
combine competing schedule and safety goals. DOE’s formal process
of extensive checks and balances focuses on ensuring the safety
of nuclear projects. This process cannot be easily shortened or
accelerated to meet schedule objectives.
Safety also appears as a combinatorial complexity element at
lower levels of the project. The most common means of satisfying
occupant life safety requirements for egress is, for example, to
provide multiple fire exit doors directly out of the building.
This design solution is fine for office or warehouse facilities,
but directly conflicts with the security and contamination
control necessary when a building contains nuclear materials. The
likelihood of such negative linkages increases as the number of
requirements increase. Some negative linkages can be resolved by
using more sophisticated design approaches provided they are
recognized and clearly identified as one of the challenges that
designers address.
Combinational complexity can also be increased by the following:
3.3.2.1.Funding
Nearly every project is bound by some level of budgetary
constraints. These constraints can add significant complexity and
often even prove to be incompatible with the requirements.
Failure to acknowledge the full impact of funding induced
complexity inevitably leads to unrealistic plans and
expectations.
3.3.2.2.The Site
Few DOE projects are self-supporting, "green-field" undertakings.
Most fit within constrained physical spaces and utilize already
existing site utilities and services. Also, there are typically
very specific access and interface issues that should be taken
into consideration at every phase of the project. This is
particularly true in the case of projects in security areas
and/or modifications of operational facilities that may contain
hazardous materials.
3.3.2.3.Government Policies
Federal and state policies impose a number of constraints, and
therefore complexity, that the private sector does not have to
experience. These need to be understood by those charged with
designing the project. Policies relating to small business
utilization and Buy American Act are, for example, unique to
Federal projects and should be made visible so that they can be
taken into consideration during the planning process.
3.3.3.Dynamic Complexity
Dynamic complexity always involves some aspect of time. In
appears in its simplest form as volatile or unstable conditions
that change over the course of the project or even between
Critical Decisions. Project requirements, funding, and
personnel/staffing have shown a historic tendency to fluctuate
over relatively short periods on past DOE projects and are
recognized contributors to dynamic complexity. Projects that are
experiencing this form of dynamic complexity are not yet ready
to be baselined.
At the employee level, the amount of time needed to perform an
activity is the most common form of dynamic complexity. Tasks
that an individual can successfully perform given adequate time
become dynamically complex for the same individual when they are
to be performed in short periods of time.
The most common form of dynamic complexity at the group level is
informational independence. Structural engineers cannot, for
example, design a processing bay or cell roof unless process
engineers tell them the distances they will have to span to
accommodate the necessary processing lines. The process
engineers cannot, in turn, size the processing lines until they
know the throughput rates to be achieved, maintenance
constraints, the operating environment, etc. Dynamic complexity,
on complex projects, can increase to the point that conventional
schedule tools lose their effectiveness.
A fourth, and significant different, facet of dynamic complexity
is how easy or difficult it is for an individual employee or an
organization to recognize and understand the cause and effect
relationships that occur over the life span of a project.
Effects that are widely separated in time and space from their
causes are more dynamically complex that those that occur in
close time proximity. Dynamically complex projects place greater
cognitive demands on the senior members of the project team.
3.3.4.Evaluative Complexity
Evaluative complexity is a measure of how easy it is to
determine if an objective is being met over the course of the
project. The evaluative complexity of a particular requirement
will normally be different at each Critical Decision point.
3.4. Risk Informed Planning to Set Strategic Direction
The FPD and the IPT should have an adequate understanding of the
situation to undertake an integrated set of risk informed
actions that will set the overall course of the project. These
risk informed actions differ from those normally described in
the Project Risk Management Plan in a very significant way.
While the Risk Management Plans focus on how specific events
would impact the already developed project plan if they were to
occur; pre-conceptual risk management reverses this perspective,
and focuses on how the project should be planned to avoid or
minimize the various risks (i.e., constraints, challenges, or
uncertainties) that are either known or are likely to surface
(based on lessons learned from similar undertakings) as the
project evolves. This reversed way of thinking is, in effect,
the ultimate form of proactive management and provides a far
broader range of opinions.
3.4.1.Determine if Necessary Skill Levels Are Obtainable
As can be seen from the earlier sections, project feasibility
hinges on the experience, knowledge, skills, and ability and
contractor personnel necessary to simultaneously meet project
goals and handle delivery risks (constraints, challenges, and
uncertainties). The FPD and the IPT should therefore:
? Identify the number personnel with specific experience,
knowledge, skills, and abilities needed at each stage of the
project.
? Link these needs with the individual requirements and risks
to the extent possible.
? Determine the current and future availability of personnel
and contractors.
? Package this information in the form of a Project Staffing
Plan that can be incorporated into the Project Execution
Plan, the Acquisition Strategy, and the Risk Management
Plan.
If major gaps surface between project needs and the availability
of qualified personnel the FPD and the IPT should:
? Adjust discretionary requirements downward.
? Adjust the delivery risks downward.
? Use collaborative organizational structures or other
techniques to broaden the pool of available resources beyond
that obtainable from a single operations office or
contractor.
? Upgrade the obtainable experience, knowledge, skills, and
abilities of the individuals or organizations.
Each of these alternatives is addressed below.
3.4.1.1.Adjust Discretionary Requirements Downward
Although adjusting the project's discretionary requirements
downward to the capability level of the project is the surest,
most cost effective means of correcting a capability gap, it is,
often resisted by those advocating the discretionary
requirements. Such resistance can often be resolved by verifying
the requirement's link to the mission need or an adjunct goal and
then performing a cost/benefit analysis. The results of these two
efforts should be formally documented and made available to both
the advocate and the Acquisition Executive.
3.4.1.2.Reduce Project Delivery Risks
A number of tools and techniques can be used to reduce project
delivery risks as follows.
3.4.1.2.1. Benchmarking and Lessons Learned
An easy and reliable method of reducing uncertainties regarding
the cost, schedule, and technical feasibility of the project at
the pre-conceptual stage of development is benchmarking.
Benchmarking involves determining the actual cost, schedule, and
performance levels of similar projects (or systems) that have
already been completed and then adjusting the data from those
projects to compensate for any differences in scale, location,
market conditions, etc. using parametric techniques.
Identifying a pool of similar projects to use as a benchmark
offers a secondary benefit in that this pool of already completed
projects can also serve as a source of lessons learned. The
inability to find any similar projects to serve as benchmarks
should be seen as a danger sign that we are attempting to push
beyond the state of the practice and should expect the high level
of difficulties and risks that come with a first-of-a-kind
effort.
3.4.1.2.2. Collect/Generate Missing Knowledge
All projects begin with incomplete information and unverified
assumptions. The benchmarking and lessons learned processes
should provide some insight as to the relative importance of the
missing information and unverified assumptions and allow the FPD
and the IPT to determine which of the missing elements are the
most critical to the conceptual effort and should, therefore, be
addressed first.
The process of collecting and/or generating the missing or
incomplete knowledge is, in essence, a mini project. A formal
data base should be developed that identifies each uncertainty.
The specific methods that will be used to obtain the knowledge
should be laid out. Necessary quality levels should be defined
and resources should be obtained. Schedules should be developed
based on foreseen need dates and the level of importance of the
missing information to the project development process. And,
progress should be tracked and managed.
While the process of collecting missing information is straight
forward, it is not always possible to fill in all the blanks,
particularly in regards to the quality and reliability of the
knowledge that can be obtained regarding elements such as
political constraints and future funding available. These
limitations can be partially addressed through the use of the
project development strategies discussed in section 3.4.2.
3.4.1.2.3. Use a Collaborative Organizational Structure
Needed knowledge, skills, and experience levels can be obtained
through the use of joint ventures or partnerships that bring
together organizations with complementary skill mixes. Many of
the Department's M&O contractors were formed using collaborative
organizational concepts. Collaborative organizational structures
have also been used to increase available funding and/or
knowledge on some of Department's larger individual projects.
While collaborative organizational structures can reduce skill
related risks they almost always add offsetting combinatorial
complexity and have been the source of some high profile project
failures. They should be approached with caution.
3.4.1.2.4. Upgrade Federal and/or M&O Skill Levels
It is possible, under some conditions, to fill skill gaps through
individual and/or team training, which is most effective when
tailored to specific project needs and delivered at the specific
time of need.
3.4.2.Determine the Appropriate Project Development Strategies
A variety of project development strategies are available; but
each is only appropriate for a particular set of circumstances.
Selection of an appropriate strategy can decrease the risk of
project failure, while selection of an inappropriate strategy can
significantly increase the risk of failure. The general factors
that determine which strategy is the most appropriate follow:
• the completeness and accuracy to which requirements can be
defined;
• the compatibility of the requirements;
• the constraints;
• the complexity of the project;
- what is known and what is unknown; and,
- the knowledge, skills, and abilities of both the
organizations and the individual project participants.
Further information is provided below.
3.4.2.1.Select the Appropriate Overarching Strategies
Two different overarching strategies are widely used outside of
DOE. They are:
3.4.2.1.1. "Waterfall" Development
The "waterfall" strategy is a traditional approach that consists
of defining the mission and adjunct requirements; producing the
drawings and specifications that satisfy the requirements, and
constructing a facility and/or process in compliance with the
drawings and specifications. This strategy is straightforward and
automatically selected by most project participants, however, it
is optimal only when:
? The requirements can be clearly understood by all project
participants, are unlikely to change during the development
process, and accurately reflect the owner's or stakeholder's
expectations.
? There are no significant uncertainties or risks associated
with either the project delivery process or satisfying the
requirements; i.e., there are no insurmountable staff,
schedule, budgetary, or technology constraints.
? The project is being undertaken in a stable and predicable
environment.
? The project is not overly complex.
? The Department is willing to limit its level of post Critical
Decision 1 involvement to oversight.
3.4.2.1.2. Evolutional Development
The benefits of using evolutional development strategies became
apparent in the 1990's following root cause analysis of cost,
schedule, and performance problems in software development. Two
different forms of evolutional development are now generally
recognized as being preferable for higher complexity, higher risk
projects. They are:
3.4.2.1.2.1. Spiral Development
A spiral development approach is appropriate when the
desired project outcome can be stated but associated
requirements cannot be defined. The development process is
undertaken in a series of short exploratory cycles with each
cycle designed to:
• provide clearer definition of the requirements,
• obtain better understanding of the associated risks,
• determine if the risks are resolvable, and
• clarify the path forward. Individual aspect of the
projects can be explored concurrently rather than
sequentially during the early stages of exploration.
