Best Practices for Environmental Project Teams
This page intentionally left blank
Best Practices for Environmental Project Teams Stephen Massey
Amsterdam • Boston • Heidelberg • London • New York • Oxford Paris • San Diego • San Francisco • Sydney • Tokyo
Elsevier The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, UK Radarweg 29, PO Box 211, 1000 AE Amsterdam, The Netherlands First edition 2011 Copyright # 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior written permission of the publisher Permissions may be sought directly from Elsevier’s Science & Technology Rights Department in Oxford, UK: phone (þ44) (0) 1865 843830; fax (þ44) (0) 1865 853333; email:
[email protected]. Alternatively you can submit your request online by visiting the Elsevier web site at http://elsevier.com/locate/permissions, and selecting Obtaining permission to use Elsevier material British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress For information on all Elsevier publications visit our web site at elsevierdirect.com Printed and bound in Great Britain 11 12 13 14 10 9 8 7
ISBN: 978-0-444-53721-8
6 5 4 3
2 1
Contents Chapter 1: Best Practices for Environmental Project Teams................................... 1 Historical Overview of the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) and Lessons Learned ................................................................................. 2 National Economic Stimulus ....................................................................................... 5 DoD Pressure to Decrease Studies and Increase Site Cleanups ................................. 5 Measuring Performance ............................................................................................ 6 DoD Contracting Obstacles to Accelerating Cleanup ................................................ 7 DoD Component Competition ..................................................................................... 9 Single Technology Focus ............................................................................................ 9 “Silver-Bullet” Technologies ..................................................................................... 10 Poor Technical Document Quality ............................................................................ 10 Bigger Is Better .......................................................................................................... 11 DERP ER Programs Shifts Focus to “Site Closeout” ............................................... 11 New DERP ER Emphasis on “Remedial Process Optimization” ............................. 12 “Red and Unsustainable Remediation?” ................................................................... 13 DoD Components Expedite Technology Optimization Policies .............................. 13 New DoD ER Acquisition Strategy .......................................................................... 15 Shift in Government and Contractor Quality Management ...................................... 16 Green and Sustainable Remediation .......................................................................... 16 Contractor Environmental Project Team Challenges ............................................. 17 Environmental Restoration Project Manager, Inc. ................................................. 19 Chapter Overviews ..................................................................................................... 19
Chapter 2: Understand Your Government Client Business Model.......................... 23 Business Model Elements .......................................................................................... 23 Constructing the Government ER Service Provider Business Model ...................... 24 NAVFAC Environmental Restoration (ER) Service Provider Business Model ...................................................................................................... 25 Federal Requirements that Establish Basis for Environmental Restoration Programme .......................................................................................................... 25 Programme policies ................................................................................................. 26 Navy Environmental Restoration Process and Progress Reporting Metrics ............ 26
v
vi
Contents
Navy Programme Progress Reports and Execution Plans ........................................ 29 Navy Guidelines for Achieving Site Closeout ....................................................... 29 Navy ER Work Groups and Programme Initiatives ............................................... 30 Green and Sustainable Remediation ....................................................................... 32 Client Contract Vehicles for Procuring Environmental Restoration Services ....... 33
Chapter 3: Implement a Flexible Environmental Quality Management System........ 35 Features of a Flexible Company EQMS ................................................................... 36 Company Level ....................................................................................................... 36 Programme Level .................................................................................................... 39 Project Level ............................................................................................................ 41 Contractor QA and QC Staffing ................................................................................ 43 Performance-Based Program/Project Tutorial ........................................................... 45 Quality Control Plan ............................................................................................... 48 Work Processes ....................................................................................................... 48 Monthly QC Report ................................................................................................. 49 Project Website ........................................................................................................ 53 Functional Inspection Plan ...................................................................................... 54 FIP Implementation ................................................................................................. 55 Government Performance Assessment ................................................................... 56 Sample Project Performance Evaluation Policy ....................................................... 58
Chapter 4: Develop and Utilize User-Friendly Project Websites ........................... 61 Brief Synopsis of Microsoft SharePoint .................................................................... 61 Fine-Tuning the Role of Collaborative Project Websites: Simpler is Better ................................................................................................. 66 Understanding the Perception of Website Value from the User Perspective ........ 67 Company Operations Managers ................................................................................ 67 Customer RPM ........................................................................................................... 68 Company Resource Organization Managers ............................................................. 69 Program Managers (and Project Management Office Managers) ............................ 69 Project Managers ....................................................................................................... 69 Project Team Members .............................................................................................. 70 Website Organization ................................................................................................ 72 Obtaining your Project Websites ............................................................................ 73 Project Websites Improve the Efficiency of Teaming ........................................... 73 Project Website Templates ........................................................................................ 75 Key Website Features ................................................................................................ 76 Project Correspondence Log ...................................................................................... 77 Company and Client Policies that Prohibit Public Access to Project Information ......................................................................................... 81 Identify Website Location: Intranet or Extranet. The Extranet Options Might be Provided by Your Company, and is the Only Option Provided by a Web-Hosting Provider ................................................................................ 83
Contents vii Which Project Team Members Will Function as “Site Administrators?” ........................................................................................ 84 Three-Tier Website Structure: PMO, Base, Project Task Orders .......................... 84 Organize Project Website to Support Work Plan Development and Other Submittals Required Prior to Field Mobilization ............................................... 85 Develop the Website “Required Records List” for the Project ............................. 86 Teach People How to Map the SharePoint Project Website to Their “My Network Places”, and Use Web Folders Option to Manage Files ............ 89 Assist Analytical Laboratories with SharePoint ..................................................... 90 Partner with Your Government RPM to Provide Private Web Pages to Regulatory Agencies ....................................................................................... 90 Be Patient with Operations Managers and Other Senior Managers ...................... 91 Provide Project Team Members with Three-Ring Binders .................................... 92
Chapter 5: Developing Superior Proposals ......................................................... 95 Contractor Challenges ................................................................................................ 96 Lack of Awareness of Client Execution Plan ......................................................... 97 Limited Pre-RFP Activities ..................................................................................... 97 Lack of Time to Prepare a Proposal ....................................................................... 99 Difficulty Defining and Estimating Project Scope ............................................... 100 Lack of Time for Competitive Bid Process .......................................................... 100 Obtaining Internal Risk Board Approval .............................................................. 101 Providing a Competitive Price .............................................................................. 101 Government Land Mines ......................................................................................... 102 RFP Language that Shifts Legal Risk to the Contractor ...................................... 103 How Governments can Improve the Prices and Value They Obtain on Fixed-Price, Performance-Based MACs ........................................................ 112 Government Goals ................................................................................................. 113 Best Practices ........................................................................................................... 122 BCT Culture Influence on Base Capture Plans .................................................... 122 Contractor Base Capture System .......................................................................... 124 Base Capture Plans ................................................................................................ 125 Site-Specific Capture Process ............................................................................... 127 Proposal Development Process Improvement ......................................................... 128 Learn How Each Government Environmental Service Provider Agency Evaluates Proposals (Grading Process) ............................................... 128 Avoid Using Proposal Content Boilerplates ......................................................... 133 Understand and Effectively Implement the Discriminator Discipline ........................................................................................................... 134 Learn How to Feature the Most Important Win Theme: Flexibility ................... 140 Design Proposal Sections in an “Evaluator-Friendly” Format ............................. 143 Replace the Popular Proposal Development Rule “Feature–Benefit–Proof” with “Feature–Benefit–Caused By–Proof” ....................................................... 144
viii
Contents
Chapter 6: Develop Superior Project Work Plans ............................................. 147 The Five Predictable Stages of the Contractor Technical Document Quality Learning Curve on Major Environmental Restoration Programs ....................... 153 Contract Start up (Time Frame: Basic Contract Award Through Month 6) ............................................................................................................... 153 Cause Drivers ........................................................................................................ 154 Problem Recognition by Client (Month 6–9) ......................................................... 154 Cause Drivers ........................................................................................................ 155 Contractor Response and Recovery Plan Development (Month 9–12) .................. 155 Cause Drivers ........................................................................................................ 156 Improvement Phase (Month 12–24) ........................................................................ 156 Cause Drivers ........................................................................................................ 157 Breakthrough (Month 36–60) .................................................................................. 157 Cause Drivers ........................................................................................................ 157 Summary .................................................................................................................. 158 Lessons Learned and Best Practice Recommendations for Contractors ................ 159 Screen New Employee Candidates for Their Technical Writing Skills .............. 159 Accurately Estimate Work Plans and Other Technical Documents .................... 160 Approach Technical Documents with the Same Degree of Commitment as Proposals ................................................................................. 162 Sample Project Work Plan Development Interfaces ............................................... 163 Sample Work Plan Development Process Flow ..................................................... 165 Inadequate Project Manager Planning Usually Leads to Various Inefficiencies .... 166 Managing Technical Document Development (Assignments, Tracking, and Status) ............................................................................................................ 169 Technical Document (and Work Plan) Process Development Guidelines ............................................................................................................ 172 Technical Authorship and Reviewer Guidelines During Document Preparation and Technical Reviews .................................................................... 174 Guidelines for Executive Summary for Final Reports ............................................ 175 Establish Final Report Structure, Content, and Assignments Before the Project Mobilizes ........................................................................................ 177 Leadership Commitment ....................................................................................... 177
Chapter 7: Implement Rigorous Scope Management Tools ................................. 179 Process Overview ..................................................................................................... 183 Base-Wide Risk Register ......................................................................................... 186 Project Scope Register ............................................................................................. 186 Scope Variance Communication Log ...................................................................... 188 Contract Scope Mutual Understanding Meeting ..................................................... 190 Key Takeaway Points: Flexible Project Scope Management ................................. 191 Why are Government ER Service Providers Using These Fixed-Price, Performance-Based Multiple Award Contracts (PB-MACs) on Poorly Defined ER Scopes? ............................................................................................ 192
Contents ix
Award Fee Is Not a Project Team Motivator ......................................................... 193 Base Tenant Clients Tend to Be Naı¨ve with Project Scope ................................ 194 The Critical Importance of Timely Notification in Response to Problems ......... 195 Role of the Field Work Variance ............................................................................ 196 Field Work Variance Process .................................................................................. 197 Request for Information ........................................................................................... 199 Managing Scope on Government Cost-Reimbursable Contracts for Environmental Remediation Services ................................................................. 200 Hypothetical Case Study: The Production-Driven Contractor ............................. 200 Misconception: Cost-Reimbursable Contracts Make It Easier to Manage Scope ............................................................................................... 205
Chapter 8: Effectively Control Field Work ....................................................... 207 Option 1: Develop Simplified QC Plan Based on a Popular Quality Standard ..... 208 Option 2: Try Implementing the Three Phases of Control ..................................... 208 Welcome to Environmental Project Work .............................................................. 211 Three phases of control ¼ Three phases of effective supervision ....................... 212 What do my supervisors do? ................................................................................. 212 What is a supervisor according to the Ontario ministry of labour? ..................... 213 Break the project scope into tasks ........................................................................ 213 Develop, Implement, and Improve Checklists ..................................................... 218 Project Task Leader Involvement, Assignment, and Turnover ............................ 219 Project Organization .............................................................................................. 222 Lean Contractor project organizations .................................................................. 222 Task Leader QC Involvement ................................................................................. 224 Guidelines for assigning Task Leader/QC/SSHO Specialists .............................. 225 Procedures for Performing the Three Phases of Control ........................................ 226 QC Documentation ................................................................................................ 228 Project QC Forms that Support the Three Phases of Control Process ................... 229 Preparatory Phase Checklist .................................................................................. 229 Common Pitfalls ...................................................................................................... 229 Sample Project Team Interfaces .............................................................................. 230 Effectively Planning and Implementing the Three Phases of Control for Subcontracted Work ....................................................................................... 232
Chapter 9: Implement Cause Analysis to Generate Solutions.............................. 235 Practical Applications for Cause Analysis on Environmental Projects .................. 238 Quality Control and Quality Assurance ................................................................ 239 Safety ..................................................................................................................... 240 Project Management .............................................................................................. 240 Response to Client Contract Deficiencies ............................................................ 241 Proposal Development .......................................................................................... 241 Screening Issues for Significance ............................................................................ 242 Root Cause Analysis Misconceptions ..................................................................... 244 Role of Cause Analysis in Risk Management ........................................................ 245
x
Contents
Cause Analysis Methods .......................................................................................... 246 Cause Analysis Fundamentals ................................................................................. 248 Step 1: Define the Problem ................................................................................... 248 Step 2: Map Causes ............................................................................................... 251 Step 3: Identify and Implement Solutions ............................................................ 258 Hypothetical Case Study: Expansion Joint Rupture ............................................... 259 Understanding Ishikawa (Fishbone) Diagram Limitations for Cause Analysis ..... 259 The Influence of Culture on Project Team Actions and Inactions ......................... 260 How Environmental Project Cultures Evolve ......................................................... 261 Client Project Managers Develop Loyalty Towards the Contractor Project Manager and Project Team People: Not the Company Brand ............ 262 Cultural Factors Commonly Emerge During Cause Analysis ................................ 262 Role of the “Mental Risk Register” ........................................................................ 263 Mechanistic Approaches to Work ........................................................................... 264 Base Cleanup Team Culture ................................................................................. 265 Hypothetical Case Study: Hazardous Waste Treatment Plant ................................ 268 Sample Cause Analysis Plan ................................................................................... 271 How to Build Higher Level Support for Cause Analysis .................................... 272 Introductory Cause Analysis Awareness Training .................................................. 272
Chapter 10: Design User-Friendly Work Processes for Project Teams................. 275 Process Attribute Descriptions ................................................................................ 277 Helps Company Qualify for Contract Opportunities ............................................ 277 Enables Program and Project Teams to Pass Audits ............................................ 278 Protects Company from Litigation ....................................................................... 278 Provides Users with Timely Recognition of High Risk Conditions and Unacceptable Results (e.g. Information and Data) .......................................... 279 Captures Performance Improvement Metrics ....................................................... 281 Process Ownership by Program or Project Team ................................................. 283 Effective Processes Shift Focus from Procedure Narrative to the Process Summary and Procedure Components .............................................................. 285 Five-Phase Process Design Improvement Approach .............................................. 288 Phase 1: Segment Procedure Components into Separate Document Control Units ..................................................................................................... 288 Phase 2: Priortize Procedures for Improvement ................................................... 290 Phase 3: Improve Forms or Checklists (for Each Process) .................................. 290 Phase 4: Create Process Summary (for Each Process) ......................................... 292 Phase 5: Improve Procedure Visuals and Training Aids ..................................... 292 User-Friendly Work Packages .............................................................................. 293
Index ............................................................................................................ 297
CHAPTER 1
Best Practices for Environmental Project Teams The goal of Best Practices for Environmental Project Teams is to help Contractor project teams continuously improve competitiveness and performance on environmental restoration (ER) projects. This book is primarily directed at project team members such as Project Managers, Engineers, Geologists, Chemists, and resource staff who support one or more project teams (e.g. QC Managers, Health and Safety Managers). Best practices described in this book can be implemented by smaller Contractors who directly compete with larger Contractors. They can also help specialty subcontractors seeking to team with large or small prime Contractors. Contractor-perspective insights can help Government Environmental Restoration Service Providers obtain lower prices and better value for their ER funds, and help regulatory agencies support ER continuous improvement. The United States Department of Defense (DoD) is the most influential driver of change, competition, and continuous improvement in our industry. They are the largest global buyer of ER services. For over three decades, they pushed the “bleeding edge” of ER cleanups within the complex and rigid legal framework. DoD has amassed the most global experience in their ongoing pursuit of best value cleanup. They have spent billions of public tax dollars over this time period. Through 30 September 2009, DoD identified 21,333 Installation Restoration Program (IRP) sites and 86% of these sites are designated as “Response Complete” [Defense Environmental Restoration Program’s Annual Report to Congress, Fiscal Year 2009 (April 2010)]. DoD estimates the cost-to-complete (CTC) for IRP sites to be 6.4 billion USD and 3.8 billion USD for the emerging Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP) cleanup. This body of experience represents thousands of mistakes and lessons learned. In 2002, DoD Component agencies (e.g. Air Force, Army, and Navy) tasked with ER began changing their acquisition strategy to foster broad competition for contracts. They continuously improved their methods of contracting to obtain lower prices for services and began shifting risk to Contractors. The increasing competition to win contracts led to lower Contractor bids, much leaner project team staffing, lower profit margins, and higher risk. One project plagued with problems and cost overruns can quickly erase the profits from several projects that have achieved project objectives and satisfied the customer. Contractor senior managers are now asking, “How can we win more contracts and avoid disaster projects that erase slim profits from other projects?”
Best Practices for Environmental Project Teams. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-444-53721-8.00001-4 # 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1
2
Chapter 1
This book summarizes ER best practices based on lessons learned over a 15-year period, from my DoD Contractor perspective as a practitioner at the programme management level. Collectively, the ER Contractor community contributed to accelerating the DoD learning curve with numerous mistakes and process improvements. We have made more mistakes in our industry than any other global industry in the world – not because we are less capable or committed to success. We work in the most complex industry in the world. Variability is the norm, which is why experienced DoD ER Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) are the most skeptical professionals in the world. Beware of the Contractor proposal that assumes everything will go as planned. Each ER project is different due to the complex mix of variables (contracts, regulatory requirements, contaminants, geology, and technologies). U.S. taxpayer funds have been put to good use. Our ecosystem is a safer and cleaner place due to our life-long contributions and commitment to continuous improvement. Other Governments, their Government ER Service Provider organizations, regulatory agencies, project teams, and academia can capitalize on lessons learned and best practices featured in this book. This chapter provides a historical overview of the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) and lessons learned, including editorial viewpoints from my Contractor perspective. It concludes with a summary of environmental project team challenges and best practice topics covered by Chapters 2 through 10.
Historical Overview of the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) and Lessons Learned The United States Department of Defense (DoD) began their Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) in the 1980s under the Installation Restoration Program. The DoD Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health Network and Information Exchange (DENIX) website contains a comprehensive library of historical documents. This section draws heavily upon the DERP Annual Reports to Congress from 1995 to 2009 including lessons learned from my Contractor perspective. The DoD has done an outstanding job of documenting the DERP journey. The DERP Annual Report to Congress, FY 1997, contains a graphic that describes the “Evolution of the Defense Environmental Restoration Program” (see Figure 1.1). In previous decades prior to the 1970s, the DoD, along with the United States Department of Energy (DoE), was polluting their facilities, land, and groundwater with the same lack of awareness as many corporations. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency started business on December 2, 1970a. According to the EPA website, “EPA was established to consolidate in one agency a variety of federal a
http://www.epa.gov/history
Best Practices for Environmental Project Teams 3
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established
Environmental Legislation and Regulations
1970 Many years of operations before environmental practices are understood and regulated
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) enacted
1976 Executive Order 12316 signed, delegating responsibility for conducting CERCLA response actions to federal agencies
1980
Hazardous and Soild Waste Amendments enacted (amended RCRA)
CERCLA enacted 1984
SARA enacted (formally established DERP)
DoD centralized Environmental Restoration Program in its infancy: DERA established
1986
Secretary of the Army designated as the executive agent for FUDS properties
Early years of DERP: period of tremendous change and reaccomplishment of previous studies to meet new statutory requirements
DoD Activities
Executive Order 12580 signed, delegating CERCLA authority to DoD Defense Base Realignment and Closure Act of 1988 and 1990
1988
1990
DERP matures: period of rapid growth, lessons learned, accomplishments, and accelerated strategies and initiatives in response to base closures
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan revisions promulgated Oil Pollution Act revisions promulgated 1994
Maintaining DERP momentum and stability with reduced funding: development and application of a risk-based approach to sequencing work
National Defense Authorization Act of 1997 enacted, requiring devolvement of DERA funds 1997
Successful devolvement of DERA funds from the Office of the Secretary of Defense to individual Components (except the Defense Logistics Agency and the Defense Special Weapons Agency)
The Road to Site Closeout
Figure 1.1 Evolution of the Defense Environmental Restoration Program.
research, monitoring, standard-setting, and enforcement activities to ensure environmental protection. EPA’s mission is to protect human health and to safeguard the natural environment – air, water, and land – upon which life depends. For more than 30 years, the EPA has been working for a cleaner, healthier environment for the American people”. In 1980, Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as Superfund. This law requires responsible parties to clean up releases of hazardous substances in the environment. The 1986 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) refined and expanded CERCLA, and formally
4
Chapter 1
established DERP and funding for the programme through the Defense Environmental Restoration Account (DERA). RCRA and CERCLA were written before any significant DoD and industry ER site cleanup experience was gained. The popular U.S. slang expression for this is “putting the cart ahead of the horse”. U.S. laws are drafted and available for public comment. However, at that time, nobody knew if the environmental legal framework would enable an efficient process and approach for implementing site cleanups. Strict Government and Contractor compliance with these laws paved the way for project work plans that would be voluminous, detailed, inflexible, and costly to change. The laws required an interactive process with various timeconsuming regulatory agency document reviews. The laws also required public involvement and comment. Nobody would disagree with the necessity of engaging public involvement. But it adds more time to the process. Government attorneys review documents before they are provided to the regulatory agencies. The legal process is rigid, time-consuming, and assumes a static and predictable site cleanup process. During the 1980s, Congress recognized that DoD no longer needed some of its installations and subsequently authorized five rounds of base realignment and closure (BRAC) in 1988, 1991, 1993, 1995, and 2005. DoD activities from 1975 to 1995 focused on searching for contaminated properties, studying the problems, and writing reports. Figure 1.2 shows the level of funding from 1984 to 1997, including the amount funded to BRAC.
Figure 1.2 The level of funding from 1984 to 1997. Source: Defense Environmental Restoration Program Annual Report to Congress, FY 1997.
Best Practices for Environmental Project Teams 5
National Economic Stimulus The multi-billion dollar projected cost-to-complete DoD and DoE cleanup that emerged in the late 1980s and early 1990s created a new “environmental cleanup industry” that attracted several large corporations. Corporations and small businesses made substantial investments into “innovative site cleanup technologies”. At that time, the industry had an aura of “gold-rush” prospecting because Government and corporations were looking for “silver-bullet” technology remedies. Many optimists perceived that if the United States can put a man on the moon, then certainly we could meet the challenge of developing innovative technologies to clean up contamination. A variety of speciality subcontractors and analytical laboratories targeted the growing ER industry. Rapid economic growth corresponded with cyclical downturns and downsizing in domestic industries, such as petroleum exploration, nuclear power plant construction, and aerospace. National symposia and conferences attracted scientists, engineers, and regulatory professionals from other countries who were committed to cleaning up contaminated sites. Universities were caught off guard by the rapid emergence of the environmental cleanup industry. Good professional salaries, interesting projects, extensive research and development, and working outdoors in scenic locations offered very appealing career opportunities for scientists and engineers. The resultant high corporate demand lured many scientists and engineers to join companies that were positioning their capabilities and resources to help clean up the environment. Professionals who transferred from other industries leveraged their experience and college educations in Geology, Chemistry, Engineering, and Biology. To this day, very few senior professionals in our industry began their college education with the goal of doing this type of work, and most take pride in contributing to a cleaner earth.
DoD Pressure to Decrease Studies and Increase Site Cleanups In the mid-1990’s, the U.S. Congress, public, and communities threatened or impacted by contaminated DoD properties thought too much funding was being spent on “studies” and not enough on “site cleanups”. The DERP was under pressure to transition the programme towards accelerated site cleanup. The Defense Environmental Restoration Program Annual Report to Congress, FY 1995, contains the following quote from President Bill Clinton: “Environmental experts from EPA, DoD, and the state will work together, and a professional cleanup team will be stationed at every site.” –President Clinton, July 1993
The 1995, Defense Environmental Restoration Program Annual Report to Congress, FY 1995, describes a series of monumental changes to the DERP, such as “Accelerating Cleanup”,
6
Chapter 1
“Fast-track Cleanup Moves Ahead”, and “Strengthening the Program”. DoD published highlights of its continuous self-evaluation efforts in a report entitled Fast-Track Cleanup, Successes and Challenges, 1993–1995.
Measuring Performance DoD developed “Measures of Merit” to measure progress towards goals. Newly developed measures provided crucial feedback needed to develop and adjust programme requirements and budget projections, as well as determine whether established goals reflected fiscal reality. Three separate categories of Measures of Merit were developed to assess site remediation progress from one discrete time period to the next, generally at the end of each fiscal year: Relative Risk Reduction. This measurement applied only to DERA and BRAC sites that were ranked using the relative risk site evaluation framework. DoD classified sites as having a high, medium, or low relative risk; response complete; or no further action required. Progress at sites. Gauging the progress of restoration efforts was still a critical measure that required status reports on particular phases of investigation, design, cleanup, or response complete determinations at specific sites. Milestones Accomplished. This Measure of Merit tracked the number of sites where cleanup action had been taken and relative risk had been reduced in one or more media. This measure of merit was applied to sites funded by both the DERA and BRAC accounts to provide another view of the progress in the restoration programme. Measures of Merit allowed DoD to more accurately measure and report progress towards cleanup goals as well as fundamental efforts to protect human health and the environment. Measures of Merit were hailed by DoD as a “breakthrough initiative that greatly enhanced DoD’s ability to monitor the performance and progress of the restoration program”. Figure 1.3 is a common graphic used by DoD to show the relationship between DoD Installation Restoration Program Phases/Milestones with EPA CERCLA Phases/Milestones. (Defense Environmental Restoration Program Annual Report to Congress, FY 2009.) DoD ER performance metrics were inconsistent with EPA performance metrics. DoD, under significant pressure to accelerate cleanup and demonstrate progress, forged ahead without EPA. The only measures that had merit from the EPA perspective were those established by law: CERCLA and RCRA. Table 1.1, compares DoD, RCRA, and CERCLA Phases, Milestones, and Terminology. It shows the inconsistencies that exist between Remedy-in-Place and Site Closeout. Note how “Site Closeout” is not recognized by CERCLA.
Best Practices for Environmental Project Teams 7
Figure 1.3 DoD CERCLA environmental restoration phases and milestones.
DoD Contracting Obstacles to Accelerating Cleanup From 1994 to 1999, DoD components (Army, Navy, and Air Force) felt significant public and congressional pressure to transition a higher percentage of their ER budgets from studies to site cleanup. Each was using large cost plus award fee (CPAF) contracts to execute the site cleanup phase on their multi-billion dollar environmental restoration programmes (5 year contract term at 200–250 million USD). In the era of large CPAF contracts, the Government paid the Contractor to establish a Program Management Organization (PMO) to interface with the Government and assist with accelerating studies to cleanup. DoD Component ER Service Provider organizations were approaching site cleanup with a construction industry model, which backfired miserably on ER projects. The construction model caused sites to get bogged down in the study phase due to the substantial time and effort commonly expended investigate and characterize the site, followed by developing prescriptive technical packages for site cleanup (e.g. reports, design drawings, maps, and specifications). Many technical packages were impressively well written, elaborate packages based on a limited number of analytical samples that were unrepresentative of site contamination (e.g. plume characteristics). The cleanup phase was commonly based on numerous erroneous technical
8
Chapter 1 Table 1.1 Comparison of DoD, RCRA, and CERCLA Phases, Milestones, and Terminology DoD IRP Phases/Milestones
EPA RCRA Phases/Milestones Closure and Post-Closure Permits (Waste in Place)
Source: Department of Defense Reporting Conventions (Restoration Management Information System; Management Guidance for DERP)
Source: 40 CFR Chapter I, Parts 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265 and 270
Site Discovery
Part A/Part B Permit Notification
APPLIES TO REGULATED UNITS
PA/SI Completion
EPA CERCLA Phases/Milestones
Corrective Action Source: RCRIS Data Element Dictionary, January 1995 APPLIES TO SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT UNITS (COULD INCLUDE REGULATED UNITS)
Sources: National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP);EPA Reporting Guidance
Site Discovery RCRA Facility Assessment
Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection Completion
National Corrective Action Prioritization System (NCAPS)
Hazard Ranking System (HRS) National Priorities List (NPL)
Remedial Investigation (RI)
Closure Plan and Post-Closure Permit Application
Interim Remedial Action
RCRA Facility Investigation Imposed Remedial Investigation (RI) by Permit or Order Interim/Stabilization Measures
Interim Remedial Action (IRA)/ Early Action
Feasibility Study (FS)
Relative Risk Reduction Feasibility Study (FS)
Closure Plan
Corrective Action Plan (CAP), Corrective Measures Study (CMS)
Record of Decision
Closure Plan Approval and Post Closure Permit Issuance
Statement of Basis/Corrective Action Decision (CAD)
Remedial Design (RD)
Closure Plan Implementation and Groundwater Cleanup
Public Comment
Remedial Design (RD)
Remedial Action (RA)
Remedial Action Start
Remedial Action Construction (RA-C) Remedy in Place (RIP)
Record of Decision
Closure Certification
Corrective Measures Implementation Plan
Remedial Action Start through Completion
Certification of Remedy Completion or Construction Complete
Remedial Action Completion
Last Remedy in Place (LRIP)
NPL Site Construction Completion/ Preliminary Close Out Report [all OUs/entire installation]
Remedial Action Operation (RA-O)
Remedial Action (RA) or Operation & Maintenance (O&M) [depending on remedy] Final RA Report [individual sites/OUs] or NPL Site Completion/Final Close Out Report [all OUs/entire installation]
Response Complete (RC)
NPL Deletion Long Term Monitoring
Site Closeout
Post Closure Permit
Operation and Maintenance
Terminate or Reissue 10 Year PostClosure Permit
Five Year Review as needed
Post-Closure Permit Expiration
Corrective Action Process Terminated
assumptions regarding the type and volume of site contamination, and many CPAF contracts experienced continual scope changes and scope growth. Contractors would not earn award fee on the value of scope growth, which usually amounted to 8–10% of the physical progress. The Navy established a front-end Contractor role similar to an Architect–Engineer (AE), known as the CLEAN Contractor, to investigate and characterize the site, and then (if sites required
Best Practices for Environmental Project Teams 9 cleanup) develop technical package deliverables for the Navy (design drawings, maps, plans, specifications). CLEAN was a misnomer acronym because the role resembled STUDY – not site cleanup. The Navy bundled the technical package deliverables in the Request for Proposal (RFP) for a separate Remedial Action Contract (RAC). The CLEAN as AE role quickly changed when the Navy realized the approach consumed too much time and lacked flexibility. For example, the time and effort required to characterize the site and develop the technical package deliverables commonly exceeded the time and effort to clean up the contaminated site. Thus, the RAC Contractor role evolved into a design–build Contractor for site cleanups, and the scopes of work for cost-reimbursable cleanup evolved to become “performance based”. Performance-based contracts did not prescribe “how” to clean up sites. They contained enough site characterization information for the RAC Contractor to develop design–build technical packages and work plans, supported by technical assumptions to define contract scope, contamination types, and quantities. RAC Contractors started to augment their constructionoriented workforce with scientists and engineers to review site characterization data, evaluate technology options, and develop work plans for design–build field execution. The Navy emphasized getting into the field. By giving the RAC Contractor design–build freedom and responsibility, site cleanups could be started sooner. Also, removing the AE oversight role enabled the Navy Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) to deal directly with the RAC Contractor. Costly contract modifications and change orders were minimized.
DoD Component Competition The U.S. Government DoD Component Service Provider (Army, Navy, and Air Force) competition started on 1 October 1996, when DoD Components became responsible for restoration programme execution at their respective installations. The Defense Environmental Restoration Program, Annual Report to Congress (FY 1997) documented the competition with individual DoD Component reporting supplements, each entitled “DERP FY1997 Report Competition – (Insert DoD Component Name) Cleanup Status and Progress”. Each reported their cleanup progress relative to the same metrics. This competition was excellent timing for Contractors anxious to start site cleanup. The DoD components were under substantial pressure to start cleaning up sites. They listened to Contractor recommendations on how to streamline the studies and accelerate the schedule to start cleanup. Along the way, Contractors and the Government learned some tough lessons.
Single Technology Focus Many Contractor project teams frequently assumed a single technology (i.e. remedy) would be effective in cleaning up site contamination. This single-remedy approach (e.g. excavation, thermal treatment) was sometimes effective for leaking Underground Storage Tank (UST) sites
10
Chapter 1
involving shallow soil contamination. But it backfired on sites containing more complex geology, groundwater contamination, and certain contaminants of concern (C of Cs). UST sites with shallow soil contamination provided Contractors and Government ER Service Providers with many early wins for accelerating site cleanup. The Contractor project team single technology focus extended to a narrow focus on the physical site cleanup, with a lack of consideration to developing the final report during field execution. Contractors were narrowly focused on cleaning up the physical contamination, not developing data and documents that would be essential for a high quality final report deliverable. Contractors were commonly not focused on exit strategies and site closeout, and this extended to Government ER Service Provider RPMs. Government ER Service Provider initiatives to accelerate site cleanup focused on two things: (1) maximizing the amount of funds spent on cleanup and (2) maximizing the number of Remedies-in-Place. Generating multiple site exit strategies and achieving site closeouts were not the goals.
“Silver-Bullet” Technologies Contractors and technology subcontractors pitched their “silver-bullet” innovative technologies to Government ER Service Provider RPMs. Technology capabilities were frequently overstated in proposals, and project work plans assumed the selected technology would achieve remedial action objectives. Many Government ER Service Providers Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) started to become skeptical of embellished technology claims because the norm was technology underperformance or failure.
Poor Technical Document Quality The sense of urgency to get to the field and accelerate site cleanup caused Contractors to rush the development of project work plans. Work plans were frequently sloppy and required extensive Government review. They commonly had mis-spelt words, gaps in logic, poor formatting, and led to numerous Government and regulatory agency comments seeking clarification. Many Government ER Service Providers Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) became irritated with Contractors and downgraded their award fee. Many Contractors Project Managers were critical of the document quality “nit-picking” because they claimed their project teams did not need professional quality technical publications with perfect grammar to clean up sites. Bear in mind that many Contractor project teams engaged in cleanup consisted of numerous construction and earthwork veterans who did not perceive the need for high quality project work plans. To them, it did not matter if the project work plan contained incorrect correct regulatory terminology and acronyms – those things had no bearing on their site cleanup needs.
Best Practices for Environmental Project Teams 11 Many Government ER Service Providers Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) and regulatory agencies had very high document quality expectations that arose from the era of gold-plated study documents. Consequently, most Contractors, feeling the pain of their award fee downgrades, began to hire away professional geologists, engineers, and chemists and Contractors engaged in studies. They desperately needed to build a staff of scientists and professionals who could write design-build project works plans and other technical documents.
Bigger Is Better The DoD ER push to accelerate site cleanup fed the Contractor desire for “bigness”. Bigger technology was better. Bigger technology meant faster and cheaper site cleanup. Bigger meant more yellow-iron, bigger Soil Vapor Extraction Systems, and bigger thermal treatment units. It did not take long for everyone to realize that bigger was not better, and meant a bigger bust when technologies underperformed. Many erroneous technical assumptions were routinely made regarding site conditions that decreased technology effectiveness. In the pursuit of accelerated cleanup, many Contractors constructed full-scale remedial action systems that were overkill for the site, without any thought given to optimization (predated optimization concept). One of these large scale projects in 1996 involved a young Navy RPM in San Diego by the name of Mr. Richard Mach Jr. He was assigned to manage a full-scale Soil Vapor Extraction project at an active Navy installation in San Diego. It was a huge SVE system and it was burning through his project budget quickly. His project performance evaluations had a recurring “technology optimization theme”, and he downgraded project performance evaluations for not recognizing and implementing optimization opportunities in a timely manner. He built on his RPM experience and helped teams to develop the technical optimization guidelines for the Navy. Mr. Mach went on to become a significant driver for technology optimization in the DoD ER industry.
DERP ER Programs Shifts Focus to “Site Closeout” The Defense Environmental Restoration Program, Annual Report to Congress (FY 1997) was the first report to establish a focus on “site closeout”. The introduction conveys the shift: “In reporting on the DERP’s status in FY97, the focus is on the road to Site Closeout”. The report contains a section entitled, “The Road to Site Closeout”, which states, After more than a decade of effort and billions of dollars of expenditures, the Defense Department’s environmental cleanup program is moving with increasing rapidity toward
12
Chapter 1 Site Closeout at a majority of its installations and sites. The initial focus of the program was on finding the sites with problems (site identification), deciding how best to handle cleanup at these sites (remedy selection), determining which sites to clean up first (risk-based prioritization), and beginning the cleanup process (remediation design and beginning construction). Today the Department’s progress can be measured by the number of Remedies in Place (RIP) and the number of sites categorized as Response Complete (RC), which indicate that sites are reaching the last milestones in the often lengthy cleanup process. The phrase “Road to Site Closeout” highlights DOD’s objective of completing the cleanup program.
Figure 1.4 shows the relationship of these milestones, and shows response complete and site closeout can take place at any time during the process.
New DERP ER Emphasis on “Remedial Process Optimization” The Defense Environmental Restoration Program Annual Report to Congress (FY2002), Identifying and Implementing Expedited Remediation Approaches, introduced the concept of Remedial Process Optimization. It states: DoD strives to maximize limited program resources by conducting environmental restoration activities in the most efficient and expedient manner possible. One tool that has been extremely helpful in evaluating and improving site remediation processes so that maximum risk reduction is achieved for each dollar spent is remedial process optimization. Remedial process optimization is a systematic, iterative process that assesses remediation efforts to enhance technical effectiveness and reduce overall site cleanup costs. This process evaluates remedial processes for overall system effectiveness, taking alternative remedial approaches and new technologies into consideration. Remedial process optimization offers multiple benefits, including the evaluation of remedial progress through data collection and
Remedy in Place Remedial Action Construction
Response Complete Remedial Action Operations
Site Closeout Long-Term Monitoring
Start Milestone Complete
Figure 1.4 The relationship of these milestones.
Best Practices for Environmental Project Teams 13 established cleanup goals; the acceleration of site transfer; reduced operation, monitoring, and maintenance costs; and superior protection of human health and the environment. Remedial process optimization is cyclical in nature and is designed to ensure that cleanup goals are met fully and efficiently.
“Red and Unsustainable Remediation?” Shortly after the turn of the century, DoD Component leaders started evaluating funding allocation trends from 1998 to 2001 and became alarmed at the increasing percentage of DERP ER funds consumed to simply sustain remedies in place, such as pump and treat. The total cost to operate and maintain installed remedies (i.e. sustain remedies), combined with the total DoD Component programme support cost, was rapidly increasing. For many installed remedies, The Road to Site Closeout had no end in sight. If this trend continued, the DERP ER Program would become unsustainable – annual DERP funds for each DoD Component will be consumed by Program Support combined with the open commitments (cost) to operate and maintain passive Remedies-in-Place.
DoD Components Expedite Technology Optimization Policies The DERP published Management Guidance for the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP), in September 2001. Section 20 gave DoD components the requirement to establish technology optimization policies. It requires DoD Components to continually optimize remedies. Following issuiance of this document, leaders from each DoD Component started developing their respective technology optimization policies and technical guidance documents. For example, the Navy issued a 1 October 2003 policy memo that stated the following: As the Navy/Marine Corps have progressed through implementation of the Installation Restoration (IR) Program and begun the Munitions Response (MR) Program, many sites have advanced through the remedy evaluation, selection, design, and construction phases and are undergoing Remedial Action Operation (RAO) and Long Term Management (LTMgt). This has shifted a growing proportion of the available Environmental Restoration Navy (ERN) and Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) funds to these long-term site cleanup commitments. Continued monitoring of many of these remedies has indicated that remedies selected are not meeting cleanup objectives as planned. Further evaluation of specific sites has revealed several areas where optimization efforts could be applied to ensure the most appropriate remedies are screened, evaluated, selected, designed, and properly operated/maintained, and that options are available to modify systems to ensure cleanup objectives are met in a timely, cost effective manner. These results prompted the need for further optimization direction. Section 20 of the Management Guidance for Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP), September 2001, requires the Components to
14
Chapter 1 continually optimize remedies. This policy outlines the Navy/Marine Corps efforts to be conducted to ensure all remedies are continually optimized through evaluation of all available data at each phase of the project.
