EFCOG Project Delivery WorkingGroup (PDWG)

Project Delivery Working Group Meeting Minutes

June 8, 2017 - (8:00AM–4:00PM) –Forrestal Building Room # 6A-092

Attendance at EFCOG General Session:

Introduction and agenda review – Billy Morrison, EFCOG Chair

Bob Raines, NNSA

Steve Trischman, Office of Budget & Planning, Office of Environmental Management, U.S. DOE

PDWG General Meeting:

Attendees:

Bob Miklos – BEA/INL

Rick Millikin – CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Company/Hanford

Craig Hewitt – WRPS/CHPRC/WIPP

Charles Simpson – AECOM/Hanford

Betsy Schmidt Chase – TwentyEighty Strategy Execution

Heidi Timmerman – ORISE

Susan Stiger - Bechtel

Gavin Winship – Savannah River Remediation

Amy Basche – WRPS

John Baker – Battelle/INL

Greg Smith – H&A

Anita Hirschy – UCOR

Sarah Blakey – CNS

Bill Murphie – Jacobs

Mario Carmasco – NWP/WIPP

Channing Brown – NWP/WIPP

Phil Gallagher – BSI/Hanford

Carol Hoover – Sandia National Laboratory

Tony Spillman – WRPS

Carolyn Wolfe – UCOR

Vicki Frahm – Sandia National Laboratory

Kenneth Brooks – Savannah River Nuclear Solutions

Blaine Schwartz – AzTech International

Tim Fritz – AzTech International

Rodney Blackmon – Savannah River Remediation

Meeting Opening – Bob Miklos greeted all of the participants, and the group generally discussed some of the issues that had been brought up over the last couple of days. Those items included:

  • PDWG assistance in project reviews at NNSA;
  • Amy Wilson’s commentary on the focus of her group being on physical security vs. cybersecurity;
  • Awards for the Project Controls Subgroup leaders, including Amy and Craig;
  • Succession planning for the PDWG;
  • A continued disconnect relating to our collaboration with the Field Offices, as well as potential disconnect between the Field Offices and HQ. Bob will reconnect with Mark Arenez to discuss this; and
  • The Regulatory Reform Initiative in Executive Order 13777. Tom Mason at ORNL is the co-sponsor with Bob Raines.

Project Management Subgroup update (Simpson) – Charles discussed the presentations from breakout session that the PMSG had on June 6. Those included:

1)Cost Estimating Task Group -The CETG’s 2017 goals were met, including the completion of:

  • A 2016 CETG Site Survey initiative;
  • Documentation Review & Customer Interviews;
  • The evaluation of GAO 12-Step Self-Assessment Tools; and
  • Development of a customized tool, which is ready for distribution and evaluation

The path forward will include edits/revisions to the self-assessment tool in 2017, and then develop a marketing strategy and beta test the tool (2018). A change to the remaining deliverables was suggested to be: after the incorporation of comments and potential automations, the CETG should continue beta testing and look for a pilot sponsor. After that, the CETG would release the draft for testing.

The GAO/DOE 12 Step Estimating Guidance Worksheetwas discussed as well. The tool had been customized to DOE specifications after their group had reviewed and compared the compliance worksheet with GAO and DHS compliance documents. Carol Hoover indicated that the real-time feedback provided by the DOE group (including Mike Peek) they met with in February/March was critical to their success. In regard to a “FICO”-type scoring methodology, Mike Fenn at DOE had suggested we use a red/yellow/green scoring system. Still, the group noted that scoring metrics still would be required to match values to the red/yellow/green scores.

2)The Risk Management Task Team – Gavin Winship updated the group on the Task Team’s progress on the survey that they had undertaken. While they concluded that although there were sufficient data to begin the initial evaluation activities, more data was needed and therefore the survey will be reopened. Regarding software tools, the team decided that an alternatives evaluation should be performed for five (5) different types of risk-related software to ultimately reach a recommendation on a combination of analytical software tools.