The FPD and the IPT determine the specific objectives and
scope of each cycle based on risk importance. They then
evaluate the information obtained from the cycle and
determine the cost/benefits of pursuing additional cycles.
The option of recommending that the development effort be
halted or totally redirected is available at the end of
every cycle.
3.4.2.1.2.2. Incremental Development
An incremental development is selected when:
• The requirements associated with the outcome can be
defined but do not appear immediately achievable
because of technology, engineering, or funding
constraints.
• Having an operational project that partially
satisfies owner and stakeholder expectations is more
desirable from a cost/benefit standpoint than not
having or delaying the project until the necessary
capabilities become available.
The project is specifically designed with adequate
flexibility to allow future upgrades. Incremental
development is inherently a risk avoidance or mitigation
approach. It may be the only viable approach when faced
with schedule pressures or significant staffing,
budgetary, knowledge, or technology constraints.
3.4.2.2.Select Appropriate Sublevel Strategies
Sublevel strategies are available for use with either of the of
the evolutionary development strategies or in advance of
implementing a waterfall strategy. These are summarized below.
3.4.2.2.1. Strategies for Resolving Requirements
Uncertainties and Unknowns
Most stakeholders cannot clearly state what their requirements
are, or identify all of their requirements. The following five
strategies or tools are available to help both situations.
3.4.2.2.1.1. Design Charettes
Architects have long utilized design charettes for several
hundred years by as a means of understanding client needs
and preferences. Clients and the architectural team hold
face-to-face meetings during which the architects pursue
specific lines of inquiry and generate on-the-spot
sketches reflecting what they believe the client is
requesting. These sketches are utilized to iteratively
clarify the client's priorities.
3.4.2.2.1.2. Prototypes/Models
Prototypes and models are typically utilized to test new
components or unproven design concepts but, can also be
used as follow-on to design charettes to help occupants
and maintenance forces discover unrecognized requirements
and loosen overly restrictive requirements by providing a
means to test drive alternative design solutions. The use
of computer based models to assist communication has now
become a standard practice in many design firms. Projects
that provide prototypes and models for the users to
evaluate early in the project development process
experience lower levels of rework.
3.4.2.2.1.3. Agile Method
The agile method can be viewed as both a modern
reinterpretation of design charettes or as a type of
spiral development strategy. Small (eight person maximum)
design teams are formed to work directly with the client
or stakeholders to iteratively search out requirements and
accompanying design solutions for a particular segment of
the project. The length of each iteration varies somewhat
with the specific form of the agile method being used
(there are three popular forms; "scrum," the Rational
Unified Process (RUP), and Extreme Programming) and may
extend from a few days to six weeks. Planning is kept at a
course-grain level and generally extends only two
iterations into the future. Each iteration is expected to
produce a testable end product that adds value regardless
of whether additional iterations are, or are not,
performed.
3.4.2.2.1.4. Broader Based Integrated Project Teams
The feasibility of atypical facility and equipment
requirements should be verified by those that actually have
to perform the construction or supply the equipment. This
can be accomplished, in simple cases, through market
surveys. On more complicated projects construction and
component expertise should be added to the IPT. Consequence
and Scenario Based Planning
3.4.2.2.1.5. Consequence and Scenario Based Planning
Many adjunct goals focus on the prevention of an undesired
negative event or consequence. There are typically many
different scenarios or pathways that can lead to these
events or consequences. Each needs to be understood and
then blocked though the development of specific
requirements.
3.4.2.2.1.6. Sensitivity Analysis
Construction, procurement, and life cycle costs may be
relatively insensitive to changes in a particular
requirement or may undergo a linear, a non-linear, or a
step function increase or decrease. The impact of changes
should be evaluated and factored into the requirements
definition process.
3.4.2.2.2. Strategies to Temporarily Compensate for Other
Short Term Uncertainties
Schedule pressures such as consent degrees or time sensitive
missions may necessitate that design and, in some unique cases
construction, begin prior to the fully resolving the
requirements and constraints. The strategies and procedures that
should be utilized when this occurs are outlined next.
3.4.2.2.2.1. Set-Based Design
Set-based concurrent design postpones the need for
commitment by using a set or range of requirements when
beginning the design effort, rather than a single point
requirement. The range or set of requirements is narrowed
incrementally, with accompanying adjustments in the design
effort, as uncertainties are eliminated and the
requirements become firmer. Carrying multiple alternatives
increases front-end costs, but also increases the project's
ability to meet the imposed schedule.
3.4.2.2.2.2. Design Margins
Design margins are utilized during project development to
temporary compensate for recognized uncertainties and
unresolved differences of professional opinion regarding
the correct method of calculation or analytical tools.
Design margins differ from factors of safety in that:
• they are temporary and can be eliminated or reduced
once the missing information is obtained or the
differences of professional opinion are resolved and
• should be based upon worst case, rather than expected,
outcomes.
The Secretary endorsed the importance of design margins in
a March 2003 letter to the Defense Nuclear Facilities
Safety Board stating that such margins should be carefully
managed as a function of design uncertainty. The FPD and
the IPT should ensure that formal design margins are
established for each structure, system, or component and
that these margins are appropriate to the situation.
3.4.2.2.2.3. Fallback Alternatives
Fallback alternatives should be identified and held in
ready reserve whenever:
• a proposed design solution or component has a
Technology Readiness Ranking of seven or below at this
point in the project or
• market uncertainties exist that could result in a lack
of competition or unavailability.
3.4.2.2.2.4. Strategies to Compensate for Longer Term
Uncertainties
Two different strategies should be considered when the
project is faced with longer term uncertainties.
3.4.2.2.2.4.1. Robust Design
Robustness is defined as the ability to endure unexpectedly
adverse environments. As used in this case, it is an
irreversible decision to proceed with construction on items
such as building foundations or long lead procurements
using the worst case situation as a design basis rather
than delaying the project while differences in professional
opinion or uncertainties are resolved. It is, in that
regard, a permanent rather than a temporary strategy.
3.4.2.2.2.4.2. Real Options
The concept of a real option originated in the financial
world and is defined as a right or ability, but not the
obligation, to pursue a particular future course of action.
Real options can generally be obtained only by an
expenditure of funds. An example of a real option can be
seen in a decision to buy right of way space for adding
lanes when building a new highway. The additional lanes may
never be constructed, but the option is available.
3.4.2.2.3. Strategies for Responding to Cost and Schedule
Constraints
3.4.2.2.3.1. Reuse
The most successful sublevel strategy for meeting cost and
schedule constraints is the use of existing designs or
components that are readily available and have been proven
in actual applications. Both the OMB and the U.S.
Government Accountability Office (GAO) endorse this
strategy as a method of reducing risk and cost. IPT members
should interview those currently using the design or
components to verify their level of satisfaction and to
gain the benefits of any lessons learned.
3.4.2.2.3.2. Modularity
Modular structures, systems and components are similar in
concept to reuse and offer many of the same advantages. They
can reduce both time and cost while concurrently reducing
risk since the initial modules can be utilized for both
verification testing and learning.
3.4.2.2.3.3. Design-Build Contracts
Design-Build contracts can reduce both cost and schedule.
They are, however, applicable to only a narrow range of
circumstances as is outline in paragraph 5g(3) of
DOE O 413.3A. Design-build is not synonymous with fast
tracking which initiates construction while design is still
in progress.
3.4.2.2.3.4. Concurrent Engineering
Concurrent engineering (a.k.a. simultaneous engineering and
early construction involvement) provides many of the cost
and schedule advantages of design-build and applicable to a
broader range of range of circumstances. It is widely used
by in the commercial sector and can be accomplished by
simply adding manufacturing or construction expertise to the
design IPT. It provides a method for the designers to obtain
the real world knowledge that is needed to avoid design
solutions that appear good on paper but present downstream
quality, cost, or schedule problems for the constructors and
fabricators. Concurrent engineering has been confused with
fast tracking in some oversight reports.
3.4.2.2.3.5. "Lean"
The Lean approach to design, manufacturing, and management
is based on the highly successful Toyota production system.
The Air Force and Department of Defense have been working
with a consortium of manufactures and universities since
1993 to apply Lean concepts to government projects and
programs. While the consortium has achieved very positive
results, Lean is still not fully understood or applied by
the bulk of the project management, design and construction
community.
3.4.2.2.4. Strategies for Responding to Complexity
Complexity cannot be eliminated as either a challenge or a threat
but can be reduced somewhat using the techniques discussed below.
3.4.2.2.4.1. Physical Complexity Responses
Government projects are inherently more physically complex
than most similar private sector projects in that they
involve a greater variety of goals, larger numbers of
participants, and more interfacing internal and external
organizations. IPTs and status reports provide a partial,
but incomplete response. FPD's on larger projects should
have full time staff members to coordinate information flow
between the different units and ensure that the participants
are working in synchronization. FPDs should also avoid
solutions, such as intentionally procuring materials or
services from large numbers of different individual
suppliers, or large scale outsourcing that add physical
complexity and increase the management and procurement
workload.
Separate integrating and construction management contractors
have been used by both the Department and other federal and
state agencies as a response to physical complexity with
mixed results. Those considering using either approach
should invest the time necessary to fully understand the
lessons that have been learned from these previous
undertakings, particularly the higher profile failures.
3.4.2.2.4.2. Combinatorial Complexity Responses
Numerous "soft skill" approaches to the challenge of
aligning different organizations with different goals have
been advocated by business and project management
publications over the past decade. The most successful of
these continue to be IPTs and a achieving a clear
understanding of group and task interdependencies. A proven
method of showing group and task interdependences and
helping to bring them into alignment is discussed below.
3.4.2.2.4.3. Dynamic Complexity Responses
A Dependence Structure Matrix (DSM) is a square matrix
listing each activity, in the sequence in which it will be
performed, on both the identically labeled vertical and
horizontal axes (See Figure 1). Information flows between
the activities are indicated by placing an "X" at the point
the two activities intersect, using the sequencing
nomenclature shown in the example below. An "X" below the
diagonal line indicates a forward flow of information and is
colored green; while an "X" above the diagonal line
indicates than information flows backward from an activity
that occurs later in time before the earlier event can be
declared complete, and is colored red. Backward flows of
information are particularly undesirable if the two
interfacing actives are widely separated in time and other
activities take place in between based on the earlier
information since a larger quantity of work should be
reiterated.