The Navy Policy also contained a “Special Technical Issue”: Since 1998, Navy, other DoD Components, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have been conducting evaluations of the effectiveness of “pump and treat” systems to address groundwater contamination. Consensus of all parties is that pump and treat systems are rarely the optimal alternative for groundwater response actions. Therefore, any plans to install new pump and treat systems on Navy and Marine Corps installations requires approval from Headquarters (HQ) at the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC). This requirement applies to all “pump and treat” systems (remedial and removal actions) where groundwater is removed from the sub-surface by pumping or other means, treated above ground in any way, and discharged in any way (i.e. off site disposal, sewer systems, re-injected, etc.). In order to receive the NAVFAC HQ approval, the IR Manager shall forward a summary of the site background, the conceptual site model (CSM), the remedial action objectives, a listing of the technologies screened for the site, a summary of the alternatives analysis, and a statement of why “pump and treat” is the most appropriate technology to be used at the site, including a life cycle cost analysis (net present value and total site cost) and exit strategy. NAVFAC HQ will provide a written approval/dis-approval response to the IR Manager based on review of this submittal.
DoD ER Components wanted RPMs and Contractors to adopt an “exit strategy” mentality. The new Government philosophy could be summed up as follows, “We value site closure and property transfer . . . tell us the exit strategy to achieve site closure as soon as possible”. Flexible Contractor technical approaches and the ability to articulate exit strategies became the common Contractor proposal win theme. This influenced the RPM perception of best value. Contractor proposals, project work plans and regulatory documents evolved from a short-term focus on achieving “Remedy in Place” to a flexible technical approach to achieve site closure. The transition to “Performance-Based Multiple Award Contracts” with an emphasis on optimization reinforced the importance of a flexible approach to managing project scope. The DoD Navy Component “Optimization Work Group”, led by Mr. Richard Mach, drafted the 1 October 2003 Navy optimization policy and published the following optimization guidelines that can be downloaded for no cost on the Navy (NAVFAC) website: • • • • •
Guide to Optimal Groundwater Monitoring (February 2000) Guidance for Optimizing Remedial Action Operations (April 2001) DON Groundwater Pump and Treat Systems Special Publication (February 2003) Guidance for Optimizing Remeday Evaluation, Selection and Design (March 2010) Department of the Navy Guidance to Documenting Milestones Throughout the Site Closeout Process (March 2006)
Best Practices for Environmental Project Teams 15 Guidance for Optimizing Remedy Evaluation, Selection and Design was first published in April 2004 and was recently updated. It was groundbreaking work that introduced numerous optimization concepts and guidelines. It described the “Treatment Train Concept”, and provided examples of how exit strategies can be developed for each target treatment zone. It sensitized project teams to the economics of remediation. It also introduced guidelines for developing a “Flexible Record of Decision (ROD)”.
New DoD ER Acquisition Strategy The (2002 to Present) emphasis on technology optimization corresponded with a major shift in DoD ER Component Acquisition Strategy. The DoD Acquisition Strategy shift started in 2002. CPAF contracts produced reasonable and consistent profits with negligible risk for a few large Contractors. Consequently, many smaller Contractors lobbied the U.S. Congress that the environmental restoration programme had become a welfare programme for large business (it did not matter that most CPAF contracts required over 60% of the work to be subcontracted among small businesses). Congress, in turn, directed the DoD to spread the environmental restoration workload and dollars to more Contractors, with an emphasis on small business Contractors. DoD components responded by scaling back CPAF contracts. They changed their acquisition strategy to involve more Small Business Contractors, increase competition, and create aggressive goals for using fixed price contracts. The DoD Components emphasis shifted to Performance-Based Contracting, as described in the Federal Acquisition Regulations, Part 37, Service Contracting. Specifically, Subpart 37.6 pertains to Performance-Based Contracting. One very popular contract vehicle to emerge was the fixed price Performance-Based, Multiple Award Contract (PB-MAC). On PB-MACs, the Government starts with an open competition among Contractors for a “seat at the table”. PB-MACs are competed as Unrestricted (Large Business), or Small Business. The objective is to hire three to six Contractors who will compete with each other on a case by case basis for contract task orders (CTOs) (i.e. projects) DoD components who were accustomed to working with three to five large Contractors and their funded “Program Management Offices (PMOs)” prior to 2002 were suddenly dealing with 25–35 Contractors including many small businesses with no PMOs. Proposal evaluations became routine. PB-MAC Requests for Proposal (RFPs) feature a “performance based” statement of work, also known as a Performance Work Statement (PWS). The PWS summarizes desired project objectives, important schedule milestones, deliverables, historical information and data. The PWS includes a table to specify performance standards, results, and metrics. The PWS deliberately avoids prescribing “how” the Contractor shall perform the work. PB-MACs provide competing Contractors with the freedom to formulate a flexible, design–build technical
16
Chapter 1
approach, explain the exit strategies, and “sell” the benefits within the results-oriented PWS framework. The Contractor’s project quality control plan includes procedures for tracking and reporting performance and results relative to the PWS metrics. Contract Task Order values range from 100 K to 30 million USD, with most in the 2–5 million USD range. Total PB-MAC capacity is commonly 100 million USD. Contractors are required to bond the work. Sometimes the selection criterion is best value. In other cases it is low price. The DoD transition to PB-MACs provided Contractors with more flexibility on how to approach proposals, technical approaches, work plans, staffing, and metrics on projects. It also provided Project Managers with more flexibility to make scope adjustments during project execution.
Shift in Government and Contractor Quality Management From the early days of the DERP ER Program, the DoD Components embraced the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers standard for Construction Quality Control. The most fundamental principle was expressed in a simple equation: Contractor QC þ Government QA ¼ Team CQM. Contractor QC referred to the Contractor Quality Control Representative. Government QA referred to the Government Quality Assurance Representative. CQM referred to Construction Quality Management. PB-MACs place 100% CQM responsibility on the Contractor. The new equation evolved into Contractor QC þ Contractor QA ¼ Contractor CQM. With this change, the Government is proclaiming: “We’re not going to exert any effort making sure your performance and results meet contract requirements – that’s your responsibility”. The Government QA role shifts to performance assessment.
Green and Sustainable Remediation EPA published Green Remediation (April 2009) and Superfund Green Remediation Strategy (September 2010) to fuel the green and sustainable remediation movement. On 10 August 2009, the DoD launched their Green and Sustainable Remediation (GSR) Directive, Consideration of Green and Sustainable Remediation Practices in the Defense Environmental Restoration Program. Each DoD ER Component Service Provider started developing GSR guidance documents and tools. For example, the Air Force developed the Sustainable Remediation Tool (SRT). The Navy and Army funded Battelle to develop SiteWise™. EPA and DoD Component representatives participate in industry initiatives such as the Sustainable Remediation Forum (SURF). The Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council (ITRC) established a GSR Team. ER Service Provider organizations commonly develop their own guidelines, “brand” their tools just like corporations, and develop their own acronyms. Many organizations, including the U.S. Federal Government and DoD Components, have embraced GSR. They are working hard to develop guidelines and tools for the ER industry.
Best Practices for Environmental Project Teams 17 In the future, GSR, like technology optimization, will be considered throughout the ER project life cycle to identify opportunities to minimize adverse environmental impacts (e.g. greenhouse gas emissions), natural resource consumption, energy usage, and maximize recycling. For example, DoD ER Components and Contractors will implement the Sustainable Remediation Tool (SRT) or SiteWise™ to screen technology options, starting at the Feasibility study stage. The most intriguing aspect of the global ER GSR initiative is the complete lack of awareness that ISO-14001:2004, Environmental Management System (EMS), provides an ideal framework for effectively implementing GSR on ER projects. Many of these organizations, such as the U.S. federal government, are currently implementing an ISO-14001 EMS [Refer to Defense Environmental Restoration Program Annual Report to Congress (FY2009), Chapter 2, Environmental Management Systems]. According to the report: • • •
DoD achieved full EMS implementation at 70% of its U.S. and overseas appropriate facilities Marine Corps achieved full EMS implementation at 100% of its U.S. appropriate facilities Navy achieved full EMS implementation at 100% of its U.S. and overseas appropriate facilities
Effective implementation of the ISO-14001 EMS prevents pollution and decreases operations costs. DoD Components have existing EMS frameworks. ISO-14001 is the most practical, logical, and cost-effective way to implement GSR. Going one step further: The DERP ER emphasis over the next decade will be annual site-specific life cycle analyses of installed remedies relative to performance objectives. Performance objectives can range from protectiveness to unrestricted site release. The ISO-14001 EMS provides a consistent framework and methodology for effectively implementing the life cycle analysis process, which can incorporate GSR screening. As of this print, DoD Components do not intend to utilize an EMS to implement their installation restoration program.
Contractor Environmental Project Team Challenges Contractors, Project Managers, and their project teams now face several challenges caused by intensified competition and higher risk: •
Performance-Based Multiple Award Contracts (PB-MACs). Statements of work define the project objectives, desired results, and key schedule milestones. Contractors propose their technical approach to achieve the results, outcomes, and schedule. Contractors are uncompensated for PMO key personnel (even though required by contract), proposal development, and face stiff price competition for awards.
•
Compressed site evaluation and proposal development time frames. Contractors commonly receive less than 1 month to evaluate most RFPs, understand site conditions, evaluate potential technical remedies, identify risks, prepare proposals and cost estimates, and
18
Chapter 1 obtain approval from senior management to submit a proposal. This time crunch also makes it very difficult to obtain competitive bids from subcontractors.
•
Proposal development responsibilities. In addition to their “regular jobs”, Project Managers and technical staff are expected to write proposals, obtain input from subcontractors, prepare cost estimates, articulate the risk factors and countermeasures to upper management, and execute the awarded project on schedule and within budget.
•
Remedial Process Optimization (RPO). RPO requires more involvement from scientists and engineers, specialty subcontractors, an increased emphasis on timely data evaluation, and the ability to expedite changes in a safe and controlled manner.
•
Rigorous scope management. A better process, tools, and communication are required to anticipate, perform, and document scope adjustments during field execution.
•
Lean project staff with tighter budgets. The lower bids required to win projects result in fewer project team staff; in turn, fewer staff have expanded responsibilities such as health and safety and quality control.
•
Increased dependency on subcontractors. Leaner staffing may create a higher dependency on subcontractors. Many subcontractors do not pay close attention to the statement of work, lack expertise in quality control, and must be controlled.
•
No independent Customer QA Representative. Contractors can no longer rely on the Customer QA Representative as “a second set of eyes” to make sure contract requirements are met, field staff are adhering to project plans and procedures, nonconforming materials are rejected, reports are reviewed, etc.
•
Early recognition of problems and risk avoidance strategies. Project teams are expected to provide early recognition and timely communication of issues including recommended options. Otherwise, they may be labelled as “reactive” by the customer.
•
Increased emphasis on performance metrics. Contractors are responsible for demonstrating that contract performance and results meet requirements. Otherwise, payments may be delayed or invoices may be marked down.
•
Use of collaborative project websites. Ten years ago, project team members did not envision using collaborative project websites to manage their project tasks, deliverables, and records. Now project teams routinely develop and use websites without assistance from Information Technology specialists. This is a disruptive change to managers and professionals who prefer collaboration by e-mail.
•
Zero tolerance for safety accidents and losing money on a project. In addition to all the challenges listed above, the Contractor Project Manager must run a safe project, and meet the targeted (“as-bid”) profit margin. Winning repeat business substantiates customer satisfaction.
Best Practices for Environmental Project Teams 19 These challenges reflect a maturing industry with stronger competition and higher risk. Environmental project teams are now tasked with a broader range of responsibilities with less staff. As recent as 5 years ago, project teams had dedicated Superintendents, Project Controls Engineers, Project Quality Control Representatives, Project Health and Safety Officers, and Project Accountants. Most Project Managers would also claim they had more technical support and more administrative assistants to help prepare and manage documents and records.
Environmental Restoration Project Manager, Inc. If you are an ER Company Inc. employee who supports several Project Managers, and want to get a good laugh, ask a PM, “How are things going at (PM’s Last Name), Inc.”. Most times you will be greeted with a smile and laugh because that is how they usually feel. They are 100% responsible and accountable for their project team success, and winning follow-up projects. Most PMs would rather have it this way. PMs prevail by thinking and acting like small business owners, and helping their customers meet project objectives. If they are not thinking like small business owners, they need to be. Chapter topics selected for this book target ER Project Manager, Inc., and project team professionals. The Project Manager cannot do it all. Their professional staff need to broaden their skills. For example, in baseball, a five-tool player is one who excels at the following: (1) hitting for average, (2) hitting for power, (3) base running skills and speed, (4) throwing ability, and (5) fielding abilities. Professional baseball players rarely excel at all five. Consequently, five-tool players are highly valued free agents. The same applies for ER professionals. A skill deficiency relative to any chapter topic will decrease your value to ER project teams. PM, Inc. needs someone to provide support on each skill. Why not you? Do not limit your utilization opportunities and ER career to being a two- or three-tool player. Fewer tools cause lower labour utilization. Lower labour utilization means your name will be on the project or Company furlough list when times get tough. Seize the opportunity to increase your value by broadening your skills because you never know when you might need to become a free agent. But if you do, you want your professional resume to appeal to the growing market of PM Inc.’s who are competing to attract and retain talented project team members. This book summarizes a series of best practices based on lessons learned that will help Contractor project teams continuously improve competitiveness and performance on ER projects.
Chapter Overviews Chapter 2: Understand Your Government Client Business Model Each Government Environmental Restoration (ER) Service Provider conducts business differently, even within the same agency. This chapter provides guidelines for profiling and understanding the Government ER Service Provider business model, which dictates “How we conduct business” or “How Contractors are expected conduct business with us”. The Environmental Restoration (ER) Service Provider Business Model and cultural characteristics
20
Chapter 1
flow down into Contractor processes. Contractor Project Managers and teams need to understand the Government ER Service Provider business model in order to become better consultants. Each Government Environmental Restoration (ER) Service Provider business model influences how Contractor project teams tailor and implement best practices described in Chapters 3 through 10. Chapter 3: Implement a Flexible Environmental Quality Management System ER Contractors must establish and implement a flexible environmental quality management system (EQMS) to adapt to specific Government ER contract types and special initiatives such as performance-based contracts. The Company quality manual should be based on ISO-14001, Environmental Management Systems (EMS), but should be referred to as the Company “EQMS” in proposals and literature. ISO-14001 provides an ideal framework for effectively implementing performance-based contracts, and adapting to evolving Government ER programme contract requirements. Quality plans for performance-based contracts must integrate into the Government’s performance assessment and evaluation cycle. Contractor project teams implement work processes, Functional Inspection Plans, process improvements and a Monthly QC Report process that demonstrates Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements and performance standards are being met. Contractors are responsible for providing the Government with defensible objective evidence to substantiate higher performance evaluations and award of contract incentives. Chapter 4: Develop and Utilize User-Friendly Project Websites In just 15 years, from 1995 to 2010, information technology has completely transformed the way the Government and ER project teams communicate, develop, and manage information. E-mail was a breakthrough in collaboration. Now Microsoft SharePoint project websites can be rented for as little as 10 USD/month from professional web-hosting companies. Many Project Managers with extensive website experience view a small number of project website features as indispensable and key to their success. Some examples, such as the Project Correspondence Log for managing contractual communication, are described in this chapter. However, the transition to paperless web collaboration is counterproductive to project teams in the field. Their productivity is maximized with a well-organized set of traditional three ring-binders. Chapter 5: Develop Superior Proposals The Government transition to Performance-Based Multiple Award Contracts (PB-MACs) has caused proposal development to become a routine Project Manager and team activity. Contractors mobilize proposal development professionals and expertise to win the Basic ER Program Contract. Then Project Managers and teams are expected to develop superior
Best Practices for Environmental Project Teams 21 project proposals and win projects. Many have not received practical training on pre-proposal capture planning, discriminator development, and proposal writing. They might not recognize the importance of understanding how Government Technical Evaluation Boards score proposals. Unfortunately, the challenge to develop superior proposals is compounded when the Government squeezes Contractors with a 3- to 4-week proposal due date. This chapter provides Project Managers and teams with practical guidelines for developing superior proposals and includes recommendations for Governments ER Services Providers who seek to obtain better value and lower Contractor prices. Chapter 6: Develop Superior Project Work Plans Technical document quality was a major Contractor discriminator opportunity in the 1990s. And it remains near the top of Government ER Service Provider wish-lists today. Interview your Government ER Service Provider Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) and they will confirm this fact. While Contractors continually strive to differentiate their value proposition on many proposal factors that have become neutralized in the maturing competitive market, many continue to underestimate the competitive advantage opportunity that exists for technical document quality. Your company cannot rise above the competition without a leadership commitment, mission, and plan to become the undisputed leader in technical document quality. The chapter provides programme and project teams with guidelines to develop superior project work plans and technical documents. On most ER projects, technical document quality makes the first and last impression on your Government ER RPM. Chapter 7: Implement More Rigorous Scope Management Tools Government ER RPMs value scope flexibility on all ER projects including fixed price, without triggering modifications that increase the total contract value. But if Contractor Project Managers and teams struggle to effectively manage scope, their projects will experience substantial cost overruns. The competitive challenge to Project Managers is clear: learn how to maximize flexibility without losing control. This must be done at each ER project phase: proposals, technical approaches, work plans, and field execution. Flexible project scope management requires Contractor ER programmes and project teams to implement better scope communication tools and processes to manage scope. Tools such as the project correspondence log, basewide risk register, project risk register, scope register, scope coordination and mutual understanding meeting, and scope variance communication log enable proactive scope management and customer satisfaction without loss of control. Chapter 8: Effectively Control Field Work This chapter describes enhancements to an ER-proven model called the “three phases of control” for effectively controlling field work. The team approach described in this chapter is based the Unified Facilities Guide Specification (UFGS) 01 45 00.00 20, Quality Control,
22
Chapter 1
which has been used for several decades by the DoD ER Components (this standard can be downloaded at no cost from the internet). Leaner project teams must implement a streamlined approach that engages the multiple team members. The Project QC Manager and Project Manager designate a “Task Leader/QC/Safety Specialist” for each task on the project schedule. This includes high risk support tasks that involve safety, permits, and regulatory compliance. Each task, termed as a “Definable Feature of Work,” represents a three-phase inspection unit. Project managers can break tasks into smaller DFW control units if justified by task risk and complexity. Supervisors can use three phases of control for any task. Chapter 9: Implement Cause Analysis to Generate Solutions Cause analysis, as taught in this chapter and demonstrated throughout this book (e.g. How Government organizations can achieve better prices and better value environmental services), is an enabling technique for generating solution opportunities in an industry where flexibility is valued and failures are commonplace. The value of cause analysis stands far above any other process improvement tool. Government ER Service Provider RPMs are inherently skeptical of Contractor claims. They value risk management, flexibility, and multiple solution options – all enabled by effective cause analysis. Cause analysis will continue to be indispensable for major project problems that jeopardize the contract. However, leaders who limit the application to a crisis, or erroneously view cause analysis as an exhaustive exercise, are failing to capitalize on a major opportunity to improve performance. Cause analysis training offers the best return on investment for any training you can provide ER Project Managers and teams. Chapter 10: Design User-Friendly Work Processes for Project Teams User-friendly work processes achieve the following objectives: (1) eliminate narrative verbiage, (2) maximize the use of visuals, and (3) break the procedure into components to enable flexibility and process improvement. Project teams are busy. They do not have time to read procedural verbiage. This chapter provides guidelines for designing user-friendly processes and checklists that cause project teams to think. Thinking project teams succeed on projects. Doer project teams become complacent, mechanistic, and reactive to problems on projects. Processes must be clearly visible to project team members, not buried within the excess verbiage of procedure narratives.
CHAPTER 2
Understand Your Government Client Business Model “Government Client Business Model”. This phrase sounds like an oxymoron. If your “customerdriven” mission is to help your Government Environmental Service Provider clients succeed, you must strive to define, understand, and effectively implement their respective business models. Your service is an extension of their programme policies, goals, installation cleanup plans, and site-specific cleanup objectives. But one basic obstacle complicates your learning curve: Most government clients do not acknowledge they have a business model. Consequently, it remains a nebulous mystery that is subject to interpretation. Contractor best practices cannot achieve their potential without developing and implementing flexible systems and processes that can be tailored to each Government Environmental Service Provider’s business model. This chapter provides guidelines on how to piece-together (i.e. profile) a Government Environmental Service Provider Business Model. Consider constructing a business model for each targeted Government Environmental Service Provider client. Each DoD Environmental Restoration (ER) Service Provider organization implements a unique business model, and evolves their own approach for doing business. Although each DoD Environmental Restoration (ER) Service Provider organization shares common higher level DoD values and goals (e.g. efficient, protective, and cost-effective site closeouts), they are not required or expected to agree on “how to” specifics. For example, the Army, Navy, and Air Force might not share a common perspective and approach to risk-based site cleanups, scoping site cleanups to match land use, and the implementation of life-cycle cost analysis concepts. Government RFP’s for ER contracts assume competing contractors are familiar with how they do business.
Business Model Elements The Government ER Service Provider Business Model is the foundation of Contractor knowledge. Multiple Base Cleanup Team Cultures are the next higher level. The top level is Site-Specific Intelligence (for individual sites on the base). Collectively, these are shown in Figure 2.1, Business Model Elements. Contractors who develop top-performing project teams seek an advanced understanding of these elements. For example, Chapter 5, Developing Superior Proposals, describes the importance of understanding the Base Cleanup Team (BCT) Culture and gathering site-specific intelligence. Base Cleanup Teams operate within the contracting and administrative business model of their Best Practices for Environmental Project Teams. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-444-53721-8.00002-6 # 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
23
24
Chapter 2
Figure 2.1 Business Model Elements.
parent organization (i.e. Government Environmental Service Provider organization). Contractors take steps to understand each BCT as a unique Culture with values, perceptions, hopes, fears, and biases. Several top-performing Government Environmental Service Provider Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) operate like successful small business owners who effectively implement the business model. They excel at each level. Some deliberately approach their projects as if they (as individual land owners) are the Potential Responsible Party for the site. They give Contractor project teams the impression that every site cleanup dollar being spent is from their own bank account. Contractor Project Manager site-specific intelligence gathering will become increasingly important as Government Environmental Service Provider RPMs increase their use of life-cycle analysis concepts for scoping, assessing, and reporting sites. The importance of conducting lifecycle cost analysis increases once “protectiveness” of human health and the environment is achieved (e.g. DoD “Response Complete”). Simply stated, the site is no longer a threat. Protectiveness takes on new meaning from that point forward: Is the technical approach between Response Complete and Site Closeout protective of the limited funding available, or is the cost-tocomplete Site Closeout cost-prohibitive? It is never too early for Government Environmental Service Provider RPMs and Contractors Project Managers to begin life-cycle analysis and periodically assess the economic feasibility of trying to achieve future land use objectives.
Constructing the Government ER Service Provider Business Model Each country and Government ER Service Provider organization develops and implements their unique business model, which must be understood by Contractor project teams. For example, the following 8 business model characteristics apply to the U.S. DoD components:
Understand Your Government Client Business Model 25 1. Federal Requirements that establish the basis for Environmental Restoration Program. 2. The U.S. Department of Defense, environmental programme policies and directives that are the driving force behind the programme, and flow down through component organizations. 3. The U.S. Department of Defense environmental restoration process and progress reporting metrics, (which do not mirror the regulatory process); 4. The U.S. Department of Defense, Component-Specific, Environmental Restoration (ER) Service Provider Programme Progress Reports, and Execution Plans; 5. The U.S. Department of Defense DoD, Component-Specific, Environmental Restoration (ER) Service Provider guidelines for achieving site closeout; 6. The U.S. DoD, Component-Specific, work groups and programme initiatives; 7. The U.S. DoD, Component-Specific, management information systems (e.g. intranet), software, databases, and processes for conducting business; 8. The U.S. DoD, Component-Specific, acquisition strategy and contract vehicle types for procuring environmental restoration services (e.g. Cost-Reimbursable Plus Award Fee; Performance Based Multiple Award Contracts). This also includes acquisition plan and approach for awarding contracts to Small Businesses. This is not an all-encompassing list. Any business model characteristic, which defines “How we conduct business” or “How Contractors are expected conduct business with us”, is part of the business model. The eight business model characteristics listed above will be summarized for the Navy (Naval Facilities Engineering Command). They influence how the Navy conducts business, and what they expect from Contractors. Several basic business model features are not covered in this example, such as their organization chart, the role of specialty support organizations for projects involving radiological and munitions contamination (e.g., Navy Radiological Affairs Support Office; Naval Sea Systems Command, Naval Ordnance Safety and Security Activity), their internal budgeting cycle, important rules dictating how they classify and obligate contract funds, etc. This business model example will help you develop your own.
NAVFAC Environmental Restoration (ER) Service Provider Business Model Federal Requirements that Establish Basis for Environmental Restoration Programme DoD conducts cleanup in accordance with the following federal requirements: • • • • •
42 United States Code (U.S.C.) }} 9601–9675, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) }211 10 U.S.C. }} 2700–2710 Executive Order (E.O.) 12580 – Superfund Implementation The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act
26
Chapter 2
Source: United States Defense Environmental Program Report to Congress, Fiscal Year 2009, Prepared by the Office of Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (April 2010).
Programme policies DoD developed policies and guidance to meet the above federal requirements, including: • • • •
DoD Instruction 4715.7 “Environmental Restoration Programme” The 2001 Management Guidance for the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP)a DoD Memorandum “Interim Policy for Defense Environmental Restoration Program Eligibility” DoD Memorandum “Policy Concerning Cost-Recovery/Cost-Sharing Activities Under the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP)”
Source: United States. Defense Environmental Program Report to Congress, Fiscal Year 2009, Prepared by the Office of Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (April 2010). The NAVFAC website currently organizes 14 files for Department of Defense Policy and Guidance and 38 files for Department of the Navy (DoN) Policy and Guidance.
Navy Environmental Restoration Process and Progress Reporting Metrics Each Contractor should understand the site Environmental Restoration Process path and client progress reporting metrics that apply to the site they are targeting prior to the RFP. This is important because not all phases or milestones are necessary for each project, and site closeout can be achieved at multiple stages throughout the project life cycle. Table 2.1, from Guidance for Optimizing Remedy Evaluation, Selection and Design (March 2010), describes the major steps in the Navy ER programme, which encompasses both the Installation Restoration and Munitions Response programmes. In addition to RCRA and CERCLA frameworks, several Department of Navy (DoN) installations conduct remediation projects under state-led Underground Storage Tank (UST) cleanup programmes. State UST programmes guide cleanup at most petroleum hydrocarbon-contaminated sites. UST programmes are delegated to the state level, as part of RCRA, and may incorporate requirements that are more stringent than Federal UST regulation. Although RCRA, UST, and a
Throughout FY 2009, 1 October 2008 to 30 September 2009, DoD continued to update the DERP Manual, which will supersede the 2001 Management Guidance for the DERP.
Understand Your Government Client Business Model 27 Table 2.1 Major Steps in the Navy ER Programme Phase/Milestone
Description
Preliminary Assessment (PA)
The PA is a brief assessment that uses available historic information to determine the probability of and possible locations of potentially contaminated areas.
Site Inspection (SI)
The SI is a limited on-site investigation and includes a physical inspection of potential sites and, depending on site type, would include soil, surface water, sediment and/or groundwater sampling.
Remedial Investigation (RI)
The RI is a comprehensive assessment that includes characterizing the site (including nature and extent of contamination), determining the regulatory requirements, and conducting a baseline risk assessment for human health and the environment.
Feasibility Study (FS)
The RI provides the site-specific information needed in the FS to identify and analyze the range of remedial action options available at a given site. RPMs can refer to several United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) guidance documents associated with preparation of an FS, such as Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies under CERCLA, Interim Final (U.S. EPA, 1988): http://www.epa.gov/ superfund/policy/remedy/sfremedy/rifs/overview.htm
Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA)
Non-time critical removal actions and interim remedial measures require completion of a less comprehensive feasibility review called an EE/CA. More information can be found in the U.S. EPA Guidance on Conducting Non-Time Critical Removal Actions under CERCLA-OSWER Publication 9360.0-32 (1993a).
Record of Decision (ROD)
The ROD is the decision document that describes the background information on the site, the preferred remedial approach, and the rationale behind its selection. The ROD is completed after a Proposed Plan (PP) has been drafted and released to inform the public and obtain comments on the preferred remedial approach. The U.S. EPA Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents provides more detailed information on the recommended outlines and content for PPs, RODs, Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD), and ROD Amendments (U.S. EPA, 1998). An Action Memorandum is the abbreviated form of a decision document for removal actions, except that the Action Memorandum is only required to be signed by the installation Commanding Officer, and not by the regulatory agencies. Continued
28
Chapter 2 Table 2.1
Major Steps in the Navy ER Programme—Cont’d
Phase/Milestone
Description An improved ROD is a traditional ROD that provides the full rationale for remedy decision in a concise document through the use of streamlined text, figures, and tables with appropriate references to supporting documentation in the administrative record (AR). The improved ROD must comply with CERCLA and the NCP and follow U.S. EPA guidance. The distinguishing characteristics of an improved ROD are a consolidated outline, detailed references to AR documents that substantiate the information presented, and concise text with maximum use of tables and figures, including a graphic CSM, to summarize key information in formats that are easily interpreted by most readers. More information on improved RODs is available on the Navy improved ROD Web portal at: http://www.ert2.org/ t2RODPortal/id¼home.
Remedial Design (RD)
The RD is the design of the selected remedial action, which includes preparation of technical work plans, drawings, and specifications.
Remedial Action Construction (RA-C)
RA-C is the part of the remedial action phase in which a construction Contractor cleans up the site or builds and installs a remediation system, and demonstrates that the system is functioning as designed.
Remedy in Place (RIP)
RIP is a milestone during the remedial action phase which indicates that the remedial action has been successfully constructed or implemented, and has been demonstrated to be functioning as designed.
Remedial Action Operations (RA-O)
RA-O is the part of the remedial action phase in which the ongoing cleanup work takes place, including O&M support and ongoing monitoring to ensure that the system is operating properly and successfully. Some sites are cleaned up during the RA-C phase (e.g. excavation), and therefore may not require RA-O.
Response Complete (RC)
The RC milestone indicates that the RAOs have been met and the site no longer represents an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment.
Long-Term Management
The long-term management of a site may be required following RC to ensure that conditions at the site continue to be protective of human health and the environment. This could include additional monitoring, land use controls (LUCs), and 5-year reviews.
Site Closeout (SC)
SC is reached when a site is acceptable for unrestricted use, unlimited exposure (UUUE) and there is no expectation of further funds to be expended at a site.
Understand Your Government Client Business Model 29 Table 2.2 RCRA, UST, and CERCLA Processes for Remediation of Contaminated Sites RCRA
UST
CERCLA
RCRA Facility Assessment (RFA)
Site Investigation
Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection (PA/SI)
RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) Corrective Measures Study (CMS)
Remedial Investigation (RI) Corrective Action Plan (CAP)
Feasibility Study (FS)
Draft Permit Modification
Proposed Plan (PP)
RCRA Permit
Record of Decision (ROD)
Corrective Measures Implementation
Remediation Work Plan
Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA)
CERCLA processes for site remediation are similar, the terminologies for each project phase are different, as shown in Table 2.2. These are not necessarily linear steps–not all phases or milestones are needed for every project. The Navy implements site cleanup metrics based on site cleanup status. The Navy uses a “NORM/Cost-to-Complete Database” to prioritize sites and track cleanup progress. Since NORM is a database, it could be included in the business model category for databases. However, NORM is an internal Navy database and Contractors do not upload information to NORM.
Navy Programme Progress Reports and Execution Plans The Navy publishes programme plans that provide valuable insights into their ER programme, such as the DON Environmental Restoration Progress Report (2008) and NAVFAC Technology Transfer Five-Year Program Plan for Environmental Restoration (2010 to 2014). Additionally, the Navy Base Cleanup Teams implement installation-specific execution plans.
Navy Guidelines for Achieving Site Closeout The Department of the Navy (DON) Guidance to Documenting Milestones Throughout the Site Closeout Process (March 2006). The purpose of this guide is to outline a consistent approach for Navy Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) to follow in recognizing and documenting specific milestones for achieving site closeout. This guide identifies the particular documents that are needed at appropriate stages of the closeout process to record agreements and concurrence of regulators. This guidance addresses closeout documentation requirements for varied regulatory frameworks, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and the Underground Storage Tanks (UST) Programmes. Samples of concurrence letters and Record of Decision (ROD) language are provided in the appendices to assist RPMs in preparing
30
Chapter 2
concurrence documentation for their sites. This guidance document incorporates the streamlined process from the Department of Defense (DoD)/Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Joint Guidance (DoD 2005). According to the Navy, Site Closeout (SC) is a milestone that signifies the DON has completed active management and monitoring at a remediation site, the remedy is protective of human health and the environment, and no additional funds are expected to be expended at the site. This milestone can be achieved at any stage of the remediation process. However, there are some sites that will achieve protectiveness of human health and the environment while never achieving the SC milestone. These are sites where contaminants are left in place, which require funds to ensure the protectiveness of the remedy into the future.
Navy ER Work Groups and Programme Initiatives Navy ER Work Groups develop technical guidelines and best practices. The following NAVFAC Work Groups help in the development of innovative solutions to environmental cleanup problems. Navy professionals who work in these groups develop subject matter expertise and advise Navy Remedial Project Managers (RPMs). ARTT WG The Alternative Restoration Technology Team (ARTT) Work Group is a team of Navy environmental professionals that has been formed to promote the use of innovative environmental restoration technologies. CTC WG Cost-To-Complete (CTC) is the Navy’s environmental budget requirements estimating system which provides a consistent methodology for estimating the life-cycle costs. The work group designs improvements to the system. IRGIS WG The Installation Restoration/Geographic Information System (IR/GIS) Work Group was established as an IR Manager’s advisory group. The work group coordinated development of a corporate methodology using common business practices for enhancing and facilitating the use of IR data through GIS and web based applications in a consistent and cost-effective manner. The system they developed is the Naval Installation Restoration Information Solution (NIRIS), a database used by all the Facility Engineering Commands and NFESC to manage all IR Programme data.
Understand Your Government Client Business Model 31 MR WG The Munitions Response (MR) Work Group was established as an advisory group to the Environmental Restoration (ER) Managers Workgroup to develop and recommend for approval Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC)-wide MR guidance, and promote the use of best available technologies and methodologies for managing cleanup of Munitions and Explosives of Concern (MEC) and Munitions Constituents (MC) on Navy installations, with the ultimate goal of reducing explosives hazards and environmental risks in a costeffective and timely manner. Risk assessment WG The Risk Assessment Work Group (RAW) was established as an advisory group to the Installation Restoration Managers and Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) to promote the efficient application of the human health and ecological risk assessment processes at NAVFAC sites. The ultimate purpose of RAW is to achieve protection of human health and the environment in a scientifically defensible, cost-effective, and timely manner. This will be accomplished through the promotion of information sharing and consistency among all members and various regulatory agencies. OPT WG The Navy Optimization Work Group was established as an advisory group to the Navy Installation Restoration (IR) Managers. The work group’s role is to promote the optimization of remedial actions including monitoring in the Navy Installation Restoration Programme, with the ultimate purpose of achieving efficient, protective, and cost-effective site closeouts. The work group is responsible for performing the following tasks as they relate to the Navy IR Programme: Developing and recommending initiatives and strategies that will facilitate optimization of restoration projects; Providing IR Managers with support in developing site closeout guidance and policy; Identifying barriers that inhibit optimization of restoration projects; Recommending process changes to the IR Mangers to eliminate or minimize barriers to optimization of restoration projects; Proposing policies and recommending procedures and guidance for optimization of restoration projects; Identifying potential sites for restoration optimization projects; Developing and updating course materials on optimization for Naval Civil Engineering Corps Officers School (CECOS) training and other seminars, as needed. The Navy Optimization Work Group published the following guidelines: • • •
Guide to Optimal Groundwater Monitoring (February 2000) Guidance for Optimizing Remedial Action Operations (April 2001) DoN Groundwater Pump and Treat Systems Special Publication (February 2003)
32 • •
Chapter 2 Guidance for Optimizing Remedy Evaluation, Selection and Design (March 2010) Department of the Navy Guidance to Documenting Milestones Throughout the Site Closeout Process (March 2006)
Green and Sustainable Remediation Each DoD component will develop their own plans and methods for implementing the 10 August 2009, DoD Green and Sustainable Remediation (GSR) Directive, Consideration of Green and Sustainable Remediation Practices in the Defense Environmental Restoration Program. The Navy and Army funded Battelle to develop SiteWiseTM. ER Service Provider organizations commonly develop their own guidelines, “brand” their tools just like corporations, and develop their own acronyms. Navy management systems and processes [e.g. Websites/database tools, processes] for conducting business The Government Environmental Service Provider intranet affects their approach to conducting business, and limits the Contractor project team’s ability to collaborate with their Government RPMs. Contractor project teams must be sensitive to what their Government RPM counterparts cannot do (due to information technology security policies). Government intranets implement and enforce strict security policies that constrain the fundamental ability of Government RPMs to conduct business and collaborate. The Navy Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI) has been a major business model influence since October, 2000, placing security-related constraints on their ability to use most commercial software and read associated files in their native format. For many Navy employees, NMCI was their Y2K challenge. NMCI was given many nicknames by disgruntled employees – most started with “No More”. The Navy contract with NMCI ended in 2010, and it will be phased out over the next few years and replaced by the “Next Generation Enterprise Network (NGEN)”. Navy RPMs faced some challenges interfacing with Contractor project teams and regulatory agencies. For example, after NMCI phase-in, professional Navy field surveyors could not install and use CADD software. If your project team invests in the most popular and widely used software to create geologic project maps, you will not be able to e-mail the file to the Navy RPM in the native format for review. To this day, many popular software titles are prohibited by NMCI. NMCI staff perform software security evaluations. By the time NMCI approves the software, the approved version is usually obsolete. As a rule of thumb, Contractors convert electronic files to Adobe pdf before they are e-mailed to the Navy. Navy RPMs and professionals are not allowed to use many popular software titles that represent standard industry practices, and this trend will likely continue with NGEN.
Understand Your Government Client Business Model 33 Navy RPMs are not allowed to place USB drives in their laptop computers. Contractor meeting presentations must e-mailed in advance to the Navy RPM, or be copied to a CD. In addition to the Intranet, this business model category includes the Navy approach to managing the “Administrative Record Library” to organize and archive important records that track site cleanup progress and legal decisions with regulatory agencies. The rigorous Navy Administrative Record Policy for creating and classifying site records must be understood by Contractors. Navy Working Groups listed above commonly develop tools and databases that become part of the Navy business model. For example, the Installation Restoration/Geographic Information System (IR/GIS) Work Group developed the “Naval Installation Restoration Information Solution (NIRIS)”, a database used to manage all Installation Restoration Programme data. Contractors who conduct business with the Navy are expected to know how to use NIRIS. Each Government Services Provider including the Navy develops and utilizes custom databases that affect their approach to conducting business with Contractors. This includes databases that manage project information (e.g. Navy TRIM), project records (Admin Record Database), and analytical data (Navy Electronic Data Deliverable). Contractors must design their work processes to create compliant file uploads that meet applicable database standards. Over time, Government Service Providers become less patient for the Contractor learning curve associated with their databases.
Client Contract Vehicles for Procuring Environmental Restoration Services The Navy acquisition strategy for procuring ER services consists of many contract vehicles including the following: • • • •
Comprehensive Long-Term Environmental Action Navy (CLEAN) Remedial Action Contract (RAC) Environmental Multiple Award Contract (EMAC) Performance-Based Environmental Multiple Award Contract (PERMAC)
These eight NAVFAC Environmental Restoration (ER) Service Provider Business Model characteristics represent the NAVFAC way of doing business. NAVFAC RPMs are expected to implement these policies and guidelines. What does this list look like for your Government ER Service Provider organization? Two additional elements are shown in Figure 2.1: Base Cleanup Team Cultures and SiteSpecific Intelligence. These will be addressed in Chapter 4, Developing Superior Proposals. Contractors and their project teams invest a substantial amount of time learning various customer business models. This represents a high cost of doing business.
