The President state in his Small Business Agenda that the Federal government should break out functions to contract with small businesses wherever practicable. In the Small Business Act, Congress also declared its support of small business. In support of the President's small business agenda and congressional direction, the National Nuclear Security Administration, NNSA established a policy that is consistent with the President's agenda requiring its field offices to work with management and operating contractors to provide small businesses the maximum practicable opportunity to provide the goods and services needed to support all of NNSA's programs and activities.
Management Controls over Performance Fees in the Idaho National Laboratory Contract
The Department of Energy (Department) did not always effectively use performance measures and fees to appropriately reward
contractor performance. Specifically, the Department allocated
approximately $1.1 million for 3 of the 27 performance measures
and fees for Fiscal Year (FY) 2005, which were disproportionately
high for the work performed. Four of the 49 measures and fees
established for FY 2006 provided the contractor the opportunity to
earn $1 million under similar circumstances. Also, some of the
performance measures worth $460,000, were implemented well
after the performance period began.
contractor performance. Specifically, the Department allocated
approximately $1.1 million for 3 of the 27 performance measures
and fees for Fiscal Year (FY) 2005, which were disproportionately
high for the work performed. Four of the 49 measures and fees
established for FY 2006 provided the contractor the opportunity to
earn $1 million under similar circumstances. Also, some of the
performance measures worth $460,000, were implemented well
after the performance period began.
The Department of Energy (Department) did not always effectively
and Fees use performance measures and fees to appropriately reward
contractor performance. Specifically, the Department allocated
approximately $1.1 million for 3 of the 27 performance measures
and fees for Fiscal Year (FY) 2005, which were disproportionately
high for the work performed. Four of the 49 measures and fees
established for FY 2006 provided the contractor the opportunity to
earn $1 million under similar circumstances. Also, some of the
performance measures worth $460,000, were implemented well
after the performance period began.
and Fees use performance measures and fees to appropriately reward
contractor performance. Specifically, the Department allocated
approximately $1.1 million for 3 of the 27 performance measures
and fees for Fiscal Year (FY) 2005, which were disproportionately
high for the work performed. Four of the 49 measures and fees
established for FY 2006 provided the contractor the opportunity to
earn $1 million under similar circumstances. Also, some of the
performance measures worth $460,000, were implemented well
after the performance period began.
The Department of Energy (Department) did not always effectively and Fees use performance measures and fees to appropriately reward contractor performance. Specifically, the Department allocated approximately $1.1 million for 3 of the 27 performance...
Performance Based Incentives for BWXT Y-12, LLC
Molten Salt Reactor Experiment Cleanup Project
The Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management's Corrective Action Program
Under the Department of Energy's (Department's)
Corrective Action Program (CAP), the Yucca Mountain
Project staff was instructed to report potential conditions
adverse to quality (hereafter referred to as conditions) or
safety into the Program database. Potential conditions
include all failures, deficiencies, defective items, safety
issues, and nonconformances with Quality Assurance
requirements, which could affect the quality of the
supporting technical information. As an alternative,
employees who wish their identity to remain confidential
can report potential conditions through the Employee
Concerns Program (ECP). However, all conditions
reported in the ECP and other tracking systems that are
adverse to quality, must also be entered into the CAP
database and assigned to a line management organization to
develop and implement timely corrective actions. The
benefit of a single tracking system is that deficiencies can
be screened for significance, common cause analyses can
be performed, and trending analyses can be used to identify
repeat occurrences and potential significant problems.
The CAP process also provides for the assignment of a
significance level to the condition, ranging from Level A to
Level D, depending on the actual or potential consequences
of the condition. Level "A" condition reports, the most
significant, include conditions, which if uncorrected could
have a serious effect on safety, or serious effects on the
performance of the repository, such as the ability to isolate
waste. Level "D" condition reports are the least significant.
Of the approximately 5,600 condition reports in the
Corrective Action Program system, 14 were Level A; 783
were Level B; and, approximately 4,800 were Level C
or D.
Corrective Action Program (CAP), the Yucca Mountain
Project staff was instructed to report potential conditions
adverse to quality (hereafter referred to as conditions) or
safety into the Program database. Potential conditions
include all failures, deficiencies, defective items, safety
issues, and nonconformances with Quality Assurance
requirements, which could affect the quality of the
supporting technical information. As an alternative,
employees who wish their identity to remain confidential
can report potential conditions through the Employee
Concerns Program (ECP). However, all conditions
reported in the ECP and other tracking systems that are
adverse to quality, must also be entered into the CAP
database and assigned to a line management organization to
develop and implement timely corrective actions. The
benefit of a single tracking system is that deficiencies can
be screened for significance, common cause analyses can
be performed, and trending analyses can be used to identify
repeat occurrences and potential significant problems.
The CAP process also provides for the assignment of a
significance level to the condition, ranging from Level A to
Level D, depending on the actual or potential consequences
of the condition. Level "A" condition reports, the most
significant, include conditions, which if uncorrected could
have a serious effect on safety, or serious effects on the
performance of the repository, such as the ability to isolate
waste. Level "D" condition reports are the least significant.
Of the approximately 5,600 condition reports in the
Corrective Action Program system, 14 were Level A; 783
were Level B; and, approximately 4,800 were Level C
or D.
The Department of Energy’s Interaction with the National Coal Council