The planning approach should be changed, when the Dependency
Structure Matrix indicates a backwards flow of information.
The two tasks should be brought as close together as
possible in sequence and managed as an interdependent or
coupled pair if it is not possible to reverse their
sequence. This type of situation appears on the Dependence
Structure Matrix as a set of "X" at point of intersection
both immediately below and above the diagonal line.
The quantity of information presented in the DSM can be
increased by replacing the "X" with numbers that represent
the quantity of information that flows between the linked
activities or the level of interdependency. DSMs can also be
developed using organizations, components, or project
parameters as the two axis rather than activities.
The flow diagram corresponding to the example shown in
Figure 1 is shown in Figure 2,
See the graphic in the PDF file
Figure 1 - Sample Dependency Structure Matrix
See the graphic in the PDF file
Figure 2 - Corresponding Flow Diagrams for the Figure 1 DSM
3.4.2.2.4.4. Evaluative Complexity Responses
A number of methods of responding to evaluative complexity
are discussed in section 4.
3.5. Identify and Compare Alternative Design Concepts
DOE O 413.3A requires that alternative concepts be evaluated as
part of the Project Definition Phase using Systems Engineering
and other techniques and tools such as alternatives analysis and
Value Engineering/Management.25 Historically the process has
confronted at least six major challenges.
• The identification, development, evaluation, and selection
of alternate design concepts is often influenced more by the
values of the organization performing the study and the
types of design solutions that they are the most familiar
with, than it is by the Department's and the stakeholder's
requirements.
• Different stakeholders are likely to assign the requirements
and constraints significantly different priority rankings,
preventing the creation of a requirements priority list that
is acceptable to all parties.
• Finding a collection of design solutions that provides the
optimal answer for each individual requirement on a complex
project will not produce a design solution that is optimal
from a total project standpoint.
• Even the brightest of designers only has the cognitive
capability to mentally integrate a small number (generally
less than nine) of the requirements when pursuing a
solution.
• The initial set of requirements is unlikely to accurately
reflect the stakeholder's real needs or be fully achievable
when matched against the constraints.
• Few people know how to handle the uncertainties that have
been identified, and therefore circumvent the problem by
making unwarranted assumptions such as the site's mission
will not change in the future, soil explorations will not
reveal any surprises, or there will be an adequate number of
bidders/suppliers to provide full and open competition.
Most designers will pick one requirement around which the design
will be optimized. They will then check to see if the resulting
design solution appears to satisfy the other requirements. The
following approach acknowledges this need to start with a single
requirement, but provides a far more rigorous approach to ensure
that all critical requirements are given equal consideration and
that the six challenges listed above are met.
3.5.1.Identify the Dominant Requirements and Constraints
A small group (four or less) of dominant requirements and
constraints should emerge from the above tasks and the
program's, the FPD's and the IPT's experience on similar
projects. This dominant group will automatically include
safety if the project is a Hazards Category 1, 2, or 3 nuclear
facility and is likely to include cost and staffing
constraints. The requirements or constraints identified in
this group should be used as the conceptual alternatives to be
evaluated using a design for "X" approach.
3.5.2.Design for "X"
The design for "X" approach can be seen as an elaborate design
charette where different solutions are quickly developed and
presented to better determine priorities and trade-offs. It is
ideally suited for evaluating conceptual alternatives in that
it can be utilized when neither the relative priority of the
dominant requirements nor their degree of interdependency can
be readily determined. Different teams pursue independent
design solutions in parallel, each starting with a different
dominant requirement or constraint and developing a high level
design solution that they believe optimizes the assigned
requirement or constraint and satisfies the other requirements
and constraints.
The depth to which a design for "X" study should be taken is
project dependent and cannot be pre-prescribed. Normally, no
more than a month should be needed on even the most complex of
projects to achieve enough insight to:
? Select the design solution(s) to be used as a basis for
full conceptual development, Critical Decision 1
approval, and Preliminary Design. (The selection may be
one developed by a single team or a composite of those
proposed by different teams.)
? Understand the tradeoffs that can, and cannot be made.
? Identify those requirements and constraints that are open
to misinterpretation and need to be written to a deeper
depth before preliminary design is initiated.
? Determine if the solutions are able to accommodate the
uncertainties.
3.5.3.Check the Resulting Design Solutions
The design solutions proposed by each design for "X" team
should be checked internally by the FPD and the IPT before
deciding which design solution to propose for advancement.
This check is a separate forerunner to the three independent
Critical Decision 1 reviews specified in DOE O 413.3A in that
it focuses nearly totally on requirements, constraints, and
uncertainties.
3.5.4.Verify that the Design Solution Satisfy the
Requirements
Each design for "X" team should provide evidence that their
design solution adequately addresses each requirement. The
degree of evidence that should be provided depends upon the
importance of the requirement or constraint and the novelty of
the design solution. Data showing that the proposed solution
has satisfied similar requirements on past projects is
desirable.
3.5.5.Look for Misaligned Linkages
Many requirements and constraints should be either positively or
negatively linked from a design solution standpoint. A design
solution that satisfies a demanding schedule requirement should,
for example, also satisfy technical readiness requirements since
proven technologies and approaches can normally be designed,
procured, and constructed faster than first-of-a-kind
technologies and approaches. A design solution that runs counter
to normally expected linkages indicates a risk that needs to be
fully evaluated prior to further pursuit. Such misalignment
frequently involves schedule or cost goals that are incompatible
with other objectives.
3.6. Incorporate Pre-conceptual Findings and Conclusions in the
Project and Contract Documents
The information developed and the conclusions reached in sections
3.1 through 3.5 should be utilized as a "stepping off point" for
the following documents which are begun next:
? Risk Management Plan
? Acquisition Strategy
? Project Execution Plan
? Architect-Engineers Statement of Work
? Architect-Engineer Services Selection Criteria
? Government Cost Estimate for Architect-Engineer Services
? Technology Maturation Plan
? Federal and M&O Contractor Staffing Plan
? Design Verification Roles and Responsibilities including a
"Design Authority" Recommendation
The first three of these documents are covered in separate Guides
and do not need to be addressed here. The latter six documents
are not covered elsewhere and are addressed next.
3.6.1.Architect-Engineers Services Statement of Work
The process for acquiring architect-engineering services is
prescribed in Subpart 36.6 of the Federal Acquisition
Regulations. A contracting officer (CO) will be named to manage
the acquisition process and to be the selection authority. The
FPD and the IPT should provide the CO with a Statement of Work
(SOW) that should:
• specify the Department's expected outcomes from the
conceptual design, including the specific problems that
should be solved;
• detail the tasks that the Architect-Engineer will perform;
• identify the associated tasks (such as determination of the
site's geological conditions and local market limitations)
that the Department or the M&O will perform;
• identify any specific tools and techniques that the
Architect-Engineer should utilize;
• outline the information that the Department and/or the M&O
will supply to the Architect-Engineer and when that
information will be available;
• identify the performance standards for the conceptual
effort, including quality, quantity, delivery schedules,
packaging, etc.; and
• identify any design trade-off decisions that the Department
wishes to retain as its authority. The latter should include
the degree of design conservatism (i.e., design margins) to
be maintained to offset the uncertainties and unknowns that
are present at the early stages of the project.
The SOW, a critical document if the Department's "Waterfall"
development strategy, is being used since it will become the sole
official source of design direction to architect-engineer for the
term of the contract. Post award changes to the SOW will have to
be processed through the CO and be accompanied with a Government
estimate of the cost impact as described in section 3.6.3. The
creation of a SOW that adequately foresees all of the tasks that
the architect-engineer will need to perform and identifies all of
the design trade-off decisions that the Department wishes to
retain control over can be highly challenging, if not impossible,
on complex longer duration projects. There is also a significant
timing problem on Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear projects
since the information in the Conceptual Design Safety Report,
which is being developed concurrently, is needed in order to
create the SOW.
The best approach in such cases may be one of the Evolutional
Development Strategies discussed in section 3.4.2.1.2. The basic
concept behind Incremental Development strategies can, for
example, by simply providing a broader description of the
Architect-Engineers total collection of tasks and then issuing
more detailed tasking orders prior to the initiation of each
project phase. This will result in some interruptions of the
design effort, but will provide the FPD and the IPT with an
increased ability to steer the Architect-Engineers activities.
The development of an adequate description of even the first two
increments of the Architect-Engineers contract (conceptual and
preliminary design) presents a significant challenge given the
number of activities that are being conducted simultaneously
during both increments and the high degree of interdependence
between these activities.
DOE O 413.3A does not define either the specific content or the
expected level of definition of either increment. It is up to the
FPD and the IPT to make this determination based on the type of
project being undertaken and the specific needs of the other
project participants. For the conceptual design increment these
needs are certain to include at least the following types of
drawings which will be needed by those developing the Preliminary
Hazards Analysis; the preliminary Security Vulnerability
Assessment the Safety Design Strategy, Conceptual Safety Design
Report, and the Risk and Opportunities Assessments for Hazard
Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities, the environmental impact
documents; the project cost range; etc.
? Facility site location and utility connections
? Floor plans, elevations, and cross sections showing
dimensions and the location of all major processing and
building equipment.
? The structures, systems, and components selected to meet the
requirements
? Building materials
? Structural loads, spans, and design approaches
? Process block flow diagrams
? Preliminary one-line diagrams for the:
- Heating, ventilating, air conditioning systems
- Electrical power system
- Mechanical services systems
- Instrumentation and control systems
? Process diagrams and configurations including the sizing of
all major process systems and components
3.6.2.Architect-Engineer Services Selection Criteria
Architect-engineering service contracts for Government projects
are awarded based demonstrated competence and qualifications. The
FPD and the IPT should, accordingly, specify the capabilities and
technical competence being sought in adequate detail to allow the
CO and the evaluation board to ensure the candidates process the
required knowledge, skills and abilities and to differentiate
between the various candidates. This can be accomplished by cross
linking capabilities and technical competence expectations to the
firm's actual performance on similar Government and private
sector projects. Quantitative measures such as the number and
type of Request for Information, Engineering Change
Notifications, Design Change Notifications, and Non-Conformance
Reports provide valuable information on both the quality of the
Architect-Engineer Firm's work and their understanding of the
construction and manufacturing constraints that they should take
into consideration when developing their design solutions.