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER 3
Implement a Flexible Environmental Quality Management System For several decades, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has defined Construction Quality Management (CQM) as follows: QC þ QA ¼ CQM. The simple equation conveys team partnering between Contractor (QC) and Government (QA) to effectively implement CQM on projects. The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) ER Service Provider component agencies (e.g. Army, Navy, and Air Force) adopted the USACE CQM model, which has prevailed since the 1980s. In 2002, DoD ER components began taking steps to transform the traditional contracting and quality management model to a performance management model that focuses on performance and results. Under the Government Performance-Based Service Acquisition (PBSA) initiative that has been sweeping the ER industry in the form of Performance-Based Contracts (PBCs) and PB-Multiple Award Contracts (PB-MACs), the Government issues project RFPs containing a “Performance Work Statement (PWS)” or “Statement of Objectives (SoO)”. In the new model, the Contractor has a full plate to go along with the additional risk inherent in PBC contracts: they are responsible for QC, QA, meeting PWS requirements, and achieving measurable PWS performance standards. The Government takes a step back and implements independent “performance assessment” or “QA surveillance” in accordance with a Performance Assessment Plan (PAP) or QA Surveillance Plan (QASP), respectively. ER Contractor performance will be continually assessed and graded by the Government on these new contracts. Contracts will include performance incentives, which might include the award of additional contract option years. Many Contractors will have a difficult time adapting to the new PBCs and performance-evaluation methods, especially since their project teams have become very lean. But their contract performance ratings will depend on their ability to implement an environmental quality management system (EQMS) that synchronizes with the Government model for assessing performance. This chapter will help ER Contractor project teams gain an appreciation for the type of EQMS that is needed to succeed. It is rigorous and detail oriented. This knowledge will help ER Contractors improve their performance ratings on current and future PBC contracts. What type of ER Contractor Quality Management System (QMS) positions a Contractor to adapt to these Government ER acquisition trends, including the trends towards “Green and Sustainable Remediation (GSR)”? A flexible Environmental Quality Management System (EQMS). Best Practices for Environmental Project Teams. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-444-53721-8.00003-8 # 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
35
36
Chapter 3
At the Company level, a flexible EQMS supports all ER Programs and Projects. If your company is an ER Service Provider, an EQMS based on ISO-14001, Environmental Management Systems, contains the important QMS elements. Most Companies have an established company-wide Quality Management System (QMS) that is described in their company quality management manual. Their EMS, if they have one, is commonly a “one-off” programme, which makes it more difficult to implement. Company QMSs are commonly generic and do not serve the needs of programmes and projects. For confirmation, consider surveying ER programme managers and project managers with one simple question: How does our company quality management manual help you manage ER programmes and execute projects? Contractors need to establish and implement a flexible EQMS to support the diverse types of Government ER programmes and projects. The EQMS does not need to be complicated. A practical EQMS will help your team stay focused on contract scope, meet performance objectives, and comply with regulatory requirements. The chapter will cover the following EQMS topics: • • • •
Features of a flexible Company EQMS Contractor QA and QC Staffing Performance-Based Program/Project Tutorial Sample Project Performance Evaluation Policy
Features of a Flexible Company EQMS The flexible Company EQMS recognizes three levels: (1) Company, (2) Program, and (3) Project. The typical Government ER Programme is Programme þ Projects. Each will be described in the following sections. Figure 3.1 is a Sample Contractor EQMS.
Company Level The Company quality management manual does not have to be based on ISO-9001, Quality Management System. The best QMS standard for Companies developing a quality management manual in the ER industry is ISO-14001, Environmental Management System (EMS) – because it contains the most important QMS elements and is written in environmental language. The ISO-14001 EMS standard does not contain the word “quality” in the title, but it contains the most essential quality management elements such as document control and records management. If your company wants to cover both (ISO-9001/ISO-14001), as some companies have done, it would not require a substantial revision. Title your company manual “Environmental Quality Management (EQM)” manual, which describes the Company
Implement a Flexible Environmental Quality Management System 37
Figure 3.1 Sample Contractor EQMS.
“Environmental Quality Management System (EQMS)”. If you call your company manual an “Environmental Management System Manual” (i.e. omit the term “Quality”), the Government and other companies might assume you do not have a Quality Management System (QMS). This is unfortunate, but true. Some people need to see the term “Quality”. ISO-9001 and ISO-14001 have several common elements and requirements, and the ISO-14001 standard contains a comparison matrix. Many companies have likely adopted this approach, as evidenced by the 205,000 Google hits.
The ISO-14001 and ISO-9001 standards cannot be printed due to copyright. That being said, you can Google “ISO-14001 checklist” and review the ISO-14001 EMS Elements. In addition to the ISO-14001, “Environmental Quality Management (EQM)” manual, Companies need to write EQMS procedures based on the standard (to supplement their Company EQM manual). The EQMS procedures support all programmes and projects (ER and Non-ER). Your organization can purchase the ISO-14001 standard, develop the EQMS manual and procedures, implement the EQM manual and procedures, and become “ISO-14001 compliant” without seeking registration. Many companies prefer to be ISO-14001 compliant over ISO14001 registered. The U.S. Federal Government is striving to become ISO-14001 compliant throughout their organization, as described in Chapter 1. After a few years of experience, your organization may elect to seek ISO-14001 registration. Registration can be sought at the corporate or programme level. The scope of registration can be defined based on Company needs.
38
Chapter 3
Another compelling reason to adopt ISO-14001 is the trend for all organizations to become more environmentally sensitive in operations and decisions. Over the long run, ISO-14001 should become more popular that ISO-9001. The most beneficial ER Contractor reason for utilizing ISO-14001 as the Company EQMS is that it is easier to implement at the project level. ISO-9001 is not a task-oriented standard. It is too vague and verbose to be user-friendly. Two specific advantages can be realized: Integrating the ISO-14001 “aspects and impacts analysis” process into the three phases of control (discussed in Chapter 8) and effectively implementing “green and sustainable remediation” on ER projects. The Company Level should support the programme and project levels. Figure 3.2 flow chart describes a hypothetical project to install a new pier pipeline on a military installation. Any mistakes during this project could result in minor spills into the bay. The environmental risk evaluation for each “Definable Feature of Work (DFW)” is shown in
Figure 3.2 Flow chart describes a hypothetical project to install a new pier pipeline on a military installation.
Implement a Flexible Environmental Quality Management System 39 Figure 3.2. In the ISO-14001 standard, this evaluation is called an “aspects and impacts analysis”. Each DFW is viewed as an “aspect” that has potential positive (e.g. recycling) and/or negative environmental “impacts” (residual waste water dripping into bay during pipe segmentation and removal). All the listed DFWs, as you can imagine, have the potential to negatively impact the environment. Implementing Green and Sustainable Remediation (GSR) In the ER industry, Governments and regulatory agencies are adopting “green remediation” processes and tools. Figure 3.3, Implementing site-specific GSR within ISO-14001 EMS Framework, is a flow chart that describes how to implement “Green and Sustainable Remediation (GSR)” at any phase during ER projects. An EQMS GSR procedure can be written based on this flow chart to implement GSR on projects, and utilize the screening tool requested by your Government ER Service Provider RPM.
Programme Level Programme level documents consist of plans and procedures that are owned and controlled by the Contractor Programme Management Organization (PMO) assigned to support the Program. Programme Plans include the Programme Management Plan, Programme Quality Management Plan, Programme Health and Safety Plan, Programme Chemical Data Quality Management Plan, and any other programme plan required by your programme contract, also known as a “Basic Contract”. The “programme-level” represents all plans and procedures that support projects awarded under the programme. Contractor project teams may include programme plans or procedures that are not required by contract, such as Timekeeping and Billing. The Timekeeping and Billing procedure required on the programme might be different from the generic company Timekeeping and Billing procedure. Individual programme plans may include or reference specific company standard operating procedures. For example, the Programme Chemical Data Quality Management Plan may include standard operating procedures and forms for field sampling. Programme Plans can identify and select the company procedures that are relevant to projects, and include additional procedures that will be needed but do not exist within the company standard operating procedure library. A good programme plan makes it easier for project teams to develop project plans. Each programme plan should always contain two supplements: a sample project plan (completed/pdf format) and a project plan template including all the native file formats for text, figures, and tables. Programme plans add value by streamlining the process, so that project teams do not have to write project plans from scratch. Programme plans should be organized on the programme website and/or distributed and controlled in hard copy format, such as a three-ring binder.
40
Chapter 3 RFP GOVERNMENT REQUIRES GSR
SITE-SPECIFIC GSR EVALUATION (Any Phase in Site Cleanup Life Cycle) Understand Existing Site Performance Objectives Select DOD Component GSR Screening Tool Evaluate Project Scope/Site Using Screening Tool Life Cycle Cost Analysis for each GSR Option Document Site-Specific GSR Action Plans Include Objectives, Targets, Metrics, and Price Trade-offs Linkage with Basewide EMS
IMPLEMENT/ADJUST SITE-SPECIFIC GSR ACTION PLANS OPTIMIZE ACHIEVING GSR PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES? NO YES REPORT GSR PERFORMANCE
CLOSE-OUT GSR ACTION PLANS
Figure 3.3 Implementing site-specific GSR within ISO-14001 EMS framework.
Implement a Flexible Environmental Quality Management System 41
Project Level Project level documents consist of the project workplan, other “project plans” that supplement the work plan, submittals, and deliverables that are owned and controlled by the Project Manager. Specifically, the project level is based on Government ER Service Provider Contract Task Order (CTO) requirements. Project Plans are commonly project-specific supplements to established Programme Plans: Project Quality Control Plan [supplements Programme Quality Management Plan], Site Health and Safety Plan [supplements Programme Health and Safety Plan], Sampling and Analysis Plan [supplements Programme Chemical Data Quality Management Plan]. The Project Plan will reference procedures contained in the Programme Plan. For example, the three-ring binder in the site trailer includes the Project QC Plan, Programme Quality Management Plan, and Programme Quality Control procedures. Project Level Includes ER Subcontractors ER Contractors utilize numerous subcontractors on projects. When subcontractors work on Government ER Projects the quality responsibility equation is simple: Subcontractor QC þ ER Contractor QA ¼ CQM (Construction Quality Management). ER Contractors are required to perform QA to verify if subcontractors are performing and documenting their QC checks. Many subcontractors rely on the ER Contractor to perform and document their QC checks, which can become frustrating. They might be in a hurry to get it done and might not conduct inspections. The subcontractor QC inspector, if assigned, might be more focused on production. That is one reason why the three phases of control process was developed many decades ago (see Chapter 8). Many ER Basic Contracts contain requirements to award work to small businesses in the local community. Subcontractors provide specialty remediation and construction trade services to ER projects (field surveys, geophysical surveys, drilling, hauling, mechanical work, electrical work, demolition, dismantlement, excavation, concrete, piping, asphalt, chemical treatment, asbestos abatement, lead abatement, specialty testing firms, etc.). The needed specialty services during the ER Programme can extend into the hundreds. Using local, small business firms helps create a positive image for the project. Most small business subcontractors who support the ER industry and provide project services do not have documented QC Programs. The U.S. rate (of no documented QC Program) is likely between 75% and 80%. Field survey firms, analytical laboratories, and specialty testing firms always have QC Programs (e.g. geotechnical, leak detection, etc.). Subcontractors who lack documented QC programmes are typically the construction trade services. This will become apparent when you review the “subcontractor pre-qualification package” that is filled out by the subcontractor and received by your Subcontracts
42
Chapter 3
Administrator. The pre-qualification package should contain a section on “QC”. Basic QC questions should be listed to assess Subcontractor QC qualifications and capabilities. For example, do they have a documented QC programme? Do they work to written procedures? Do their procedures include documented QC checks or separate QC checklists? Are they willing to work under your QA programme and three-phase inspection process? You must always include the word “documented” in your survey questions. Most will claim to have QC programmes, procedures, and QC inspection checks. But they do not understand that Government project QC programmes, procedures, and checks must be in writing. For example, if your first survey question is “Does your Company have a QC Program?” about 75% will check “Yes”. If Question #2 is “Is the QC Programme documented?” about half the subcontractors who responded “Yes” will check “No”. They have an “informal QC Program”. For Government work, everything must be documented. If it is not documented, it does not exist or did not happen. Subcontractors who lack QC programmes and perform construction trade services are commonly performing high visibility site restoration work that receives independent Government QA inspection. For example, ER projects commonly temporarily remove facility infrastructure such as concrete, building structures, mechanical, and electrical systems. Contamination might be under the building, aircraft pad, or street. These infrastructure features are commonly referred to as “extensions of design.” These features must be reconstructed to the applicable Government design and specification requirements following remediation. Thus, rigourous submittal requirements apply before, during, and after the task. As-built drawings are likely required. The ER QA Programme must prevent subcontractor nonconformances and identify any field nonconformances before they are identified by Government QA Inspectors. From the perspective of the Government property tenant (e.g. Military Installation Chain of Command), site and facility infrastructure restoration work are commonly more important than contamination removal. Many subcontractors are small businesses that are skilled at their craft. However, reading contract requirements and submitting documentation is a glaring weakness. Subcontractors will always assume documentation is not required, even when specified in the purchase order. For example, your purchase order to the subcontractor to perform quarterly maintenance of the Site X Soil Vapour Extraction (SVE) System includes a maintenance report submittal. They need to document and report the maintenance they perform. Air Board Regulatory Permit Condition #7 requires “SVE maintenance in accordance with the manufacturers maintenance schedule shall be documented” The subcontractor will perform the maintenance. But you will likely not receive documentation unless your purchase order specifies the maintenance report as a line item. If your purchase order just says perform maintenance per Attachment A, SVE O&M Manual, and Attachment B, Air Board Regulatory Permit, most subcontractors will not read the permit. All submittal-related requirements to
Implement a Flexible Environmental Quality Management System 43 subcontractors should be specified as individual line items to make it easier for your project team to communicate and enforce requirements. Also, your Buyer can hold back payment until your project manager receives the report. Assume that all subcontractors who arrive on site have not read their statement of work. This book describes the three phases of control process (refer to Chapter 8, which describes a threephase process for communicating and inspecting work performed by subcontractors). The process provides the communication required to prevent surprises and misunderstandings. Many subcontractors say they “do the task the way we normally do it”. By the way, this subcontractor remark commonly arises at least three times during the pre-task briefing (called the “Preparatory Phase Meeting”). For example, the ER Contractor Task Leader will be reviewing and reading the SOW line items, pausing each time to look the subcontractor Foreman in the eye (looking for the confirmatory “Yes – Understood”). Then the subcontractor will periodically say something like, “We usually use a slightly different material, or apply this process (because it is better)” or some other deviation from the SOW requirements. The subcontract allows them to submit Requests For Information (RFIs), but they might wait until the last minute to submit RFIs. Sometimes subcontractors have good “value engineering” ideas and must be respected for their experience. They are usually experts at their specialty. Other times they intend to do something they assume will be acceptable, and it will result in rejected or nonconforming work. For ER Companies who do not conduct the three phases of control for subcontracted work, or routinely have subcontractors arriving to perform maintenance on the plant (e.g. tanks, treatment systems, etc.), consider using a simple QC checklist to control site work services performed by subcontractors work. Figure 3.4 is the sample “generic” checklist that can be tailored to meet your needs. Subcontractors must be controlled from the moment they arrive on site, but the communication starts before they arrive on site. ER Contractors are responsible for making sure their subcontractors comply with all Government Facility Rules. The checklist will help prevent surprises and delays.
Contractor QA and QC Staffing Most Contactors have a quality assurance organization that mirrors the EQMS levels: • • •
Company QA Manager Programme QA Managers Project QC Managers
The Company QA Manager is responsible for the corporate EQMS, Quality Assurance organization staffing, resource support, and training. They may perform assessments and audits of programmes and projects. They assist with providing quality assurance input to proposals.
44
Chapter 3
Figure 3.4 Sample QC Checklist for subcontracted work.
Implement a Flexible Environmental Quality Management System 45 Smaller Contractors might have a single professional who represents Environmental Compliance, Safety, and Quality Assurance. Programme QA Managers with over 5 years of ER Programme QA experience are very difficult to find in the ER industry. This position is filled by one individual on the ER contract. In some cases, small businesses will team with a Company in order to utilize their Programme QC Manager that meets RFP requirements. Government ER Service Providers will specify the Programme QA Manager’s experience and qualification requirements in the RFP. The Programme QA Manager should be a professional with a 4-year college degree in science or engineering, and minimum of 3–5 years of ER project experience. The Government ER Service Provider RFP might designate the Programme QA Manager (or Programme QC Manager) as a “key person” on the ER programme, which means the proposed candidate’s resume will need to be submitted for approval. The title for this position (Programme QA Manager or Programme QC Manager) should be consistent with the RFP title. Programme QA Managers provide “quality assurance” support for multiple projects. It is not a “Quality Control” function, even though many Government RFPs use the term “Programme QC Manager”. The individual reports to the Programme Manager and routinely communicates with the team of Project Managers and their assigned Project QC Managers. Programme QA Managers identify and train Project QC Managers for project assignments, assist with Project QC Plan development, perform periodic field visits, and assist with significant problems that may arise on projects. The purpose of QA is to verify project teams are effectively implementing Project QC Plans. For many DoD ER Projects, can be determined be evaluating the three phase of control in the field. QC is effectively implemented at the task level. Programme QA Managers commonly utilize Project QC Managers that are Project Scientists (e.g. Geologist, Project Chemist) or Project Engineers who belong to the Technical Services organization. They are trained in quality control. Project QC Managers, unless otherwise specified by the RFP, should directly report to Project Managers with independent reporting access to the Programme QA Manager. Project QC Managers might be Project Scientists or Project Engineers. The Project QC Manager must have adequate communication skills, and must be an individual who is capable of researching a broad range of technical requirements; developing and implementing QC Checklists; and writing reports.
Performance-Based Program/Project Tutorial The remainder of this chapter describes key features of a performance-based Contractor QMS for Government ER programmes and projects. Your Performance-Based Programme QMS supports all projects and must be responsive to RFP requirements. There is no “one-size-fits-
46
Chapter 3
all” QMS for all programmes and projects, which is why “flexibility” is included in this chapter title. Table 3.1 is a sample Government RFP excerpt for ER Services on a performance-based contract, stated in the form of a Compliance Matrix (refer to Chapter 5, on the role of the Compliance Matrix). Table 3.1 includes the Quality Control Plan and shows a typical performance-based RFP requirement: A description of the Offeror’s performance management and quality control approach that includes planning, assessment, prevention/mitigation and monitoring of potential service performance deficiencies. It shall include methods to measure, track, analyze, and report performance trends and deficiencies and implement corrective actions to ensure timely and acceptable performance in accordance with the Performance Work Statement.
The corresponding Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirement (PWS is the RFP Statement of Work), is included for reference in the right column. The Compliance Matrix should also Table 3.1 Sample Government RFP Excerpt for ER Services on a Performance-Based Contract
Proposal section
Section L – Instructions, Conditions, Notices to Bidders
Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award
PWS Section (Reference)
Factor: Contract Management Tab: Summary Quality Control Plan
Offerors shall provide a summary Quality Control Plan to include:
Performance Management and Quality Control Approach
A description of the Offeror’s performance management and quality control approach that includes planning, assessment, prevention/ mitigation, and monitoring of potential service performance deficiencies. It shall include methods to measure, track, analyze, and report performance trends and deficiencies and implement corrective actions to ensure timely and acceptable performance in accordance with the PWS.
The basis of evaluation will focus on the Offeror’s quality control approach to planning, assessment, prevention/ mitigation, and monitoring of potential service performance deficiencies. The basis of evaluation will also focus on the Offeror’s ability to effectively measure, track, analyze, and report performance trends and deficiencies and implement corrective actions in a timely and acceptable performance level to meet the requirements of the Performance Work Statement.
Annex X, Item 2.X. – Quality Control Plan As required by Section L of this solicitation, the Contractor shall submit a summary Quality Control Plan. The plan shall provide the processes that shall be employed to ensure quality and timeliness, demonstrate an understanding and approach for meeting the quality requirements of stated performance objectives and standards, and illustrate how metrics tracking, in association with workload completion, will be accomplished.
Implement a Flexible Environmental Quality Management System 47 include applicable PWS performance standards for reference, so the proposal section can emphasize how your approach will consistently meet specified PWS performance standards. (Note: PWS performance standard column not listed in this example) The superior Contractor proposal will summarize the “who, what, when, where, and how” for their “performance management and quality control approach”. The emphasis needs to be on the “how” at the programme and project level, which means the Contractor should write the summary to correlate with a process flow chart. Figure 3.5 is a sample “Performance Management System” process flow chart that describes key QMS features on performancebased contracts. Note the deliberate omission of the Company QMS top-level on this chart. Government RFPs commonly reflect their perception that Company QMS features at higher levels do not contribute to the effective execution of programme ER services. The Performance Management System flow chart starts with the Government Performance Work Statement (PWS) at the top level. If this flow chart was intended for the sample Government RFP excerpt, it would be titled, “Performance Management and Quality Control System” for 1:1 responsiveness to the RFP. The narrative would include a Summary Table entitled “Performance Management and Quality Control System Compliance Matrix” that breaks down each Section L RFP requirement (e.g. planning, assessment, prevention/mitigation, and monitoring of potential service performance deficiencies) and a corresponding statement of “how we achieve consistent compliance and results” on the right.
Figure 3.5 Performance Management System.
48
Chapter 3
The flow chart helps fill logical performance gaps not covered by the RFP. The “P” in PWS stands for “Performance” – it is not a “Process Work Statement”. Describing the process (i.e. how work will be executed to achieve results) is the Contractor’s responsibility. The Summary Table must be responsive to specific Section L requirements. Figure 3.5 describes the performance-based QMS features that will be described in this chapter. The graphic shows the relationship among the Government PWS (i.e. your contract Statement of Work), QC Plan, Functional Inspection Plan (FIP), work processes, performance data and results, project website, Monthly QC Reports, and process improvement. This is the monthly performance cycle.
Quality Control Plan The Contractor develops a QC Plan based on the PWS. The QC Plan is a very lean document that describes the scope of work and QC Plan content required by the RFP. This usually includes topics such as the project organization, responsibilities, training programme, document control, and project records. The QC Plan contains two very important attachments: the Functional Inspection Plan (FIP) and QC Monthly Report. Sample formats will be highlighted in this chapter. The Contractor is responsible for demonstrating PWS requirements are met.
Work Processes The most common critical mistake made by ER Contractors who win Performance-Based Contracts is lacking documented work processes that meet PWS requirements. The Contractor Project Manager reads the PWS and views these as “performance guidelines”, erroneously assuming the Government will not hold them accountable for meeting each specific PWS requirement and performance standard during the project. Perhaps the Project Manager assumes he can get away with exception-based performance reporting during the project? Figure 3.6 shows a PWS excerpt. It shows how the PWS describes the Statement of Work in table format (PWS Specification Item; Title; Performance Objective; Related Information; and Performance Standard). The far right column section called “Performance Standard” is very important. The proposed Government Revision to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), Subpart 37.6, states “Performance-Based Service Acquisition (PBSA) contracts shall include measurable performance standards. These standards may be objective (e.g. response time) or subjective (e.g. customer satisfaction), but shall reflect the level of service required by the Government to meet mission objectives. Standards shall enable assessment of contractor performance to determine whether contract results and objectives are being met.” All Contractors intend to meet PWS requirements, and pledge this commitment in their proposals, but most fail to formalize their approach. They fail to understand that a PerformanceBased contract also holds their counterpart Government Service Manager or Remedial Project
Implement a Flexible Environmental Quality Management System 49
Figure 3.6 Performance work statement.
Manager (RPM) accountable for demonstrating that the Contractor meets PWS requirements. They are audited by independent Government agencies that make sure they comply with contract terms for evaluating Contractor performance. Performance-Based Contracts include incentives and disincentives. For example, the proposed Government Revision to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), Subpart 37.6, states “PBSA contracts may include incentives to promote contractor achievement of the results or objectives articulated in the contract. Incentives may be of any type, including positive, negative, monetary, or non-monetary.” The incentive can be substantial, such as the award of additional contract option years. The only way your Government counterpart can justify a high monthly, quarterly, annual, and final performance evaluation is with objective evidence that the Contractor achieved each PWS performance standard. And here is the issue that Contractor project managers commonly fail to understand: the burden of responsibility is on the Contractor – not the Government – to continually provide the objective evidence. Starting the first day of contract full performance, Contractors must demonstrate PWS requirements and performance standards are being met. The QMS and project work processes must be designed to enable the Project Manager and team to generate the objective evidence each hour, day, week, and month. That means a documented process must be in place for each PWS requirement.
Monthly QC Report Rather than conducting a baseline audit to compare the PWS requirements and performance standards to existing processes, simply create and use the “Monthly QC Report template” as a “gap analysis” tool to assess the existence of work processes that are needed to document work performance and results. Then you can establish and/or fine-tune work processes, forms, and databases to capture PWS performance and results. As indicated on
50
Chapter 3
Figure 3.7 Monthly QC report format.
Figure 3.5, you must establish and implement work processes that generate PWS “performance data and results”. The PWS performance data and results must be documented and defensible. Figure 3.7 is a sample Monthly QC Report format. Note how the structure mirrors the PWS. This is designed to be user-friendly to the Government. The Monthly QC Report resembles a proposal Compliance Matrix because you are showing exactly how you meet PWS performance objectives and performance standards. The right side column (Results/Corrective Actions/Achievements) provides the quantifiable and verifiable results that constitute objective evidence. The Government needs this objective evidence to justify a high Contractor performance ratings and incentive awards. To keep the Monthly QC Report lean, the Results/Corrective Actions/Achievements column links to performance information and data (electronic files) that are organized and maintained on the project website. This allows the Government to “drill down” into details. For
Implement a Flexible Environmental Quality Management System 51 example, the Contractor will e-mail the Monthly QC Report to the Government. The Government might click on a link if they want to review objective evidence. If your Project Team does not have an extranet project website, the single file Monthly QC Report should be converted to a complete, stand-alone pdf binder with bookmarks and links to included records. This report might be several pages. The substantial level of effort required to compile this Monthly QC Report as a single bookmarked pdf dwarfs the monthly rental cost of a SharePoint project website (10 USD/month). Unfortunately, many companies will justify why they cannot utilize a third party SharePoint web-hosting service (to obtain extranet functionality) and unnecessarily spend thousands of extra dollars over the course of the project. If the Contractor falls short of meeting a performance standard, the Results/Corrective Actions/ Achievements column includes a bulletized summary of corrective actions that are being taken to improve performance. This demonstrates a properly functioning QMS. PWS performance reporting is not possible without work processes that capture performance data and results. Records must substantiate performance claims. Contractor Project Managers should not write a monthly performance report that claims: “We performed all work in accordance with PWS requirements except for a few isolated deficiencies” (i.e. exceptionbased reporting). Exception-based reporting will not enable your Government counterpart to pass their internal contract performance audit. Transitioning to a Performance-Based contract can become painful, costly, and difficult experience for Contractors who are narrowly focused on the stated PWS deliverables. When advised to develop a performance reporting process and Monthly QC Report deliverable, some Contractor project managers commonly take the position that “Our PWS does not require a Monthly QC Report, and this deliverable is not budgeted, so we are not going to do it.” The same Project Managers cry foul when the Government rejects their invoices and hold back payments for several months due to failure to provide objective evidence that PWS requirements are being met. Certainly, the Government could avoid this problem by simply including a PWS requirement such as, “The Offerer shall submit a Monthly QC Report that provides evidence that each PWS requirement and associated performance standards are being met.” If you want irritate the Government, and would rather spent countless hours and e-mails debating how you are meeting the PWS, then do not bother to submit a Monthly QC Report. Bear in mind that once the Monthly QC Report template and processes are put in place, the time and effort required to track and report performance is minimal. Here is another very common Government/Contractor dispute that can be avoided by the Monthly QC Report. The Government Monthly Performance Evaluation rates Contractor performance relative to the PWS. During the reporting period, the Government received a customer complaint. After receiving and documenting the Government Customer Complaint Record (see Figure 3.8), they researched the PWS to identify the specific requirement that applies to the customer complaint. Note how the sample form references the PWS Spec Item and Title.
52
Chapter 3
Figure 3.8 The Government customer complaint record.
The Government Manager, acting as the “Performance Assessment Representative (PAR)” downgrades the overall Contractor Monthly Performance Evaluation score due to the Customer Complaint. As the Contractor Project Manager, you feel the rating downgrade is unfair and punitive because the Customer Complaint represents an “isolated” performance deficiency. Contractors who submit Monthly QC Reports can substantiate the Customer Complaint (performance deficiency) did not cause them to fall below the specified performance standard (e.g. 97%) for the monthly reporting cycle. For example, due to the deficiency, Contractor monthly performance might be 98.4% for the PWS item. Therefore, the PWS rules prevent the Government PAR from downgrading the Contractor for the deficiency. If there were three similar deficiencies, resulting in 95.3% performance (below the 97% standard),
Implement a Flexible Environmental Quality Management System 53 the performance downgrade is justified. The downgraded Contractor Project Manager will claim the performance downgrade is unfair, but he lacks the QMS, process, and objective evidence to counter the PAR downgrade. On the other hand, if the Contractor Monthly QC Report cited the specific customer complaint in a bullet, noting the impact on performance (e.g. 98.4%), and corrective action taken to prevent recurrence, the Government PAR cannot use the isolated Customer Complaint to downgrade overall Contractor performance. If the Government PAR is audited, and the auditor sees the Customer Complaint Record, they have defensible information that shows the customer complaint did not cause the Contractor to fall below the PWS performance standard target. Project Managers must understand their Government PARs want to pass future internal audits and will be reluctant to utilize unsubstantiated Contractor PWS claims.
Project Website Chapter 4 describes structure and content guidelines for collaborative project websites, such as those using Microsoft SharePoint. A major theme of Chapter 4 is that most project information directed at project team members should be organized in traditional three-ring binders to improve productivity. However, project extranet websites are excellent for organizing electronic project records, especially records that substantiate PWS-compliant performance. Certain project website features are indispensible for demonstrating PWS-compliant performance, such as the “Project Correspondence Log.” Monthly QC Report archives, including all electronic performance records that support the Monthly QC Report, must be organized on the project website. All PWS deliverables must be memorialized and posted on the Project Correspondence Log. The Contractor project website must be an “extranet site” that allows Government login and access. Government Managers and PARs must be able to click on the Monthly QC Report link and “see” the backup files that substantiate claimed results. The Monthly QC Report template, right side column, “Results/Corrective Actions/ Achievements” provides numerous electronic links (hyperlinks) to PWS performance-related information, such as contract deliverables, certificates, and electronic spreadsheets. For deliverables, the hyperlinks must be DCN numbers with embedded hyperlinks (e.g. refer to DCN: XXXX). DCN stands for “Document Control Number”. DCNs must be assigned to each posted Project Correspondence Log item. For example, PWS Spec Item X, Hazardous Waste Spill Cleanup Reports, states the Contractor shall submit Hazardous Waste Spill Cleanup Reports to the Government within 24 h of the spill response 95% of the time (95% is the performance standard). After each spill response event, the Contractor submits an e-mail that attaches the completed spill response report to the Government. The e-mail subject line contains an assigned DCN XXXX. The Sent e-mail serves as a cover letter transmittal that memorializes the date, time, and e-mail recipients and attaches the deliverable(s). The Sent e-mail, in MS-Outlook.msg format, is uploaded to the Project Correspondence Log.
54
Chapter 3
The.msg file preserves the e-mail attachments. Important: Do NOT upload an Adobe pdf of deliverables, reports, and contract letters to the Project Correspondence Log. The pdf document is NOT a receipt, unless it is stamped “Received By (Initials) with Date and Time” by the Government, which will never be the case because the Government will not tolerate being continually inconvenienced with this time-consuming Contractor request. Example: The October Monthly QC Report, under the PWS Spec Item that applies to Hazardous Waste Spill Cleanup Services, includes a bullet that states two Hazardous Waste Spill Cleanups were performed and reports were submitted within 24 h of the spill (Ref: DCN XXXX; DCN YYYY). Each DCN links to the DCN item, which posts the documented proof (original e-mail) that demonstrates achievement of the timeliness performance standard. A pdf of the spill report does not constitute objective evidence that the report was submitted within 24 h of the spill. The Government realizes that the Contractor could write down a time on the spill report that indicates within 24 h (e.g. spill report sent to Government on 11 March at 9:15 AM). But this is not proof that the Government received the report within 24 h. My apologies for beating this point into the ground, but you will discover a reluctance of some Project Contract Managers to upload the sent Outlook.msg e-mail file to the Project Correspondence Log. While they can state the pdf letter demonstrates the PWS requirement was met, it does NOT demonstrate the performance standard was met. Meeting the performance standard is how you enable the PAR to justify awarding contract incentives. Performance-Based Contracts are not just about demonstrating PWS-compliance – you must capture and provide objective evidence that performance standards are being met.
Functional Inspection Plan Figure 3.9 shows a sample “Functional Inspection Plan (FIP)” format. As with the Monthly QC Report, the Government does not require a particular FIP format. The FIP identifies PWSspecific Contractor QC actions that are performed. The FIP structure must correlate with the PWS and Monthly QC Report. Each PWS Spec item performance objective is restated across the header row. The PWS Spec Item number and performance standard are listed for reference in the left column. Below this is the Government method of (performance) assessment and frequency, which will be discussed next. The centre column “QC Actions” are the QC checklist item(s) to verify the performance standard is being met. It includes the inspection frequency, responsibility, and method of assessment. The right column shows reference documentation that relates to the QC checklist items. The QC checklist items are selected by the Contractor based on knowledge of the work process. Some performance standards include multiple QC checklist items. The working FIP copy can list the name of the individual responsible for performing the QC inspection. QC checklist items can be added at any time.
Implement a Flexible Environmental Quality Management System 55
Figure 3.9 Contractor Functional Inspection Plan.
FIP Implementation Figure 3.5 represents a monthly reporting cycle involving the FIP, work processes, performance data and results, and Monthly QC Reports. The Monthly QC Reports for the previous month (reporting period) will be due about 10 working days into the next month. The Project Manager and Project QC Manager should implement a “Monthly QA FIP Audit” during the month with multiple objectives: (1) verify FIP QC actions are being implemented and documented by the responsible individual; (2) perform and document any “missed QC checks”; (3) verify PWS performance standards are being met; and (4) take immediate corrective actions in response to any PWS deficiencies that are identified (so that PWS performance standards can be met before the end of the monthly reporting cycle). Many FIP inspections are assigned to the people performing and supervising the work. They are very busy and might forget to conduct their assigned FIP inspections. The Project QC Manager uses the FIP as the audit checklist. The Project QC Manager conducts the audit by interviewing the individuals assigned to each FIP QC Action. The Project QC Manager requests to see documented evidence that QC checks are being performed. The documented evidence (e.g. photocopied records) are placed in a three-ring binder entitled QA FIP Audit Records. This independent Monthly QA FIP Audit process is necessary. Otherwise, the QC Actions might not be performed and documented by the responsible individuals. The Project QC Manager can also spot-check Monthly QC Report information, data, and results that are being claimed in the previous month’s Results/Corrective Actions/Achievements column. For example, if the
56
Chapter 3
Monthly QC Report claims that two spill reports were reported within 24 h, they review the spill reports. They might discover an extra spill report was not reported. The Project Manager and Project QC Manager should consider conducting a “Monthly Performance Review Meeting” 1 week prior to the Monthly QC Report due date. They can review QA FIP Audit Records (three-ring binder) and make sure Results/Corrective Actions/ Achievements to be reported on the Monthly QC Report are accurate and up-to-date.
Government Performance Assessment Figure 3.5 includes two Government-related activities: “Government Performance Assessment Plan” and “Government Performance Reports”. Each Contractor PWS FIP item should reference the Government “method of (performance) assessment” and frequency. The Government RFP in performance-based contracts includes the Government “Performance Assessment Plan”. As mentioned before, the Government Manager, who may also act as “Performance Assessment Representative (PAR)” is responsible for implementing the PAP during the project. The Performance Assessment Plan, Introduction, is tailored and included in the RFP for performance-based contracts. This introduction provides an excellent PAP overview and introduces of key PAP elements. For example, “The PAP describes the methodology for assessing the Contractor’s performance that will be used to provide Contractor feedback, update Contractor Performance Assessment Rating System (CPARS).” The Performance Assessment Plan (PAP) establishes performance assessment provisions for the Contract. A positive relationship between the Government and the Contractor is essential in fulfilling a performance-based requirement. The Government’s relationship with the Contractors should be one that promotes a strong and positive business alliance to achieve mutually beneficial goals, such as timely delivery and acceptance of high-quality services, through the use of efficient business practices. It is essential that the Government and the Contractor work together as a team to communicate expectations, agree on common goals, develop a common understanding of measurable standards, and identify and address problems early in the contract to achieve desirable outcomes. The PAP includes flow charts used by the Government PAR to assess Contractor performance. Figure 3.10 is a sample flow chart. The Government performance assessment process flow uses the term “defect” for PWS performance and results that fail to meet PWS requirements or performance standards. The PAP provides the following description of defect:
Implement a Flexible Environmental Quality Management System 57
Assess Performance @ AL2 or AL3
Defect(s) Found?
Yes Document and notify contractor
Defect(s) warrant evaluation of QMS?
Rework if necessary
Yes Re-evaluate QMS
Is QMS acceptable?
No
Recommend appropriate administrative action (including withholding if necessary)
Yes No
No Recommend withholding if necessary
Continue current assessment level or go to lower assessment level if applicable
Document performance as acceptable at appropriate assessment level Continue current assessment level
Return to higher assessment level
Yes
Positive trend established?
No
Continue current assessment level
Figure 3.10 A sample flow chart.
“When the assessed work fails to comply with performance objectives and standards, the PAR will document the defect on the Performance Assessment Worksheet (PAW) and notify the Contractor. Validated customer complaints (VCC) or instances of nonconforming work discovered during unscheduled visits (UV) should also be documented as defects. Where customer complaints are received, all alleged defects must be evaluated within a reasonable time to validate that the performance standards were not met.”
Another key statement in the PAP introduction refers to the Government “Functional Assessment Plan”. For example: “The PAP includes applicable Functional Assessment Plan (FAP) and standard Performance Assessment Worksheets (PAWs) to document and report Government observations and rate Contractor performance”. Figure 3.11, PAP Attachment A, is a sample PAP “Government Functional Assessment Plan (FAP) Key” and Figure 3.12 is a “Government Functional Assessment Plan Table” Figure 3.13 is a sample Government “Performance Assessment Worksheet (PAW)”, which is used by the Government PAR to document and report observations and rate Contractor performance
58
Chapter 3
Figure 3.11 Sample Government functional assessment plan key.
Figure 3.12 Sample Government functional assessment plan table.
Sample Project Performance Evaluation Policy Contractors should consider establishing a Project Performance Evaluation Policy that requires each PM to implement a single page Project Performance Evaluation Plan for each awarded project based on the 12 points below. Most U.S. DoD federal ER contracts feature one or more performance evaluation methods (e.g., Performance Assessment Plan (PAP), CCASS Evaluations, Award Fee Plan and Evaluations, etc.). Some PMs routinely perform some of these 12 points; however, the approach usually lacks a framework and proactive client communication theme.
Implement a Flexible Environmental Quality Management System 59
Figure 3.13 Sample Performance Assessment Worksheet.