Team members also reviewed the remaining data from the survey which related to the management of schedule reserve and the segregation of OPC and TEC costs on capital asset projects. After Team discussion an outline was established to identify recommended and perhaps best practices in five areas relative to schedule reserve.

Charles continued the discussion, reviewing the high points of the presentations from the guest speakers at the PMSG meeting, including:

3)The Project Management Policy Update by Ivan Graff, and PM-30’s approach for updating Guides and a current status of their progress and path forward.

4)Project Peer Review for Capital Assets by John White, which provided an overview of the “Why, What, Who and How” of the peer review process at DOE, including takeaways and trends, as well as thoughts on potential improvements to the process. It also was noted that peer reviews now are allowable costs per Secretary Perry’s Order.

5)The Office of Science Perspective and Project Management by Kin Chao, which noted some of the differences between SC projects and other types of projects around the Complex. Also discussed was the fact that although SC is exempt from the requirements of 413.3B, they do follow those requirements for peer reviews for projects >$10M.

6)The Review of Max.gov website and Online Tools by John Makepeace, and

7)The Project Management Career Development Program (PMCDP) Key Elementsby Linda Ott, which discussed the strengths and weaknesses of the PMCDP program and its training of Federal Project Directors (FPDs).

ACTION ITEMS:

  • Bob Miklos will speak with Mike Peek regarding who is the DOE Risk stakeholder owner
  • Betsy and Craig will make the Rolodex changes discussed earlier
  • Betsy will send a note to the distribution list on any updated documents from Carol

Project Controls Subgroup Update – EVMS – Amy Basche reported on the PCSG status. These included:

  • The CNS Pilot Program – 3 key areas that contribute to overall success are the parties’ attitude toward engaging in the pilot, as well as the focus on scheduling and on change control;
  • PARSIIe Upgrades – they currently are developing protocols as to how the data should get uploaded. It will take approximately 6 months for a contractor to upload data. It was noted that v.3 is much better than v.2;
  • EVCSA Automated Data Testing & Transition to PARSIIe – Another version is coming out in 2-4 weeks;
  • EVM Health Metric Scoring– They need to determine ranges for scoring and impact on color attributes; and
  • Scheduling amplification is a focus as well.

Functional SME(s)Update - Heidi Timmerman reported on the status of the data calls to obtain site or program specific guidance for differentiation between OPC, TEC and TPC. Of the 15 requests sent out, Heidi received 9 responses, 7 of which contained data and showed the following:

The responses provided demonstrate that facilities utilize diverse written guidance for classification of capital project costs. The majority of respondents demonstrated reliance on DOE regulation; however, only two of the seven utilize DOE regulation alone [DOE Order 430.1-1 Chapter 6].

Three sites utilize corporate specific guidance that is based on DOE regulation, but expands on the regulation to provide site / project specific guidance.

The other two respondents utilize site specific guidance which did not indicate specific DOE reference.

Therefore, there appears to be room to standardize guidance across the DOE complex.

Heidi also presented the current draft of the white paper being prepared on best practices here. During the ensuing discussion, Susan suggested that it may be helpful to look at additional areas/situations where specialized rules may be needed. Heidi suggested the path forward deliverables to include:

Interviews with Federal Project Directors (FPD) (initiated with sites which responded to the data call and the Project Management Subgroup); to determine if existing tools are adequate to meet their needs;

A face to face task force meeting of the decision makers to review the tools currently in use and answer the questions posed in section 5.1 of the presentation;

An adjusted timeline into FY2018 in order to allow for greater input; and

Assignment of Project Manager SMEs

Testing, Startup and Commissioning Task Team Update – Bob Miklos reported on the status for Frank McCoy. He noted the importance of considering Startup and Commissioningthroughout the entire project lifecycle andreferenced draft activities at each phase the team has drafted.

Break to attend General Session

Brainstorming for Regulatory Reform Initiative (for Raines)

Adjourn