If it is properly executed, the Selection Criteria can also serve
as a vehicle for fulfilling the DOE P 450.4, Safety Management
System, and DOE O 413.3A joint requirement that personnel possess
the experience, knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary to
discharge their responsibilities.
3.6.3.Government Cost Estimate for the Architect-Engineer
Services
Subpart 36.605 of the Federal Acquisition Regulations specify
that "an independent Government estimate of the cost of
architect-engineer services shall be prepared and furnished to
the contracting officer before commencing negotiations for each
proposed contract or contract modification expected to exceed the
simplified acquisition threshold" and that this "estimate shall
be prepared on the basis of a detailed analysis of the required
work as though the Government were submitting a proposal." The
degree of accuracy that can be achieved in preparing such
estimates depends on both the clarity of the SOW and the length
of the contract.
3.6.4.Technology Maturation Plans
Technology Maturation Plans (TMP) detail the steps necessary for
developing the technologies and/or design solutions that are
currently less mature than desired, to a level that they can be
safety inserted into the project. The TMP should identify:
• the specific tasks to be undertaken;
• the results to be achieved for a claimed advancement to a
higher TRL to be statically valid
• the TRL expected to be reached at each of the Critical
Decision points;
• the organization that will perform the maturation
activities;
• the cost of these activities; and
• the off ramp that will be taken if results are less than
required at each Critical Decision.
3.6.5.Federal and M&O Staffing Plan
The Acquisition Executive should have a detailed understanding of
the Department's and the M&O contractor's staffing needs when
making Critical Decision 1. This understanding can be provided
through the submission of an updated IPT Charter and an
accompanying project staffing plan that can be approved in
conjunction with Critical Decision 1. The Staffing Plan should
cover tasks such as preparation of a Preliminary Safety
Validation Report and the Performance Baseline Validation Reviews
that are performed by non-project personnel so that the
Acquisition Executive, the site office manager, and other
supporting organizations can foresee, and properly plan for the
staffing loads they will have to accommodate.
3.6.6.Design Verification Roles and Responsibilities
The Department's directives contain multiple requirements and
recommendations pertaining to project reviews, two of which are
specifically aimed at ensuring that the design outputs satisfy
project requirements. They are:
? "Beginning at CD-1 and continuing through the life of the
project, as appropriate, Design Reviews are performed by
individuals external to the project …to determine if a
product (drawings, analysis, or specifications) is correct
and will perform its intended functions and meet
requirements. Design Reviews must be conducted for all
projects and must involve a formalized, structured approach
to ensure the reviews are comprehensive, objective, and
documented."26
? "Design verification is a documented process for ensuring
that the design and the resulting items will comply with the
project requirements." "Design verification should be
performed by technically knowledgeable persons separate from
those who performed the design."27
Other DOE O 413.3A requirements that touch on the subject without
specifically indicating that reviews should verify that the
design satisfies the requirements are:
? The IPT "reviews and comments on project deliverables (e.g.,
drawings, specifications, procurement, and construction
packages)."28
? "Contractors performing design for project must at a minimum
conduct a Preliminary and Final Design Review, in accordance
with the Project Execution Plan. For nuclear projects, the
design review will include a focus on safety and security
systems."29
DOE O 413.3A also specifies that the Acquisition Executive
designates the Design Authority for the project at Critical
Decision 1. The Design Authority (aka the Engineering Technical
Authority) is the individual who formally signs off on the design
drawings, calculations, and specifications. The Design Authority
is typically not a DOE employee or official. This role and
responsibility for assuring the technical adequacy of the design
is normally delegated to the M&O contractor.
DOE-STD 1073, Configuration Management, provides the following
additional information on the roles and responsibilities of the
Design Authority on Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 and nuclear
facilities.
? "Contractors should establish the design authority for each
SSC (structure, systems, and components). 30
? The above "responsibilities are applicable whether the
process is conducted fully in-house, partially contracted to
outside organizations, or fully contracted to outside
organizations." 31
? The design authority should define the category (mission
critical, environmental protection, costly, critical
software, master equipment list, adjacent) that the SSCs
fall under.32
? "The contractor must assign a database owner for the
equipment database, with established roles and
responsibilities … the design authority is a likely choice.
As such, the design authority would be the focal point for
resolving discrepancies and updating the database."33
? "When facilities or systems are turned over from one
organization to another, the design authority may also
change. This may occur over a period of time. Procedures
should be developed to govern this turnover. However, at any
given time, there should be a single, defined authority for
each SSC." 34
? "Changes that affect the design basis require a design
analysis by the design authority."35
? "The design authority should prepare a change control
package consistent with the design process and controls for
the proposed change."
? "The design authority must approve partially implemented
changes prior to operation." 36
The FPD and the IPT should provide the Acquisition Executive with
a project design Roles and Responsibilities Proposal, which
should include both the Department's and the M&O contractor's
specific validation responsibilities including those assigned to
the Design Authority. The depth and frequency of validation
should be risk based with priority placed on the validation of
high risk and importance requirement. It is recommended that
these high priority requirements be checked at each formal review
point.
It will be extremely difficult for those performing design
verification roles to determine how, or if, preliminary designs
that the architect/engineering firms develop and submit satisfy
the Department's requirements unless an accompanying "roadmap" is
also provided. The FPD should ensure that the need for such a
"roadmap" is specifically identified in the SOW together with the
methodology to be used in creating this "roadmap."
System Design Descriptions have proven to be highly effective in
communicating or "mapping" the linkage between the design
solutions and the Department's requirements on even the largest
and most complex of projects and should be used as the benchmark
against which other possible methods are evaluated. Information
on System Design Descriptions can be found in DOE Standard
3024-98, Content of System Design Descriptions and Section 3.7 of
DOE-STD-Standard 1073, Configuration Management.
4.0 SUPPORT CRITICAL DECISION 1
DOE O 413.3A requires that the IPT review all Critical Decision
packages and recommend whether they should be approved or
disapproved.37 Fulfillment of this recommendation involves far
more than just checking the conceptual design report. It should
also be based on: 1) whether the Critical Decision requirements
specified in Table 2 of DOE O 413.3A have been properly
completed; and, 2) a self evaluation of whether an adequate level
of planning and risk mitigation/avoidance has been undertaken for
the upcoming phase of the project. Each is addressed below for
the Critical Decision 1.
4.1. DOE O 413.3A Critical Decision 1 Requirements
Most of the actions specified in Table 2 of the Order are
performed by or involve different DOE, M&O contractor
organizational elements. These include:
? Development of the Conceptual Design Report.
? Development of the Acquisition Strategy.
? Preparation of the Preliminary Project Execution Plan.
? Preparation of the Project Data Sheet.
? Preparation of a Preliminary Security Vulnerability
Assessment Report.
? Preparation of a Preliminary Hazard Analysis Report for
facilities that are below Hazard Category 3 threshold as
defined in 10 CFR 830, Subpart B.
? DOE field level approval of the Preliminary Hazard Analysis
Report.
? Preparation of a Safety Design Strategy, Preliminary Hazard
Analysis, Risk and Opportunities Assessment, and Conceptual
Safety Design Report for Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear
facilities.
? Preparation of a Preliminary Safety Validation Report based
on DOE's review of the Conceptual Safety Design Report.
? Compliance with the One-for-One Replacement legislation
mandated in House Report 109-86.
? Determination that the (site's already existing) Quality
Assurance Program is acceptable, continues to apply, and
fully addresses all of the applicable Quality Assurance
Criteria defined in 10 CFR 830 Subpart A and DOE O 414.1C.
? The Technical Independent Project Review that is required
for high-risk, high-hazard, and Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3
nuclear projects.
? Preparation of the environmental documents.
? Preparation and processing of the Project Engineering and
Design budget request.
Further, each action commences at a different point in time and
most are dependent upon the receipt of information from one or
more of the other organizations. The project is responsible for
keeping each organizational element and activity in
synchronization with the others. This can be a full time job for
multiple individuals on even relatively modest projects since the
individual actions are historically highly dynamic in nature and
each change or perturbation tends to impact the other
organizational elements. Such interdependencies between the
different activities are often difficult to foresee. Negative
findings and recommendations from the Technical Independent
Project Review may, for example, result in the need to undertake
previously unplanned work that in turn pushes the total cost of
the conceptual effort over the $3 million conceptual design
notification threshold imposed by Title 50 United States Code for
projects authorized by the annual National Defense Authorization
Act and necessitates a preparation and transmittal of a
Congressional Notification.
4.2. Adequate Planning and Risk Reduction for the Next Project
Phase
The adequacy of the project's advanced planning and risk
reduction, activities such as those just discussed in section 4.1
for Critical Decision 1, is one of a number of the
readiness-to-proceed questions that the IPT should ask themselves
before appearing before the Acquisition Executive. Others include
the quality of the cost and schedule estimates for the upcoming
phase; the availability of funds for these activities; and, the
status of the Architect-Engineer's contract and work force. The
underlying issue is again the project's ability to keep all of
these diverse activities in synchronization.
Larger projects have historically experienced high levels of
rework with accompanying cost and schedule impacts because design
and construction elements have been allowed to proceed in advance
of full requirements definition and/or without adequate
information on site conditions, operating environments, market
capabilities, etc. The data base of actions being taken to
eliminate uncertainties and knowledge gaps that was discussed in
section 3.4.2.2 should be used together with the larger list of
project development strategies provided in section 3.4.2 to
prevent premature commitments of resources and help keep all of
the project's activities in synchronization.
One of the more critical readiness-to-proceed questions that
should be a resolved prior to advancing to Critical Decision 1 is
what will constitute Preliminary Design completion? Order 413.3A
does not define the level of calculation basis that should be
achieved, which design elements should reach the component depth
of detail, the accuracy to which equipment and structure
components should be sized, the number or type of assumptions
that are still allowable, etc. These questions are seen as
project specific and left up to the FPD and the IPT to decide.
They should be fully addressed in the SOW for preliminary design
Architect-Engineering services and submitted to the Acquisition
Executive for his or her approval.