1. PMs must identify the client contract performance evaluation method(s) after contract award. 2. PMs must develop a single page “Project Performance Evaluation Plan” that summarizes how they will proactively meet contract performance criteria, communicate performance with their client RPMs, request the opportunity to submit performance self-evaluations, and exercise their right to request Interim performance evaluations to prevent surprises. 3. PMs must always request a Performance “Self-Evaluation” from their RPM and Contract Specialist (each Government performance evaluation method usually allows a contractor Performance Self-Evaluation). RPMs commonly borrow Contractor Self-Evaluation input for their official performance evaluations. More importantly, any disconnects can be resolved by the PM and RPM before the RPM writes the evaluation. 4. Train PMs on the Government Performance Evaluation policies and guidelines (e.g., CCASS Policy Manual, CPAR User Manual, Performance Assessment Plans), so they
60
5. 6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Chapter 3 know the Government rules against which RPMs will be accountable for following, as enforced by their Contracts Specialist and Contracts Manager. Add “Project Performance Evaluation Plan (Update)” as standing Internal Progress Review (IPR) topic and agenda item. Provide support and assistance to PMs on their Self-Evaluations and Performance Evaluation Responses (in response to Government-documented performance deficiencies). Responses must include a letter, attach the Performance Evaluation (for reference), and include a root cause analysis and preventive action plan. Performance Evaluation written responses to the Government (for adverse performance evaluation reports) need to convey an element of Company leadership awareness, support to the PM, and commitment to implementing preventive actions to improve performance and prevent problem recurrence. All incoming Government performance evaluations must go to designated Company recipients who understand the federal performance evaluation policy. Internal distribution, internal review and an internal conference call discussion will determine response actions. The internal conference call should be conducted within one working day of receipt. Establish rule that we always exercise our right to respond to Government offers to provide cause analysis and preventive action responses for any Government documented areas needing improvement. We should never let areas needing improvement stand without a cause analysis and preventive action plan. We can always turn a negative into a positive. Note: Not responding to documented deficiencies is worse than the problem–it comes across as “Company does not care”. Refine, communicate and phase-in these program guidelines, and immediately request each PM to develop a single page “Project Performance Evaluation Plan” for their projects. Establish a single Company intranet location where Performance Evaluation Records are organized and archived for future reference. This is not just the Government Performance Evaluation. It must be the entire Project Evaluation file including self-evaluations and Responses to Government Performance Evaluations. Periodically review performance trends, examples of effective self-evaluations, and responses that resulted in increasing the performance evaluation rating. Make sure we do not submit any projects with negative evaluations in our future proposals.
Some PMs might say “We can’t influence a Government RPM Performance Evaluation”. But that’s not true. We not only can influence their performance evaluations, we can prevent performance evaluation surprises. In fact, the Government performance evaluation guidelines state the Government Performance Assessment Representative must communicate any adverse contractor performance issues during the project, or possibly jeopardize the validity of the performance evaluation. All Government performance evaluation methods are intended to be a team communication processes with the Contractor.
CHAPTER 4
Develop and Utilize User-Friendly Project Websites In just 15 years, from 1995 to 2010, information technology (IT) completely transformed the way environmental project teams communicate, develop, and manage information. E-mail was a breakthrough in collaboration. Now most Contractors utilize project websites with extranet collaboration capability. Extranet websites (as opposed to “intranet” websites) enable access and collaboration among multiple organizations (e.g. Contractor project team, Team Subcontractors, Government ER Remedial Project Manager (RPM), Government Contract Specialist, Regulatory agencies, etc.). The project website is physically located and maintained on a hosted server, either by the Company IT organization or third party web hosting provider. Individual external user login accounts are provided to external project website users. Extranet project websites are essential for ER program and project team success, but they can be counter-productive in many ways. Project managers and their teams need to maximize their productivity by striking a proper balance between traditional paper (e.g. three-ring binders) and IT. This chapter addresses many obstacles to project team productivity, and project websites are at the top of the list. Project managers who utilize extranet project websites must be continually sensitive to project team member productivity. This chapter recommends the role of project websites based on lessons learned, with an emphasis on maintaining project team productivity.
Brief Synopsis of Microsoft SharePoint In 2004, Microsoft SharePoint enabled Contractors to “push the envelope” and deploy project team extranet SharePoint websites. Some envisioned that collaborative project websites would accelerate the phase-out of “paper”, decrease the dependency of “collaborating by e-mail”, and improve partnering by providing better project task visibility. ER continues to be a collaboration-intensive business involving many organizations and numerous document reviews. Time is money. Any tool that offers potential to save substantial time and money should be pilot tested. Figure 4.1 shows the 2004 Microsoft SharePoint project website (Microsoft calls this a “team site”). The “plain vanilla” home page is the starting point for tailoring the project website Best Practices for Environmental Project Teams. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-444-53721-8.00004-X # 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
61
62
Chapter 4
Figure 4.1 The 2004 Microsoft SharePoint project team site.
to meet project team needs. The home page template is divided into five active zones (1) Horizontal bar across the top (Home, Documents and Lists, Create, Site Settings, and Help); (2) Below the horizontal bar is the project website title. Many companies replace the home icon with their Company Logo; (3) The left margin region is called the “Quick Launch” bar. The text within the Quick Launch bar provides links to web parts contained on the project website; (4) The centre area is the body (Announcements and Events shown by default, which can be replaced with other web parts); (5) The right margin region contains the default Windows SharePoint Services logo (occupies the “Site Image” area). It can be replaced with a photo selected by the project team. The default “Links” web part is below the site image. The “Announcements”, “Events”, and “Links” features are called “web parts”. Project teams can select from a variety of generic web parts to place on their home page and other web pages. Figure 4.2 shows the subsequent generation SharePoint team site (2007). Project teams have full control of Quick Launch bar links in the left margin, which function as links to web parts. For example, 2007 allows users to change the order of Quick Launch topics and delete topics (e.g. “Discussions”). Figure 4.3 shows the third-generation SharePoint team site, which was introduced in 2010. This version adopts the ribbon feature that was introduced with Microsoft Office 2007 and Vista. SharePoint 2010 has the same regions, but many features are relocated. The default Announcement and Calendar web parts in the centre region have been replaced by “Shared Documents”. Figure 4.4 shows how we used SharePoint 2007 in a simplistic way to collaborate on this book. This is a rented SharePoint site that costs under $10 USD/month with no contract.
Develop and Utilize User-Friendly Project Websites 63
Figure 4.2 The subsequent generation SharePoint team site (2007).
Figure 4.3 The third-generation SharePoint team site.
It functions the same as “out-of-the-box” SharePoint. A login account was provided to the Elsevier support team in the Netherlands. The website organizes Chapter files, including support content. The Chapter files, at this snapshot in time, were featured in the centre home page region in a “Document Library” web part. Microsoft has established a track record for changing SharePoint.
64
Chapter 4
Figure 4.4 The use of SharePoint 2010 in a simplistic way to collaborate on this book.
This chronology of SharePoint team site design changes demonstrates an important lesson learned that paves the way for this Chapter: Microsoft has a history of substantially changing their products including SharePoint. Project teams go through a new learning curve with each version. Right when most project team users start to develop basic competency, Microsoft changes product design and functionality. Microsoft always claims these changes represent the company commitment to continuous improvement. From my perspective, these product changes represent the company commitment to generating more revenue. They try to force companies to upgrade. Many organizations are growing tired of this. Project team users invest many hours learning the software. Most project team users are simply seeking to utilize “the basics” in a practical manner. Then Microsoft changes the design and functionality. In my case, I have invested many hours to learn each new SharePoint version. However, many people find reasons to avoid investing the time. For some, constantly changing software fuels their resistance to invest the time to learn the product. This strategy will eventually backfire on Microsoft. Competitors who recognize that most people just want the basics and offer better prices for a “light” product will decrease Microsoft’s market share. Potential disadvantages of Microsoft SharePoint websites from the user perspective: Several impressive-looking project website features fail because they appear too complicated to users, or require too much time to maintain. For example, the time required to upload a file, populate fields, and input metadata (even with drop-down menus that avoided typing) to capitalize on creating useful views required too much time.
Develop and Utilize User-Friendly Project Websites 65 The periodic “frozen application” with opened files keeps you hostage while the application works through the glitches. The time required and associated delays are not tolerable for project teams in the field. This was an early wake-up call that ER project teams perceived many shortcomings. Security firewalls with Internet Protocol (IP) traffic load balancing, which are always used by security-conscious Government agencies, cause users to re-enter their username and password each time a user clicks on a new link. It is very difficult to get Government Information Security staff to provide a static route rule that would eliminate the problem. Consequently, each mouse-click causes Government user re-authentication (i.e. re-entering username and password), “waiting” for pages to load, waiting for applications to execute, and waiting for files to open. In addition to SharePoint challenges, personal computers are further bogged-down with excessive security software (anti-virus) and spyware that consume personal computer resources. Compound these delays for Government users who have more rigorous securityrelated software and spyware. All of these incremental delays consume time and cripple project team productivity. How bad is the problem? Sometimes it is easy to forget why you started clicking-away in the first place. My own experience re-kindled my appreciation for the value, simplicity, and personal productivity of traditional three-ring binders. Remember when proposal or project team members were given an attractive and well-organized three-ring binder at the kickoff meeting? It had everything: Table of contents, dividers, RFP, contract statement of work, site information, schedule, team members, contact information, WBS, figures, maps, etc. You could quickly flip from one section to another, highlight content, and accelerate your learning curve. Information was always at your fingertips. No mouse-clicks. No waiting for a web page to refresh. No frozen applications. No searching for an e-mail with a cryptic file attachment name. It did not take 10 min to access, open, read, and understand the equivalent of three pages of information. Now fast forward to 2010. People commonly send huge e-mails with randomly organized e-mail attachments (each with a cryptic file name) that must be opened, viewed, and downloaded. Many e-mails have a popular little statement in green font under the person’s title and contact information: “Please consider the environment before printing”. Consider using: Please consider identifying and orienting your files, otherwise, I must resort to printing. It takes time to open and screen e-mail attachments. Then it takes longer to “print” the files you need. You go to the printer and sometimes discover a printer jam, printer out-of-paper, low on toner, and your files among others printed by someone else. It gets confusing. Two or three weeks later you discover you need a file in the original e-mail, so time is wasted searching for the e-mail and the required file. This experience is worse for project team members in site trailers. Project websites are a paradox: They are supposed to make information
66
Chapter 4
visible. In many cases, they have become a wasteland of files in “Shared Documents” that are nearly impossible to locate. Collaboration productivity obstacles include instant messaging, smart phones, and portable digital assistants. Instant messaging, enhanced with desktop sharing, offers many advantages. There is also a downside with instant messaging. Professional managers are constantly distracted in meetings, peeking down at their blackberries or the “Instant Message” that popped-up on their laptop screen. These technologies are disruptive. People sending these messages seek and expect a quick response. The recipients must always look to make sure it is not someone very important. It has become very difficult for managers to concentrate on a topic more than a few minutes without getting distracted. To a large extent, many professionals have gradually become de-sensitized to the substantial lack of personal productivity that has developed over the past decade. If organizations could quantify the cost impact of these tools due to lack of productivity, some would take steps to develop productivity improvement guidelines. It is very easy to over-use technology and become less productive during the work day. It is time to take a step back and consider the productivity equation for project websites.
Fine-Tuning the Role of Collaborative Project Websites: Simpler is Better Before “old-school” ER veterans start rejoicing and saying “I told you so”, we need to get it straight: A collaborative project website is a must-have project team capability and prerequisite to success. For starters, it is risky to follow a project business model that allows project information and records to be managed and stored by individuals in their e-mail inboxes, computer hard drives, and company network drives. E-mail becomes a “black hole” for valuable project records. E-mails get filed as individual Microsoft Outlook.pst files on the personal hard drive, or get backed-up and archived by the Company enterprise e-mail archive application (if that happens, good luck trying to retrieve the e-mail). Less time on the project website is better. Less time searching for e-mails is better. Simpler organization is better. The home page needs to be intuitive, user-friendly, and information no more than two mouse-clicks away. This chapter appeals to ER managers and old-school ER veterans who sense the counterproductive impact of project websites in their organizations. Their gut-instincts, in this case, are spot-on. But that does not mean collaboration by e-mail and smart phones (e.g. Blackberries) are the solution – that is another problem that is good for managers and bad for project-level productivity. This chapter features several lessons learned and useful project website features, such as those to manage project contractual communication with the client involving project scope adjustments and changes. Many project managers with extensive website experience view a small number of project website features as indispensible and key to their success. My own
Develop and Utilize User-Friendly Project Websites 67 Microsoft SharePoint website user experience combined with continual feedback from customers, senior managers, program managers, project managers, and team users sensitized me to inherent project website limitations from the user perspective. Nothing in this global transition from 100% paper environments to collaborative project websites will ever replace the value and personal productivity gained from a well-organized set of three-ring binders. If project websites were invented before paper, everyone would be hailing the three-ring binder as a project team productivity breakthrough – especially ER companies that mobilize project teams to remote places to clean up contaminated debris, soil, and groundwater. And personal productivity, with a strong dose of convenience, is what really matters to project teams in the field.
Understanding the Perception of Website Value from the User Perspective ER Company leaders, operations managers, resource organization managers, program managers, and their program management office (PMO) teams share one common goal: Help project managers and their teams succeed. What is the project website role in this continual pursuit of maximizing project team productivity? Let us begin with the perception of value from the project website user perspective. It varies among different user groups. At this time, no ER industry literature exists on the role and perceived value of ER project websites. We will start with a mock survey of user perceptions based on our experience. Consider asking this question within your organization, and among your customers. Question: How much do you value (Microsoft SharePoint) project websites to conduct your job in the most efficient possible manner? (Scale of 1–10, from lowest to highest importance). This question pertains to their website, except in the case of Company Division Managers and Customer RPMs, who access and utilize multiple project team websites. These numbers would likely represent the average rating from each group, with some variability within the group. Value of project websites to Company Operations Managers ¼ 3 Value of resource organization websites to Company Resource Organization Managers ¼ 7 Value of ER program websites to Program Managers (and Project Management Office Managers) ¼ 7 Value of project websites to Project Managers ¼ 5 Value of project websites to Project Team Members ¼ 4 Value of project websites to Customer RPM ¼ 2
Company Operations Managers The “3” rating indicates that most Company Operations Managers do not like visiting ER program and project team websites. Company Operations Managers support multiple ER programs. Consequently, they visit multiple program and project websites. Company
68
Chapter 4
Operations Managers routinely receive e-mails with links to website-hosted files such as those too large to e-mail. Once they visit the website, they frequently experience difficulty locating the files, and then re-locating the website in the future. Some of you might be thinking “Save the web address as a Favourite” (i.e. bookmark the site in some way). Some do this. Others forget. Company Operations Managers also realize that each website is organized differently. Each program and project manager organizes their website to meet their needs. This is part of the appeal: managers have full control of their project website organization and content. Project website home pages may look similar because they often closely resemble the default home page, but the approach to organizing information behind the home page will be different. Consequently, Company Operations Managers never get comfortable with project website structures. They frequently have trouble locating information. In many cases, project-level e-mails have a statement such as “information is posted on the project website”. But where on the project website? E-mails frequently include links that go to a document library, but it is unclear which file is needed because most project teams do not customize the web part to include columns and metadata that simplify file identification. Company Operations Managers prefer receiving e-mails with attachments. They do not want to be directed to a project website. The score of “3” can be slightly increased by using a project website template that standardizes certain web parts and their location. However, this will likely not change their preference for “collaboration via e-mail”. The current generation of Company Operations Managers at most companies has never had the chance to “own” and control their own project website. Consequently, they have not learned how to use the software. They were left behind in the transition from network drives to project websites. Some still advocate organizing project information in company network drives, which resemble an extension of their computer hard drives.
Customer RPM Customer (RPM) project website users share much in common with Company Operations Managers. Their experience is further downgraded by trying to remember a login user name and password for the multiple Contractor project websites they visit. That is why most would score a “2”. In many cases, the login name is difficult to memorize, and the password rules require the use of special characters that make the password impossible to remember. This misery is compounded when the window pops up that prompts them to re-enter their login when they change from one web page to the next. Additionally, all the inconveniences that plague Company Operations Managers are also perceived by RPM users. Contractor project managers need to be sensitive to the project website perceptions and user experience of RPMs.
Develop and Utilize User-Friendly Project Websites 69
Company Resource Organization Managers Company resource organization managers own their project website, which is usually on the Company intranet. Company resource organizations support ER programs and project teams. They post their organization charts, contact information, policies, procedures, training information, and other information resources for project teams. Their high rating of “7” is due to having a storefront of functional information. They hang their functional shingle on their website, which means they spend less time e-mailing the same information to various project teams.
Program Managers (and Project Management Office Managers) Program Managers and Project Management Office Managers also support multiple project teams. The PMO website frequently functions as a top-tier umbrella for project websites. Program managers generally like the idea of organizing program-related information for project teams. The program websites usually include a program calendar and document libraries consisting of basic contract information, RFPs, program plans, program procedures. PMO websites link to corporate and customer web pages.
Project Managers Most project managers see the value of project websites, and prefer to have a project website, but they lack the expertise to tailor project websites to make them user-friendly. Tailoring refers to customizing web parts with web part positioning, images, column titles, column sorting rules (e.g. most recent date at top), functionality, metadata, and different views. Web part tailoring makes individual files easy to locate and identify at a glance – it prevents the appearance of file clutter. Most project websites bear a close resemblance to the generic, out-of-the-box products shown at the beginning of this Chapter. This also applies to project teams that rent their SharePoint project website from a hosting provider. Consequently, the Quick Launch bar stays unchanged and the “Shared Documents” web part becomes a repository of folder clutter and file clutter. Various folders are identified within the “Shared Documents” directory. The default web part columns are unchanged. The “All Documents” view is the standard view. When a new file category is needed, a new folder is created. Project managers who know less than five basic SharePoint functions now learn how to create and name new folders within document libraries (folder creation and naming would be one of the five). Most project managers would probably develop and routinely customize additional web parts if they knew how to do it. You can give project managers a website user guide and training material, but most will be too busy to read it. They are not willing to invest the time to learn how to perform basic website customization. It is a classic example of the Steven Covey concept
70
Chapter 4
of not “sharpening the saw”. The time and effort required to utilize a plain vanilla project website and search for files over the course of a project dwarf the minimal time required to learn basic customization. Poor Microsoft software design contributes to the problem. Historically, Microsoft has difficulty designing user-friendly software. They compound the problem by designing software that assumes user objectives (This software design philosophy seems to permeate all Microsoft Office software). Then users waste time trying to reverse actions imposed by the software. Once users start to get familiar with all the hard-to-locate and counter-intuitive features, Microsoft changes the design and puts users through another learning curve – and the value added by the new version rarely justifies the learning curve. The recurring theme is that too many mouse-clicks are required to execute basic functions. For example, how many mouse-clicks are required ? Answer: Four. One double-click to click an X in this checklist box in Microsoft Word: in the check box launches a new window called “Check Box Form Field Options”, which requires two separate mouse-clicks within the window. And this problem has existed for how many years and versions of Microsoft Word? Users who experience a Microsoft software problem Google the problem symptom for a quick solution – they do not dare click on the help menu or visit the “Microsoft Knowledge Base” website to read a dissertation on the issue. The “5” rating is due to personal freedom and control (high satisfier), offset by self-imposed frustration caused by using generic websites that cause folder and file clutter. Many project websites viewed by Company Operations Managers and RPMs are these generic websites that feature clutter. The 80/20 rule also applies with project manager users: 20% of project managers develop and use well-organized project websites (Score 7) and minimize clutter, while the 80% who try to get by without any tailoring would likely score a 4.
Project Team Members Many project team members have seen it all. They have been on project teams that have excellent project websites and others with user-unfriendly websites. Project website visits involve locating and downloading electronic documents, plans, procedures, and reports. File locating is usually the frustrating part. They can also involve “uploading” files that exist on a laptop, USB drive, or external hard drive to the project website. Another common task is opening a file for review and comment, or downloading a report section for editing and updating. The common denominator among all project team members is this: productivity suffers with each visit to a project website. A well-organized project website decreases adverse productivity impacts. Bear in mind that project team members are frequently in the field – often in remote geographic locations. Their connectivity might be inconsistent, especially on military installations. Bandwidth might be lacking. While some might say that is
Develop and Utilize User-Friendly Project Websites 71 exactly the reason why extranet project websites, or “the cloud”, make sense, they fail to consider the productivity consequences. Each of these 10- to 15-min project website encounters adds-up to a substantial amount of time over the course of a day. This time can be better used in the field, such as planning and inspecting field work. The subcontractor might be coring in the wrong concrete slab location and into some electrical conduit, but you are not there to prevent the nonconformance because you are sitting in front of a computer waiting for a map to download. The time spent on project websites must be minimized. Project team members are more productive with paperwork and well-organized three-ring binders. Project website ownership, freedom and control influence the project website user perception of value. Operations Managers, Resource Managers, Program Managers, and Project Managers will be less likely to support, learn, and utilize project websites unless they own and control their project websites. It is no surprise that most Operations Managers do not value project websites. The minority of Operations Managers who value project websites likely have their own project website. For example, if a series of project websites (Tier 3) rolled up to their respective ER Program websites (Tier 2), which rolled-up to a top-level Regional Operations website (Tier 1), Regional Operations Manager perceptions would likely increase from a 3 to a 7 or 8. They now feel ownership and control, even if they need an Administrative Assistant to organize and maintain their “regional operations top level website”. If they are left out of the website structure, they feel like outcasts. If various Company Resource Organization Managers who support ER PMOs and project teams had to rely upon the Company IT organization whenever they needed to create a Document Library, upload a file, or announce a training workshop, their level of satisfaction would plummet from a 7 to a 1. Nobody likes to send an e-mail request and wait a few days for an IT professional to take action on the “help ticket”. This type of policy decreases the productivity of website owners. The same applies to Program Managers and PMO manager staff. It is similar to the common problem with company-level standard operating procedures described in Chapter 10, Design User-Friendly Work Processes for Project Teams: If programs and projects do not own and control the procedure, they will be reluctant to use, revise, and continuously improve the procedure. They will resist dealing with the resource organization bureaucracy and time required to revise the procedure. Therefore, for companies making the transition to project websites, your strategy must transfer ownership from the IT organization to the Resource Managers, Program Managers, and Project Managers. The IT organization should provide project website policies based on Government requirements (e.g. no “anonymous access” without prior “Government approval”), employee training, consultation on how to customize website features, and guidance on the program project website structure (hierarchy).
72
Chapter 4
Website Organization Now that you have gained an appreciation for the factors that influence user perception and personal productivity, we will discuss guidelines for developing website organization. Figure 4.5 shows an example of collaborative website structure in ER companies. As with the company environmental quality management system (EQMS), three levels exist: Company, Programs, and Projects. Each has a set of intranet and extranet websites. Each project manager has her own extranet and intranet website, or, preferably, a single extranet website with restricted access sections for managing internal information (e.g. financial information). The ER Program (PMO) intranet site should be a top-level site that organizes program contract information for a single Government client. It contains a site map with links to project websites that are within the program contracts. If project websites are extranet sites, and hosted by a third party service provider, the internal ER Program (PMO) intranet website can still appear as the umbrella site with links to extranet project sites. Companies in our industry, including numerous construction trades, analytical laboratories, and specialty contractors, are progressing at various technology adoption rates towards using project websites to manage information with clients. Individuals from companies, subcontractors, clients, and regulatory agencies are going through an IT learning curve within their own organization. Within each company, the learning curve is inconsistent among individuals and different organization levels. In general, the higher you go up the organization, the greater the reliance on e-mail for collaboration and slower the technology adoption rate. Ironically, many higher level division managers who complain about getting too many mails solely rely on e-mail to stay informed and get input on their reports.
Figure 4.5 Sample collaborative websites structure in ER companies
Develop and Utilize User-Friendly Project Websites 73
Obtaining your Project Websites Back in 2004, early adopter companies and their IT organizations had to take a leap of faith and take full responsibility for integrating SharePoint into their existing IT infrastructure. This eliminated many small businesses that lacked the resources and expertise to provide the service within their organization. Now, in the past few years, many web-hosting service providers allow you to rent a SharePoint site from $8 USD/month. It is like many other IT products – prices decrease over time. The first month might be free, and you can cancel at any time. Discounts might be offered if you pay for 6 or 12 months at a time. The monthly rate is primarily governed by the amount of allocated disk space. The low-end monthly rate will give you 500 MB, which is enough for disk space for your project (unless your files include a library of video plume animations). You have the freedom to use your own domain name. Now any small business, project manager, or individual can host their project on a SharePoint site that looks exactly like the site offered by a large corporation backed by a large IT organization. As with other trends, late adopters will be pressured to use SharePoint even if they do not have a SharePoint site. For example, the environmental industry consists of thousands of small businesses that provide technology and construction services. Our projects involve many the same trades that support the construction industry. Many of these companies want to build relationships with large prime contractors. Many small businesses strive to develop the systems and procedures necessary to prime a contract with the government.
Project Websites Improve the Efficiency of Teaming The teaming relationship between a large company and a small company can become more efficient through collaboration on a project website. For example, the prime contractor with a basic contract is targeting a large environmental cleanup. The client is interested in a specific technology offered by your small business. The prime sets up a SharePoint website to organize and coordinate the proposal development effort. How is the prime contractor team going to react when your firm is faxing files that are hard to read, e-mailing 10 MB files scanned at 3000 DPI that clog inboxes, and do not know how to upload a file to a SharePoint site? I will tell you what they think: “This firm is going to be ‘high maintenance’ during project execution – are they going to be faxing or e-mailing submittals, rather that utilizing our submittal library on the project website?” This lack of website competency translates into continual frustration and a higher cost of doing business. It places a burden on other people to compensate for the lack of basic collaboration skills. And which other people are going to help? SharePoint is not something that is delegated to Administrative staff. As you know, Contractor project teams seem to have fewer and fewer administrative staff to support their efforts. As companies become leaner, administrative staff are decreased.
74
Chapter 4
Late adopter companies can enter the project website era by investing $10 USD/month, which is about the equivalent of two packs of yellow-stickies. Late adopter companies that decide to do nothing will become a productivity burden on every organization you deal with before, during, and after the project. You will increase everyone’s cost of doing business and this burden will take its toll on others’ patience. At this low price, the project manager does not need to persuade the organization to approve the request. It does not affect the company resources or the standard way of doing business. This is simply a project management tool that project managers rent for a project and use with their project team. When you rent your “plain vanilla” SharePoint site, it will look either like Figure 4.2 (SharePoint 2007) or Figure 4.3 (SharePoint 2010). The SharePoint 2010 adopts the top ribbon look and feel. Some might express the following concern, “Once I get the plain vanilla SharePoint site, how much time and effort will it take to customize to fit our project needs?” An individual with limited SharePoint skills can customize the site in 8 h or less. Their productivity is increased by the following two factors: (1) Electronic project files are organized on external drive (such as on a USB Drive); (2) Person creating project website has broadband internet connection. Many project files, such as contract files, are 1–10 MB in size and can take either seconds or minutes to upload, depending on the available bandwidth. A basic Microsoft SharePoint project team website customization, which requires 8 h or less of development, includes the following features: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
6. 7.
8.
9.
Project Title, Description, and Organization Chart (10 min) Company logo to replace the default SharePoint logo (5 min) Project team member directory and contact information (1 min/team member) “Project Correspondence Log” with custom fields and drop-down-menus to organize incoming and outgoing project e-mail in Outlook (.msg) format (1 h) “Contracts” document library to organize the RFP package (RFP Amendments, reference plans, reports, maps, etc), Contract, Contract Modifications, and other contract-related files (2 h) “Project Records” document library to organize project records required by the company and contract (1 h) “Project Work Plan” document library to develop the project work plan sections and supplemental plans such as Health and Safety Plan, Sampling and Analysis Plan, Quality Control Plan, etc. (1 h) “Project Action Items” listing of required actions, responsible individuals, and due dates for contract deliverables due between contract award and prior to field mobilization (2 h) “Business Office” subsite that has restricted permissions and organizes private project financial information.
Develop and Utilize User-Friendly Project Websites 75 10. “Proposal” document library on the private Business Office subsite to organize the project proposal, estimate, risk register, and schedule (1 h) 11. “Procurement Plan” document library on the private Business Office subsite to list planned procurements and collaborate on the development of statements of work, bid packages, purchase orders, and subcontracts. (1 h) Therefore, as a Project Manager, the USB Drive you use to gather and organize the initial project website content, or give to someone to develop the project website, should have the following folders and content: 1. Project Title and Description (include organization chart file) 2. Company Logo (Logo image file) 3. Project Contacts List. A list with Names, Positions, Orgs, Mobile Phone Numbers. In this list above, note any users with restricted access, and specify what you want them to see or not see. 4. Project Correspondence Log (Any initial correspondence files in Outlook.msg format, starting with the contract award e-mail) 5. Contracts files 6. Project Record categories and records list (include contract submittal list) 7. Project Work Plan (title, sections, subtier plans) 8. Project Action Items (list of action items and due dates required by contract) 9. Private Business Office subsite (include any initial files that will be uploaded) 10. Proposal files 11. Procurement files (include Subcontractor folders containing pre-award Subcontractor bid package files) Figure 4.6 is a SharePoint 2007 project website mock-up. The time and effort required after contract award to customize a functional project SharePoint website is minimal. The total level of effort or cost of the initial project website development should not exceed $1000 USD. Note how the Quick Launch Bar in the left margin of the project website home page can be customized. These titles represent links. Clicking on the text will take you to the web part library, where information or files should be organized and sorted for quick identification. The second mouse-click should either open or download the file (maximum of two mouse-clicks for project website users).
Project Website Templates Project SharePoint sites, including web parts, can be saved as a “project website template” to achieve a consistent project website organization among projects. This excellent feature is unknown to many SharePoint users. For example, they can create a project website shell that looks just like Figure 4.7, including web parts that are customized for their ER program needs. This helps Contractors avoid many of the problems described earlier in the Chapter (i.e. hard
76
Chapter 4
Figure 4.6 A SharePoint 2007 project website mock-up.
to locate information, excessive file clutter within file libraries, illogical file sequencing, lack of user-friendly views, etc.) It also decreases the time required to set up a new project website. The time can be spent uploading electronic files.
Key Website Features As mentioned earlier in this chapter, project websites should not be routinely frequented or used by project team members during field execution. Project team members should organize and maintain electronic files used for routine daily reporting on their local hard drive. When possible, they should fill out electronic report templates on their laptops (not from a hosted file on the project website). Most project team members can exercise judgment on the most productive approach that minimizes project website visits. Project websites, as shown in the Quick Launch bar for the sample project website, should focus on contact information, project communication (project calendar, schedule, and action list), project records, project documents (e.g. source files), project reports (source files), and links to other websites. The project website primarily organizes and archives project records and source files used to develop plans and reports. Source files are individual files in various formats that are
Develop and Utilize User-Friendly Project Websites 77
Figure 4.7 An example for “QC Plan Files”.
bundled into a single document, usually in pdf format, for delivery to the customer. Figure 4.7 shows an example for “QC Plan Files”. This document library organizes associated source files that are used in the QC Plan. Source files are often exhibits of tables, flow charts, maps, etc. that exist as a single electronic file. The converted adobe.pdf file should also be included. Figure 4.7 includes a rectangle drawn around the QCP document that contains all source files.
Project Correspondence Log One particular website feature has emerged as a superior best practice: the Project Correspondence Log. A sample Project Correspondence Log is shown in the centre of the sample project website home page. It is a SharePoint “Custom List” web part that takes about 15 min to create and customize with data entry fields including those with drop-down menus. The Project Correspondence Log can be subsequently sorted with different web page views based on items on the drop-down menus. Views can be exported to MS-Excel and e-mailed. The Project Correspondence Log features a list of exchanged documents that are controlled by assigning a Document Control Number (DCN). The posted “Document Title” is synonymous with the e-mail subject line. The Project Correspondence Log organizes uploaded Microsoft Outlook.msg e-mails received from the Government, and sent to the Government. This project website feature will help program managers, project managers, and contracts managers efficiently manage and track contract and regulatory correspondence during projects. A substantial amount of important project communication is routinely exchanged by Contractors and the Government using e-mail. This communication influences the financial success of projects. Where do the e-mail records go? They eventually disappear on individual laptop
78
Chapter 4
computers as Microsoft.pst files. If the laptop is lost or stolen, what happens next? Any Contractor project manager and contracts manager who rely on their E-mail Inbox, Sent Items, and hard copy contracts file to manage contractual and regulatory communications are setting the stage for expensive and highly inefficient contract management. Do not interpret this tool as something that replaces the Contracts Manager’s official hard copy file – that remains unchanged. The major problem with that approach: the Contractor project team Contracts file, like the Government Contracts Manager’s file, is not visually available to the Project Manager and Program Manager. Project contract-related issues, negotiations, and disputes commonly arise during all ER projects. Many revolve around communication and information exchanges over time. The Contractor Project Manager is always faced with the burden to prove the timeline of communication including important e-mail records that relate to the issue. The issue can be related to any number of contract and regulatory related notifications and issues (e.g. RFIs, notification of scope changes, request for contract period of performance extensions, etc.). Frankly, customer contracts managers might not always have an organized contract file. Unless you can prove your case with your maintained records, your project will receive an unfavourable contract ruling. The consequences can be hundreds of thousands of dollars. Some project managers might justify not having a Project Correspondence Log by saying “My Contracts Manager prints hard copies and maintains a project contracts file”. Have you audited their file for completeness? How many hours does it take for the Contracts Manager to respond to an e-mail requesting all records related to an issue? 4 h? 3 days? 1 week? Chances are good that your Contracts Manager will eventually find most of the important records, and then the Project Manager will spend many hours organizing the information to make his case. It might be $1000 to $2000 USD for each routine internal review. All this time is charged against your limited project manager budget, or against project margin. The Program and Project Managers who use a Project Correspondence Log avoid this inefficiency. They identify and filter the needed files in minutes, not hours or days. If the project website is an extranet, the Government Contracts Manager will see your system and recognize “They have all the records they need to converse on contractual and regulatory issues”. Some Government Contracts Managers will admit they rely on your Project Correspondence Log more than their own contracts files because it is easier to browse and utilize. The Project Correspondence Log is a custom list (database) that can be sorted according to user needs, such as by Task Order. The following provides an example of “Document Types” which should be tailored based on contract and regulatory requirements. • • • •
Contracts/RFP Contracts/Award Contracts/Award Modification Contracts/After Hours Work
Develop and Utilize User-Friendly Project Websites 79 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Contracts/Letter Contracts/Meetings Contracts/Notification of Repair Contracts/Proposed Change Contracts/Required Reports and Deliverables Contracts/Voucher Contracts/Other Customer/Feedback Customer/Notification Regulatory/Correspondence Regulatory/Inspection Regulatory/Manifest Discrepancy Letter Regulatory/Permit Modification Regulatory/Other Report/Monthly Performance Report Report/Spill Report Report/Other Government Request for Information
The Project Correspondence Log contains the following data entry fields: • • • • • • • • • •
DCN Document Title Document Type Prepared By Base RFP Number Task Order Number Modification Number Document Date Delivery Date
Figure 4.8 shows sample Project Correspondence Log data entry fields. Note how clarifying notes can be added below the field to achieve consistency. Once data is entered, the saved e-mail (sent or received) is uploaded in Outlook.msg format as an attachment. The paperclip icon shown in the far left column of the sample Project Correspondence Log (on sample home page) indicates the e-mail attachment is uploaded. In some case, project team members will reserve a DCN number for their submittal and include limited metadata. Once the submittal is sent, the sent e-mail will be uploaded. This feature enables a project team look-ahead of scheduled deliverables.
80
Chapter 4
Figure 4.8 The sample Project Correspondence Log data entry fields.
Key project website planning considerations include the following: 1. Company and client policies that prohibit public access to project information. 2. Identifying the source of the website: internal or external. External is provided by a third party web-hosting provider. 3. Which project team members will function as “Site Administrators”. Site Administrators have full control of the website and must be familiar with how to set up, organize, and maintain the overall website. The Project Manager should have Site Administrator rights. 4. Three-tier website structure: PMO, Base, Project Task Orders. 5. Organize project website to support work plan development and other submittals required prior to field mobilization. 6. Develop the website “Required Records List” for the project. 7. Teach people how to map the SharePoint project website to their “My Network Places”, and use web folders option to manage files. 8. Assist analytical laboratories with SharePoint. 9. Partner with your Government RPM to provide and host private web pages to regulatory agencies.
Develop and Utilize User-Friendly Project Websites 81 10. Be patient with Operations Managers and other Senior Managers. 11. Provide project team members with three-ring binders. The remainder of this Chapter describes each topic in more detail.
Company and Client Policies that Prohibit Public Access to Project Information Recommendation: Your SharePoint site settings, by default, must be private. You will start by adding internal project team members. This might seem like a “no-brainer” but it must be emphasized because SharePoint settings can be adjusted to provide public access (SharePoint setting: “Anonymous access”). By default, it is usually deactivated. Many SharePoint hosting firms enable users the option of enabling “Anonymous access”. Anonymous access can be set for the entire site, or limited to a particular lower-tier website (i.e. “subsite”) or web page. Many companies that host their own SharePoint site collection have security policies that prohibit anonymous access. They turn off the anonymous access option. Companies and Governments value information security. They are concerned about their public image and establish rigorous standards for “branding” their websites. Governments and companies who buy environmental cleanup services frequently hire attorneys and media relations specialists to control how they approach keeping the public informed on sensitive issues such as environmental pollution incidents, and their efforts to cleanup up their own contaminated property in close proximity to surrounding communities. The contractor trend to capitalize on the latest software products to process environmental data and utilize various media storage products (USB Drives, External Hard Drives, etc.) corresponds with a Government trend to impose increasingly restrictive controls on Government employee usage of software and IT products. For example, many government employees cannot load software to their personal computer unless it is on the “approved list”. The approved list is a very short list. Software goes through an exhaustive information security evaluation that can take several months. Personal USB drives and external hard drives must be issued and controlled by the Government organization. As a contractor, you cannot always show up to the Government-hosted meeting and give them a USB drive with your presentation to insert into the laptop operating the multimedia projector. They are currently not provided with internal (intranet) project websites to manage their environmental programs and projects. Their information security policies restrict or limit effective web collaboration with regulatory agencies. Expect some government agencies to issue policies from “headquarters” that prohibit Contractors from maintaining “government records” on a contractor website. They will assume that all contractor project websites are public websites. This might become an interim
82
Chapter 4
policy measure until governments develop enforceable standards for information security. From their standpoint, project records are Government records. The potential consequences and risk associated with negative media outweighs any benefits that can be achieved through partnering and collaboration. Companies and Government project-level organizations should be proactive and make their websites secure, private, and used to organize “working documents” (not records). Expect future project websites to receive higher level of scrutiny. Inevitably, a few project teams will make the mistake of having a project website that provides public access (anonymous access). Some information ends up on a blog and causes a media stir or a website that promotes information “leaks”. Keep project websites internal and do not provide access to anyone outside the company. As a project manager or team member who functions as website Site Administrator, you are required to comply with all the Company and client rules that are intended to keep information private. Government regulatory agencies have laws, policies, and activities that create and maintain public awareness in a controlled manner. For example, part of your contract scope likely includes periodic outreach meetings in partnership with your client to establish and maintain a dialogue with your local community. This establishes a forum to establish communication, trust, and continual awareness of environmental cleanup activities. Governments and companies that pollute and cleanup the environment take measures aimed at preventing an atmosphere of mistrust. On the other end of the Government spectrum, some Government agency contracts might require Contractors to establish and maintain a public website, such as the U.S. NAVSEA Seaport-e. As you might imagine, the NAVSEA Seaport-e RFP dictated the content of the public website, but they gave each contractor the freedom to add their branding, choose their type of website, and organize the content required by contract. Contractors are required to post information on their teaming partners, all contract awards, and their quality assurance program. If you Google “Seaport-e” you will get a long list of contractors who have set up their Seaport-e program website. Each contractor has their own style. This Government agency should be commended for innovative thinking. Rather than react to a few negative incidents and establish a no-website policy, they provide the contractors with “performance criteria” and rules that give each contractor the freedom to create and maintain their project website. When government contract requirements such as NAVSEA Seaport-e conflict with company website policies that prohibit public access, the solution is to use an independent and qualified web-hosting firm to host a website that provides the option of public access. SharePoint provides the flexibility to establish your tiered website structure, and restrict user control access to any specific site, web page, or web page feature (web part). In summary, your project website hosts information and files that are private information and cannot be available to the public, unless required by contracts that provide guidelines for public
Develop and Utilize User-Friendly Project Websites 83 outreach. Your SharePoint site settings, by default, must be private to internal project team members. You cannot set your SharePoint site to “Anonymous Access”, which allows anyone to browse your site and download files.