4.3. Implement Requirements Change Control
The requirements that were captured as part of the pre-conceptual
planning effort should be submitted to the Acquisition Executive
for acceptance or rejection as part of Critical Decision 1. If
approved, they should be placed under the non-Performance
Baseline side of the project's formal change control system and
utilized as the criteria for verifying/validating the
acceptability of all future design solutions.38
5.0 TRANSITION TO AN OVERSIGHT AND COORDINATION ROLE UPON
CRITICAL DECISION 1
DOE O 413.3A is based on the concept that the FPD and the IPT
will transition to predominately an oversight and coordination
role upon approval of Critical Decision 1. These two intertwined
roles are discussed below.
5.1. Integrate the Preliminary Design Activities
The preliminary design activities specified in DOE O 413.3A and
Standard DOE-STD 1189 are normally performed by more than twenty
separate organizational elements. Each organizational element
requires input from other organizations and, in turn, provides
output information that the other organizations require.
Interactions between the various organizational elements need to
be highly iterative and should be planned and implemented using
the strategies and tools specified in section 3.4.2 of this
Guide.
This planning and integration should be performed by the FPD and
the IPT since a number of the organizations involved are at the
Headquarters level of the DOE organization.
5.2. Project Oversight
The extent of this transition to an oversight role and the length
of time over which it takes place should be risk based.
Noncomplex projects with fully defined requirements and few
uncertainties require only a minimum transition period and
relatively sparse interactions between the Architect-Engineer's
designers and the other project participants. Conversely, the
transition should occur at a slow pace with high levels of
interactions maintained for the duration of preliminary design
on:
? Complex projects
? Projects on which the requirements are still evolving.
? Projects where there are still significant uncertainties.
? Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear projects.
? Projects of greater than normal management and/or public
interest.
Those situations that require high levels of interaction with the
Architect-Engineer should be handled with care to ensure that
individual level discussions are not interpreted as contractual
direction by the Architect-Engineer's staff and that all project
participants fully understand that contractual direction only
come through the CO. Similarly, these interactions need to be
structured in such a way that they do not violate the Order
413.3A's requirement that the Federal Project Director "serve as
the single point of contact between Federal and contractor staff
for all matters relating to a project and its performance."39
These constraints have been successfully handled on past projects
by: 1) having the FPD serve as the Contracting Officer's
Representative40; 2) holding regularly scheduled meetings between
the Architect-Engineer's design team and the FPD/IPT; and, 3)
inserting an on-site IPT field representative or representatives
(working under a tightly written delegation of authority
memorandum) in the Architect-Engineer's offices. The drafting of
"Agreement and Commitment" memos (that only become effective upon
the CO's signature) at the end of each periodic meeting has also
proven to be a useful method of achieving the level of
interactions necessary to prevent undesirable schedule delays and
design breakage without violating contractual protocol.
The degree of interaction between the FPD/IPT, the M&O, and the
Architect-Engineer Services Contractor should, under either case,
be adequate to satisfy DOE O 413.3A requirements that:
? The FPD "evaluates and verifies reported progress; makes
projections of progress and identifies trends."41
? The FPD "is responsible for (the) timely, reliable, and
accurate integration of the contractor performance data into
the project's scheduling, accounting and performance
measuring systems."42
? The IPT "perform periodic reviews and assessments of project
performance and status against established performance
parameters, baselines, milestones and deliverables."43
? The head of the field organization, and the Acquisition
Executive: "Develop project performance measures, and
monitor and evaluate project performance throughout the
project's life cycle."44
? The Acquisition Executive conduct monthly and quarterly
project performance reviews.45 plus, DOE O 414.1C's (Quality
Assurance), requirements that:
- Services that do not meet established requirements be
identified and controlled.46
- Design interfaces be identified and controlled.47
5.2.1.Select Preliminary Design Performance Metrics
Earned value performance metrics are not formally required until
Critical Decision 2 and DOE O 413.3A does not specify how
preliminary design progress should be measured; therefore, the
FPD will be forced to determine, in conjunction with the
Acquisition Executive, an appropriate set of project specific
performance metrics for this period of the project. This set of
metrics should be weighted towards ensuring that the following
mutually dependent sub-elements of the preliminary design phase
are in synchronization.
5.2.1.1.Architect-Engineering Services
The Architect-Engineering Services tasks and products of greatest
risk and importance should be tracked from the perspective of: 1)
the Architect-Engineers schedule of deliverables as stated in the
SOW; and, 2) the informational needs of the other tasks that must
also be completed prior to Critical Decision 2. These tasks are
addressed below.
5.2.1.2.Baseline Development and Review
The performance baseline development process, which is described
in a separate DOE O 413.3A Guide, should be tracked with an eye
towards the follow-on Performance Baseline Validation Review that
DOE O 413.3A requires be completed before Critical Decision 2.
5.2.1.3.NEPA Documentation
The status of National Environmental Policy Act Compliance
documentation, public meetings, and decisions should be tracked
with emphases on its alignment or misalignment with the
Architect-Engineering's activities and the overall preliminary
design schedule.
5.2.1.4.DOE Standard 1189
If the project is a Hazard Category 1, 2, or 3 nuclear facility,
progress on the following activities that are required by
Standard 1189 should be tracked:
? Demonstration of how the preliminary design will satisfy the
nuclear safety design criteria in DOE O 420.1B.
? Updating of the Safety-in-Design Risk and Opportunity
Assessment.
? Development of the Preliminary Safety Design Report.
? Development of the systems or process level hazard analysis.
? Updating of the Fire Hazards Analysis.
5.2.1.5.Independent Cost Estimate
DOE O 413.3A requires that either an Independent Cost Estimate
or an Independent Cost Review be conducted prior to Critical
Decision 2. The preparation for and performance of these
activities should be tracked since an Independent Cost Review
may be on the critical path and an Independent Cost Estimate is
certain to be on the critical path.
5.2.1.6.Design Rework
The cost and time for design rework should be tracked against
original allowances. Complex projects have historically been
marked by high level rework or iteration that is not accounted
for in either the cost estimates or schedules. Design
approaches, drawings, specifications, reports, and documents are
repeatedly abandoned or modified because of unidentified
requirements, changes, incompatibilities with other areas of the
project, and feedback from reviews. A significant amount of the
cost and schedule growth that has occurred on the design portion
of the Department's projects can be traced back to such
iteration.
5.2.1.7.Elimination of Uncertainties/Unknowns
A formal data base that identifies each uncertainty, unknown,
and unverified assumption was created as part of the
pre-conceptual engineering project activities as described in
section 3.4.1.2.2. The elimination of these uncertainties,
unknowns, and unverified assumptions should now be tracked,
together with the any needed increases in TRL, as part of the
oversight process. The tracking process should again focus on
ensuring that the information that is required by dependent
sub-elements of the project is available on time.
5.2.2.Integrate Quality Assurance and Project Management
Oversight
The degree of commonality between quality assurance and
systems engineering is repeatedly mentioned throughout this
Guide. The FPD and the IPT, should take advantage of this
commonality by integrating oversight activities at the start
of preliminary design. This should provide improved oversight
and concurrently reduce the amount of time the
architect-engineer and the other project participants expend
providing information to the oversight functions.
5.2.3.Determine the Timing and Depth of Periodic IPT Reviews
It is possible, on shorter duration projects, for the FPD and
the IPT to rely on the Performance Baseline Validation
Independent Review and the project initiated Design Reviews to
surface design errors. This approach is not workable on longer
duration projects since preliminary design can take well over
a year to complete and the cost and schedule impacts of
waiting until the preliminary design work is finished to
identify errors could be severe. It is more cost effective on
such projects for the IPT to conduct mid point reviews that
are timed to:
• the Architect-Engineer's internal design decision points,
• the possible cost and schedule impacts of design rework,
and
• the importance of the design element.
5.2.4.Intercede While Emerging Problems Are Still Correctable
Oversight involves taking corrective actions as well as
observing. The FPD and the IPT should, for example, direct the
Architect-Engineer to increase the design margins on a
particular structure, system, or component if they determine
that such increases are needed to ensure that that the proposed
design solutions adequately compensate for still unresolved
uncertainties and unknowns or newly recognized uncertainties and
unknowns. It is important, from a cost and schedule impact
standpoint that such direction be given as soon as the FPD and
the IPT become aware of the problem since delays can result in
additional rework and design breakage.
Most directions for corrective actions will need to be
transmitted to the CO or the Acquisition Executive for
implementation since the majority of the Preliminary Design
phase tasks are performed by organizational elements that are
outside of the FPD's direct line of authority. The transmittals
should be linked with the mandatory monthly and quarterly
project performance reviews when time allows since these reviews
provide a natural setting for in depth discussions of the
problem and the need for action. Issue and risk identification
and correction should be a standard element of these reviews.
Two of the most frequently overlooked, but important project
metrics are: 1) how quickly problems and negative risks trends
are identified; and, 2) how quickly these same problems and
negative risk trends are then corrected.
6.0 OVERSEE AND COORDINATE THE FINAL DESIGN ACTIVITIES
The magnitude of the FPD's and the IPT's coordination activities
declines significantly during the final design phase of the
project as can be seen from the reduced number of prerequisite
tasks listed in Table 2 of DOE O 413.3A. The different
organizational elements should now be in a position to work
relatively independently of each others. This, together with the
approval of the project performance baselines at Critical
Decision 2, changes the thrust of the FPD's and the IPT's
oversight and reporting effort to earned value variance
identification and analysis. Risk management should, however,
continue to be a major focus since earned value metrics may not
pick up emerging market situations and other changes in the
external environment.
Reductions in the FPD's and the IPT's coordination work load
will be partially offset by increase in three other areas:
• change control,
• product acceptance/verification, and
• construction and procurement support.
6.1. Control Baseline and Requirements Changes
The Project Performance Baselines approved at Critical Decision 2
are placed under the formal control system described in the
Project Execution Plan and DOE O 413.3A.48 The FPD and the IPT
should develop and implement a supplemental set of project level
controls that operate below the thresholds specified in
DOE O 413.3A and serve as early warning indicators of negative
trends that necessitate corrective action.
Any additional requirements emerging during this phase of the
project should be processed individually by the FPD and the IPT
and immediately submitted to the Acquisition Executive for
approval together with an analysis of the new requirement's
impact and a recommendation as to how it should be back fitted
into the on-going project.