Identify Website Location: Intranet or Extranet. The Extranet Options Might be Provided by Your Company, and is the Only Option Provided by a Web-Hosting Provider Recommendation: Choose extranet website option. Your company may provide you with the option of requesting an intranet or extranet SharePoint project website. Intranet websites, by design, will not provide access to outside users, limiting collaboration to company employees such as internal project team members. In addition to intranet websites, your company may have servers that are physically separated outside the company intranet firewall (hence the term “extranet”). These servers have their own security and are dedicated to hosting the company SharePoint extranet site collection. Hundreds of project team websites might exist in the extranet site collection, but they cannot “see one another” because they are one level down. The SharePoint extranet site collection is managed by the company IT organization. SharePoint extranet project team websites have the capability of providing user login and password access to individuals who belong to outside organizations (clients, subcontractors, regulatory agencies, etc.). The company must be large enough to staff IT professionals and invest in an enterprise SharePoint license with Microsoft, which eliminates the majority of companies. If you are using SharePoint and work for a company that provides both intranet and extranet project website options, you cannot justify any reason to choose the intranet option. As previously noted, SharePoint extranet websites offer you the freedom to restrict access by specific user to any site, web page, or specific web part. Unfortunately, many project managers and their project teams will start with an intranet website to organize RFP documents and their proposal effort. If they are awarded a contract, they keep the same website. It is convenient because many files are already organized including files needed to develop the project work plan. At some point, usually during work plan preparation, the Government RPM may suggest a collaborative working draft work plan review on the project website, or simply request website access to routinely collaborate during the project and reduce excessive e-mail traffic. The Government RPM client might comment, “Company X (i.e. your competitor) provided me with website access on the last project, so why can’t you?” The project manager responds with pride, saying “No problem – we have that capability”. So the project manager scrambles to order and set up an extranet project website to enable collaboration with the Government RPM.
84
Chapter 4
What do you think happens next? The project proceeds with two project websites – an intranet and an extranet. Some project team members post files on the intranet website. Others post the same types of files on the extranet project website. Some files are on both. Project team members send e-mails to project staff, asking, “Where is file A?” The other person says, “that’s posted on the website” (they may forget to send an e-mail link to the file). To make matters worse, some project team members cannot wean themselves away from the company network drive.
Which Project Team Members Will Function as “Site Administrators?” Site Administrators have full control of the SharePoint website and must be familiar with how to set up, organize, and maintain the overall website. The project manager should have Site Administrator rights. The project manager needs to have at least one person on their team who can assist with development of the SharePoint site. This can be an administrative assistant, scientist, engineer, site health and safety officer, project QC manager, etc.
Three-Tier Website Structure: PMO, Base, Project Task Orders A consistent and logical website structure is very important. You need to develop a website structure that makes sense for your ER programs and projects. Otherwise, everyone will have trouble finding project sites and information. Chapter 1 discusses how many clients are awarding basic contracts with a high capacity (>$100 million USD) to three to six contractors, and then issuing RFPs for the firms to compete on best value or low price for specific contract task orders. These are commonly called “Multiple Award Contracts”, or MACs. Many others award a contract to a single source prime contractor, and then issue RFPs for task orders that are negotiated on a case-by-case basis. These Government ER programs, and many others, require contactors to have a Program Management Office (PMO) that administers the basic contract, responds to RFPs with proposals for contract task orders, and handles contract modifications for contract task orders. The Contractor PMO staff, dictated by the RFP and basic contract, usually consists of a Program Manager, Program Contracts Manager, Program Quality Assurance (or Quality Control) Manager and Program Health and Safety Manager. The PMO staff develop and submit program deliverables such as program plans and procedures. They provide support to project teams. ER Programs should have a three-tier SharePoint Extranet Site structure: Tier 1 (Top Level) ¼ Contractor PMO Tier 2 ¼ Base, or Installation Tier 3 ¼ Specific projects (or Task Orders) The top-level extranet site is the Contractor PMO site that features the Team Directory, Program Calendar, Contracts (Project Correspondence Log, RFPs, Contracts and Modifications),
Develop and Utilize User-Friendly Project Websites 85 Program Documents, and Bases. The Quick Launch Bar “Bases” heading includes an alphabetical list of specific bases or installations. Clicking on the specific base will take you to that particular Tier 2 base extranet site. Tier 2 base sites will contain a Quick Launch Bar that features basespecific information. Chapter 5, Developing Superior Proposals, describes how each base is a unique culture. The base website Team Directory should include Base Cleanup Team (BCT) organization and contact information, basewide documents (e.g. plans), base security information, base maps, and any other information related to the base. This information supports all Contractor projects on the base. The Base Quick Launch Bar includes a heading called “Projects”. These are Tier 3 Contract Task Orders. The Tier 3 project Quick Launch Bar features records and documents that relate to the specific project. When a new project is awarded on an established base, the Project Manager creates a new SharePoint project website (subsite) under the base extranet site. Why does this structure make sense? Government user access. For example, each Government RPM user can be issued a single user name and password that applies to all sites within the structure. Their permissions to specific websites will be determined by the Contractor site Administrators.
Organize Project Website to Support Work Plan Development and Other Submittals Required Prior to Field Mobilization The focus of the project website, upon contract award, shifts to planning and efficiently developing the project work plan and other contract deliverables (e.g. “submittals”) that are required prior to field mobilization. Project website libraries must be organized to provide authors with information they need to develop the document. Figure 4.7, QC Plan Files (earlier in this Chapter) showed a sample document library for developing the QC Plan. Each project plan must have a library to organize source files. Failure to establish these project website document libraries will result in e-mail chaos and files existing in personal computer hard drives. The project manager can use the kickoff meeting to familiarize project team members and support staff with the project website organization, including various document libraries. Sample discussion topics include the following: 1. Familiarizing project team members with the project team, project objective, and deliverable requirements; 2. Assigning pre-mobilization deliverables and due dates; 3. Explaining how the project contract requirements and information is organized on the project website; 4. Explaining how the project website will be used to organize and develop the project deliverables. The Project Manager will develop an Action Plan listing the deliverables, responsible individual, and due date. This action plan can be posted on the project website.
86
Chapter 4
Develop the Website “Required Records List” for the Project Recall the most common frustration among managers and project team members: Time wasted searching for files because each project website is organized differently. Another related problem is that many projects get started without a plan to manage project records. In some cases, ER projects end up in court. Records can make or break a legal ruling. Records also help Contractors get paid. Too many ER projects are performed with project records scattered in many places (i.e. computers, files, e-mail inboxes, site trailer files, etc.). In these cases, nobody is sure who is responsible for maintaining various records. Project managers and teams can address both problems with a consistent approach for planning and maintaining records on projects. This topic could utilize an entire Chapter, which is probably justified given the importance. The key steps to an effective project records management approach will be summarized in this section. Step 1: Program Manager, Program QC Manager, and Program Contracts Manager develop the “Master Records List” (required Company records for each project). Figures 4.9 and 4.10 show a sample Master Records List for ER programs. This list should not duplicate records that are required by the contract such as Submittals. Sample records categories are shown. Step 2: Project Manager reviews Contract Task Order for Project Records (e.g. submittals and deliverables). These will become a stand-alone record category. Step 3: Develop Project “Required Records List”. On the “Master Records List”, the first column to the right of the Record type is “Applicability”. The project manager uses the “Edit in Datasheet” function to select the applicability of project records (see Figure 4.10). The datasheet view accelerates the process. They also select “Yes” or “No” for “Web” (i.e. records will be organized on project website); DCN (i.e. records will be managed on Project Correspondence Log); Site (i.e. records will be maintained in the Site Trailer files); Contracts File (i.e. hardcopy contracts file record maintained by Contracts Manager); and Submittal (i.e. Document listed on CTO Submittal List); and Client Closeout Records (i.e. specific records required by Government for contract closeout). Note: “Web” records are maintained in a document library on the project website, as indicated by the link called “Records Library” in the sample project website Quick Launch Bar. Step 4: Assign responsibility for organizing and maintaining specific records during the project (record “owners”). The previous step provides each responsible manager with their own records list to maintain during the project. Step 5: Each Record Owner manages their assigned records in accordance with the Required Records List. Step 6: Project QC manager audit records management according to the Required Records List during project.
Develop and Utilize User-Friendly Project Websites 87
Figure 4.9 A sample Master Records List for ER programs.
88
Chapter 4
Figure 4.9—cont’d
Develop and Utilize User-Friendly Project Websites 89
Figure 4.10 The “Edit in Datasheet” function to select the applicability of project records.
Project managers who go through this process realize why project records management has become such a difficult and complex challenge on ER projects.
Teach People How to Map the SharePoint Project Website to Their “My Network Places”, and Use Web Folders Option to Manage Files Many of you have heard or used the expression of learning something new by taking “baby steps”. The “baby steps” approach for adult individuals learning SharePoint involves using document web folders located in My Network Places. These folders mimic the SharePoint site, and function just like other folders including the network drive. Unfortunately, the majority of project staff who use SharePoint do not know this is possible. For some reason, people in the business of developing SharePoint and providing services assume that all users are going to want to go to the project website to do everything. For example, a new team subcontractor project manager requests some assistance on managing his procedures on the SharePoint site. He wants to attach an updated procedure cover page (.portable document file) to some procedures (.pdf) posted on the project website. He is probably thinking, “This is going to be a time-consuming hassle that exposes one of the many drawbacks of websites”. He has spent many years in the industry, but admits he is still learning how to use a computer. The idea of managing files on a project website is daunting. He is stunned to discover that “web folders” on his personal computer could be used without visiting the project website. After seeing what is possible, he asks, “Could I update my monthly report this way, without having to go to the website?” Absolutely. View your web
90
Chapter 4
folders just like other folders in your personal computer hard drive. And if your hard drive crashes, you do not lose any files being maintained in your web folders. Most project team members do not know that SharePoint websites can be mapped to Windows “My Network Places” and be displayed as web folders on their personal computer. The people most relieved are those who prefer using network drives. How do you “map” a SharePoint project website to “My Network Places”? With Windows XP? It takes about 1 min. It is set up like this: Visit the website home page and right-click to copy the web address. Minimize open applications to expose your computer desktop and click on the My Network Places icon. Click “Add a Network Place”. Paste the website address in the field. Click Next and Finish. The project website is now displayed as web folders organized alphabetically under your My Network Places. It looks and functions like other file folders on your computer, except these web folders are on the web server that host your project team website.
Assist Analytical Laboratories with SharePoint In our environmental industry, project team members who stand the most to gain in terms of increasing productivity and decreasing project cost from using project websites are those who develop, manage, and exchange analytical laboratory reports. The volume of hardcopy laboratory reports on some projects could fill a garage. Some analytical laboratories spend a substantial amount of money creating lab report hardcopies and creating CDs for delivery. They spend thousands of dollars each month using couriers and express mail delivery firms deliver lab reports. A single lab report hard copy reproduction charge, compounded by the express delivery charge, would likely cover the entire first year of renting the SharePoint site. If you work at a lab, the next time your Company has a Suggestion Box contest, suggest a SharePoint website to deliver lab reports to clients. You might win a prize like an Apple I-Pod for saving them enough money to pay your annual salary. The project staff who exchange lab reports tend to be heavy users of the My Network Places web folder option.
Partner with Your Government RPM to Provide Private Web Pages to Regulatory Agencies Some Contractor project managers and Government RPMs project manager are starting to realize that a project website can help develop trust with regulatory agencies, keep regulatory agencies informed, and expedite document reviews and comment resolution. The regulatory agency individual has access rights and permissions that apply to a specific web page. This is how to set the stage is for effective partnering and efficiency. You meet your regulatory agency representative at a project kickoff meeting hosted by your Government RPM. They include their name, e-mail address, and mobile phone on the sign-up sheet. After the meeting you send her an e-mail with a username and password to their project support web page. The e-mail
Develop and Utilize User-Friendly Project Websites 91 attaches your Outlook v-card (.vcf) file that includes your mobile telephone number, e-mail address, and project web page address. They save your Outlook v-card to their Outlook Contacts. They also place their website login name and password in the Contact Card. The project manager and Government RPM can use the web page to organize project information, conduct a live collaborative review (by telephone) with the regulatory agency representative, and make changes in real time. Additionally, by providing a project web page to the regulatory agency, the project manager and Government RPM do not suffer the consequences of an in-process regulatory personnel change. You have a way to accelerate the learning curve of new staff who join your project or intervene at some point. You add them to the project website and have an orientation. For example, “This is the project team and contact information, objective, background, schedule, project kickoff meeting minutes, monthly meeting minutes from the past six months, project work plan, regulatory permits, directions to the job site, site visitor badge procedure, etc. We realize you are very busy, and we organize your information on a single web page to make it easier for you to support our project”. Instead of sending them several e-mails with various files, where they subsequently get co-mingled with the hundreds of other project e-mails, you send them one e-mail with their login name, password, link to the project web page, and your Outlook v-Card. Most projects fall behind schedule and stay behind schedule because they experience delays getting their project work plan developed and approved. Project managers commonly complain that regulatory agencies do not meet the review schedule, provide too many comments, and some comments represent a lack of knowledge of project objectives and scope. It takes a long time to resolve all the comments. This situation fosters distrust and adversarial perceptions before you mobilize to the field. It gets the project off to a bad start. Project managers need to be proactive and take responsibility for establishing and keeping their regulatory agency representatives informed. Project websites are the tool that symbolize and enable a project team commitment to open and honest partnering with various organizations who support your project. The cost and schedule impact of delayed work plan and report approval can amount to substantial sums of money. Additionally, you might be paying for other resources such as site trailers and personnel that are delayed because the final work plan is being delayed (i.e., distributive project overhead costs). The message is simple: Collaborative project websites are your key to developing trust, efficient partnering, enabling intelligent engagement and participation, and meeting document review and approval schedules.
Be Patient with Operations Managers and Other Senior Managers A digital divide is growing within many companies at this time. While most project managers and teams are accelerating down the project website learning curve, they are leaving behind the operations managers or senior division managers at the next higher organization level who are
92
Chapter 4
responsible for overseeing the profit and loss on their projects. These senior division managers conduct project reviews and intervene when project performance does not meet financial performance goals. They are commonly the Blackberry power users, and they solely rely on conference calls and e-mail to collaborate. Senior managers do not want an e-mail with a “link” to your spreadsheet on the project team website. They want an e-mail with the excel spreadsheet attached. They frequently e-mail spreadsheets to project managers to update, and then e-mail back. Action plans in Microsoft-Word are e-mailed to various project managers for input, using track-changes, and then they are e-mailed back for an Administrative Assistant to reconcile. Consequently, the digital divide is growing. Within companies, the majority of managers above the program and project team level are not getting engaged in team websites, or using their own website, if available, (e.g. Microsoft SharePoint “My Site”) to organize their information and collaborate with others. Most managers at levels above the ER Program Teams believe spreadsheets and documents are more efficiently developed and updated through e-mail collaboration, rather than updating a spreadsheet or document file on a web page. They tend to be critical of project websites because each website seems to be organized differently and they cannot readily find what they want. They have a point. They have wasted a lot of time searching for files on a project website. However, they underestimate the level of frustration among project managers who realize websites offer a more efficient collaboration option. So what is the solution to this growing digital divide between project teams and e-mail-oriented higher level managers? Senior PMs need and use their own webpage and develop basic website usage skills. SharePoint calls it a “My Site”. For example, every current spreadsheet and report that requires input from others should be posted on the web page. Once the spreadsheet is posted, you request staff to visit the webpage and provide periodic updates. If you think they might forget, you issue an e-mail request that is set to give each staff member a reminder. They open the request and click on the link to provide their input.
Provide Project Team Members with Three-Ring Binders SharePoint project website (extranet) document libraries are the most effective way to organize project “requirement documents” in electronic format, preferably file formats that can be edited for “copy and paste”. Requirement documents include RFPs, RFP project files, RFP Amendments, proposal, estimates, contracts, contract modifications, Requests for Information (RFIs), project work plans, procedures, subcontracts, purchase orders, project schedule, submittals, drawings, specifications, permits, and regulations. Given the necessity of tracking scope on environmental projects, project team members need to establish and maintain a working knowledge of these documents. SharePoint project website (extranet) document
Develop and Utilize User-Friendly Project Websites 93 libraries are not a productive option for field-based project staff who need to read, understand, and periodically refer to project requirement documents that apply to their job duties. Requirement documents should be printed, tabbed, and placed in three-ring binders for project team members. While the SharePoint project website will organize the most current electronic version and host the “controlled copy”, working copies of requirement documents should be organized in three-ring binders. As a Project Manager, do not expect individuals to buy their own three-ring binders, tabs, and create their three-ring binders. If you do not do it for them, they will resort to using the controlled copy on the project website as their working copy. That is the path of least resistance. Overall, your project team will be less productive, spend a lot of time on the computer during the day, be less effective, and susceptible to losing track of requirements on your project. As Project Manager, you need make and assign three-ring binders, and then hold staff accountable for keeping them up to date. You might be thinking, “How about making a CD or issuing USB drives consisting of requirement documents for the site trailer” (i.e. We do not want to “kill a lot of trees”). Or another option would be create a single set of project requirement binders for project team use in the field. Determine what works best for your needs. Just recognize this is a staff productivity issue that affects their ability to stay focused on project scope, schedule, and requirements throughout the project. Based on my experience using numerous project websites on projects, I have concluded that project requirement documents need to be accessed by fingertips, not mouse-clicks. The cumulative time required to routinely locate and browse various files on the project website by clicking, opening, reading, etc. can be substantial over time. What do you think might happen if the person performing the receiving inspection suspects an incoming purchased item that arrived on site might not meet purchase order requirements, but has to locate the purchase order.portable document file on the project website to verify requirements? The person might by resort to guessing, especially if he is busy. On the other hand, if the document is readily available the person is more likely to confirm requirements. In fact, they can use the hardcopy as a check-off list. Well-organized sets of three-ring binders will help field staff stay focused on project contract requirements. On the other hand, SharePoint is the most productive option for the same project field staff when they need to write (i.e. develop) plans or reports, and collaborate with others who provide input or reviews. The SharePoint site can host templates, boilerplates, photos, etc. that are integrated into content during project execution. In many cases, project team members try to use e-mail as a collaboration tool to develop plans and reports. For example, project team members might e-mail a plan or report section to others for review and comment, using Microsoft Word track-changes. This is likely the most common approach, especially among those who either lack a project website or do not want to learn how to use the project website.
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER 5
Developing Superior Proposals Chapter 1 describes the rapid transformation of United States Department of Defense (DoD) acquisition strategies for environmental restoration projects. The “Risk Pendulum” has shifted from Government to Contractors. Fixed-price “Multiple Award Contracts (MACs)” have become very popular. Many Government agencies have multiple Fixed-Price PerformanceBased MACs to cover their environmental restoration program. Some are competed on an “Unrestricted” basis, meaning that large and small businesses can compete. Others are set-aside for small businesses. The Government typically issues an RFP for a basic contract award that includes a sample project, also called a “seed project”. Many contractors compete for a “seat at the table”. The Government seeks to award basic contracts to four to six contractors. The winning contractors compete for Government Contract Task Orders (CTOs), which is the contract term for projects. The Government will issue Task Order RFPs and make awards over the course of 3–5 years, until they reach the contract funding capacity. This is typically in the ballpark of 100 million USD. CTO values range from 500 K to 30 million USD. Most CTO RFPs are scoped for 1–4 million USD, and the period of performance is usually 12–18 months. They can cover any phase of the project lifecycle. The flow of RFPs is inconsistent, which makes it difficult for contractors to plan proposal efforts. The Government commonly requires Contractor Key Personnel to be assigned to oversee all projects (e.g. Program Management Office) consisting of a Program Manager, Contracts Manager, Quality Control Manager, Health and Safety Manager, and Project Manager for the Sample Project. However, they do not provide any funding for the Contractor Program Management Office (PMO). Additionally, the Government does not provide any funding to MAC contractors to prepare proposals. Contractors can only profit on CTOs they win. The profitable CTOs can help cover the “cost of doing business” on the MAC. Program staff are expected to support projects. However, the budgets are minimal due to the competition to win the CTO. The high cost of doing business is caused by researching project opportunities and developing proposals. Contractors pay all proposal development costs, which can range from 10,000 to 20,000 USD for the 1–3 million USD projects. Contractors tend to spend slightly more for the larger project opportunities. The constraint is time. Most of the CTO proposals are due in 1 month or less.
Best Practices for Environmental Project Teams. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-444-53721-8.00005-1 # 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
95
96
Chapter 5
This chapter will be broken down into three main sections: • • •
Contractor Challenges Government Request for Proposal (RFP) “Land mines” Proposal Development Process Improvement
The sequence is intentional with the following theme. Contractor challenges will increase Contractor project team awareness of common challenges that exist on all environmental contracts. These are due to the inherent difficulty of defining scope. Next we will highlight Government land mines that make projects risky. In the case of Fixed-Price MACs, each contract opportunity has a limited upside for profit if everything goes as planned, and substantial financial downside when Contractor project teams buy the scope that contains land mines. The land mines are contained in the RFP, and a signed contract award legally locks-in the land mines. For this reason, most contractors implement a rigourous risk evaluation process of senior staff to scrutinize every project opportunity and RFP. They actively monitor the financial performance of each active project, which adds to the high cost of doing MAC business. This section will include recommendations for government agencies who seek lower prices and best value for their environmental restoration funds. On many government contracts, the risk pendulum has swung too far. These government agencies are receiving an increasing number of Contractor “No Bids” or single bidder price proposals that exceed the Independent Government Estimate (IGE). Government acquisition staff who read this chapter will improve their understanding of the contractor perception of risk, and can take actions to obtain more competitive bids on their programs. Most Government agencies want to be fair and reasonable. Some have reached out to industry associations consisting of contractors for process improvement suggestions. Some Government acquisition managers are well aware of Contractor concerns that will be described in this chapter. After reading the first two sections, you will realize the challenge of succeeding on environmental contracts. Best practices will be broken down into the following: Base Capture Process (“Base” is a term used for a government installation) and Proposal Development Process.
Contractor Challenges Six contractor challenges will be discussed: • • • • • • •
Lack of awareness of Client Execution Plan Limited pre-RFP activities Difficulty defining and estimating project scope Lack of time to prepare a proposal Lack of time for competitive bid process Obtaining internal Risk Board approval Providing a competitive price
Developing Superior Proposals 97
Lack of Awareness of Client Execution Plan Client Execution Plans are developed for each base to show all the sites in the environmental restoration cue, the base location, site name, estimated contract value, and manager. Government organizations usually do not release this list to contractors. When released, it will show the site but in many cases a decision has not been made on the contract vehicle. Additionally, contractors do not know if the RFP will require a significant percentage of the contract to be subcontracted to small Business. Contractors will be reluctant to invest much time researching a site that might not be released on their MAC contract.
Limited Pre-RFP Activities Contractors are hesitant to provide pre-RFP funding to Project Managers and technical staff to research upcoming opportunities due to the uncertainty of receiving an RFP. Consequently, Contractors are reluctant to fund Pre-RFP efforts to get familiar with site information and plan a technical approach. The Project Manager has to lobby and make a case for pre-RFP funding to research site information. The government might not provide a target RFP release date. The RFP will suddenly appear in the e-mail inboxes of the designated MAC Contractor sponsors. The next day a scramble ensues to discuss the RFP. Contractors scramble to analyze the RFP scope of work and site information. Performancebased MAC scopes are not written like fixed-price scopes for construction projects. They are managed by client RPMs like performance-based scopes. Normally, one might think that fixed-price scopes with numerous uncertainties will lead to numerous change orders that drive up the price. That is why contracting literature proclaims: “Use cost reimbursable contracts when the scope is not well defined with many uncertainties”. MACs are fixed-price performance-based environmental restoration contracts that specify project objectives and expected results. MAC CTO RFPs might include a CD or link to Government File Transfer Protocol (FTP) website, which includes various site historical information (drawings, plans, reports, etc.). There can be numerous electronic files. It is usually a voluminous amount of site background information to read and understand, and yet may be missing very basic elements such as a Conceptual Site Model (CSM). Contractors strive to accelerate their due diligence prior to the site walk. Some of the site information is not available and will be provided by the Government based on progress by another contractor. For example, the RFP will refer to information and data from another nearby site and report, which is in-progress. In some cases, the most recent analytical data might not yet be uploaded into the Government web Geographic Information System (GIS) database.
98
Chapter 5
In other cases, the perimeter of a plume will be based on very limited soil borings. You wonder, “How could they possibly establish the plume boundaries on the map given the small number of data points?” The Client may have high quality site characterization data that is not representative of site conditions. Perhaps they had a limited budget for site investigation? Imagine how much time it takes to comprehend this substantial body of site knowledge in order to identify the risks, develop a technical approach, and ask intelligent questions on the site walk. Bear in mind the clock is ticking. The Contractor technical approach may be in draft form, as in a “draft flow chart”. Statements of work and bid packages for subcontractors still need to be developed. The competitive bid process is squeezed. By now, the project manager and team might be only one week away from their internal “Pink Team Meeting” and 2 weeks away from their Risk Review Board Meeting. Contractors do not want to invest the time and effort required to prepare a proposal unless they perceive a realistic chance to win. No contractor likes to throw 10,000 USD down the drain. It is actually more because top talent is pulled away from their billable project work assignments to assist with a non-client billable proposal effort. Contractors look hard for clues to assess their probability of winning the CTO. A very quick turn-around time for a proposal, such as 3 weeks, might make contractors suspicious that the contract is “wired” for a particular contractor. For example, if the client project manager has a positive experience with a certain Contractor project team on a site for a similar project, they might prefer the same contractor project team. The contractor has numerous competitive advantages. They have already written a work plan that has obtained regulatory agency approval. They are familiar with base plans and procedures. The project manager and technical staff know the regulatory agency staff. It can be very difficult to displace an experienced contractor project team. That is one reason why contractors might try to “buy” their way into the base environmental restoration program with a very low contract bid. They need to “get their foot in the door” and get to know the client organization, regulatory agencies, community groups, the sites, and, most importantly, the unique Base Cleanup Team culture. Once the project team is part of the inner Base Cleanup Team circle, they attend meetings and learn the culture. The chapter on Cause Analysis describes how each project develops its own culture. Over time, the Contractor culture resembles the Base Cleanup Team culture. The base may have several ongoing projects. The base is the culture. Contractors strive to perform rapid due diligence to recognize when the odds of winning are slim. A major obstacle to due diligence is lack of a site walk or certain behavioural indicators on the site walk. You might be thinking, “Does the government really expect contractors to provide a bid without a site walk?” Sometimes it happens. In other cases, the client RPM will exhibit certain behaviour on the site walk. For example, she appears disengaged. She is not very responsive to answering questions. Does the Government RPM try to concern contractors with
Developing Superior Proposals 99 her responses to questions, emphasizing the high risk involved? Contractors are keen observers of verbal and non-verbal clues that translate into the possibility that one of the contractors might have an inside track, which is a common expression for “competitive advantage”. One contractor project manager on the site walk might know the site inside and out (he is keeping quiet, of course). Experienced Contractor project managers will try to identify any Contractor project manager on the site walk who exudes an unusually high aura of selfconfidence. This is usually the person who walks near the back of the crowd. He might be wearing cool shades like a poker player playing Texas Hold-Um, and does not ask a single question. Without muttering a single peep, this individual sends off a vibe that the contract award is a foregone conclusion. Everyone is just wasting their time on the site walk. The Government RPM disengagement, combined with the aura of confidence by the silent project manager might be enough to cause a strong “No Bid” consideration among the keen observers—especially if they are aware of a relationship between the Government RPM and project manager from previous projects. Site walks are like poker. Everyone is trying to read body language and mannerisms. The Government project manager might be confident that at least one individual in the group will give them a desirable proposal—like the guy with the cool shades. How does the client respond to Contractor questions in response to the RFP? Does the client discourage questions that would result in RFP Amendments because they are already behind schedule and need to meet a regulatory deadline? If so, this is another red flag. Does the Government properly respond to questions? When is the RFP Amendment issued? Does the Government delay until a week or less before the proposal is due? If the Government refuses to grant a proposal extension, it might be an indication that they feel confident they will receive at least one proposal that will meet their needs.
Lack of Time to Prepare a Proposal Once the Contractor decides to bid, he is scrambling to organize a proposal team and organize a proposal development effort. The proposal typically consists of a Technical Volume (40 page limit) and Price Volume. Because these are CTO RFPs, there might not be a professional proposal manager involved. An experienced proposal manager might assist with certain up-front tasks such as the RFP Compliance Matrix, proposal development schedule, work processing, and graphic staffing support, and organizing the Pink Team and Red Team Meetings that will be discussed later in this chapter. Technical approach development becomes a high priority. The project manager will usually assign a technical lead to develop the technical approach. The technical lead needs to study site conditions and determine if the technology is capable of achieving the site cleanup objectives (e.g. achieve the target cleanup levels within the specified time frame for the contaminants of concern). The schedule deadlines and milestones might be too aggressive to enable the
100 Chapter 5 technology to be properly implemented. For example, certain in situ chemical and biological technologies involve treatment cycles and host geology monitoring to enable reagents to achieve the desired results. Risks are identified during technical approach development. Limited time is available to evaluate technology options that could be triggered in the event the technology does not work or fails to meet cleanup objectives.
Difficulty Defining and Estimating Project Scope Contractor project teams under the time crunch to meet the proposal deadline have limited time to develop an accurate cost estimate. Many causes contribute to an accurate cost estimate: the scoping statement, technical approach, productivity assumptions, work breakdown structure, activity list, project schedule, procurement plan, accurate scopes of work for subcontractor work, and subcontractor productivity assumptions. Typically, the project manager, estimator, and project engineer will work 14–16 h days trying to flushout the work details that are necessary to develop a realistic cost estimate. Software tools such as Mind Manager by Mindjet help accelerate the process by allowing the RFP-driven scoping statement in mind-map format to be exported with a mouse click to the work breakdown structure, project schedule, project management plan, and project work plan. Any scope items causing significant estimating uncertainty, and remain unresolved by RFP Amendments, will be noted on the Risk Register and subject to cost contingency. Figure 5.8 which appears later in this chapter, shows the various tasks that go into developing an accurate and realistic price estimate that are concurrent with proposal development.
Lack of Time for Competitive Bid Process The most squeezed activity in this small proposal development window is the competitive bid process for work to be subcontracted. Typically, this process takes 1 month in order to comply with standard procurement practices and procedures, which gives subcontractors enough time to study the scope and prepare a proposal. It is common for project managers to have only 2 weeks to develop and obtain subcontractor proposals and bids. This includes writing the Statement of Work, attaching site information, providing subcontractors with a week to develop and submit a proposal, answering subcontractor questions, reviewing subcontractor proposals, evaluating productivity assumptions, taking special note of exceptions or bid qualifications, identifying risks, issuing RFP amendments, evaluating pricing, etc. This process commonly requires 4–6 weeks, yet it is squeezed into 2 weeks or less in order to prepare for the Internal Risk Review Board Meeting. Subcontracting often represents the highest risk for Contractors, and Risk Board Members are keenly aware of this fact.
Developing Superior Proposals 101
Obtaining Internal Risk Board Approval The Project Manager needs to finalize the Risk Register before the Risk Board Review meeting, which is usually 1 week before the proposal due date. The proposal might be in draft form, the draft estimate just released, and subcontractor proposal reviews in process. It is not unusual for the client to issue a substantial RFP Amendment at this time that makes significant changes and might not extend the proposal due date. The Government had to make several clarifications because some Contractors pointed out some significant RFP omissions or deficiencies. Some of these changes affect your technical approach including the proposals you received from subcontractors. The project manager is vulnerable during the Risk Board Review Meeting. Refer to the scenario described in the Cause Analysis chapter. The Risk Board consists of senior managers who have the uncanny ability to sniff-out potential risk factors. They look at the RFP, estimate, key subcontractor proposals and Draft Project Risk Register prepared by the project manager based on their perception of risks. They can sense when a risk has not been properly evaluated. They start asking “Why” and “How”. They scrutinize RFP risk-related language. They identify any areas where the Government RFP requires a “guarantee”. In other words, the client wants to sell a scope of work that guarantees site closure. Are there any liquidated damages (LDs) that can be triggered? If so, have the risks been properly evaluated? Other areas of concern include the basis for technology and labour productivity assumptions. Can they be supported based on past experience, or are they overly optimistic? They probe into the depth of evaluation of subcontractor proposals, including any land mines (e.g. price expires after X months; Seller responsible for paying X% royalty to a specified patent holder for use of the technology; Seller responsible for currency exchange rate fluxuations, etc). Has the project manager analyzed these risks that appear to establish a solid contractual basis for future subcontractor change orders? Each time the project manager gives an unacceptable response to a risk-related question, the tendency is to add cost contingency to cover the potential consequences. With each period of project manager waffling or silence, the level of Risk Review Board confidence decreases. The project manager cannot make any excuses for lack of time. The goal is to protect the company from a financial fiasco. In some cases, the Risk Review Board might conclude “No Bid”. They conclude too much risk.
Providing a Competitive Price The previously discussed challenges have the effect of raising the contractor price. Cost contingency is added where necessary to protect the Contractor. Some Contractors might conclude the excess cost contingency prices them out of the competition. They might “No Bid”. However, the Contractor wants the Government to understand they invested time in performing
102 Chapter 5 due diligence, drafting a technical approach and evaluating the risks (i.e. made a good faith effort to provide a competitive price). The Government wants competition, and contractors are aware that the Government frowns upon No-Bid decisions. If the Government RFP says no qualified or conditional bids will be accepted, they will be given a higher price to account for the potential adverse outcomes. The Government does not seem to understand that assumptions decrease cost contingency. The contractor is simply trying to define a performance-based scope based on perceived risks, and many risks are related to unknowns. Providing the Government with a flexible and creative technical approach is especially challenging within the typical MAC proposal development time frame. Providing the government with a competitive price becomes the most difficult challenge due to the time crunch.
Government Land Mines Government MAC RFP land mines fall into two basic categories: (1) RFP language that shifts legal risk to the Contractor and (2) A vague performance-based scope of work that is not properly defined. Land mines tend to decrease as government agencies and contractors gain more performance-based contracting experience. This section provides examples of RFP language that shifts legal risk to the Contractor. It will also detail some common negative impacts that are traceable to performance-based scopes of work that are not properly defined. Government RFP packages will continue to improve as Government agencies refine a consistent template structure, develop more examples, and gain more experience. Boilerplate RFP packages should include templates for RFP SOW tables such as a Deliverables Schedule Matrix and Performance Measurement and Payment Summary Table. At the base level, Government teams may have a database of RFP SOW templates for different types of projects that share base policies, plans, and procedures. For example, a SOW template may be available for implementing a Remedial Action (RA) according to the Record of Decision (ROD) following procedures and approach provided in the Remedial Design/Remedial Action Work Plan (RD/RAWP). SOWs may exist for performing Underground Storage Tank (UST) Removals, base-wide radiological surveys, excavation of a sanitary sewer and storm drains, building decontamination and decommissioning, UXO work, etc. Some SOWs can be clearly defined, such as “provide a price to implement the enclosed Operations and Maintenance Manual for the installed remedial action system”. Others can resemble research and development and pilot-scale treatability studies. They may have a list of standard Work Elements (see Figure 5.1)
Developing Superior Proposals 103 BASE BID ITEM BREAKDOWN Work Element 1 – Project Management Work Element 2 – Project Meetings Work Element 3 – Project Infrastructure Work Element 4 – Planning Documents Work Element 5 – Removal Actions and Radiological Surveys Work Element 6 – Completion Reports Work Element 7 – Site Support Activities
Figure 5.1 Sample Standard Work Elements.
A vague performance-based scope of work impacts Contractors in several ways, including the following: (1) Complicates PM risk evaluation and risk management during project execution; (2) Increases project team vulnerability or susceptibility to scope growth (e.g. contamination types, contamination quantities, increased anomaly densities requiring investigation, work plans, meetings, and requested level of project manager support); (3) Increases project team vulnerability or susceptibility to developing an inaccurate estimate. Note: Inexperienced contractors tend to underestimate the level of effort, while experienced project teams tend to “read between the RFP lines” and interpret more effort based on Government and regulatory agency work practice precedents that apply to the base location; (4) Higher contract administration costs
RFP Language that Shifts Legal Risk to the Contractor Government agencies who compete MAC RFPs to contractors are hoping to sell a fixed-price contract for the lowest possible price, with the contractor responsible for covering any cost overruns. They are seeking a contractor to “buy the scope”, and the inherent risk, based on contract requirements. Figure 5.2 is an example of a project objective to achieve “unrestricted free release” of radiologically contaminated sewer and storm lines. RFPs may require the Contractor to guarantee achievement of specified performance objectives. This is a risky proposition given the inherent uncertainty of technology performance. The Contractor must identify and scrutinize any RFP statement that states “The Contractor is responsible . . .” or the “The Government is not responsible . . .” or “The Government will not accept . . .” The following statements are examples: “The Contractor is responsible for any/all. . .”
104 Chapter 5 1.3
OBJECTIVE
The primary objective is to continue the Basewide Sewer Sanitary System and Storm Drain Time Critical Removal Action along Fletcher Road. The end result is to achieve unrestricted free release of the sewer and storm line survey units along Fletcher Road and the central areas of Parcel C. Additional work will include surveys, remediation, and reporting for certain radiological buildings and Sites in Parcel C. The current agreement between the Base Realignment and Closure Cleanup Team and the Government is that the Government will pursue a radiological unrestricted free release of the sewer and storm drains in Parcel C. This agreement means that the Contractor is to attain free release by either: (1) surveying, remediating, and appropriately disposing of impacted material above the Basewide Action Memo remediation goals, and performing a final status survey, or (2) provide ample analysis, survey results, and conceptual site model justification, with corresponding Government and Regulator approval, to justify that material’s left in place and reused as backfill are not impacted or above applicable release criteria and regulatory requirements.
Figure 5.2 An example of a project objective to achieve. This description contains fictitious information and is intended to be educational.
“The Contractor is responsible for unknown or unforeseen” “The Contractor is responsible for offsite contamination” “The Contractor is responsible for achieving regulatory buy-in” “The Government is not responsible for the adequacy, correctness, and completeness of site information provided with the RFP” “The Government will not accept . . . . any Contractor proposals that are conditional”. Most Government Contracts and project managers dislike assumptions to qualify or place legal conditions on the cost proposal. Typical RFP language might include: “The Government reserves the right to disqualify any Contractor proposal that includes conditions or assumptions”. This practice may be called “qualifying the bid”. Others Government project managers do an excellent job of using technical assumptions in the RFP to define the scope. They will define the quantities required for each task or meeting, eliminating the guesswork and risk from the contractor perspective. A performance-based scope can be designed with contract options to enable flexibility during project execution. A flexible scope enables the Government RPM and Contractor project manager to make routine in-scope adjustments during the project, with the mutual intent of not triggering a need for additional funds. Contractor project managers are focused on getting through the rigourous internal proposal development and risk review process. Sample objectives may include: •
Bid strictly to the RFP scope, even if the requirements are inconsistent relative to previous experience with regulatory agencies.
Developing Superior Proposals 105 • • • •
Define the scope with assumptions to decrease the amount of cost contingency needed to offset potential adverse outcomes. Survive the internal Risk Board Review Meeting and legal review. Minimize additional cost contingency added by Risk Review Board in response to risk concerns. Provide a competitive price to the Government.
In summary, this is a typical worst-case scenario land mine for a contractor: 1. Contractor shall guarantee the technology will enable the Government to achieve site cleanup goals (and, in some cases, achieve regulatory site closure). 2. The Government is not responsible for the accuracy of any provided site information, which might contain errors (e.g. plans, reports) 3. The Government reserves the right to disqualify any Contractor proposal that qualifies their bid with assumptions to define the scope (regardless of the degree of scope ambiguity). 4. Contractors shall develop the technical approach and submit their cost proposal in 1 month. This worst-case scenario is becoming rare among government agencies with experience. If your team feels strongly that the RFP contains unreasonable risk, first submit questions per the RFP process requesting the Government to consider revising the specific language. You must support your request with due diligence. Include a recommended revision for the subject statement, and state why the revision is mutually beneficial. They might deny your request, but they respect your due diligence and appreciate the outreach, rather than just “No Bid”. If the RFP seeks a performance guarantee for the technology remedy to achieve target cleanup levels for a specific quantity of land, such as 5 square km with a not-to-exceed price of 10 million USD, then define the scope of your offer. For example, how many technology treatment cycles will you provide for 10 million USD that will likely achieve the target cleanup levels? You might consider stating: “Our technical due diligence involved analyzing treatability study results and site contamination data, which enabled us to develop realistic productivity assumptions”. However, avoid providing performance guarantees that any technology treatment remedy, especially in situ treatments, will achieve target cleanup levels. There are too many variables that can adversely affect technology performance. Consider proposal “risk-sharing” and “gain-sharing options” to differentiate your value proposition. For example, “If our technology does not achieve X performance objective in Y days using the technology, we will recommend the Government to issue a contract modification to de-obligate the remaining scope and funds”. Also, consider scenarios to share cost savings with the Government to accomplish additional scope. For example, if we can help
106 Chapter 5 the Government negotiate an “acceptable sampling plan” with the regulatory agency (which reduces the number of required anomaly digs for potential buried munitions constituents), we will work with the Government to apply the cost savings to accomplish additional scope. When you offer a compelling value proposition, you increase your chance of winning a best value proposal competition. When submitting a proposal that does not comply with the RFP requirement to guarantee performance, you need to involve your attorney and get her review input on your position. You should always explain why your proposal must be conditional in the proposal cover letter, and your attorney will approve this letter. The Government will not downgrade you for conducting due diligence. They will evaluate your concern. If they agree, they might issue an RFP Amendment that decreases risk to all Contractors. The Government desires scope flexibility within the budget. A performance-based statement of work specifies objectives, Work Elements (see Figure 5.1), desired results, and deliverables should not prescribe “how” the contractor will achieve the results. However, specific results that are needed to achieve performance objectives might change during the project (e.g. analytical data). Additional flexibility can be attained with “contract options” (i.e. additional or supplementary Work Element scope packages). For example see Figure 5.3. This particular Options Supplement (Figure 5.3) demonstrates a client project manager with a lot of experience. She recognizes the potential for more meetings and scope growth, so she established several options as a buffer. For example, Option O-7, “Provide additional sewer and storm drain removal and remediation” may be client cost contingency in the event funding for additional unanticipated scope needs to come from somewhere within the budget. Bear in mind that Government RPMs want to avoid contract modifications that result in requesting additional funds. The process commonly takes several weeks and might delay the project.
Options (O-1) Additional Project Management (O-2) Additional Regulator and Community Meeting Support (O-3) Additional Project Infrastructure period for 3 months (O-4) Surveys and Remediation for Buildings 506, 507, and 910. (O-5) Surveys and Remediation for IR 07 scrap yard, the IR 14 salvage yard, and the 907 Triangle Area (O-6) Provide clean backfill for excavations (O-7) Provide additional sewer and storm drain removal and remediation (O-8) Additional Waste Material Management (O-9) Following removal and clearance of the sewer and storm lines, the contractor will design and construct Radiological Screening Yard (RSY) 3 for maximum screening pad capacity
Figure 5.3 Particular Options Supplement. This description contains fictitious information and is intended to be educational.
Developing Superior Proposals 107 This is a “best practice” among client RPMs and will result in less contractor cost contingency. This Government RPM will get better prices from Contractors due to less cost contingency. An additional takeaway from Figure 5.3 is that Contractors should consider proposing options based on the risk of their technical approach, or propose a value-added scope option that might be desired by the client RPM. A flexible technical approach that anticipates potential problems or opportunities for optimization will be more appealing to your experienced Government RPMs who have witnessed many failures. Contractors prefer a well-defined scope with assumptions to manage risk and scope flexibility (e.g. if X happens, we can help the Government accomplish additional scope). Both parties want flexibility. Contractors who do not adapt well to scope flexibility will jeopardize their relationship with their client RPM. How a poorly written scope increases contractor risk and cost: (1) Complicates PM risk evaluation and risk management during project execution; (2) Increases project team vulnerability or susceptibility to scope growth (e.g. contamination types, contamination quantities, increased anomaly densities requiring investigation, work plans, meetings, and requested level of project manager support); (3) Increases project team vulnerability or susceptibility to developing an inaccurate estimate. Note: Inexperienced contractors tend to underestimate the level of effort, while experienced project teams tend to “read between the RFP lines” and interpret more effort based on Government and regulatory agency work practice precedents that apply to the base location; (4) Higher contract administration costs Complicates PM risk evaluation and risk management during project execution Poorly written scopes complicate the contractor risk evaluation because there are too many potential adverse outcomes to evaluate, with too little time to evaluate due to the aggressive proposal due date. Consequently, the project manager has to select what he perceives to be the most substantial risks for the Risk Register. Many risk factors will be missed, and some will jeopardize project success. Examples will be described in this section. Contractor project managers who have time to discuss perceived risks with subcontractors can identify solutions to change, control of eliminate the risk. The result is a lower subcontractor price due to less subcontractor cost contingency. The purpose of causemapping risks is to identify solutions to decrease the cost. These cost savings result in a more competitive bid to the Government. Scope growth The most common source of cost overruns on all environmental remediation projects is scope growth.
108 Chapter 5 Contamination types Desired Scenario: The RFP should be specific regarding the type of contamination, contaminants of concern, and specific waste streams requiring disposal. The general contamination category is usually defined (e.g. Petroleum, Hazardous, Radiological, Rad/Haz (Mixed), Lead, Asbestos, PCBs, UXOs, etc.). The variability usually arises with the contaminants of concern. The contractor bids strictly to the RFP. What commonly happens after award (scope change scenario): Unforeseen contaminants of concern. For example: buried drums of mystery waste or potential UXO cause project delay and require special characterization and handling. In other cases, the client RPM will want you to sample and treat a new chemical that emerged in a nearby site; additionally, the regulatory agency wants to revise the work plan to include the new chemical. The technology remedy may effectively treat some contaminants, but be ineffective treating other contaminants. Consequently, optimization schemes may need to be evaluated and implemented to deal with the new contaminants. This increases cost. Also, the cost of sampling and analysis is affected by contaminants of concern. Unforeseen contaminants have a ripple effect on other tasks. Waste disposal costs may also increase. Recommendations: Ask questions to clarify RFP requirements. Use assumptions to accurately define the contaminants of concern, waste streams, and waste disposal responsibility. Identify and track on Scope Register. Submit notification of changes letter during field execution. Establish a strong basis for scope change. Contaminant quantities Desired Scenario: Accurate and complete RFP site information enables an accurate estimate of the volume of contaminant quantities because the plume is well defined. Contractor accurately estimates the volume of contaminated soil, groundwater, and other media that will need to be removed, treated, sampled, tested, processed, packaged, and disposed. The contractor bids strictly to the RFP. What commonly happens after award (scope growth scenario): Plume larger than estimated. New data and substantial quantity increases have a ripple effect across several other tasks. Recommendations: Ask questions to clarify RFP requirements. Use assumptions to accurately define volume of contaminant quantities. Identify and track on Scope Register. Track quantities. Submit notification of changes letter during field execution. Site conditions Desired Scenario: The RFP scope contains accurate and complete site information. The contractor bids strictly to the RFP. What commonly happens after award (scope growth scenario): Undisclosed and unanticipated site conditions including obstructions that require different equipment, procedures, more time-consuming approaches, etc. For example, drawings did not reveal certain geology that impacted driller productivity, or adversely affected the distribution of reagent injections into the host geology. Negative productivity impacts. Recommendations: Ask questions to clarify RFP requirements. Use assumptions to accurately
Developing Superior Proposals 109 define the site conditions. Identify and track on Scope Register. Submit notification of changes letter during field execution. Increased anomaly density Desired scenario: The RFP should specify statistical criteria (e.g. Acceptance Sampling; level of confidence) for a defined area of soil. This enables the Contractor to more accurately estimate the number of digs that will be required to investigate anomalies. The contractor bids strictly to the RFP. What commonly happens after award (scope growth scenario): If the RFP is unclear, and the soil contains an abundance of ferrous and nonferrous material that causes anomalies, the contractor might be sanitizing close to 100% of the soil on the grid. Recommendations: Ask questions to clarify RFP requirements. Use assumptions to accurately define the requirements and scope. Identify and track on Scope Register. Submit notification of changes letter during field executions. Work plans Desired scenario: RFP clarifies number of versions (e.g. Preliminary Draft, Draft, Draft Final, Final), number of copies including formats, number of hardcopy colour maps, formatting requirements, regulatory review requirements, and schedule timeframes for each version. The contractor bids strictly to the RFP. What commonly happens after award (scope growth scenario): The number of versions is more than stated in the RFP, which delays the schedule. The RFP gave impression of a Volkswagen, but the client RPM now expects a Lexus (e.g. more refinements, searchable bookmarked pdf on CDs, colour maps, etc.) The client RPM may have difficulty coordinating comments from regulatory agency staff; some reviewer comments show up several weeks past the version deadline. Each change to the work plan causes a ripple effect on other plans, such as the Sampling and Analysis Plan. Extensive client database queries are required to obtain the most-up-to-date data needed for the work. The level of effort includes the time it takes to submit an individual request for user name and password, training on how to use the database, database queries, data analysis, creating data tables for the work plan. This substantial unforeseen level of effort is part of the work plan scope, but unbudgeted. Recommendations: Ask questions to clarify RFP requirements. Use assumptions to accurately define work plan requirements. Identify and track on Scope Register. Submit notification of changes letter during field execution. Meetings Desired Scenario: RFP scope contains accurate estimate of number of meetings (weekly project meetings, base team meetings, community outreach meetings). The contractor bids strictly to the RFP. What commonly happens after award (scope growth scenario): Substantial Project manager time and effort required to prepare the presentation materials. Impact not as
110 Chapter 5 significant as other items; however, the effort will always be more than estimated. Recommendations: Increase estimate for level of effort to support meetings. Project manager level of effort is higher Desired Scenario: RFP requires all contractors to provide a project manager for X duration. Note: Contractors know all Government RPMs feel strongly that a full-time project manager will not be necessary (they expect 0.25 to 0.50 time). The contractor bids strictly to the RFP. What commonly happens after award (scope growth scenario): Afterwards, the project manager becomes rapidly consumed into a full-time effort. A substantial amount of effort is required to track scope and respond to routine telephone requests by the Government RPM. They are indifferent to the part-time budget. Moreover, additional time and effort is required to support the internal program review meetings. Recommendations: Strive to get two projects with the same Government RPM, so you can dedicate 100% of your time to client projects and not be concerned about exceeding your project manager budget hours. Increases project team vulnerability or susceptibility to developing an inaccurate estimate Poorly defined RFP scopes contribute to Contractor estimates that are unrealistically low. As noted above, many of the scope growth items have a “ripple effect” across other project tasks. The ripple effect includes tasks that are in “in-scope, but unbudgeted”. These ripple effect tasks are always viewed and assumed by the Government RPM to be “in scope”. Additional samples are a common request. It is impossible for a project manager and estimator to envision and estimate the numerous in-scope tasks that have a ripple effect during the project. Many client RPMs underestimate the ripple effect caused by what they might perceive to be smallticket items. Many ripple effect issues adversely affect contractor productivity. The estimator assumed a certain productivity to accomplish the task. Scope growth items frequently cause delays that impact productivity. It takes longer than estimated to accomplish the task. Work performed by other contractors of base organizations might also cause unanticipated delays. A seemingly minor request to change a truck traffic route might seem negligible, but if 500 truckloads are involved the lost time adds up. Another common “in-scope, but unbudgeted” category consists of MAC Basic Contract requirements that were omitted from the RFP but flow down as mandatory requirements and procedures on all projects. The contractor bids strictly to the RFP. However, this should include the effort required to fully comply with all “Basic Contract” requirements. Client RPMs will frequently omit some basic contract requirements in the RFP, such as the requirement for an on-site QC Manager, Project QC Plan, or qualification requirements that
Developing Superior Proposals 111 apply to personnel such as a Project QC or Safety Manager. They assume the Contractors know the requirements and account for the requirement in their estimate. How to handle basic contract requirements. One approach is to submit a question during the RFP to require the Government to go on record reiterating requirement applicability. This might be more desirable than writing a contracts letter after award requesting a modification, and giving the impression that you tactfully stated the assumption in your proposal to establish a basis for change. (i.e. “We assume X will not be required”, and omit stating the fact that X is a basic contract requirement). For example, Project Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) missing from RFP, but required by paragraph 3.2 of basic contract. Will a SAP be required? If Government is asked the question during the RFP, expect the response to be, “Yes”. If the Government allows contractors to qualify their proposal and estimate with assumptions, the clarification can be made (e.g. “SAP not included in contractor proposal”). Then, later, if the Government project manager or Government QA Officer says “Write SAP”, then the project manager has a basis for change because the client approved the Contractor proposal. Experienced Contractor project teams must avoid the common tendency to “read between the RFP lines” and interpret the level of effort based on previous site experience. Hypothetical Case Study: Project Team A reads the RFP for radiological soil survey and hot spot removal. They are extremely confident because they performed similar work the previous year at the general location. The RFP states “The Contractor shall develop and implement a radiological survey approach based on the (fictitious) Document G-1267, Guidelines for Conducting Radiological Surveys”. Project Team A knows the Regulatory Agency required 100% radiological survey of all soil rather than a statistically based survey in G-1267. Project Team A estimated the task and level of effort based on what they knew would be required. They lost the award to Project Team B, which estimated the task based on the statistical acceptance sampling described in Document G-1267, “Guidelines for Conducting Radiological Surveys”. During the Government contractor debrief to the losing Project Team A, the Government Contracts Manager stated a weakness that “The Contractor did not follow the RFP for conducting radiological surveys . . .. and the price was too high”. Three months later, Project Team B submitted a work plan that was reviewed by the Regulatory Agency, which countered with the mandatory requirement for 100% radiological survey sampling. Project Team B submitted a Notification of Changes letter to Government contracts and received an RFP for a contract modification. They negotiated an extra 500 K USD to implement the 100% radiological survey sampling. The losing Project Team A had submitted their original bid for only 250 K USD more than the original price offered by Project Team B, which means the Government paid an extra 250 K USD for the project.
112 Chapter 5 Project Team A was guilty of “reading between the RFP lines” which resulted in overestimating the level of effort based on their experience on similar projects at the location. They justified their approach by saying, “The Government dislikes change orders, so we are committed to avoiding change orders”. They did not just over-estimate the major task, but various support tasks required to achieve the specified results. Experienced contractors need to understand that their knowledge can backfire if they lose their focus on strictly bidding to RFP requirements. They might scan the RFP and quickly conclude, “We have done this work before, know what is required, and we know the level of effort”. Rather than scrutinizing the RFP to identify requirements, mistakes, and omissions, they rush into the technical approach and estimate. Land mines can be “unspecified” requirements and tasks that will inflate your proposal price beyond the competitive range to win. In the previous example, Project Team A relinquished their window of opportunity to ask RFP questions that would trigger Government RFP due diligence. Instead, they developed their high-priced estimate and were downgraded for not complying with the RFP. This is where a Compliance Matrix comes in handy, to keep the project team anchored and grounded to RFP requirements. Consider assigning someone to serve as “RFP Cop/Officer” to perform a line-by-line RFP to proposal comparison. Higher contract administration costs Poorly written scopes of work increase the level of effort required by the Contractor and Government to properly monitor and maintain the contract, and properly communicate scope-related adjustments in a timely manner. All contractual communications must be documented. These communications usually require involve multiple individuals, such as the Contractor project manager, program manager, program contracts manager, Government RPM and Government Contract Specialist assigned to the project. The Contractor project manager must monitor the status of contract actions, and report status to the Program Manager. Contractors who fail to communicate contractual issues in a timely manner are at risk of cost overruns, and will be downgraded in Government performance evaluations.
How Governments can Improve the Prices and Value They Obtain on Fixed-Price, Performance-Based MACs Cause mapping will be used in this section to provide Government agencies with insights into the Contractor’s perception of risk. Mind Manager software (by Mindjet) was used to document a “What is Possible” cause map. Yellow-stickies could also be used, but I did not have enough open space on the wall. This will be a good primer for Chapter 8, Effectively Control Field Work.
Developing Superior Proposals 113
Figure 5.4 The master cause map, Government Goals.
Along the way you will see how this cause-mapping process reveals potential solution opportunities. The master cause map, Government Goals (Figure 5.4) is too detailed to read, so it will be broken down and described in chunks. Figure 5.4 provides a sense for the layout. This is what happens when you “Ask Why” 60þ times. Figure 5.4 shows how “Government Goals” was the starting point for asking “Why” or “Caused By” on the far left side of the chart. Causes chains were mapped from left to right.
Government Goals 1. Better prices. 2. Better value. Sounds like a commercial. Better prices and better value also appeal to Government agencies. Governments do not want to be accused of overpaying for services
114 Chapter 5 We will start with better prices as our starting point for asking “Why” or “Caused By”.
What causes “Less Cost Contingency bundled into (Contractor) price?”
Answer: “Less contractor-perceived risk”. Note that “Less Cost Contingency bundled into price” also caused The Contractor “Risk Board”. The Risk Board is a condition cause that exists for an action: “Less contractor-perceived risk”.
Why does the Risk Board exist? “To evaluate risk and assign contingency” (or No Bid). Why do they evaluate risk and assign contingency? “To protect the Company”. Bear in mind this cause map is the journey to better prices, not higher prices. The Government wants better prices. “Less contractor-perceived risk” is caused by many specific policy actions that can be taken by the Government, including those featured below:
By the way, the little note icon is not evidence for “Liquidated Damages” (LDs). It is just a solution that I wanted to capture in the background while generating this map. Condition causes
Developing Superior Proposals 115 for each of these contractor-perceived risks would create a huge cause map. Consequently, some additional potential solution opportunities might not be revealed. Since it is beneficial for the Government to understand contractor-perceived risks, these will be broken-out in the order they appear.
Note the condition cause: “Government Proposal Due Date exists” (Obvious clue for a solution opportunity). “Why” the condition cause? Government under “Pressure to meet site cleanup milestone” is a cause possibility.
“More confidence in technical remedy” will decrease risk perceived by contractors, which means less cost contingency bundled into the contractor bid and a lower price for the Government. Contractors gain confidence several ways, such as “Remedy implemented on actual site conditions”, caused by having “Pilot test results”.
No surprise here: Trust Matters. To Government clients: You will get better prices if contractors trust your RPM (i.e. will be fair). Trust is the effect caused by “Government project manager was fair on scope dealings” with the condition cause “Previous project experience”. While a few Government RPMs might capitalize on significant opportunities to grind contractor project managers into submission on scope changes in order to avoid requesting additional funds, the stories will leak out to all contractors. Consequently, each will consider adding a stronger dose of cost contingency in their next bid involving that particular Government RPM. More trust ¼ better contractor prices. Less trust ¼ higher contractor prices. It can work both ways, but it does not on MACs. Why would any contractor want their reputation tarnished among Government RPMs? They will be fair because they value repeat business.
116 Chapter 5 Recap the cause-drivers for “Less Cost Contingency bundled into price” before we shift our attention to cause-drivers for “Contractor upstream visibility of site opportunities”.
Better prices are caused by “Less Cost Contingency bundled into price” and “Contractor upstream visibility of site opportunities”.
Note the cause-drivers to achieve “Contractor upstream visibility of site opportunities” and the various important condition causes that are identified. A key condition cause is the “Government Execution Plan” that exists. Why? To “Identify sites in the contracting pipeline”. One Government cause is “internal budgeting process” (unimportant to Contractors). The “Cause by” that matters to contractors is “Enable early start for contractors”. However, Contractors will not authorize BD funds in early start unless the Government confirms the site will be programmed to their MAC contract vehicle (key condition cause). Not shown to avoid excessive map detail: Government should select the contract vehicle that includes contractors who will most likely provide a better price based on the type of project. Please direct your attention to the second goal on the list: “Better Value for restoration dollar” The key cause map drivers are Better Price (refer to previous cause map), “Flexible Performance-Based Scope” and “Less internal Contract Administration Hassles”. A major obstacle to “Better Value for restoration dollar” is the time and effort required to engage contracts organizations. The expression, “jumping through a lot of hoops” applies here.
Developing Superior Proposals 117
Why “Flexible Performance-Based Scope?” One important cause: “Provide competing contractors with more versatility for risk evaluation and innovation”. Why is this so important for enabling the Government to achieve better value for environmental restoration funds? Please direct your attention to the cause-drivers. “Provide competing contractors with more versatility for risk evaluation and innovation” will be featured as the desired primary effect on the left. Note how “Contract Options exist” are a key piece of the cause chain puzzle. They provide competing contractors with more versatility for risk evaluation and innovation. Also note the cause-drivers that lead to contract options. Contract options are a condition cause. If you eliminate “Contract Options” from your RFPs, it significantly decreases potential contractor solution opportunities.
Contract options provide the Government project manager with “Cost contingency for unanticipated needs”. Not just for the Government, but for Contractors. Government RPMs know it is not possible to define future needs because projects involve a process of discovery. Condition causes for cost contingency include an “Adequate fund reserve to cover possible
118 Chapter 5 needs” and “RFP Work Elements”. RFP Work Elements exist. Why? “Organize the scope” and “Enable bid item pricing”. Recall the earlier example of the experienced client project manager who established contract options to support many Work Elements. Contract options exist. Why? Contractors can “Segment technology options”. Contractors want to make “most economical use of contract funds” (this is a win-win for Contractors and the Government). For example, Contractor A has a technical expert who wants to propose “in situ sequential aerobic and anaerobic bioremediation with enhanced bio-augmentation”. This is an impressive way of saying they have a Volkswagen Economy Bug and a Lexus Super Bug (no pun intended). If the cheaper Volkswagen Economy Bug works, then they do not have to use the more expensive Lexus Super Bug to treat the plume. They cannot predict the optimum combination over time, but will figure it out during technology optimization. Hence, their conundrum: If they price the proposal with the Lexus Super Bug they will likely lose to a competitor who leads your proposal evaluators to believe their cheaper Nissan Juke Bug will do the job (i.e. “Counter” the Contractor who has the competitive advantage with the more expensive Lexus Super Bug). Please refer to the section on developing “Proposal Discriminators”. The previous example provides a segway into the next cause chain: “Contract options enable technology optimization”. In 2004, during the first wave of performance-based contacts for environmental restoration projects, a senior client RPM told me he valued technology optimization but they were having trouble contracting for it. They could not figure out how to write RFPs to solicit and buy optimization on MAC competitions. He was looking for ideas on how to buy technology optimization on MACs. Technology optimization enables contractors to achieve performance objectives for the lowest price. This is not possible unless the contractor has two condition causes: a “Flexible contractor technical approach” and “Site exit strategy”. Note: “Exit strategy” is an environmental site restoration term that has the unique distinction of being adopted by politicians.
Why would the Government want to “provide competing contractors with more versatility for risk evaluation and innovation?” This is another win-win for the Government and competing Contractors: It “Makes it easier for the Government proposal Technical Evaluation Board to identify the best value approach”. Why? “Risks and solutions are articulated by competing contractors”. The downside is that it also “Makes it harder for Contracts to implement the proposal evaluation rules” (the independent Contracts Evaluation Board prefers an “apples
Developing Superior Proposals 119 to apples” comparison). Their priority is to “Establish a contractually defensible basis for making award decisions”. They are worried about a potential Contractor protest, even though Contractor protests are rare on MACs. Why? Contractors do not want to upset the Government and jeopardize future opportunities.
Why “Flexible Performance-Based Scope?” “Minimize costly changes (revisions) to Decision Documents” Why is this so important for enabling the Government to achieve better value for environmental restoration funds? Do not let the simplicity of this cause chain fool you.
Any change causing a revision to a Decision Document, which is a term used to describe plans, reports, and public involvement that tracks with the environmental laws that apply to the site cleanup (i.e. document demonstrates compliance with applicable laws), will result in project delays. “Minimize costly changes to Decision Documents” is the desirable effect caused by “Less frequent action needed from Regulators”. Regulators exist for many beneficial reasons, including “Enforcing compliance with the legal process” (Condition cause ¼ laws). Regulators enforce the laws. In terms of solution opportunities, the Government cannot change or eliminate laws, but they can take actions to prevent triggering laws.
To recap, the key cause-drivers “Better Value” for the restoration dollar are “Better Prices, Flexible Performance-Based Scope and Less Internal Contract Administration Hassles”. A major obstacle to “Better Value for restoration dollar” is the time and effort required to deal with the Government contracts organization.
120 Chapter 5 Like Regulators, they serve an essential function to enforce a process that complies with the law, which in this case, is the contract. As with regulators, certain dealings cause project delay to the client RPM and Contractor project manager.
“Less Internal Contract Administration Hassles” are caused by “Less frequent change orders that add cost to the contract”. “Flexible scope triggers more contract letters and less RFPs for contract modifications”. Contract letters are a more expeditious way to manage and track scope. On the other hand, change orders are time consuming and labour intensive, especially when they add cost to the contract. It is much faster and easier to award a contract option.
Note the condition cause for “Less Internal Contract Administration Hassles:” “RFP Package”. Why “RFP Package?” It spells-out contract terms and conditions, incentives, and disincentives. It guides actions and decisions by the assigned Contract Specialist. Their job is to implement and enforce contract rules. If your objective is to shift as much risk as possible to the Contractor (not the purpose of our cause map), you are going to keep your Contract Specialist very busy. She will spend hours researching the contract, writing e-mails that seek information, making contract interpretations, and exchanging several e-mails with various staff including the Contractor. The dialogue can last weeks. The Contractor is on constant high alert due to the excessive contract risk. The Contractor project manager is going to be under the microscope by higher-level management. And the overall impact is higher contract administration costs for both sides. Who makes money and wins when you get attorneys involved? The attorneys. The purpose of going through this cause-mapping exercise is to identify multiple solution opportunities. The cause map illustrates a variety of cause-drivers that relate to decreasing the
Developing Superior Proposals 121 contractor’s perception of financial risk. Mapping the cause-drivers is just a means to illuminate solutions that act on causes. What are the solution opportunities for “Governments to achieve (1) Better Prices and (2) Better Value for public restoration funds?” Solution opportunities were likely flashing in your head while you were scanning the cause map visual snippets. Did you notice how many of these causes are mutually beneficial for the Government and Contractors? If your Government organization embraces the goal of obtaining better prices and better value for their environmental restoration funds, they should consider adopting MAC contracts and implementing the following solutions: 1. Provide contractors with an Execution Plan for early recognition of upcoming project opportunities. This includes specifying the future contract number including any specific contracting percentages to small Business (Note: Contractors might need to team with a subcontractor). 2. Organize site information electronic files on a website library which provides contractor access. Use a logical folder structure that corresponds with the Execution Plan. Example: Execution plan in table format with links to site folder directories that have a consistent folder organization. 3. Enable contractors to get started with due diligence 3 months before the target RFP release date. Time will enable contractors to engage subcontractors in the development of innovative solutions that act on perceived risks, and formulate teaming agreements. This will lower Contractor cost contingency and give you a lower price. 4. Provide Contractors with a draft RFP for comment 1 month before the target release date. Then finalize RFP. 5. Develop a boilerplate performance-based RFP structure and packages for consistency at each base location. Develop templates for different types of projects. Delete contract language that increases contractor risk (unless you want frequent “No Bids” and inflated prices due to added cost contingency). 6. Build flexibility into your RFP packages using contract options that correspond to RFP Work Elements. That is how you enable contractors to propose a flexible technical approach that is adaptable to technology performance and considers economics. It also provides government RPMs with a cost contingency buffer in response to evolving project needs. 7. Use assumptions to define and quantify scope, and allow contractors to use assumptions to define and quantify scope. Do not worry. They will not nickel and dime you for change orders because they value repeat business. By the way, some Contractor assumptions will reveal if they have made the effort to evaluate risk and develop solution options. Some assumptions provide insights into whether or not the Contractor has the Government’s best interest in mind. 8. Give contractors 6–8 weeks to develop a proposal. If you implement solutions described above that provide an early contractor start, 6 weeks should be sufficient for most projects.
122 Chapter 5 These process improvement actions will enable Contractors to deliver better prices and better value for the environmental restoration funds. They pave the way for continuous improvement. No major investment will be required, just a better approach to planning and commitment to partnering. For those of you who are intrigued with the cause-mapping approach, refer to Chapter 8 on Effectively Control Field Work. It is not difficult to learn, but it takes a little practice.
Best Practices The previous section described common Government acquisition practices that create barriers for Contractors seeking to deliver competitive prices and better value proposals. Many Government organizations will continue these practices. The common 1-month window between RFP release and proposal due date has existed since the inception of many MACs (2002). Therefore, some Government agencies have been going down this path for more than 8 years. This section will recommend practices that will help project teams deliver more competitive prices and better value proposals within compressed proposal development schedules. This section will be described in the following sequence: BCT Culture Influence on Base Capture Plans. Contractor Base Capture Plan System, Base Capture Plans, Site-Specific Capture Process, and Proposal Development Process. The capture phase is pre-RFP release. The proposal development phase is post-RFP release. Certainly, proposal components should be drafted prior to RFP release.
BCT Culture Influence on Base Capture Plans Government Environmental Service Provider (GESP) agencies typically implement decentralized Base Cleanup Team (BCT) organizations to be closer to each base customer (e.g. military installation client). These BCT organizations assign individual project managers to various projects on the base. The Contractor Base Capture Plan System is focused on BCT organizations. As previously mentioned, the overall Base Cleanup Team (BCT) is the culture. Each base has its own unique culture that evolves over time (values, perceptions, hopes, fears, biases, likes, dislikes based on experiences). The Base Cleanup Team (BCT) consists of the lead RPM, RPM staff, base environmental coordinator, site QA representatives, and a base client organization (for active bases); Contractor Service Providers (CSPs) (i.e. different Contractor project teams) who are actively performing project work under a contract; regulatory agency staff assigned to support the base (e.g. state, county, and/or local agencies); city government representatives; and a local community group. The BCT may formalize the establishment of a Base Cleanup Team (BCT)
Developing Superior Proposals 123 with a partnering agreement consisting of representatives from these groups, and conduct quarterly or semi-annual meetings to discuss the base cleanup program. The BCT lead RPM establishes communication protocols among BCT members. For example, “all Contractor Service Provider communication with regulatory agencies must be channeled through the BCT organization”. Each BCT culture has a major emphasis on partnering. They try to reach BCT consensus on the base cleanup mission, goals, and base cleanup plan. Some BCTs exhibit a high degree of trust, coordination, and cooperation among BCT member organizations. Others BCTs find trust to be more challenging and elusive, which can sometimes boil down to conflicting strong personalities. A common expression in the United States is that some people seem to “buttheads”. If you place 12 different BCTs on an imaginary trust spectrum, the results will usually follow a normal distribution. One or two BCTs will demonstrate an impressive level of partnering, teamwork, and accelerated base cleanup progress due to effective execution and lack of delays. Others will be in the middle with some periodic minor set-backs, and one or two will seem to be continually bogged down. Higher-level GESP managers try to figure out the secret to success for the top performing BCTs, so they can share best practices with other BCTs. Some regulatory agency individuals may go into the BCT with a perception of distrust until proven otherwise (i.e. trust must be earned). They know the base is trying to obtain site closure (e.g. release site to unrestricted use) for the lowest possible price. All it takes is one significant incident to damage regulatory agency trust, and then trust must be earned back through actions. The regulatory agency formulates their perceptions and degree of trust based on BCT actions and inactions over time. A strong regulatory agency value is being kept abreast regarding what is going on. They dislike surprises and “strong-arm” tactics. To what extent does the BCT keep the regulatory agency representatives “in the loop” regarding what is going on? The base culture developed over time is primarily influenced by actions and inactions, not promises. Not surprisingly, the BCTs with the strongest trust usually make the best progress. The BCT culture is continually influenced by Contractor project team performance. For example, if a regulatory agency performs a site inspection and identifies improper control of the radiological control area, their level of confidence decreases in the BCT and contractor. It reflects negatively on both organizations. Now the regulatory agency will scrutinize radiological control areas on site cleanups throughout the base more closely. The Government SP emphasis increases due to the violation. Contractor management of the radiological control area suddenly becomes emphasized in next RFP for a new project. Competitors implementing base capture plans note the incident on their discriminator list. The guilty contractor strives to neutralize the perceived weakness in their future proposals.
124 Chapter 5 They are doomed if they did not perform an effective cause analysis to identify and effectively implement preventive actions, and then have a repeat incident or non-conformance. Competing contractors will try to exploit the contractor mistake in their future proposal competitions for the base. For example, each MAC competitor emphasizes his “proven success managing radiological control areas” and might feature a regulatory agency testimonial that says “Contractor A has the most impressive radiological control area practices we have observed”. The RPM may still be stinging from the incident, and determined to avoid repeat incident that might damage their performance review. Over time, each base culture creates their own values, perceptions, hopes, fears, biases, likes, and dislikes based on experiences. These base culture characteristics become fertile ground for “discriminators” that influence contractor win themes. That is why each contractor strives to have at least one project team on the base. They need to learn the culture, be aware of incidents, and sense BCT priorities based on attending meetings. The RFP might not capture some pivotal BCT preferences that have emerged in the culture. Figure 5.5 is a flow chart that shows the pre-RFP Base capture process and post-RFP proposal development process.
Contractor Base Capture System The Contractor Base Capture System needs to be hosted on a private Base Capture Web Page. The Base Capture Web Page features a Government Service Provider “Execution Plan” that was previously discussed. The Execution Plan is the project opportunity “radar screen” for each base and upcoming project RFP. It exists either formally (issued by Government to all competing contractors) or informally based on intelligence gathering among Contractor project managers. The Execution Plan should be in spreadsheet format, so it can be sorted, such as by Government contract vehicle, base, RFP release date, Funded for Capture (Yes or No), and the Go/No-Go Bid decision. The Contractor version of the Execution Plan should list each base name, site in the RFP pipeline, site title, suspected MAC contract vehicle, BCT Project Manager, Contractor Capture Manager, RFP suspected or target release date, and incumbent or “Contractor team to beat” (also known as Contractor who appears to have the “inside track”, etc.), Pre-RFP capture funding (Yes or No), Go/No-Go Decision Date, and the Go/No-Go Decision. The Contractor version will add specific fields that are not provided on the Government Execution Plan. On a Microsoft SharePoint website, this Microsoft-Excel spreadsheet is a “List Web Part” that can be easily exported to a Microsoft-Excel spreadsheet. Note: In the era of being able to have a single secure Capture web page for all project managers to visit and update, which can be attained for as little as 1000 USD monthly rental rate, it is wasteful to try to maintain this dynamic list by e-mailing a spreadsheet around to various project managers to update, and then requesting an Admin assistant to reconcile the changes.
Developing Superior Proposals 125
Figure 5.5 MAC Project Capture and Proposal Process.
The Contractor version of the Execution Plan is continually updated by assigned Capture Manager. It tracks the status of Site-Specific capture efforts, including Go/No-Go decisions for each opportunity.
Base Capture Plans Base Capture Plans organize information needed to develop Site-Specific Capture Plans. A comprehensive and well-organized Base Capture Plan enables Site-Specific Capture Managers to develop better Site-Specific Capture Plans in less time. It should contain a
126 Chapter 5 template for developing Site-Specific Capture Plans (for the base) that includes the current status of knowledge. Base Capture Plans summarize the BCT organizations (organization, names, contact info, Contractor POCs); base cleanup plan; base cleanup schedule; profile influential BCT members including their contractor preferences, likes, and dislikes; status of base environmental work performed to-date; list of active projects, contract vehicle, contract value, and contractual period of performance (contract expiration date); archive RFPs issued to date and develop RFP SOW boilerplates (based on all RFPs issued to date) for types of projects; library of BCT Meeting Minutes; base plans, procedures, and reports; profile favoured contractors (contractor market share on base) and subcontractors and including disliked subcontractors; previous Government contract performance evaluations (including those issued for competitors); history of significant problems and associated contractors, etc. A substantial amount of important base information is available and obtainable. It must be gathered and organized within the Base Capture Plan. The Base Capture Plan can leverage this information to create two valuable documents: Base Risk Register and BCT Discriminator List. The BCT Discriminator List identifies performance characteristics that are valued by specific BCT members and decision makers; BCT members that like or dislike your project team or a competing project team (e.g. “anti-sponsors”); list of your strengths and weaknesses and competitor strengths and weaknesses (perceived by BCT members, not your opinion). For example, BCT members might place a major emphasis on document quality (e.g. Project Work Plans). If so, this emphasis is likely substantiated by two forms of evidence: contractor process for developing high quality work plans is always emphasized in RFPs and past project experience. If influential BCT members perceive your track record for developing high quality project work plans is inconsistent, it must be captured on the BCT Discriminator List. Your team needs to neutralize this negative perception before the RFP is released, so your track record for spotty work plan performance will not be reason for losing. The Base Risk Register should be oriented towards the BCT Member perception of risk, not just your perception of risk. Each BCT member has a Mental Risk Register that influences their hopes, fears, and biases on every RFP. List specific risks for doing business on the base, strive to understand why the risk perception exists, and, most importantly, identify and implement solution opportunities that act on the causes of perceived risks on existing projects. Do not wait until the RFP is released to “promise solutions” to risks. That is too late. Implement risk solutions before the RFP is released. For example, upcoming work at Site X requires Contractors to have a particular license issued by the State. It can take several weeks to obtain the license, depending on the workload at the issuing agency. Do not wait until after the RFP to say in your proposal that upon contract award you will apply for the license. Obtain the license before the RFP is released and ghost the lagging contractors by saying “the unpredictable process for obtaining the license can take months, but fortunately, we have our license”.
Developing Superior Proposals 127 Base Capture Plans are prerequisites to proper planning, and serve as living documents. They will accelerate the Site-Specific Capture Manager learning curve. The Base Risk Register and Base Discriminator List will help the Site-Specific Capture Manager develop SiteSpecific Capture Plans, a Site-Specific Risk Register, and a Site-Specific Base Discriminator List. It will minimize the amount of time searching for information.
Site-Specific Capture Process Figure 5.6 provides a default list of steps that should be taken before and after the RFP is released. Note how each upcoming project opportunity should go through two Go/No-Go screening phases, as indicated by the shading. About 3 months before the target RFP issue date, the Capture Manager will develop and implement a Site-Specific Capture Plan. This would become a substantial undertaking in the absence of a Base Capture Plan. In return for the internal funding, the Capture Manager will conduct due diligence, provide a brief capture report and recommendation (Green/Pursue; Yellow (additional due diligence); or Red (Stop)). The Red decision enables the Contractor to improve their emphasis on projects that provide a higher probability of success. As noted earlier, Government agencies have no intention to fund Contractor pre-RFP activities, and they are not providing any funding for post-RFP proposal development. Consequently, Contractors provide the funding. Most contractors would rather invest funds before the RFP is released, rather that after RFP release.
Figure 5.6 Site-Specific Capture Checklist.
128 Chapter 5 Green and yellow determinations lead to additional actions, such as engaging key subcontractors for potential teaming agreements. Teaming agreements take time to process through the company chain of command, and include legal review. However, if the government project manager has a strong preference for a particular subcontractor or subcontractor technology, the wise Contractor will take actions to “lock-up” the subcontractor. Otherwise, they may join a competitor. In some cases, the same subcontractor will be listed in two Contractor proposals. Progress meetings are conducted to discuss the draft technical approach, draft Discriminator List, subcontractors, and draft Risk Register. The final Go/No-Go Meeting should be conducted no later than 3 weeks before the RFP is issued. The Green project (Definate Bid) automatically triggers a Proposal Planning meeting 2 weeks before the RFP is issued. The proposal team is invited, and the meeting deliverables include a proposal development schedule and proposal assignments. The lower portion of Figure 5.7 shows typical proposal development steps as a project opportunity transitions into the post-RFP proposal development phase. These steps should correspond to the process. The lower portion of the Figure 5.8 shows process flow and steps that lead to submitting the proposal.
Proposal Development Process Improvement In addition to the Capture Plan approach described in the previous section, each Proposal Development Team should strive to meet the following objectives to develop winning proposals: • • • • • •
Learn how each Government Environmental Service Provider (GESP) agency evaluates proposals (their internal grading process); Avoid using proposal content boilerplates Understand and effectively implement the Discriminator Discipline; Learn how to feature the most important win theme: Flexibility Design proposal sections in a “Reviewer-Friendly” format Replace the popular marketing objective “Feature–Benefit–Proof” with “Feature–Benefit– Caused By–Proof”
Learn How Each Government Environmental Service Provider Agency Evaluates Proposals (Grading Process) Government evaluation board members get a lot of practice and experience developing RFPs and reviewing proposals on MAC contracts. They are continually developing RFPs, reading proposals, and rating proposals. Imagine how they must feel? It is one proposal competition
Developing Superior Proposals 129
Figure 5.7 Site-Specific Capture Plan Checklist.
after another. Some might feel they are in the wrong job. They should leave the Government and become a proposal development consultant to Contractors that do not seem capable of placing themselves in the shoes of Government proposal evaluators. They see the same shortcomings over and over again. Other Government evaluation board members might view the process as an additional burden on their already over-loaded project responsibilities. They just want to get through the process and get back to re-focusing on their workload. MACs shift a substantial amount of burden on
130 Chapter 5
Figure 5.8 Proposal Development Process.