6.2. Product Acceptance/Verification
The product acceptance/verification tasks assigned to the FPD and
the IPT in the Proposal that was submitted to the Acquisition
Executive prior to Critical Decision 1 (see paragraph 3.6.6 of
this Guide) should be performed incrementally as the design
products are completed to avoid the workload spike that would
occur if they were treated in mass at the end of Final Design.
Such incremental verifications should not introduce additional
risk if the project tasks are properly synchronized.
6.3. Provide Construction and Procurement Support
As was the case with design, the CO rather than the FPD is
responsible for the selection and award of the construction
contract(s) and any Government furnished equipment. The CO may
elect to self perform these efforts or may formally devolve them
to the M&O contractor. Both the governing rules and the
supporting activities performed by the FPD and the IPT remain the
same regardless.
6.3.1.Provide Information to Help the CO Determine the
Appropriate Form of Contract
The type of contractual relationship selected for equipment and
construction is dependent upon:
• the level of risk and uncertainty inherent in the work to be
performed and
• market conditions.
6.3.1.1.Integrate Risk Considerations into the Contract Form
Selection Process
The Department's Acquisition Guide specifies that the contract
type should be commensurate to the level of risk reflected in the
Statement of Work. If too much risk is assigned to the contractor
few, if any, bids or proposals may be received and those that are
received will typically include significant additional allowances
to cover the contractor's risk.
Some of the risk factors that the DOE or the M&O contracting
officer will take into consideration when selecting the form of
contract to be utilized are:
? The type and complexity of the requirements. Requirements that
are complex or unique to the Government increase the level of
risks and suggest the use of cost reimbursement type contracts
that shift the risk from the contractor to the Department.
? The urgency of the requirement results in the Department
assuming a greater proportion of the risk or offer incentives
to ensure timely contract performance if there is schedule
urgency.
? The longer the performance period of the contract, the greater
the possibility for unforeseen events.
? Contractors will be reluctant to shoulder the cost risk
associated with technical challenges that they have not
previously faced.
? Small firms may not have the financial means to take on risks.
The FPD and the IPT need to provide the contracting officer with
the information necessary to make the above determinations and
understand the interdependencies between quality and quantity of
information that they can provide, the type of contract selected,
and the ensuing relationship between the Department and the
contractor. The types of contracts most frequently utilized for
construction and government furnished equipment are discussed
below together with the circumstances under which each is
appropriate.
6.3.1.1.1. Firm-Fixed Price Contracts
Firm-fixed price contracts are generally utilized for
construction. They require that the supplier deliver a defined
product at a specified price at a specified time. Firm-fixed
price contracts can accommodate uncertainties only if they can be
fully identified and incorporated into the work scope at the time
of award at a price that is acceptable to both parties. They
place 100 percent of the responsibility and risk on the
contractor. The Department's influence into how the product is
developed is limited to the specific terms and conditions of the
contract. Further information can be found in FAR Subpart 16.202.
6.3.1.1.2. Firm-Fixed Price Incentive Contracts
Firm-fixed price incentive contracts may be appropriate when
there is uncertainty as to the cost of the product. They require
agreement on: a possible range of cost; a reasonable target cost
and target profit; a price ceiling; and, a share formula for
establishing the final price. The share formula may be varied to
fit the specific situation, commensurate with the degree of
confidence both parties have in the range of possible cost and in
the possible cost variations above or below target cost. The
contractor is liable for all costs above the specified cost
ceiling.
Firm-fixed price incentive contracts are not suited for
situations involving technical uncertainty. Further information
can be found in Subpart 16.403-1 of the FAR.
6.3.1.1.3. Cost-Plus Incentive Fee Contracts
Cost-plus incentive fee contracts are appropriate when
performance objectives are known and there is high confidence
that these objectives can be achieved; but there are technical
and cost uncertainties. A target cost; a target fee; minimum and
maximum fee limits; a fee adjustment formula; and, delivery,
performance or cost incentives are negotiated at the time of
contract award. Overall weight factors should be set for the
different incentive factors.
Further information can be found in Subparts 16.304 and 16.405-1
of the FAR.
6.3.1.2.Cost-Plus Fixed Fee Contracts
Cost-plus fixed fee contracts are appropriate when there is high
technical and cost uncertainty. There are two separate forms of
cost-plus fixed fee contracts, a Completion Form and a Term Form.
An identified product is specified under the "Completion Form" of
a cost-plus fixed fee contracts, whereas the contractor is only
obligated to deliver a specified number of hours for a specified
time period under the Term Form of contract. The Completion Form
is preferred over the Term Form.
Cost-plus fixed fee contracts provide minimum incentive for the
contractor to control cost. Departmental oversight is the only
assurance that efficient methods and effective cost controls are
utilized. They normally should not be used once there is a high
degree of probability that the product can be successfully
developed and the Department has established reasonably firm
performance objectives and schedules. Further information can be
found in Subpart 16.306 of the FAR.
6.3.1.2.1. Cost-Plus Award Fee Contracts
Cost-plus award fee contracts are appropriate when the level of
effort and the feasibility of the undertaking have been
established; but milestones, targets, or goals to measure the
contractor's performance cannot be expressed in objective terms.
All allowable costs are reimbursed by the Department. The
contractor's fee is established subjectively using an award fee
evaluation criteria that include identified performance ranges.
Cost-plus award fee contracts are not considered to be
appropriate once requirements are defined.
Further information can be found in Section 16.305 and 16.405-2
of the FAR.
6.3.1.3.Integrate Market Conditions into the Contract Selection
Process
Manufacturers and constructors are generally unwilling to invest
the funds necessary to prepare a fixed price bid for a federal
project if equivalent private sector work is available. This has
led to a general lack of competition at many DOE sites with only
one to two bids being submitted in response to many solicitations
and those bids that are received being significantly higher than
the government estimate. The FPD and the IPT should utilize the
information they have obtained though their market surveys to
identify those situations when the most cost effective solution
would be to use one of the cost-plus forms of contracting. These
situations will also generally be those that involve significant
financial risk for the bidders.
6.3.1.4.Provide an Independent Government Estimate
Subpart 36.203 of the Federal Acquisition Regulations specify "an
independent Government estimate of construction costs shall be
prepared and furnished to the contracting officer at the earliest
practicable time for each proposed contract and for each contract
modification anticipated to exceed the simplified acquisition
threshold." "The estimate shall be prepared in as much detail as
though the Government were competing for award."
An independent estimate that is developed in strict accordance
with this last sentence provides the FPD with both a basis for
judging the reasonableness of the bids and an opportunity to
discover previously unnoticed omissions, errors, and risk risers.
The likelihood of such valuable discoveries taking place can be
increased by using a truly independent estimator whose only
source of information is the same bid package that the
contractors and vendors will receive and requiring that he submit
the same "Requests for Information" (RFI) when confronted with an
unclear specification or drawing.
Some degree of iteration is an unavoidable part of combining
different frames of reference and should be accepted. The FPD's
and IPT's focus should, therefore, focus on controlling the cost
and schedule impacts of iterations, rather than attempting to
eliminate the iterations. This can be done using a simple Systems
Engineering tool called Dependence Structure Matrix models that
show the existence of dependencies between different activities
in a format that is clearer and easier to read than flow diagrams
and provides information that cannot be conveyed in most Critical
Path Networks.
6.3.1.5.Determine if Construction and Procurement Should Be
Split into Multiple Contracts
Construction and procurement can be combined into a single or
multiple contracts. Single contracts place all coordination
responsibilities on one contractor and are far easier for the
Department or the M&O to administer. They can, however, also
become so large on major projects that only a few companies have
the resources necessary to either bid or successfully perform the
work. Single large contracts can similarly require major step
increases in project funding levels that can tax the Department's
budgetary ceilings. Acquisition Executives and FPDs have,
occasionally attempted to alleviate these problems by breaking
construction into multiple packages and self procuring major
equipment items. This approach transfers contractor and
procurement integration responsibilities back to the M&O or the
project and can quickly overwhelm these staffs.
As an alternative, a Construction Manager or Integrator can be
utilized to place and manage these individual contracts. This can
be done as either a contracted service or as a fixed price At
Risk Construction Management Contract. Both approaches have
significant advantages and disadvantages and should only be
pursued after careful, project specific evaluations by the FPD
and the IPT.
7.0 OVERSEE CONSTRUCTION
The FPD and IPT focus shifts to ensuring that the prime
construction contractors, component manufactures, and
subcontractors comply with the requirements of DOE O 413.3A and
DOE O 414.1C, Quality Assurance, with Critical Decision 3
approval. Their activities now entail:
• assisting the CO evaluate and select bidders based on the
bidders past performance on similar undertakings,
• ensuring that the requirements flow down to the
subcontractors,
• establishing procedures to detect and prevent quality
problems,
• reviewing and approving the contractors Quality Assurance
Plan, and
• verifying and accepting end product.
In performing these duties the FPD and the IPT should track the
following items and recommend corrective actions where
appropriate:
7.1. Requests for Information
Requests for Information by the bidders are an indication that
the bid packages (drawings or specifications) are incomplete,
unclear, or conflicting. The FPD and the IPT should reassess the
bid packages in light of requests for information and formally
modify the drawings and specifications accordingly.
7.2. Engineering Change Notices (ECNs)
The FPD and IPT should maintain a log of all Engineering Change
Notices and determine the cost, schedule, and quality impact of
each change together with the reason for the change. This
information should be utilized in the preparation and submission
of lessons learned. A systematic method for posting ECNs against
the affected documents needs to be established, including
criteria for when affected documents need to be revised to
incorporate outstanding ECNs.
7.3. Field Change Notices (FCNs)
Field Change Notices are initiated by the construction
contractor, and, or the startup testing organization in response
to installation or fabrication problems. They constitute a
potential violation of configuration management and should be
approved by the Authority Having Jurisdiction or Design
Authority. A systematic method for posting FCNs against the
affected documents needs to be established, including criteria
for when affected documents need to be revised to incorporate
outstanding FCNs.
7.4. Nonconformance Reports (NCRs)
Nonconformance reports are initiated by the projects construction
inspectors and constitute a requirement that the contractor take
corrective active to correct a noncompliance. Each noncompliance
should be formally tracked to ensure that it is corrected. Each
NCR should undergo a root cause analysis to ensure the underlying
problem is not repeated. Each NCR should undergo an extent of
condition evaluation to determine whether the condition is a one
time event or requires a more generic action to prevent
recurrence, in which case consideration needs to be given to
either revising the underlying requirement document (e.g.,
specification or drawing), or issuing an ECN or FCN. A systematic
method for posting NCRs against the affected documents needs to
be established, including criteria for when affected documents
need to be revised to incorporate the NCRs. Of special concern
are NCRs that allow a one time deviation for the affected
documents.