Government RPMs, technical staff, and contract staff. The RFP development and proposal evaluation assignments are piled on the regular project assignments. What gives? This is what commonly happens. Many RFPs are “slapped together” in a rush. The individuals assigned to develop the RFP are very busy with active projects. They usually start with an RFP boilerplate and try to tailor it to their project needs. Then they try to assemble the proposal evaluation teams, which consist of the Technical Evaluation Board (TEB) and Contracts
Developing Superior Proposals 131
Figure 5.9 Sample Competition Rating Table. Note: Firm names are blocked out.
Evaluation Board (CEB). The process commonly works like this: Each RFP and proposal are broken down into Factors, such as those shown in Figure 5.9. The Technical Evaluation Board will consist of three to five individuals. They will grade Factor 1 (Technical Approach); Factor 2 (Management); and Factor 3 (Experience). The Contracts Evaluation Board (CEB) will evaluate Factor 4 (Past Performance) and Factor 5 (Small Business Support) if the competition is Unrestricted and includes Small Business procurement goals. Technical Evaluation Board Members will get together and review one Factor at a time for each of the MAC Contractors (e.g. 1—Technical Approach, 2—Management, and 3—Experience). For example, each TEB Member will read Factor 1, Technical Approach. Each TEB Member creates a list of Contractor strengths and weakness for the Technical Approach. Then they reconvene a roundtable discussion. A sample strength statement is: “Proposed treating investigation derived waste through an existing treatment system”. Each TEB member will read their noted strengths, one by one. For example, a TEB member will say: “I noted this particular item as a strength because . . .” or “I noted this particular item as a weakness because . . .”. Other TEB members will listen carefully to what follows the “because” and assess two things: (1) Did the contractor adequately substantiate the strength in their proposal?; If so, why did other TEB members miss it? The strength will be shot down if it lacks a defensible “Why” justification. In essence, the TEB is doing an on-the-fly cause analysis of each individual strength and weakness. In some cases, one TEB Member’s strength might be noted as a weakness by another TEB member, which paves the way for TEB debate. The TEB will reach a consensus on the list of strengths; therefore, only the most defensible strengths will prevail. It is an effective system of checks and balances. They go through the same process for weaknesses. The ability of Contractors to substantiate cause-drivers for their claimed strengths can become the pivotal difference in their ability to win. The ability of Contractors to substantiate cause-drivers for neutralizing their perceived weaknesses can also become the pivotal difference in their ability to win. (2) Is the noted strength within the scope of the RFP evaluation criteria?
132 Chapter 5 TEB Members are sensitive to the RFP instructions and specified proposal evaluation criteria. For example, a TEB member cannot justify a strength or weakness that is not linked with RFP proposal evaluation criteria. Their final list of strengths will be scrutinized by the Contracts Evaluation Board (CEB) to make sure the RFP rules are followed. If a Contracts Member disagrees with the TEB consensus strength or weakness, they will challenge the TEB to cite the RFP requirement. The CEB seeks to prevent a potential Contractor protest. This is another important check on the fairness of the competition. Now imagine that all TEB members read a Contractor statement that they met with the regulatory agency and gained support for their technology. They say this in a way that sounds like they “lobbied the regulator to favour their technology”. This statement concerns the TEB and would be a consensus TEB pick for weakness. However, assume the RFP does not have any instructions that restrict Contractors from interviewing regulators. If this was written down as a weakness (i.e. “Contractor persuaded regulator without Government knowledge”), then the Contracts Evaluation Board would strike-out the weakness. Knowing this, the TEB might downgrade the overall Technical Factor Rating from “Excellent” to “Highly Acceptable”. The TEB will tally up their consensus list of strengths and weaknesses for each contractor, and apply the standard evaluation criteria (Refer to the ratings in Figure 5.9). The rating scale in this example is E ¼ Excellent: HA ¼ Highly Acceptable; A ¼ Acceptable; M ¼ Marginal; and U ¼ Unsatisfactory. Note: No formula exists for how many strengths are required to cause separation among contractors. For example, a Contractor might have fewer strengths and a very compelling strength, and no weaknesses, and match HA ratings with another Contractor with more noted strengths and no weaknesses. The TEB then submits their results to the Contracts Evaluation Board. Contracts will review the evaluation for compliance with the RFP. As noted, every listed strength and weakness must be within the scope of the RFP evaluation criteria. If, upon Contracts questioning, the TEB tries to substantiate a strength or weakness with an explanation that is outside of the proposal evaluation criteria, it will be struck-down by Contracts. Contracts will release Contractor proposal prices to the TEB after the ratings are finalized. The Contracts Evaluation Board will go through the same type of strengths and weakness process for Factor 4 (Past Performance) and Factor 5 (Small Business Support). The last step is the Source Selection Board (SSB) rating. The SSB commonly consists of senior level managers that review the Sample Competition Rating Table and apply an Overall Technical Rating. Once again, there is no mathematical formula. For example, they do not weigh each Excellent and Highly Acceptable with a number and sum the total to determine ranges for Excellent, Highly Acceptable, Acceptable, etc. Moreover, the lowest price might not prevail in a “best value” competition. In some cases, Contractors make a very compelling value proposition that justifies the higher price to the Government. In summary, the Government proposal rating system will usually have adequate checks and balances to conduct fair competitions. Contractors should become familiar with the process and attend Government post-award debriefs (if offered) to identify areas needing improvement.
Developing Superior Proposals 133 Additionally, the award debrief notes and areas needing improvement need to be shared by those who attend the award debriefs (usually higher-level managers) with proposal authors. Otherwise, authors do not know how to improve their future proposal content. Effective 1 July 2011, DoD Components procuring environmental restoration services for negotiated, competitive acquisitions utilizing Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15 will be required to implement new source selection procedures. The new Source Selection Guide can be downloaded from the website hosted by the DoD Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (http://www.acq.osd.mil/). Highlights include standardized rating criteria and descriptions for the “technical” and “past performance”. The Source Selection Guide will help Contractors understand how their proposals will be evaluated.
Avoid Using Proposal Content Boilerplates Does this scenario sound familiar: You receive an internal company e-mail from someone requesting proposal input for a proposal section (quality assurance, safety, environmental compliance, or pick your topic). The individual at the beginning of the e-mail chain is seeking a summary write-up to fill a proposal content gap. The e-mail might say, “We are seeking a single page write-up on (topic)”. The e-mail chain might have started from a junior proposal coordinator and passed through five to ten individuals going back a few days. The e-mail does not attach the RFP or any reference to the RFP from the very start. These e-mails never contain a project number and charge code (Perhaps this is because people assume the boilerplate is already written?—it is just a matter of retrieving the file from the hard drive and e-mailing it to someone). An “RFP Compliance Matrix” is not attached or referenced. The e-mail does not identify the customer. It does not contain any excerpts from the RFP Statement of Work or Performance Work Statement (PWS). No proposal preparation instructions. No evaluation factors for award. The Contractor proposal manager should have a policy that prohibits this practice, and reiterate the policy at the proposal kickoff meeting. Avoid falling into the trap of providing anyone with boilerplate content, (or agreeing to author a proposal section with no clue regarding RFP requirements). Customer Technical Evaluation Board (TEB) members dislike reading boilerplate, and they know how to recognize boilerplate when they read it. The proposal administrators requesting and using the boilerplate lack the technical knowledge to tailor the content, and a few “snafus” will still get through if they try. Proposal content originating from boilerplate will always read like boilerplate because it is not tailored to the technical approach and specific risks. Boilerplate is not “our approach-oriented”. No amount of tweaking will change this fact. Proposal content with boilerplate origins will never earn high proposal evaluation ratings. Boilerplate usually backfires because the content, such as quality assurance, might be based on a different quality standard. It is not responsive to customer policies and standard practices, which change from one customer to another.
134 Chapter 5 When you receive those vague e-mail requests seeking proposal content, notify the requesting person that you need to see the RFP. Ask them why they are requesting and using boilerplate. If the RFP does not address any requirements relative to the topic, ask the requestor why valuable proposal space is being used for the topic. If the topic is still requested, speak to someone within your company who has worked with the customer in the past relative to the subject matter being sought. Seek to discover customer expectations. Proposal boilerplate causes contractors to write ho-hum proposals that are boring to read and irrelevant to the specific work to be performed. Frankly, with the limited proposal page counts that apply to most project proposals, TEB Members do not want to read any boilerplate. Ten years ago, when proposals were commonly 100–300 pages, all companies utilized boilerplate. Not now. Not when Technical and Management Volumes are 20 pages or less. TEB members read every single word in these concise proposals, and each word is important given the limited page counts. One stupid boilerplate paragraph with fluffy statistics can negatively impact TEB impressions for the entire proposal section. The problem does not stop with boilerplates and statistics. The second part of this losing formula is expecting any person to write a relevant proposal section without reading any other working draft proposal sections. This is commonly known as “writing a proposal section in a vacuum”. For example, the e-mail asks, “We need a section covering (topic)”. The proposal section writer does not have access to any progress drafts for the technical approach or related sections. It is impossible for the writer to relate their content to “how” the work will be performed, or the task-specific risks. For example, if the topic is quality assurance, the proposal writer cannot describe more rigourous QC checks that will be required for process steps that involve higher risk. If the topic is safety, the proposal writer cannot include a sample “Activity Hazard Analysis” punch-list for an important technical task, such as mixing chemical treatment reagents. The two common proposal development pitfalls described above lead to excessive internal (e.g. “Red Team”) review comments. They cross out content with questions or comments like “Did you read the RFP?” or “Fluff”. They might write: “section fails to flow with proposal” or “proposal section inconsistent with content described in another section”. If you want to develop losing proposals, allow your proposal administrator staff to see out and use boilerplates and ask proposal content providers to write in a vacuum. If Contractor project teams are unwilling to budget a few extra hours to customize content to the RFP and within the limited number of proposal pages, they should “No Bid”.
Understand and Effectively Implement the Discriminator Discipline A previous section described how a team of three to five Government TEB members might independently review and grade each contractor proposal. A TEB member might list a particular strength or weakness that nobody else listed, and will be asked by other Evaluators to justify the strength or weakness. Strength and weakness items that cannot be defended will be scratched from the final list. Therefore, the TEB member’s ability to defend the strength is
Developing Superior Proposals 135 determined by the Contractor’s ability to substantiate the strength in the proposal (e.g. Feature/ Benefit/Proof). The TEB member ability to defend the weakness is determined by the Contractor’s ability to neutralize the weakness in the proposal (e.g. evidence that preventive actions were effective and the weakness no longer exists). Each TEB member will try to be objective; however, other TEB members may observe a trend that indicates a specific TEB member bias (positive or negative) against a particular contractor. They would never admit this happens in the process, but it is hard to imagine that it does not happen. If the TEB member has a strong personality, they might become defensive if they are repeatedly asked to defend specific strength and weakness items. The final TEB result is a tabulation of Proposal Factor strengths and weaknesses for each contractor and TEB rating (e.g. Excellent, Highly Acceptable, Acceptable; Marginal; Unsatisfactory). Some contractors have the same strengths. If all contractors have the same specific strength, it is not a discriminator. If a contractor has enough unique strengths without glaring weaknesses they may raise the bar high enough to achieve separation or a rating gap (e.g. earn Factor Rating of “Excellent”; next highest Competitor receives “Highly Acceptable”). This is what each Contractor strives to achieve, which underscores the critical importance of discriminators. The same reasoning applies to weaknesses. If all Contractors share the same weakness (or nobody sets themselves apart as Excellent), it is not a discriminator. If a weakness is unique to a Contractor, it becomes a discriminator because the weakness is unique to the Contractor. If a TEB member makes the comment that “Factor 1 (Technical), Factor 3 (Experience), and Pricing are where we continue to see separation among competitors”, they are saying those are discriminator opportunities that are consistently determining the outcomes of proposal competitions. They can become the pivotal strengths that can help a Contractor earn a contract award. Contractors need to actively seek out this type of valuable performance feedback, rather than passively look at the award debrief ratings and make the inference based on Factor rating trends. This brings us to the definition of discriminator: Discriminators are the strengths and weaknesses that are unique to a Contractor in the competition, as perceived by the Evaluators. The strengths and weaknesses do not have to be real. If the Evaluator perceives they are real, they are real. The following exercise will be used to describe the discriminator development process. Figure 5.10 describes “Best Value” as the basis of award. It describes the “Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors” and “Evaluation Methodology and Rating Scheme”. We will look at Factor 1, Technical, Sub Factor 1, Technical, and Management Approach. Figure 5.2 highlights the project objective.
136 Chapter 5
Figure 5.10 Basis of Award.
Figure 5.11 states the following: Sample Discriminators for Key Area (1) •
•
• • • •
•
We are the only contractor who has performed similar work on base (Parcel X) and received radiological unrestricted free release from the regulatory agency X (we have proven we can meet the project objective). Our radiological survey team led by Dr. Smith, a Certified Health Physicist, obtained regulatory agency X approval on the Radiation Protection Plan (RPP) in only 26 days; the same RPP will be modified and used for this project, which will allow us to meet the aggressive 1 March mobilization target. Competitors B, C, and D (Competitors) have no experience performing radiological work on the base; they will need to hire a subcontractor. We received a regulatory violation from regulatory agency X for not controlling the radiological work area. Our subcontractor deviated from our sampling and analysis plan and forgot to collect four soil samples for a 25-meter section of storm drain. We had three delays resulting from not properly securing transportation and utility corridors, and our preventive actions (in response to the first delay) were not effective in preventing subsequent delays. Jack Wilson, client RPM, likes Competitor C because they have a reputation for minimizing radiological waste stream material (client pays for radiological waste transportation and disposal costs).
Developing Superior Proposals 137 FACTOR 1 – Technical Methods and Procedures (Volume I) Sub-Factor 1 – Technical and Managerial Approach: The Offerer (Contractor) will address five key technical and managerial areas. (1) The Offerer will provide a brief overview of the proposed approach for excavation, removal, survey, and remediation of the sewer and storm drain system. Additional information should be provided on how the offerer will minimize transportation and utility corridor impacts while also securing the radiologically controlled excavation area. (2) The Offerer will provide a brief overview of the proposed approach for surveys and remediation of buildings and sites to include all buildings and sites in both the main contract and contract options. Additional information should be provided on how the Offerer will minimize waste stream material, limit impacts to base infrastructure, and methods to secure the radiologically controlled areas. (3) The Offerer should briefly discuss their approach for coordination efforts with subcontractors, other (base) contractors, coordinating NRC (radiological regulator) requirements, and (Base Cleanup Team organization) offices. (4) The Offerer will address their proposed method to efficiently manage data and information for production and quality documents that achieve timely free release concurrence from the Government and Regulators. (5) The Offerer will discuss environmental controls, with particular focus on waste material management, dust mitigation, air monitoring, and storm water pollution prevention.
Figure 5.11 Factor 1: Technical methods and procedures (volume I), Subfactor I: Technical and managerial approach. This description contains fictitious information and is intended to be educational.
Discriminators must be generated for the remaining key areas (2–5). Notice how the above discriminators are relevant to the specific project, rather than generic statements. The details will help proposal authors. When possible, discriminators should list the “who (specific names), what, when, where, and how” details. If the BCT treats Ms. Mary Edwards as the “go-to” person for site geology, then Ms. Mary Edwards is a discriminator. The sample discriminator list also includes potential client-perceived weaknesses. It is just as important for the Contractor to self-identify and list weaknesses. In the proposal, they will need to hit these head-on and neutralize them, because some competitors have been taking notes of the mis-steps in their Base Discriminator List. They can even make a case that they capitalized on the lessons learned to improve process control. Contractors will strive to make the case they have a plan and approach for each mistake made by the contractor they perceive to be the team to beat. They will place more emphasis on these mis-steps to capitalize on client fear. Some proposal teams make the mistake of simply brainstorming and listing “win themes”, and completely bypass the discriminator list. For example, they get in a conference room with a
138 Chapter 5 facilitator and flip chart and brainstorm a list of reasons why the client should choose us. These are a list of self-perceived strengths, not weaknesses. They do not list weaknesses because nobody wants to be the person to expose the “dirty laundry” (popular U.S. slang term for major mistakes). This is especially the case when the facilitator is a higher-level manager who only wants to hear the positive points. The team might “vote” and rank the most important brainstormed win themes. These proposal teams might use the term “discriminator” but they do not employ a discriminator methodology. Next, the List of Discriminators should be converted into matrix format so they can be classified (Discriminator Matrix). This will expose major gaps where discriminators need to be identified. The horizontal list is the discriminators. The vertical column checks include the following: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Your Strength Primary Competitor Weakness (i.e. “Ghost” or major mistake) Competitor B Weakness Competitor C Weakness Your Weakness (Assume Competitors will expose your Ghost or major mistake) Proof that Neutralizes Your Weakness Primary Competitor Strength Competitor B Strength Competitor C Strength Counter of Primary Competitor Strength Counter Competitor B Strength Counter Competitor C Strength Exploiter: Client Hope Exploiter: Client Fear Exploiter: Client Bias
More than one check may apply for each discriminator. Here are some definitions for additional discriminator classifications shown on the list: Counter discriminator: directed against what specific Competitors will claim as their strength. Exploiters: discriminator triggers a client hope, fear, and/or bias. Example: client “fears” not controlling the radiological work area or excessive rad waste disposal volumes that are paid by the Government. Each discriminator on the list must be rated against the Exploiter column (Hope, Fear, Bias) from the Client and Contractor perspective. The team should then rank the Top five from the Client (as perceived by the client) and Top Five as perceived by the team. Some discriminators may trigger all three Exploiters. That is OK. The objective is to feature your strengths and competitor weaknesses, neutralize your weaknesses, counter your competitor’s strengths, and exploit client hopes, fears, and biases (Figure 5.11).
Developing Superior Proposals 139 How to identify discriminators Please direct your attention back to Figure 5.11. Note the shaded statements. Brainstorming discriminators as shown in the previous example is a good start, but it is not enough. The technical approach is the most critical source of discriminators, not just with your technology but other competing technologies being considered by your client or proposed by your competitors. Technical approach discriminators are important for one major reason: Clients understand that technologies never perform as advertised. All clients want you to demonstrate that you have identified what can go wrong with your technical approach, and if something goes wrong, what specific actions will you recommend and/or take to avoid project delay. Any Contractor who fails to address possible risks associated with the technical approach will be downgraded. They will not receive an “Excellent” rating without demonstrating sensitivity towards technology risks and options in response to each risk item. The Contractor must always flow chart the technical approach as the starting point for the technology risk evaluation. In the previous example, the Contractor should develop two flow charts: (1) the technical approach for excavation, removal, survey, and remediation of the sewer and storm drain system and (2) approach for radiological surveys for buildings and sites. The proposal narrative in these sections and integrated discussion of risk will track with the flow chart. After developing these flow charts, they need to identify risks at each flow chart step (i.e. what can go wrong at each step?). Next is to cause map the most significant potential problems in order to identify solutions. Consider featuring a Technology Risk Table that lists each risk in one column and the corresponding solution in the right column. These will become “risk-based discriminators”. This demonstrates to the client that you have “thought through the technical approach” and stand ready to take actions that will minimize project delays. Additionally, this description includes several potential cause analysis topics, such as: (1) Minimize Transportation Corridor Impacts, (2) Minimize Utility Corridor Impacts, and (3) Minimize Waste Stream Material. How do you select which ones to cause map? Perform due diligence or refer to the Site-Specific Capture Plan to determine if clients have a preferred approach. If they do you simply implement their preferred approach (no need to cause map). If they do not, then you should strive to develop innovative solutions based on cause mapping. For example, the client is relying on Contractors to “Minimize Waste Stream Material” because this is a performance-based contract. They cannot direct the contractor regarding “how” to minimize waste stream material. This problem can potentially skyrocket their project cost because the client is responsible for rad waste disposal costs. Your proposal team is foolish not to view this problem as a huge opportunity to generate valuable discriminators.
140 Chapter 5 Define Problem: High rad waste volume. Map the cause-drivers and identify solutions to decrease rad waste volumes. At a minimum, you will identify solution opportunities for client consideration, and recommend the solutions that meet their needs. As mentioned before, if you raise the bar from the perspective of TEB members in terms of what is possible (i.e. you recognize issues that were overlooked by your competitors), you have succeeded in creating a discriminator. “Win themes” must be developed based on discriminators, especially discriminators that capitalize on client hopes, fears, and biases (the popular U.S. slang expression is “client hot buttons”). Each discriminator on your Discriminator Matrix has a column for perceived hope, fear, and bias. Discriminators exploit customer hopes, fears, and biases. Consider ranking the Top Five from your perspective and the client perspective based on RFP evaluation criteria. Cause map those risks, including risks for your technical approach, and your team will be capable of demonstrating and substantiating a complete mastery of risk management in your proposal. The discriminator discipline described above was pioneered in the late 1970s/early 1980s by the late Mr. James M. Beveridge. Mr. Beveridge invented the term “discriminator” for proposal differentiation and refined his methodology by assisting firms on large proposal competitions. The Beveridge discriminator methodology became popular among many U.S. aerospace firms who competed for multi-billion dollar contracts, and would spend a 1-million USD or more planning and developing a proposal. Firms who mastered the methodology increased their proposal win rates. Aerospace firms were striving for every possible angle to improve their proposals because so much was at stake. These were massive contracts. The term “discriminator” is commonly used today, but few people understand the origins and fewer people implement the methodology as taught and practiced by Mr. Beveridge. If you Google “proposal discriminator” you will discover that some proposal consultants have developed their own spin or flavour on discriminators. Many offer sound-bite tips and insights, but very few provide the structure and discipline described by Mr. Beveridge.
Learn How to Feature the Most Important Win Theme: Flexibility The win theme that consistently matters most for Government clients is Flexibility, especially flexibility that arises from a superior evaluation and articulation of risks. Cause mapping is the best way to discover multiple flexibility opportunities. This includes your top risks, and top risks that are perceived by the client as evidenced in their proposal evaluation criteria. Their top perceived risks will often jump off the RFP. The RFP expressions “contractor approach to minimize” or “contractor approach to limit” are red flags for client-perceived risks. They try to design their RFP evaluation criteria to enable “contractor separation” based on their understanding of risks, and potential solutions that act on specific causes of risks.
Developing Superior Proposals 141 Contractors must avoid the common tendency to assume their technology will function as planned. This common contractor and technology subcontractor mindset is illustrated by the following hypothetical case study. Hypothetical case study: The proprietary catalyst Contractor A has a PMO technical expert who holds two PhDs. He sends an e-mail flagged for “high importance!” to the Program Manager, numerous Project Managers, and senior technical staff touting an amazing new In Situ Chemical Oxidation technology developed by a small privately owned subcontractor. The subcontractor developed an innovative proprietary catalyst that accelerates the destruction of common contaminants of concern. The PMO technical expert claims the subcontractor has been courted by many of their competitors, but the subcontractor would not name them to protect their confidentiality. The subcontractor would prefer to hitch his wagon to Contractor A (U.S. slang term for “work with a larger firm”) because Contractor A is an industry leader. The PMO technical expert schedules a lunch “brown bag” presentation by the subcontractor. He invites all the project managers and technical staff, and the subcontractor technical expert provides free pizza and soft drinks. The subcontractor technical expert comes in wearing a very expensive suit and delivers an impressive Powerpoint presentation featuring the proprietary catalyst. It features video animations of shrinking plumes. The Contractor PMO Technical Expert is smiling the entire time, making comments such as “Your technology and proprietary catalyst are extremely impressive”. After the presentation, the PMO technical expert is fighting to hold back his sheer enthusiasm and excitement. He makes a follow-up personal phone call to each attending project manager to look for an upcoming opportunity to implement the technology. He finds one project manager who agrees to persuade his client RPM to implement the technology on a pilot basis. The project team submits the work plan to the regulatory agency who wants more information on the “proprietary catalyst”. The subcontractor wants the regulatory agency reviewer to sign a nondisclosure agreement. The resolution involves providing a general description of the proprietary catalyst. After work plan approval, the subcontractor team shows up on site with drums of chemicals including the proprietary catalyst. They gravity feed the reagent and proprietary catalyst into the injection well. A few days later they get the first lab report. Bad news. The reagent is not working. They decide to increase the chemical concentration of the proprietary catalyst from 6% to 12% without obtaining project manager approval, and this option was not described in the approved work plan (the change was approved by the PMO technical expert). More bad news. The lab results indicate the technology is failing to work as advertised. Now they increase the concentration to 18% without telling the project manager,
142 Chapter 5 confident the increase would be effective. The next day they notice smoke is rising out of the ground around the injection well. As they approached the injection well they noticed reagent seeping up through the soil. The exothermic chemical reaction ruptured the well casing and heat was rising. In Situ Chemical Oxidation with the proprietary catalyst appeared to be transforming to In Situ Soil Vitrification. The project manager had to report the problem to the client RPM, who got extremely upset. The client RPM cancelled the contract due to an unauthorized deviation to the project work plan. His reputation with the regulatory agency was damaged. If you think this story sounds bad, imagine that each TEB Members reading your proposed technical approach has experienced this type of scenario at least 3 times. In fact, they will say that technologies fail to deliver on their performance assumptions most of the time. Many subcontractors promote their technology as a “cannot miss” remedy for the site, and the project work plan assumes that everything will go as planned. Some even lobby the Government directly, and then try to court a contractor who has the contract vehicle for the site they are targeting with their technology. Many have their proprietary ingredient. Imagine that each TEB member will say, “I do not care if your technology is going to nuke the plume. If it does not work, what are you going to do next?” Why is Flexibility the most important win theme, and discriminators related to flexibility so important? The client’s recurring fear is the proposed technology will fail to meet performance objectives on schedule and within budget; consequently, scarce funds will be committed to under-performing technology. Put more simply: technologies rarely work as advertised. Chapter 9, Implement Cause Analysis to Generate Solutions, contains a flow chart on the scientific method. Many projects represent experiments. How often does a hypothesis work exactly as planned with complex geologic variables? Then how does a contractor neutralize this inherent client fear? A Business Manager or M.B.A. might say, “Let us add more resources to the project” or “How about if we propose a more powerfull Soil Vapor Extraction System with a 25,000 CFM Blower to accelerate mass removal”. They might propose going “all-in” (to borrow a poker term), or full-scale, with a technology. Some might think bigger and better translates into getting done faster and cheaper. Instead, bigger and better commonly translates into investing more in an unproven hypothesis, reluctance to pull-the plug on an ineffective solution, and taking too long to realize: The technology is under-performing. Let us examine the common cause-drivers for client fear: Defined Problem: Project missed schedule and over budget > Caused By > Delay > Caused By > Regulatory agency process for different technical remedy > Caused By > Poor technical remedy performance > Caused By > Unforeseen technical challenges > Caused By > Contractor assumed everything would go as planned.
Developing Superior Proposals 143 At some point in many cause chains that investigate causes for failing to meet project objectives, as you work back in time you will encounter a Contractor who wrote a proposal and work plan assuming everything would go as planned with the technical remedy. No flexibility. That is why the most experienced clients value flexibility. For these clients, their #1 hope is your technical approach will provide flexibility. You must provide a technology flexibility value proposition. Example: “We will implement Technology A on a pilot scale. If Technology A fails to meet specified mass removal targets, we will recommend the Government award a contract option to implement technology optimization Plan B”. “If Plan B fails to meet specific mass removal targets, or mass removal trends become asymptotic, we will promptly recommend de-obligating the remaining contract funds and scope, or recommend the Government award the contract option to continue groundwater monitoring to investigate the feasibility of attaining site closure through monitored natural attenuation”. Contractor technical proposals must substantiate the technical flexibility win theme with risk-based discriminators that are tied to the technology. Risk-based discriminators are generated by flow charts charting the technical approach, and cause mapping what can go wrong at each step, with an emphasis on solution options that act on potential condition causes. Your flexible technical approach, at a minimum, should give your client two exit strategies: the expected one explains how to exit the site (e.g. achieve unrestricted release); the other exit strategy pertains to exiting the scope. This is unexpected but acknowledged as a strategy to decrease client risk.
Design Proposal Sections in an “Evaluator-Friendly” Format MACs involve frequent proposal evaluations. TEB Members are pulled away from their regular jobs to participate. They have four to six Contractor proposals to review, depending on the number of MAC contractors who submitted a proposal. They may only have 2 days to complete their reviews and assign proposal ratings. The last thing they want to experience is a proposal that is difficult to evaluate due to not corresponding with their proposal evaluation checklist. Stream of consciousness proposals might sound impressive, but they make it more difficult for the TEB member to identify and justify your strengths, and much easier for TEB members to assume a weakness (e.g. non-responsive to RFP requirements). Recommendations Strictly follow the annotated outline for each section established by the RFP Compliance Matrix. This will properly sequence your proposal. Simplify the proposal structure for evaluation. For example, on the left side of the page include a shadow box that bulletizes RFP requirements that apply to the section, such as those described
144 Chapter 5 in the RFP Section for “Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Bidders”. Describe your approach in the body (centre of the page). On the right side of the page list and substantiate key features that are responsive to proposal evaluation criteria (e.g. Evaluation Factors for Award). The right side resembles a self-evaluation that makes it easier for TEB members to identify and justify strengths. TEB Members do not want to analyze the narrative and try to interpret how the proposal meets RFP evaluation criteria. This is more tedious and time consuming. The proposal format must be “Reviewer friendly” and simplify the evaluation task. Write narrative to graphics (visuals) such as flows charts, figures, and maps. Establish a linkage between narrative and graphics. Place yourself in the shoes of a regulator—the TEB does. One experienced TEB member says he knows what type of content gets flagged by regulators with comments and questions. He keeps track of content that would be flagged if reviewed by a regulator. Fewer flags ¼ higher proposal rating. Clarify “Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How” in your narrative. Name individuals. Do not leave TEB Members wondering what you mean. Avoid project description statements that boil down to unsupported statistics and statements that say nothing more than “We did the scope”. These prevent an Excellent rating.
Replace the Popular Proposal Development Rule “Feature–Benefit–Proof” with “Feature–Benefit–Caused By–Proof” TEB members commonly downgrade Contractor proposals that cite all these impressive statistics that are unsubstantiated. For example, “We have helped clients achieve over 4000 site closures”. Past performance may have snippets like this: “On Contract X at base location, Client A assumed a 3-million cubic meter excavation would be required for 8 million USD. Instead, we capped the area for 5 million USD and saved the Government 3 million USD”. The contractor provides no discussion of circumstances. They do not disclose what they discovered or the circumstances behind the cost savings. While they might say the cost savings can be verified (Sounds like very defensible proof), the proof is an empty claim and is not rated as a proposal strength. Because so many “Proofs” in Contractor “Feature–Benefit–Proof” arguments are unsubstantiated, the best training solution might be to precede the term “Proof” with “Caused By” (“Feature–Benefit–Caused By–Proof”). TEB Members want to know what caused the benefit? If you read a proof statement and the first thought that crops-up in your brain is “Why?” then it is an empty proof statement.
Developing Superior Proposals 145 If you fail to identify what caused the benefit, your proof claim is empty. For example, many proofs are stated in the form of “Our approach saved the government X million USD”. The cost savings is stated as proof of the benefit. That is unfortunate because if you subjected the X million USD cost savings to a simple sequence of “Caused Bys” working back in time, you would likely encounter specific causes that were recognized and acted upon by the project team (e.g. opportunistic data, specific optimization measure, etc.). Skipping from problem (excavation) to solution (cap) to cost savings (3 million USD) does not score any points. You need to expose the key causes that were acted upon to enable the solution, which made the cost savings achievable. Sample proof statements and possible adverse client perceptions: “We have in-depth knowledge of base geology and hydrogeology”. Client perception? Why? Who has this knowledge, and how will this knowledge benefit the project? “We have performed 712 site characterizations, including 30 at DNAPL sites, 46 bench scale tests and 8 of those included DNAPL”. Client perception: Your database is irrelevant to my project. How many have been performed on my base, and by the project team you are assigning to my project? “We have performed 432 thermal treatment projects”. Client perception: Then why did you receive a Marginal CCASS Performance Rating on the last thermal treatment project you performed for our organization? Some contractors have a tendency to feature a bunch of impressive-sounding statistics that are unsupported and this just leads to trouble. No TEB member is impressed by those statistics. Moreover, how does it come across if you have performed 2000 excavations, and only two remedial action designs in a certain geographic area? You just succeeded in branding your company as a dig-and-haul contractor that would likely be hard-pressed to succeed on a design project. Contractors score zero points for making unsubstantiated statistical claims.
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER 6
Develop Superior Project Work Plans The U.S. environmental restoration industry is now entering its third decade. During this period, nothing has plagued Contractors and Government clients more than poor quality work plans. Technical document quality was a major Contractor discriminator opportunity in the 1990s. And it remains near the top of Government client wish-lists today. Contractors know this. They still struggle. High quality work plans are still the exception. My former employer in the late 1990s was a major player in the initial ramp-up of the multi-billion dollar U.S. DoD environmental restoration programme. In 1999, they hosted a National Technical Symposium in Orlando, Florida, with over 300 Company employees. It was an honour to speak at the symposium. The Company hosted a cross-section of influential client programme and Project Managers from the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (Navy), Air Force Environmental Center of Excellence (AFCEE), and Army Total Environmental Restoration agencies. The Technical Symposium consisted of three programme tracks. Two showcased Company innovative technology capabilities. The other track mixed “less strategic topics” such as quality control and safety. Company executives would always follow influential clients into their presentation of choice. They would try to develop a sense of client-perceived topic importance. My topic was “Improving Technical Document Quality Based on Lessons Learned”. The abstract summarized five predictable stages of Contractor technical document quality on major environmental restoration programmes. The five stages will be described in this chapter. The hotel chime sounded and everyone started filtering into their sessions. Company technical staff (i.e. work plan authors) packed the two sessions on innovative technology. Client programme and Project Managers flocked in the opposite direction – they came through my door. Clients filled the available seats. It was standing room only for Company Project Managers, Program Managers, and executives who followed their clients into my presentation. Several Company Vice Presidents were standing against the back wall in their suits. Some had their heads down as they were speed-reading through my abstract while I was being introduced. Company executives, Program Managers, and Project Managers had assumed clients would be more interested in innovative technology. Contrarily, they were more interested in lessons learned to improve technical document quality.
Best Practices for Environmental Project Teams. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-444-53721-8.00006-3 # 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
147
148 Chapter 6 The Session Q&A client feedback reinforced the reality that poor quality work plans were a major roadblock to Government programme execution on environmental restoration programmes. And the problem was an epidemic among all programme contracts. Not much has changed as we approach the third decade of projects. Go ahead and interview your clients. You would think Contractors would strive to capitalize on the opportunity to seize competitive advantage through superior technical document quality. They know it is important to clients. But as hard as most Contractors try to improve, they still flounder. In many ways, it represents a shortcoming of higher education. Many college graduates enter the workforce with weak writing skills. Technical document quality, from the client perspective, trumps innovative technology. It did back then. It still does today. Your Company might have the best technology in the world for treating certain environmental chemical pollutants. You are still doomed if you struggle to write an effective technical proposal and work plan. Small businesses looking to break into the environmental restoration programmes can distinguish their value quickly through high quality technical proposals and work plans. Small businesses, in particular, continue to struggle with technical document quality. The seeds of document quality failure, as noted in Chapter 5, surface with the Contractor’s technical proposal. Proposal TEB members identify Contractors who struggle to effectively articulate the problem and their technical approach. Their regulatory agency review filter kicks in with the following litmus test: “We flag and downgrade any content that we know would trigger a regulatory agency question or comment”. Any Contractor having trouble writing when a contract win is at stake will certainly get worse when they write the work plan. One Senior Government TEB Member told me a funny story that I have not forgotten over the years. During a site walk, one of the Contractor technical experts bluntly called him out and said: “Excuse me Mr. Client RPM, the Government preferred technology for this site will not work . . . There is no possible way it will work”. He reiterated his technical position before the site walk ended, and his viewpoint was expressed among other passive Contractor technical experts. Sure enough, the Contractor proposed an alternative technology. The resultant “stream of consciousness” was loaded with process flow inconsistencies, unexplained risks, and numerous grammatical errors. From the TEB perspective, the technical approach would require substantial Government comments and revisions to be “presentable” to the regulatory agency. Consequently, the contract was awarded to another Contractor. They mobilized, installed the pilot scale technology, and collected analytical samples. The prophetic Contractor technical expert was correct: the preferred Government technology failed miserably. The Government RPM and Contractor agreed to promptly pull-the-plug on the technology and de-scope the project. The TEB member enjoys sharing this story because it underscores the consequences of poor writing skills.
Develop Superior Project Work Plans
149
Chapter 9, which noted the journey to understanding and effectively implementing cause analysis, starts with the scientific method. The journey to improving technical document quality builds upon basic writing fundamentals. My approach to writing was influenced during my freshman year in college. We used an unpublished workbook written by Mr. Lou Riley called “The “I HATE TO WRITE” Writing Guide”. The title and book were a hit with college students. It was a masterpiece in humour and simplicity. One particular quote in Chapter 1, like the story previously described, has stuck with me ever since: “Writing is thinking made visible”. Project proposals and work plans expose Contractor thinking, especially for those who propose flexibility in their technical approach. For Contractors who assume their technical approach will perform as envisioned, “Writing is doing made visible”. “The “I HATE TO WRITE” Writing Guide” described a five-step approach to effective writing called “TOWER”. T ¼ Think O ¼ Outline W ¼ Write E ¼ Edit R ¼ Read This proven process applies to technical proposals and work plans with one major difference: Start with the structural outline required by the RFP or work plan guideline. Then develop the writing outline within each section. Therefore, TOWER becomes “OTOWER” on environmental restoration projects. If you forget to comply with the overall outline you are in big trouble, so just remember “Oh-ToWER”. There is an overall big outline “O” and little outlines “o” within sections. Effective proposal and work plan writing starts with the outline dictated by the RFP or regulatory guideline that applies to the type of work plan (Big “O”). For example, the proposal structure and sequence is based on RFP requirements. Additionally, some Contractors develop and utilize a “Compliance Matrix” and annotated outline to assist authors. The Compliance Matrix might number sections, provide section titles, key topics to be addressed, and (in the case of proposals) evaluation criteria for convenient reference. Authors must stay within the established framework with their little outlines. Project work plans adopt the structure required by the regulatory agency based on laws that apply to the type of work being performed. Regulatory agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publish guidelines for plan and report formats. Because the document structure guidelines follow the regulation (“Reviewer-Friendly” to Regulators), the technical flow can be disruptive and choppy.
150 Chapter 6 The U.S. laws were written by environmental attorneys without much thought given to how they would be translated into project work plans. Consequently, the plan formats might become user-unfriendly for project teams in the field. The Record of Decision (ROD) document is a case in point. Another user-unfriendly example is the popular “Unified Federal ProgramsQuality Assurance Project Plan” (UFP-QAPP). The UFP-QAPP format is reviewer-friendly and project user-unfriendly. In the United States, those who make the plan rules are insensitive to the needs of project teams who implement the plans. Other countries should take note of this problem. Draft the necessary laws, write various types of sample work plans, and then re-sequence the laws to track with the logical flow of projects. Some regulatory agencies at the local and regional level will provide plan templates to assist Contractors (e.g. Agencies that regulate leaking underground petroleum storage tanks). A well-written Government RFP will specify the applicable regulatory guidelines that apply to the work plan. Project plans commonly include the following elements: • • • • • • • •
Title Page Table of Contents Executive Summary Introduction Background Project Objectives Technical Approach Appendices
Contractors should consider including an outline of the Final Report as an Appendix or Attachment. Contractors must work within the established outline to describe their technical approach, including various project support tasks. Technical content in work plans, as with proposals, must be “reviewer-friendly”. Government and regulatory agency reviewers should not have to struggle through the content and try to figure out the approach. They become frustrated when they cannot easily comprehend a technical approach. Contractors are commonly expected to write their work plans as stand-alone documents. This is a recurring theme of Government comments. Contractors prefer to keep document lean by maximizing the use of references, and not repeat information in previous and current plans and reports. The Government seeks to minimize regulatory agency reviewer questions, and would prefer a concise explanation of reference information within the plan. Regulatory agency reviewers will ask questions if the Contractor does not explain reference information that is relevant to the project objectives.