7.5. Contractor and Vender Claims
Contractor and vendor claims should be assessed for validity and
compensation recommended as appropriate. All pending claims
should be identified as potential sources of contingency draw
down and summarized in the project's status reports. Valid claims
should be considered for possible inclusion in the Department's
lessons learned files.
7.6. As-Built Documents
The decision needs to be made prior to the start of construction
activities as to which documents will be required to reflect the
as-built condition once the construction and testing activities
have been completed.
ATTACHMENT 1. REQUIREMENT AREAS THAT HAVE REPEATEDLY PROVEN TO
NEED A GREATER DEPTH OF DETAIL OR REFINEMENT
? Safety-class and safety-significant fire protection system
requirements relating to:
- Adequacy of water supplies.
- Fireproofing of structural steel.
- Degradation of HEPA filters.
- Combustible loadings.
- Fire detection and suppression system activation
mechanisms.
? Required analysis of possible hydrogen and flammable gas
generation and accumulation.
? Seismic design requirements relating to:
- Ground motion.
- Geotechnical investigations.
- Soil settlement
? Structural engineering requirements relating to:
- Soil-structure interaction analyses.
- Load paths for seismic and settlement induced forces.
- Finite element analysis.
- Structural computer codes.
? Confinement strategy requirements relating to:
- Analysis of the adequacy of the confinement barriers.
- Magnitude of the radiological source term.
- Models.
? Criticality standard requirements.
? Chemical processing safety requirements.
? Definition, selection, and implementation of quality assurance
requirements.
? Requirements relating to the potential for solids settlement
in pipes and ducts.
? Requirements relating to the application of lessons learned.
? Requirements relating to assumptions:
- Basis.
- Degree of conservatism.
- Timely verification/confirmation.
? Requirements relating to acceptable calculation tools and
techniques.
ATTACHMENT 2. PROJECT EXECUTION INTERFACES
WITH DOE P 450.4
DOE O 413.3A requires that projects be planned, design, and
executed using Integrated Safety Management policies and
procedures. Integrated Safety Management policies and procedures
are specified in other Directives and Rules including DOE P
450.4, Safety Management System Policy. Some of the most
pertinent interfaces between DOE P 450.4 and this Guide can be
seen in the following extracts from DOE P 450.4:
? "Direct involvement of workers during the development and
implementation of safety management systems is essential
for their success."
? "Personnel shall possess the experience, knowledge, skills,
and abilities that are necessary to discharge their
responsibilities."
? "Before work is performed … an agreed-upon set of safety
standards and requirements shall be established which, if
properly implemented, will provide adequate assurance that
the public, the workers, and the environment are protected
from adverse consequences."
? "Missions are translated into work, expectations are set,
tasks are identified and prioritized, and resources are
allocated."
? "Applicable standards and requirements are identified and
agreed-upon…"
? "…opportunities for improving the definition and planning
of work are identified and implemented…"
? "Responsibilities must be clearly defined in documents
appropriate to the activity."
ATTACHMENT 3. PROJECT EXECUTION INTERFACES WITH DOE G 450.4-1B
DOE O 413.3A requires that projects be planned, designed, and
executed using Integrated Safety Management policies and
procedures. Integrated Safety Management policies and procedures
are specified in other Directives and Rules including
DOE G 450.4-1B, Volume 1; Integrated Safety Management System
Guide. Some of the more pertinent interfaces between
DOE G 450.4-1B and this Guide can be seen in the following
extracts from DOE G 450.4-1B, Volume 1:
? "Integration is especially important for programs and
activities with conflicting or competing goals or
requirements (e.g., fire protection and criticality safety,
or personnel safety and safeguards and security)." (page 6)
? "Other programs, such as those for configuration management
and conduct of operations are more appropriately specified
at the facility or project level." (page 6)
? "Identify Facility Standards and Requirements." ( Figure1,
page 8)
? "Identify Activity Standards and Requirements." (Figure 1,
page 8)
? "A first step is to translate missions into work
requirements in conjunction with the prioritization of
budget and resources." (page 10)
? "Individuals responsible for engineering the processes
(e.g., weapons assembly and disassembly, nuclear material
fabrication and stabilization, criticality experiments,
waste storage, hazardous waste cleanup, routine maintenance,
pollution prevention, and waste minimization) should work
with multidisciplinary teams who have direct responsibility
for analyzing hazards, identifying control measures derived
from that analysis, and ensuring those measures are
effective." (page 11)
? "…managers responsible for individual systems should know
where each of their processes interfaces with a process
owned by another organization. Responsible managers should
then communicate routinely with interfacing managers to
assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the process and
communicate immediately whenever changes occur that have an
impact on one or more interfaces." (page 11)
? "Meaningful management commitment to worker safety requires
… ensuring compliance with all applicable requirements and
regulations." (pages 11 and 12)
? "Further, for processes involving multiple types of hazards,
consideration should be given to the use of
worker/management teams with a variety of expertise to
ensure that each type of hazard receives informed
considerations." (page 14)
? "The exact nature of the activity changes as the safety
processes are integrated:
- first, with the conceptual design, preliminary design,
and final design activities;
- second, with the engineering design and development
activities;
- third, with the more traditional integrated safety
management activities associated with the physical plant
during the construction and operational phases; and
- finally, with the activities to be performed during
facility disposition." (page 15)
? "Work planning begins the integration of all systems
pertinent and necessary to a process, operation, or task."
(page 26)
? "It is extremely important for DOE and its contractors to
formally establish and clearly define the work to be
performed, the priority assigned, and the expectations for
completion." (page 28)
? "Each organizational level (i.e., DOE Headquarters, DOE
field element, contractor) should, therefore, establish a
method for ensuring a proper balance among competing
priorities of the organization (e.g., budget, schedule,
safety, quality) …Typically, a senior management review
committee or council within DOE or the contractor
organization may be established to resolve conflicts,
establish priorities, and ensure a balance in resource
allocation." (page 31)
? "The knowledge, skills, and abilities of the work force
should be considered when selecting the form of controls."
(page 41)
? "The DEAR ES&H clause (48CFR 970.5223-1(b) (6)) and DOE P
450.4 require the integration of environment, safety, and
health functions and activities including pollution
prevention and waste minimization into work planning and
execution. Integration should be evident throughout all
organizational functions at all organizational levels from
the site to the individual activity." … "Typical site wide
processes, procedures, and/or programs that need to be
integrated include engineering support, fire protection,
emergency preparedness, maintenance, environmental
protection, waste management, industrial hygiene,
occupational safety, chemical safety, radiological
protection, and training." (page 72)
ATTACHMENT 4. PROJECT EXECUTION INTERFACES
WITH DOE G 450.3-3
DOE O 413.3A requires that projects be planned, designed, and
executed using Integrated Safety Management policies and
procedures. Integrated Safety Management policies and procedures
are specified in other Directives and Rules including
DOE G 450.3-3; Tailoring for Integrated Safety Management
Applications. Some of the more pertinent interfaces between
DOE G 450.3-3 and this Guide can be seen in the following
extracts from DOE G 450.3-3.
? "Designing work entails making decisions about a continuous
variety of options and tradeoffs. It is the balance of these
options and tradeoffs that determine if a work design will
be successful. Many of these tradeoffs are integrally
related to tailoring the other elements. They include
developing and resolving the work scope, establishing a
technical approach, adjusting resources, adapting personnel
(experience and expertise), adjusting schedule, and
performing tasks sequentially or in parallel to minimize
hazards or to optimize the critical work path." (page 8)
? "Too often, formality and documentation are associated, or
equated, with budget or cost, even when the work and the
hazards are of a routine nature. A better gauge of the need
for formal documentation is the complexity of the work…"
(page 8)
? "There is a faded management adage that "systems break down
at the interfaces." So, too do the benefits of hazards
analyses, if no attention is paid to how workers' jobs can
affect one another to cause accidents; how juxtapose (either
directly connected or nearby) activities or processes can
influence one another; how multiple activities or projects
within a single facility can adversely affect or be affected
by the shared support systems provide by that facility…."
(page 10)
ATTACHMENT 5. PROJECT EXECUTION INTERFACES
WITH DOE O 440.1B AND DOE G 440.1-2
Construction safety is not specifically addressed in
DOE O 413.3A. It is, however, an inherent part of integrated
safety management and the FPD and the IPT need to be cognizant of
the following interfaces with DOE O 440.1B, Worker Protection for
DOE (including National Nuclear Security Administration) Federal
Employees and DOE G 440.1-2, Construction Safety Management Guide
for Use with DOE O 440.1.
? "Construction Project Mangers determine the necessity for
requiring dedicated construction contractor safety and
health personnel on project workplaces." [DOE O 440.1B,
Attachment 1, paragraph1(b)(1)]
? "Construction Project Managers ensure that construction
project acquisition documents provide information or
reference to existing documentation that describes known
hazards to which project workers ma be exposed."
[DOE O 440.1B, Attachment 1, paragraph1 (b)(2)]
? "Construction Project Managers ensure that a pre-work safety
meeting is conducted with the construction contractor to
review project safety and health requirements."
[DOE O 440.1B, Attachment 1, paragraph1(b)(3)]
? "Construction Project Managers ensure that the project
safety and health plan is approved prior to any on-site
project work and that required hazard analyses are completed
and approved prior to start of work on affected construction
operations." [DOE O 440.1B, Attachment 1, paragraph1(b)(4)]
? "Construction Project Managers ensure that project safety
and health plans and hazard analyses are revised, as
necessary, to address identified deficiencies in project
safety and health performance or changes in project
operations, contractors, or personnel. [DOE O 440.1B,
Attachment 1, paragraph1(b)(5)]
? Construction Project Managers, through personal on-site
involvement and/or formal delegation to support staff … ,
perform frequent and regular documented on-site reviews of
construction contractor safety and health program
effectiveness. [DOE O 440.1B, Attachment 1,
paragraph1(b)(6)]
? "Construction Project Managers ensure documentation exists
for all formal contract actions taken to enforce
construction contractor compliance with project safety and
health requirements." [DOE O 440.1B, Attachment 1,
paragraph1(b)(7)]
? "… to the greatest extent possible, integrate the management
of safety and health, both in terms of project personnel and
management methodologies, with the management of the other
primary elements of construction project performance:
quality, cost and schedule."(DOE G 440.1-2, section 1, page
1)
? "… it is the intent of the Order to integrate the safety and
health requirements of the Order, to the greatest extent
practicable, with the required activities of the project
management team otherwise necessary to ensure compliance
with the cost, quality, and schedule requirements of the
project." (DOE G 440.1-2, section 3, page 2)
? "It is intended that the safety and health requirements of
the Order be clearly communicated to the construction
contactor through the development and incorporation of
appropriate contract language in the project acquisition
documents and not simply by reference." (DOE G 440.1-2,
section 4.4, page 6)
ATTACHMENT 6. REFERENCES
The following list includes general sources of information on
Systems Engineering plus topic specific documents from outside of
the Project Management field that might not otherwise come to the
users' attention. Neither DOE directives, nor those documents
identified via footnotes in the body of the Guide, are included:
Systems Engineering - Overview
? Defense Acquisition University, Systems Engineering
Fundamentals. 1/01.
? DOD, Defense Acquisition Guidebook, Chapter 4, Systems
Engineering, 10/04.
? DOE, Deputy Under Secretary Defense Acquisition and
Technology, Systems Engineering Guide for System of Systems,
8/08.
? Federal Aviation Administration, National Airspace System -
System Engineering Manual, 10/06.
? International Council on Systems Engineering, Guide to the
Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge, 9/03.
? International Council on Systems Engineering, Systems
Engineering Handbook, 2007.
? Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers 1220,
Standard for Application and Management of the Systems
Engineering Process, 9/05.
? MITRE (Brooks & Beard), Case#08-0906, The Changing Nature of
Systems Engineering and Government Enterprises, 2008.
? NASA, NPR 7123, NASA Systems Engineering Processes and
Requirements, 3/07.
Collaborative Organizational Structures
? Harvard University (Donahue), On Collaborative Governance,
3/04.
? Indiana University (Agranoff), Leveraging Networks: A Guide
for Public Managers Working Across Organizations, 3/03.
? RAND Graduate School (Klitgaard), Assessing Partnerships:
New Forms of Collaboration, 3/03.
? Syracuse University (O'Leary), A Manager's Guide to
Resolving Conflicts in Collaborative Networks, 2007.
? University of Delaware (Denhardt), The Procurement
Partnership Model: Moving to a Team-Based Approach, 2/03.
Dependency Structure Matrix
? Browning, Tyson Rl, "Applying the Design Structure Matrix to
System Decomposition and Integration Problems", IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, 8/01.
? MIT (Bartolomei), Qualitative Knowledge Construction for
Engineering Systems: Extending the Design Structure Matrix
Methodology in Scope and Procedure, 6/07.
? MIT (Brady), Utilization of Dependency Structure Matrix
Analysis to Assess Implementation of NASA's Complex
Technical Projects, 2/02.
? MIT (Browning), Modeling and Analyzing Cost, Schedule, and
Performance in Complex System Product Development, 12/98.
Design Margins
? California Institute of Technology (Thunnissen), Propagating
and Mitigating Uncertainty in the Design of Complex
Multidisciplinary Systems, 2005.
? Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Correspondence to
Secretary of Energy - Waste Treatment and Immobilization
Plant Design Margins, 12/16/02.
? Secretary of Energy, Correspondence to Chairman Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety
Lean
? Industry Association Crosstalk Coalition, An Assessment of
the Degree of Implementation of the Lean Aerospace
Initiative Principles and Practices Within the US Aerospace
and Defense Industry, 2/04.
? MIT (Jobo), Applying the Lessons of "Lean Now" To Transform
the US Aerospace Enterprise, 8/03.
? MIT (Lean Aerospace Initiative), Summary of Research
Conducted by the Manufacturing Systems Team 1994-2002.
Contract Management/Oversight/Outsourcing
? Defense Acquisition University, Research Report 06-001,
Contracting Out Procurement Functions: An Analysis, 11/05.
? GAO, Report 02-798, Contract Reform, DOE Has Made Progress,
But Actions Needed to Ensure Initiatives Have Improved
Results, 9/02.
? GAO, Report 08-572T, DOD Needs to Reexamine Its Extensive
Reliance on Contractors and Continue to Improve Management
and Oversight, 3/08.
? GAO, Report 02-1000, DOE Contractor Management-Opportunities
to Promote Initiatives That Could Reduce Support-Related
Costs, 9/02.
? GAO, Report 05-123, DOE-Further Actions Are Needed to
Strengthen Contract Management for Major Projects, 3/05.
? Lean Aerospace Initiative, Systems Engineering Leading
Indicators Guide, 6/07.
Real Options
? MIT (Kalligeros), Platforms and Real Options in Large-Scale
Engineering Systems, 6/06.
? MIT (McConnell), A Life-Cycle Flexibility Framework for
Designing, Evaluating and Managing "Complex" Real Options,
5/07.
? MIT (Wang), Real Options "in" Projects and Systems Design -
Identification of Options and Solution for Path Dependency,
5/05.
Requirements Identification and Management
? DOD Assessment Panel of the Defense Acquisition Performance
Assessment Project, Defense Acquisition Performance
Assessment, 1/06.
? DOD Secretary of Defense, Defense Acquisition Transformation
Report to Congress, 2/07.
? Leveson, "Intent Specifications: An Approach to Building
Human-Centered Specifications", IEEE Transactions on
Software Engineering, 1/00.
? NNSA, BOP-50.004, Program Requirements Document (PRD) for
Construction Projects, 2/08.
? Stanford University Center for Integrated Facility
Engineering, Technical Report 161, Requirements Management
Interface to Building Product Models, 3/05.
System Dynamics/Concurrent Design
? Beard, Loulakis & Wundram, Design Build-Planning through
Development, 2001.
? MIT (Ford & Sterman), Dynamic Modeling of Product
Development Processes, 1/97.
? MIT (Piepenbrock), Enterprise Design for Dynamic Complexity:
Architecting and Engineering Organizations Using System and
Structural Dynamics, 6/04.
? MIT (Herweg & Pilon), System Dynamics Modeling for the
Exploration of Manpower Project Staffing Decisions in the
Context of a Multi-Project Enterprise, 2/01.
? MIT (Sterman), System Dynamics: Systems Thinking and
Modeling for a Complex World, 5/02.
? MIT (Ye-Feng Wei), Concurrent Design for Optimal Quality and
Cycle Time, 2/01.
Technology Readiness
? DOD Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Science and
Technology, Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) Process
Guide, 3/08.
? DOE Office of Environmental Management, Technology Readiness
Assessment (TRA)/Technology Maturation Plan (TMP) Process
Guide, 3/08.
? GAO, Report 99-162, Best Practices - Better Management of
Technology Development Can Improve Weapon System Outcomes,
7/99.
? GAO, Report 06-883, Best Practices - Stronger Practices
Needed to Improve DOD Technology Transition Processes, 9/06.
? GAO, Report 06-839, Weapons Acquisition - DOE Should
Strengthen Policies for Assessing Technical Data Needs to
Support Weapon Systems, 7/06.
? GAO, Report 07-336, DOE Major Construction Projects Need a
Consistent Approach for Assessing Technology Readiness to
Help Avoid Cost Increases and Delays, 3/07.
_______________________________
1 Paragraph 6g(2), page 38.
2 Paragraph 6g, page 38.
3 Paragraph 6g(13), page 39.
4 Paragraph 6g(5), page 39.
5 Paragraph 5k(10), page 31.
6 Paragraph 6g(3), page 39.
7 Paragraph 6g, page 38.
8 Paragraph 5c (2), page 5.
9 Paragraph 5d(2), page 8.
10 Paragraph 5c(3), page 5
11 Paragraph 6o(3), page 43
12 Chapter V for DOE. Attachment 2, Chapter V for contractors.
13 Paragraph 2.4, page 12.
14 DOE O 413.3A, paragraph 6g, page 38.
15 DOE O 413.3A, paragraph 6g(10), page 39.
16 DOE O 413.3A, paragraph 6g(11), page 39.
17 DOE O 413.3A, paragraph 5k(6)(c) and DOE P 450.4, page 2.
18 DOE O 413.3A, Table 2, page 12.
19 NNSA requires that a Program Requirements Document be included
as part of the Critical Design 0 approval package.
20 The program manager or the head of the field organization may
be serving the FPD at this point in the project.
21 DOE O 413.3A, paragraph 5d(1), page 7.
22 DOE P 413.3.2 similarly invokes Public Law (P.L.) 104-106 and
OMB Circular A-131
23 Federal Acquisition Regulations, Subpart 36.602-1.
24 Federal Acquisition Regulations, Subpart 11.002.
25 Value Management and this particular aspect of Systems
Engineering are essentially synonymous in that both analyze the
various elements of the project for the purpose of achieving
the best value for the government. Value Engineering's
objective is slightly different in that it has historically
focused solely on achieving lowest cost. See DOE P 413.2, Value
Engineering, and Public Law 104-106 Section 36 for additional
information on Value Engineering.
26 DOE O 413.3A, paragraph 5h(2)(c), page 22.
27 DOE G 414.1-2A, section 4.6.5
28 Paragraph 6m(9), page 42
29 Attachment 2, Item 13
30 Paragraph 3.5, page 3-9
31 Appendix B, page B-3
32 Paragraph 3.2, page 3-5
33 Paragraph 3.8, page 3-13
34 Paragraph 3.5, page 3-9.
35 Paragraph 5.3.1.1, page 5-8
36 Paragraph 5.2.2, page 5-5
37 Paragraph 6m, page 42.
38 See DOE O 413.3A, paragraph 5.i.(3), page 24 for the two
categories of change control.
39 Paragraph 6g(8), page 39.
40 Paragraph 6g(9), page 39.
41 Paragraph 6g(7), page 39.
42 Paragraph 6g(6), page 39.
43 Paragraph 6m(6), page 42.
44 Paragraph 6e(7), page 37.
45 Paragraph 6f(7), page 38.
46 Paragraph 4b(3)(b), page 4.
47 Paragraph 4b(6)(c), page 5.
48 Paragraph 5i, pages 23 and 24.