Develop Superior Project Work Plans
151
Contractors must write their technical approach to visuals. The Conceptual Site Model (CSM) is an important visual that appeals to the Government desire for the plan to “stand alone”. The CSM is becoming increasingly popular in work plans. The CSM provides a visual site characterization “cartoon” regarding what is known about the site. Consider contacting your Government client for CSM Guidelines. The CSM section can range from 1 page to 20 pages. It is a common source of Contractor confusion and disconnect with the Government. Each Government agency has its own CSM expectations. The Government tends to seek more CSM detail in work plans, while Contractors want to keep the CSM short. The technical approach describes “how” the remedy will be implemented (i.e. solution), technical approach risks and options to achieve the project objectives within the framework established by the RFP and subsequent contract. The most important and fundamental technical approach visual is a process flow chart. Time and again, technical authors want to write technical approach narratives without a flow chart. The usual result is a stream of consciousness with flashes of brilliance, sprinkled with various process inconsistencies, gaps, and unexplained risks. If a flow chart is written after the draft narrative, it exposes the process inconsistencies and gaps. The author frequently comes across as a very intelligent individual who certainly knows what he is talking about, but the technical execution is unclear. It is like the person is saying: “Just trust us. We are capable of solving your problem”. Many technical authors prepare their process flow charts in Microsoft PowerPoint, which is why many probably dislike flow charting. PowerPoint is labour intensive for flowcharting. Microsoft Visio is intended for flowcharting. Unfortunately, in my opinion, as a long-term Visio user, Microsoft has ruined Visio in Office 2007. In typical Microsoft fashion, they redesigned Visio with a myriad of macros that try to think for you. And the thinking is usually wrong. Visio 2007 is like flowcharting with magnets. Microsoft transformed Visio from an excellent free-form flowcharting tool to an exercise in frustration. My advice is to use other flowcharting software or yellow-stickies, transfer the yellow-sticky flow chart to a hand-written sketch, and then submit to your graphics department. Flow charts should not be large and complex, and must be visually appealing. Colour schemes and graphics must be used to simplify flow chart interpretation. Figure 6.1 provides a sample table of contents showing the “Engineering and Technical Approach”. The corresponding page shows sample text and a flow chart graphic that begins the description of Technical Work Elements. Pre-Treatment Activities are the top five boxes. Remediation Activities are the boxes in the middle. Post-Treatment Activities are the boxes near the bottom. (Note: The box at the bottom is “Task Order Technically Complete” and clarifies the endpoint). Each treatment
152 Chapter 6
Figure 6.1 A sample table of contents showing the “Engineering and Technical Approach”.
phase is accented by the vertical zone arrows on the left of the flow chart. The text sequence numbering and subtitles correspond to each flow chart step. Note the “Exhibit 2 Treatment Map” within the Remediation Activities section. The Treatment Map (not pictured) is a user-friendly CAD drawing that colour shades treatment grids according to the remediation sequence. Each grid contains a user-friendly numerical code that indicates the Treatment Zone ID number, average concentration of the contaminant of concern, and number of treatment cycles (technical approach was in-situ treatment of pesticidecontaminated soil). Additional visuals throughout the technical approach included photos, colour diagrams, colour tables, and colour maps that were properly balanced with the text on each page. The technical approach must be visually appealing to readers. Government clients value technical flexibility and risk management. Flow charts are the only way you can coherently describe flexibility and risk considerations without confusing your reviewers. The human brain cannot easily process technical flexibility with risk considerations in a text narrative. The ideal combination of flexibility, task-specific risks, and economics must be explained within the context of visuals. Risks and economic considerations should be summarized in tables. Bear in mind these descriptions are always within the big outline required by your RFP or applicable regulatory guideline. Technical approaches are sometimes boiled down to the extent that every word must mean something. Boilerplate and fluff must be eliminated.
Develop Superior Project Work Plans
153
The Five Predictable Stages of the Contractor Technical Document Quality Learning Curve on Major Environmental Restoration Programs Most Contractors who win multi-task order environmental restoration contracts put their Government clients through a painful five-stage technical document quality learning curve. The primary technical document and early indicator is the project work plan. However, the scope of the document quality problem and learning curve extends to all project technical report deliverables such as quarterly groundwater monitoring reports and final site closeout reports (i.e. any technical submittal that requires Government and regulatory agency review). Consider interviewing your Government client Program Manager. Most will tell you that Contractors usually go through a “technical document quality learning curve” on their environmental restoration programmes. Some may fear the Contractor learning curve and think it is inevitable with each new Contractor because they have gone through the experience so many times. Stage characteristics will be highlighted to assist programme and project teams with early problem recognition and response. The stages and typical time frames are as follows: • • • • •
Contract Start Up (Time Frame: Basic Contract Award through month 6) Problem Recognition By Client (Month 6–9) Contractor Response and Recovery Plan Development (Month 9–12) Improvement Phase (Month 12–24) Breakthrough (Month 36–60)
Contract Start up (Time Frame: Basic Contract Award Through Month 6) Stage Characteristics Include: Program management staff focused on other things, such as recruiting staff, moving into the new programme management office (PMO), and attending client start-up meetings. If any projects are awarded during this time, the Project Manager and team will be “on their own” to plan, schedule, and develop the work plan and other submittals required prior to site mobilization. Programme-wide work plan development process (that also supports other technical report deliverables) has not been established. Therefore, it is not clear to project teams how to plan and schedule document production support from the in-house resource organization (e.g. graphics, word processing, etc.).
154 Chapter 6 Document production resource organization lead (or coordinator), who might be in a different office location, might get urgent (e.g. slang term “11th hour”) e-mail requests from the Project Manager or technical lead for immediate support; requests are made less than 2 or 3 days before the Preliminary Draft Work Plan is due to the client. Trend of late Contractor Project Manager notifications to client RPMs that documents will be late, and scheduling new delivery dates.
Cause Drivers The problem starts with the Contractor culture. For example, Contractor leadership and the PMO Program Manager might be more concerned with getting to the field where the major revenue can be generated. They might justify this perception by saying the client values site cleanup as soon as possible. The work plan is just a speed bump to getting to the field. PMO Program Manager underestimates the amount of planning, coordination, and effort that goes into a work plan. They fail to recognize the importance, or take steps, to develop and implement a project team process for developing work plans. Consequently, each project team is on their own. Some write their work plans from their home kitchen table; others strive to implement a more coordinated effort with assistance from the document production resource organization.
Problem Recognition by Client (Month 6–9) This step includes the formal Government notification to the Contractor Program Manager (including a request for a written recovery plan) and Contractor Program Manager interim containment actions. Stage Characteristics Include: Stage begins with verbal concerns from client Project Managers to their Contractor Project Manager counterparts. They become concerned because they observe a trend of missed work plan delivery dates, sloppy, and inconsistent documents (each is formatted differently) and excessive errors that need to be corrected. Client RPMs share their experiences with other client RPMs. “Word-of-mouth” on client side spreads about “Contractor A is obviously struggling with work plan quality”. Project performance evaluations for the early projects downgrade Contractor performance for late and poor quality work plans. These first few project performance evaluations provide the early evidence that a major problem is brewing. Anxious Client RPMs elevate the concern to the Government Program Manager and Contracts Manager. The Government Program Manager might issue a letter through Government
Develop Superior Project Work Plans
155
Contracts to the Contractor Program Manager. The concern may be expressed as “Your Company does not appear to have a system and process in place to develop and submit acceptable work plans. . . Work plans are requiring extensive Government review comments . . . Provide the Government with a Recovery Plan or the Government may take steps towards contract cancellation”. Contractor PMO Program Manager provides written response to the Government that cause analysis will be performed, followed by development of a Recovery Plan that identifies process improvement actions that will be implemented. Contractor PMO Program Manager may commit to a follow-up letter once process improvement actions are identified. Contractor PMO Program Manager implements immediate containment actions to secure, control, and monitor technical document submittals (i.e. “fire fighting”). Example: Program Manager creates a programme-wide work plan spreadsheet that lists all the awarded projects, Project Managers, and project work plans that are due. Blank spreadsheet is e-mailed to each Project Manager to fill in document titles, names, and client due dates. Contractor Program Manager establishes new policy: “Project Managers shall notify Program Manager if work plan delivery date will be missed, including the justification”.
Cause Drivers The main cause driver is Government perception of adverse Contractor performance over multiple projects, indicating a systemic Contractor weakness. The adverse performance trends make it apparent that Contractor programme leadership failed to understand the importance of high quality work plans. From the Government leadership perspective, the Contractor does not appear to have a system and process in place to develop high quality work plans and technical documents, based on feedback from several Government Project Managers.
Contractor Response and Recovery Plan Development (Month 9–12) This stage involves assessing problem causes and jointly developing the Technical Document Quality Improvement Initiative (i.e. Recovery Plan). This process may take 1–3 months. Containment actions remain in place during this time. Stage Characteristics Include: Immediately following issuance of interim containment actions, the Contractor Program Manager meets with PMO staff and Project Managers to assess the problem and jointly develop a Technical Document Quality Improvement Initiative.
156 Chapter 6 The Technical Document Quality Improvement Initiative will consist of a written Action Plan with responsibilities, due dates, and deliverables. For example, the Action Plan might start with a root cause analysis. Deliverables will include programme-wide technical document development process (for all projects), document planning checklist, web-based project document status tracking, technical authorship training plan, new database to track Government and regulatory review comments, and performance improvement tracking metrics. The Contractor PMO Program Manager will submit a Recovery Plan to the Government, if required, after Technical Document Quality Improvement Initiative actions and due dates are established. It will describe interim measures and controls that will be implemented until preventive actions are in place. Contractor Senior Manager (e.g. Vice President) might make a special trip to meet with the Client Program Manager to apologize for the performance problem and express a Contractor executive commitment to improve technical document quality. An executive will follow-up with a letter to the Government reiterating the key commitments.
Cause Drivers Formal Government request in the form of a Contracts Letter requiring Contractor to provide a Technical Document Quality Recovery Plan that includes problems cause(s), actions that will be implemented to improve technical document quality and due dates. The Contractor Program Manager is under substantial Government and internal senior management leadership pressure to fix the document quality problem or pay severe consequences up to possible contract termination.
Improvement Phase (Month 12–24) The phase involves the launch and implementation of the new processes, checklists, databases, etc. that were developed in accordance with the Technical Document Quality Improvement Initiative. Collectively, these actions constitute the new Contractor technical document management system. Stage Characteristics Include: Contractor Program Manager kickoff meeting for all PMO staff, Project Managers, technical staff, and document production staff to launch the process improvements. The Contractor Program Manager will sponsor a training initiative to familiarize project teams with the new processes and requirements.
Develop Superior Project Work Plans
157
The Contractor Program Manager will evaluate performance trends and try to make a case to the Client Program Manager that “technical document quality is continuously improving” based on new tracking metrics. Contractor Senior Management requests performance trend updates including any issues that require additional funding and resources. The Program Manager strictly enforces the new process. For example, Project Managers and teams who fail to properly plan will be requested to provide a written justification and action that will be taken to prevent recurrence. Government monitors Contractor performance at the Program and project level. Contractor Senior Manager (e.g. Vice President) might make a special follow-up visit with the Client Program Manager to discuss progress.
Cause Drivers Contractor implementation of the new technical document management system, which includes processes, checklists, databases, etc. that were developed in accordance with the Technical Document Quality Improvement Initiative.
Breakthrough (Month 36–60) From year 3 to year 5, the Contractor will demonstrate evidence of continuous improvement. The Government is relieved that the Contractor was able to overcome the problem. Stage Characteristics Include: The Government client provides formal written acknowledgment in the form of a letter or Contractor performance evaluation that technical document quality including work plan quality has improved. Project teams are in the habit of following the process, with very few cases of process deviation. The improvements are made just in time for the recompete RFP. Contractor can now turn the negative into a positive, claiming that future contracts will not be plagued by the “learning curve” to develop consistently high quality technical documents.
Cause Drivers The culture, Executive and Program Manager Leadership commitment, and technical document management system that were missing at the start of the contract are finally in place.
158 Chapter 6
Summary This Contractor learning process taxes the patience of Government agencies. Imagine how they must feel when this happens with every new Contractor. That is why superior technical document quality remains a major discriminator on all environmental restoration programmes. Recommendations to Government Organizations: Assume that each new Contractor will go through the previously described five stages of the technical document quality learning curve. 1. Consider adopting RFP evaluation criteria to elevate the importance of technical document quality. Seek to expose Contractors who attempt to rely on “smoke and mirrors” (slang expression for impressive proposal verbiage without substance) to describe their approach to consistently developing high quality technical documents (e.g. “Describe how your technical document development process will be implemented, common risks, and preventive actions”). This accomplishes three objectives: (1) Contractors know the Government values technical document quality (it should not come as a surprise to Contractors after contract award); (2) Forces Contractors to disclose their approach to developing high quality technical documents and managing risk; (3) Enables TEB to rate Contractor proposal strengths and weaknesses with respect to their approach to developing high quality technical documents and managing risk. The RFP represents your first opportunity to get the attention of Contractor senior management with requirements that convey: “We value technical document quality”. Note: Be on the lookout for Contractor proposals that over-emphasize their mandatory technical and independent peer reviews by “experts” rather than their technical document planning and development process. This is a common perception of some senior managers who think the primary remedy to technical document quality problems is better peer reviews (e.g. We need to make sure our PhD reviews them all). This remedy appeals to their desire for a “quick fix”. 2. Clarify RFP requirements related to developing the project work plan, reports, and other major technical deliverables. Consider including an RFP Deliverables Matrix that defines the plan or report title, versions (e.g. Preliminary Draft, Draft, Draft Final, Final), and requirements to eliminate erroneous estimating and scheduling by Contractors. Avoid setting up the Contractor for failure by listing unrealistic schedule dates that fail to take into consideration the Government and regulatory agency review cycle expectations. 3. Include plans and reports as separate RFP Work Elements and bid items in the RFP. This will help you identify unrealistically low Contractor prices.
Develop Superior Project Work Plans
159
4. Design your Task Order RFPs to link payments, incentives, and disincentives (i.e. penalties) with technical document quality. You need to be in a position of strength to influence Contractors.
Lessons Learned and Best Practice Recommendations for Contractors What can your Company Program Management Office (PMO) and project teams do to avoid a technical document quality crisis on your environmental restoration programme and projects? How can your Company elevate competency to the extent that technical document quality will become a valuable proposal discriminator? The previous section provided many clues that will be described during the remainder of this chapter, and did not address other important needs such as the first item to be covered in the next section.
Screen New Employee Candidates for Their Technical Writing Skills Contractors need to implement a method to evaluate and screen all technical professional employment candidates for their technical writing skills, regardless of their level of experience. In some cases, the Contractor technical experts who hold the distinguished resume and education (e.g. Masters Degree or PhD in science or engineering) do not write any better than a college graduate. You might be stunned by looking at the resume that includes publications and wonder, “How is this possible?” This person cannot write a coherent paragraph. The only way to reveal writing skills is through a writing exercise during the interview process. As part of the interview process, provide employment candidates with a simple writing exercise. Give them a simple case study with some information and data, and ask them to write a one-page summary report. Give them a laptop and an hour so they do not feel rushed. Review the one-page report and draw your own conclusions. How serious is the technical writing skill deficiency in the environmental restoration industry? Up to 50% of the technical professionals in many Contractor organizations have significant writing skill deficiencies. Some Project Managers are assigned a Project Engineer, Project Geologist, or Project Chemist and they hope the professional will be a competent technical writer. The first warning sign: the individuals are reluctant to write anything down. Then they get bogged-down on writing-related assignments. Their documents and reports require extensive revision. Project Managers suddenly realize they are in big trouble. The project budget is lean. “If this Project Engineer cannot write effectively, it shifts the writing burden to me, and I’m supposed to be the Project Manager”.
160 Chapter 6 For this reason, experienced Project Managers are very cautious about who gets assigned to their projects. When they find someone who writes well, they latch on to the person. They will do anything to keep the person utilized because they understand that every Project Manager is competing to have a team of competent writers. The first professionals they return to the technical resource manager when the project is winding down are the professional who can not write. The dispatched professional becomes a utilization burden for their Technical Resource Manager. About 10 years ago a major environmental restoration programme was winding down in California. Many technical staff needed to be laid off. Technical writing competency was a major consideration. Inability to write severely limited technical staff utilization on project assignments. The following is a typical profile of the most sought-after technical professionals in the environmental restoration industry, ranked in order of importance: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
B.S. Degree in Science or Engineering Proven track record of success with Client (Highly recommended) Three to six years of “relevant” project field experience Superior technical writing skills Superior verbal communication and conversation skills Professional licenses or registrations (for mid-level and above)
Technical professionals with superior writing skills maximize project assignment opportunities. Effective writing applies to numerous environmental project tasks. The list of writing-related assignments on environmental projects starts Day 1 after contract award. While Client RPMs value “flexibility” for project technical approaches, Contractor Project Managers value flexible and adaptable technical professionals on their projects. Any college students seeking to enter the industry should strive to strengthen their technical writing skills.
Accurately Estimate Work Plans and Other Technical Documents The Contractor Project Manager and Estimator need to estimate work plans and technical documents with the same degree of rigour as other technical tasks. In some cases, Government RFPs do not properly define the scope related to work plans and other technical submittals. The RFP may completely omit certain plans that are required by Basic Contract, such as a Sampling and Analysis Plan or Project QC Plan. After contract award, they will be expected. Evaluate the RFP work plan requirements for adherence to Basic Contract Requirements (for work plans) and consistency with historical Government RPM expectations.
Develop Superior Project Work Plans
161
Submit RFP questions to clarify any significant inconsistencies among RFP requirements, Basic Contract requirements, and historical Government and regulatory agency expectations. The Government Project Manager might not take the time to factor-in realistic review cycle time frames for the Government and regulatory agencies. This becomes apparent when the work plan is detailed on the project schedule. For example, Table 6.1 shows a typical schedule for work plans that require regulatory review. The RFP may list a Final Work Plan due date that is 50% compressed (e.g. 10 weeks), with no clarity regarding due dates and review times frames for each version leading to the final work plan. Some Government clients have a vague RFP scope of work for work plan and technical report requirements, and then after the contract award will request very specific and labour-intensive requirements. For example, CDs are expected that contain a single adobe PDF file (with bookmarks) and all the organized work plan source files in their native electronic format (so they can be edited, if necessary, in the future). Is this also expected for Preliminary Draft and Final Draft? How many hard copies and electronic copies are expected for each document version? The Contractor proposal and estimate need to clarify the scope relative to unclear RFP document requirements and schedule. Project estimates should include a “basis for estimate” with a notes field that defines estimating assumptions. For example, if the Government RFP does not require the Contractor to query a Government database for analytical data and performing analysis in order to develop the work plan, list this as an assumption (e.g. “Proposal and estimate does not include querying the Government database for analytical data and performing analysis in order to develop the work plan”). If the Government RPM makes the request to query the Government database after contract award, which can require several hours of additional effort, you have established a contractual basis for a changed condition. The project work plan should be a default entry on the Project Risk Register and Scope Register. It is unrealistic to assume that everything will go smoothly. That is rarely the case with the project work plan. Problems that arise during project work plan development get the project off to a bad start, and may strain the relationship with the Government RPM. Table 6.1 A typical schedule for work plans that require regulatory review Event
Schedule
Award Preliminary Draft Submitted Comments Received from Client Draft Submitted for Regulatory Review Comments Received from Regulatory Agency Final Submitted to Client
0 þ9 Weeks þ13 Weeks þ15 Weeks þ19 Weeks þ21 Weeks
162 Chapter 6 The Project Manager and Estimator should involve technical staff to develop and provide labour hour estimates for the Sampling and Analysis Plan, Health and Safety Plan, Quality Control Plan, and other plans. In many cases the estimated hours and resultant budget are unrealistically low.
Approach Technical Documents with the Same Degree of Commitment as Proposals Recall how many Government TEB members who evaluate Contractor proposals look for clues of weak technical writing. They know that any Contractor who writes a technical approach that raises red flags (i.e. content would trigger question or comment by regulatory agency) will only get worse with the project work plan. One basic reason is that Contractors rarely approach project work plans with the same level of planning, scheduling, and discipline as a proposal. The project CTO is awarded, and the work plan becomes the sole responsibility of the Project Manager. Many tools exist in the common proposal development process that would improve work plan document quality. Proposal development follows a process, plan, schedule, and includes progress checks. Consider the role and value of the “RFP Compliance Matrix”. The Proposal Manager simplifies the job of proposal section authors by providing the “big outline” for the technical volume. They define the table of contents, section titles, numbering sequence, and assign authors. Even better, they might even provide an annotated outline to guide technical authors to properly address requirements. The technical author should not “start from a blank sheet of paper”. A good proposal manager is like a coach who keeps team members properly focused, and includes a series of checks and balances to make sure the author does not get side-tracked on a stream of consciousness. Project managers should consider adopting the Compliance Matrix tool for project work plans. As noted earlier, work plan content is usually organized according to the regulatory guidelines or Government guidelines that apply to the type of plan. Therefore, the “big outline” structure might be defined. Additionally, work plan terminology is based on the regulatory requirements that apply to the work plan. Regulations that apply to work plans and reports always have unique legal terminology. Each regulation defines legal terminology that is used throughout the regulation. The work plan must utilize the terminology used in the regulation. For example, in the United States, a CERCLA “remedial action” is different than a CERCLA “removal action”. Some Contractors get the terminology wrong on the work plan title, which is the first clue the Contractor is oblivious to terminology requirements for the plan. Work plan authors must be sensitive to regulatory terminology requirements. A sure way to irritate your Government RPM is to submit a work plan that is loaded with improper use of terminology.
Develop Superior Project Work Plans
163
The elevated Contractor sensitivity to terminology also applies to Government standards, guidelines, and directives that apply to the work plan. One of the best examples in the United States involves munitions cleanup programmes among the Army, Navy, and other federal agencies. They each have their own terminology, which in many cases, describes the same thing. Major terminology inconsistencies exist among agencies engaged in munitions cleanup, and they appear reluctant to unify the terminology. Some federal agencies will harshly criticize and downgrade Contractors for using improper terminology and acronyms that are associated with other agencies. They want a Contractor who understands their language. Contractors will be downgraded in proposal competitions for using the incorrect terminology. Obtain and use agency-specific glossary publications of terms, definitions, and acronyms.
Sample Project Work Plan Development Interfaces Figure 6.2 shows Sample Work Plan Development Interfaces among the Project Manager, technical staff, and Document Production staff. The Project Manager has overall responsibility for technical document quality. The programme may consist of several projects, so this graphic just represents a single project and work plan. The Project Manager may have a mid- or seniorlevel Project Engineer or Project Geologist who functions as the project “Technical Lead”. Many Project Managers will delegate document development to their Technical Lead. Figure 6.3 shows a typical work plan development timeline from contract award through preliminary draft document delivery to the client. It emphasizes the importance of planning during the first week. If the Project Manager knows she will receive an award, the planning should have started the week before the contract award (the sooner the better).
Figure 6.2 Sample work plan development interfaces.
164 Chapter 6
Figure 6.3 Typical work plan development timeline from contract award through preliminary draft document delivery to the client.
Many Government RFPs express project work plan development schedule dates in a series of “relative due dates”. The common Government justification: “We cannot predict the specific day the CTO will be awarded”. In some cases a peculiar characteristic emerges upon closer review of these relative due dates. For example, the Preliminary Draft is due 30 calendar days after CTO award. The Draft is due 14 calendar days after Contractor receipt of Government Comments. The Final work plan is due 14 calendar days after Contractor receipt of regulatory agency comments. Notice a trend here? The Contractor is accountable for meeting specific turnaround times, while the Government and regulatory agencies are not held to specific document review time frames. Additionally, RFPs might specify a calendar due date for the final work plan delivery and approval. In all cases, the Contractor PM must convert the relative due dates including allocated Government and Regulatory Review time frames (e.g., 30 calendar days) into a detailed schedule, clarified in the proposal, and obtain Government RPM buy-in after CTO award. In fact, many projects lack a detailed schedule for project work plans. Consequently, the PM might feel uncomfortable constantly pestering their RPM about the delinquent review comments. The project work plan must be managed like field activities, including contract letters when intermediate review due dates are bypassed. Otherwise, the Contractor will be burdened with various consequences ranging from penalties in awarded subcontracts to paying for the site trailer, rented equipment, and poorly utilized labor. During document preparation, Technical Leads need to help authors succeed by providing and discussing an annotated outline; link to supporting documents (RFP or contract SOW, proposal, estimate, working draft work plan, site background information, etc.); and 30% and 70% progress reviews to make sure authors are on the right track. The author should not write from a blank sheet of paper. The most effective Technical Leads take an iterative approach, and provide any necessary mentoring along the way. This prevents surprises. Document format, appearance, grammar, and punctuation are not important during authorship and iterative technical reviews. Technical reviewers should avoid making comments about non-technical deficiencies. Authors and technical reviewers should concentrate on developing content within their outline and avoid trying to perfect every sentence. Authors should utilize an unformatted document during document development, unless they are making updates to an existing document such as a Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report.
Develop Superior Project Work Plans
165
Formatted documents will be more labour intensive for Word Processors during the subsequent document production phase; they strip and reformat according to their document template. The Project Manager, or designated Technical Lead, should provide the completed draft document to the Document Production Coordinator no later than 1 week before the scheduled delivery date to client, and preferably 2 weeks. The Document Production coordinator will arrange for a Word Processor to format the document. Then she will obtain technical editing (if required) and obtain independent peer review (if required) during this 2-week window. The Technical Editor will correct the grammar and punctuation. The Document Production Coordinator will publish the document as a single draft adobe PDF file with integrated graphics. A Project Manager best practice is to organize a “Client Working Draft Review Meeting” to correspond with the internal independent peer review. For example, the client RPM and her technical reviewer will join the Project Manager, Technical Lead, and Contractor Independent Peer Reviewer in a conference room with pastries and coffee, and they will each read and mark-up their copy. Then each will discuss their comments with the group. This is similar to a proposal “Red Team Review”. It will help the Project Manager avoid major surprises. Allow 1 week for revising the document prior to delivery to the client.
Sample Work Plan Development Process Flow Most Contractors utilize some type of process flow for developing work plans, but it might not be documented, formalized, and enforced. Figure 6.4 provides an overview of a typical programmewide technical document development process. It is aimed at project teams who interface with a Document Production Coordinator who resides in a Contractor resource organization. The technical document development process should apply to programme and project technical deliverables (e.g. plans, reports) that require a consistent professional appearance and format. Government clients should not have Contractor project plans and reports on the same programme that look totally different from one another. Contractors need to be very careful when they use a document boilerplate, especially from another Contractor. Boilerplate inevitably leads to trouble. Boilerplate content has a tendency to jump off the paper to experienced Government and Regulatory Agency reviewers. Client reviewers commonly see legacy content that was not changed (e.g. other Contractor name in document footer). It makes a negative impression on the Government Client organization. Additionally, Government clients usually have specific document publication and format standards that need to be incorporated in the Contractor programme publication guide and document templates. This can cover a variety of topics such as the Government logo, title page format, document control number format, and approval page format. Contractors should consider attaching client-specific amendments or attachments to their publication guide (or Style Guide).
166 Chapter 6 Task Order Award
Project Website* Organize references on project web page * May be Network Directory
Verify Authorship and Support Assignments
Submittal Planner
Document Kickoff Meeting Discuss requirements and assignments
Load Document Production Schedule Website
Client Analytical Database Queries and Analysis
Content Acquisition and QC Review
Technical Reviews
Internal Draft Document Preparation
Engineering and Geological Data/Analysis
GIS/CAD Graphics Support
Template-Compliant Word Processing & Formatting Final Reviews Independent Peer Review Project Manager Review
Responsibility Document Reproduction Hard Copies & CDs
Project Manager Document Production Resource Coordinator
Document Delivery
Maintain Plan Source Files on Project Website
Log Deliverable on Project Website
Figure 6.4 Sample work plan development process flow.
Inadequate Project Manager Planning Usually Leads to Various Inefficiencies The most punitive weak link in the work plan development process is lack of planning by the Project Manager. Any Contractor who adopts a mission to develop “consistently high quality work plans and reports” and gain competitive advantage through technical document quality must first put a system and process in place to establish and enforce standards for technical document planning, scheduling, and publication. In my estimation, about 75% of Project Managers do not need a formalized system to develop high quality documents, and these Project Managers will complain. However, inevitably, about one in four Project Managers will struggle. All it takes is the occasional poor quality document to undermine your mission because the client can no longer say: “Contractor A consistently delivers high quality technical documents”. Because of this difficulty, and the tendency for Contractor programme managers to cave in to a few influential Project Managers, a particular Contractor rarely separates himself in technical document quality.
Develop Superior Project Work Plans
167
Effective Project Manager planning has the most influence on developing a high quality technical document on schedule and within budget. Planning is the most important aspect of the process to be monitored and enforced. The Document Production Coordinator should be the process monitor. She has visibility of Project Manager planning for all technical documents, and, like a proposal coordinator, organizes graphics, CAD, and other specialized support. The Document Production Coordinator should also be the first line of enforcement, supported by the Program Manager. Without enforced planning, some Contractor Project Managers will be susceptible in the following hypothetical scenario: A new CTO is awarded and the clock is ticking towards the Preliminary Draft Work Plan due date. Several days might be lost with no action and no work plan kickoff meeting. In some cases, the Project Manager notifies authors who provide work plan supplements such as the project-specific Sampling and Analysis Plan, Health and Safety Plan, and Quality Control Plan a few days before the plan is due to the Government. The Project Manager e-mail expresses a sense of urgency, “Apologize for the late notice, but I need your help to write this plan or plan section, and it is due Friday”. The technical author asks the Project Manager, “How long have you known about this requirement?” (Answer: Since they received the contract award, it is usually 3 weeks or more). The request usually comes in the form of an e-mail, which might also be missing a project number and charge code for the author to bill his labour hours. The Project Manager’s e-mail requesting a writing assignment may also be missing a web link to pertinent files and information. Consequently, the technical author has to reply asking for a copy of the RFP or contract SOW, proposal and technical assumptions, estimate, working draft of overall technical document (to prevent technical inconsistencies between the work plan or section to be written), and relevant site information files. Any Project Manager who thinks that a document can be properly written by technical staff without proper supporting information is setting the stage for a poor quality document that will require extensive revision. The needed information should be organized in a single folder library on the project web page. Files should not be stored in various locations or in individual e-mail inboxes. Now let us look at how another, more planning-oriented, Project Manager approaches the same situation. The Project Manager’s e-mail “subject line” to the technical author lists the abbreviated document title j project number j charge code. He makes an excellent first impression. And that is how he immediately gets the technical author’s attention. The e-mail is concise, and summarizes the requested writing assignment, contains a hyperlink to project files that apply to the writing assignment, and attaches an agenda for the upcoming work plan kickoff meeting. The e-mail requests the recipient to gain familiarity with the project scope and site information prior to the kickoff meeting. A Project Manager with poor planning skills causes technical staff and authors to spend more time sending e-mails to track down information they need in order to write and review. Some passive or inexperienced technical staff might try to develop their content without
168 Chapter 6 performing due diligence into the contract requirements, proposal and technical assumptions, estimate, and available site information. The same scenario may arise for document Technical Reviewers. For example, they receive an e-mail that attaches a draft technical document (or link to technical document on the web page) and a Manuscript Routing Sheet (MRS). Most MRS forms have a header with project and document information, list of required reviewers, documents, or sections to be reviewed, signature approval, and review date. What is missing from this picture? Is the Technical Reviewer expected to perform a review without knowing the contract requirements, scope of work (including project objectives), proposal and estimate, technical assumptions, and site information? Once again, the Technical Reviewer can either make a request for this information or perform the Technical Review in a vacuum. This may be one reason why regulatory agencies often provide an abundance of irrelevant review comments. They might be expected perform their review in a vacuum with lack of knowledge about the project scope, objectives, and site information. The inability of some Project Managers to properly plan frustrates experienced technical staff who perform authorship, technical reviews, and independent peer reviews. Some Project Managers consistently fail to properly plan. There is a famous expression that states: “Failure to plan on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part”. The Document Production Coordinator might get an e-mail 3 days before the document delivery date with no advance notification. Another tell-tale sign of lack of Project Manager planning is a recurring theme of late notification to client RPMs to request a new document preliminary draft or draft delivery date. Project managers might make the point they can move the date back because it is not a defined “contract due date”. Is it on the project schedule? This sends a negative message to the client RPM. In other cases, the Project Manager might have a legitimate reason such as a delay that was caused by “waiting for key technical information from the client RPM”. If so, the Project Manager should provide a courtesy e-mail notification to the client RPM, requesting a document delivery extension, immediately after the schedule impact. This written notification should not wait until 2 days before the client is expecting the draft document and say, “Remember when I had to wait two weeks for site data? – That’s why I need two extra weeks”. Over the course of several years, as a technical professional, you will become familiar with the usual scenarios because you will work with several different Project Managers. Some will be outstanding planners, most will be average, and some will be below average. Fortunately, the negative planning scenarios are the exception, but all it takes is the occasional bungled poor quality technical document and the client can no longer say: “Contractor A provides consistently high quality technical documents”. Learn to recognize the symptoms of a document planning problem. The Document Production Coordinator can assist by monitoring these trends, and can assist the Project Manager with more effective planning on subsequent technical documents.
Develop Superior Project Work Plans
169
Managing Technical Document Development (Assignments, Tracking, and Status) Contractor project teams usually approach technical document development in one of three ways. Companies commonly have all three approaches within their company. The Program Manager might have the authority to determine the technical document development policies on their programme. 1. Informal. Contractor Program Manager leaves it entirely up to each Project Manager, and holds each Project Manager accountable for delivering a quality document on schedule and within budget. No formalized document development process exists. Some personnel have a private stash of document templates on their hard drive. This is a hands-off, resultsoriented approach. Some Project Managers will implement an efficient web-based approach and develop very high quality documents, while others will struggle. Work Plans and reports among project teams range from professional to amateurish. 2. Document Tracking Spreadsheet Management by E-mail. Contractor Program Manager establishes, maintains, and updates an electronic spreadsheet file that identifies each CTO number, Project Manager, document title, various due dates, and current status. He periodically e-mails the spreadsheet to Project Managers for PMs to make manual updates. He might colour code documents that are “at risk” or need contractual action (e.g. “PM Radar”) to discuss at project review meetings. A formalized document development process involving a Document Production Coordinator may or may not exist, and is optional for Project Managers. This approach is “Document Management by E-mail”. Project author and reviewer e-mail inboxes frequently get overloaded with large file attachments. It is extremely inefficient with inevitable document version control problems. 3. Web-based Document Management System. A formalized document development process that features key elements of a “technical document management system” (e.g. web-based Document Schedule; process steps for document development stages; technical writing QC checklists; Manuscript Review sign-offs; and technical publication guidelines (e.g. “Style Guide”) for consistent document fonts, structure, and formatting). The “Document Production Coordinator” performs an essential function by co-planning document requirements with Project Managers, coordinating, and scheduling internal document support (assigning primary authors, Word Processor, Technical Reviewers, Graphics Specialist, CAD Specialist, GIS Specialist, Technical Editor, Independent Peer Reviewer, etc.), and interfacing with the client document coordinator prior to document delivery. The Document Production Coordinator position is a full-time responsibility. The last approach is the only possible chance to avoid the inevitable poor quality document due to any number of problems that may arise. The approach achieves continual programme-wide visibility of documents in the development pipeline. It also provides technical reviewers and document support staff with visibility for upcoming document support assignments. Document
170 Chapter 6 sections are hosted on a collaborative “Document Workspace” web page that organizes source files that can be checked out for editing, which avoids version control problems. Figure 6.5 is a sample Project Manager/Document Production Coordinator input web page for a work plan that will be added to the programme-wide “Document Development
Figure 6.5 A sample Project Manager/Document Production Coordinator input web page. (continued)
Develop Superior Project Work Plans
Figure 6.5–cont’d
171
172 Chapter 6 Schedule”. This example utilizes Microsoft SharePoint. Upon contract award, the project manager must organize contract, proposal, estimate, and site information files in a Document Workspace (folder library) on the project website. Note how the fields include a web link (hyperlink) to the “Document Workspace” that will host and organize project files needed to support authorship and reviews. Document authors and reviewers utilize support information. The Project Manager and Document Production Coordinator co-plan individual authorship, reviewer, and support specialist assignments including schedule due dates. The sample Document Production Coordinator input web page for the Document Schedule tracks with the document development process. The single screen applies to a single document. It looks labour intensive; however, most fields are drop-down menus. It takes about 1 h to create this type of customer web page using “out-of-the-box” SharePoint that can be rented from a web-hosting provider for as low as 10 USD/month. Once fields are completed and saved, the work plan or technical document will appear on a Program-Wide Document Schedule list that provides continual visibility of document status throughout the development process, leading to final delivery. The Document Production Coordinator updates document development status for each document by clicking the checkboxes in the lower region called “DPC Tracker”. As mentioned, this is just an example of how to improve the technical document planning process. A web-based approach is the only way to achieve continual visibility of the process.
Technical Document (and Work Plan) Process Development Guidelines Figure 6.6 is a sample process summary that breaks technical document development into four phases: Phase 1: Phase 2: Phase 3: Phase 4:
Planning Preparation and Technical Review Document Production and Editorial Reviews Reproduction, Assembly, and Delivery to Client
Note the format. The table features the process step, Responsible Party, and Documentation. The Responsible Parties show sample responsibilities. Contractors can develop their own process guidelines following this format. The “Documentation” column can include links to completed examples. This approach cuts through all the procedural verbiage and gives Project Managers and teams what they need to develop their technical document. Contractors who lack website capability can add an extra column on the right for signature/ date, and use the document to track status through document development, and identify individual names in the footnotes that apply to the project. Your goal is to make your process as user-friendly as possible.
Develop Superior Project Work Plans
173
Document Preparation and Production Process Summary Note: This summary presents a general description of the publishing process; the actual process steps used may vary on a case-by-case basis.
Responsible Documentation Party1
Process Step Phase1–Planning Begin preconstruction submittal planning activities following Task Order award
PM
N/A
Assemble reference materials for authors and reviewers (per Document Planning Checklist)
TL
Planning Checklist
Conduct perconstruction submittal kickoff meeting (~1 week after CTO award); include DPC
PM
Agenda
PM/TL
Publication Planner2/ EFA Database
DCA/DPC
EFA Database
TL
Email
Provide submittal details and anticipated schedule dates to DPC
Obtain Document Control Number (DCN) Submit draft distribution list
Phase 2–Preparation and Technical Reviews Prepare document as ‘Working Draft’
Author(s)
N/A
TL/PM
MRS
Reviewers/PM
MRS
TL
MRS
DCA
Email to TL
Coordinate technical reviews and graphics support Review document Ensure final issue resolution and MRS sign-off from technical reviewer(s)
Phase 3–Document Production and Editorial Reviews Finalize distribution list Email Client cover letter to DCA, if required; copy to DPC Submit document and MRS to DPC for formatting and editorial review
PM/TL
Email
TL
DP Request form3 DP Request form3
Format document in accordance with Style Guide; perform word processing as required
DPC
DPS
Perform editorial review in accordance with Style Guide and Technical Editing Standards
DPC
TE
Review redlined changes and questions raised by technical editor; accept/reject/modify changes; submit to DPC for finalization
Author/TE
MRS; electronic or hard copy of doc
Finalize document and assemble complete, camera-ready hardcopy
DPC/DPS
DP Request form3
DCA/DPC and PM/TL/QCM
QC Checklist; MRS
Perform Pre-Repro completeness review/QC check; correct any deficiencies noted
MRS
Phase 4–Reproduction, Assembly, and Delivery to Client Copy and assemble document
DPC
N/A
Perform Post-Repro completeness review/QC check; correct any deficiencies noted
DPC/DCA
QC Checklist; MRS
Submit documents per distribution list, including Central Files copy and Library copy
DPC/DCA
N/A
DCA denotes Document Control Administrator
TE denotes Technical Editor
DPC denotes Document Production Coordinator
TL denotes Technical Lead
DPS denotes Document Production Specialist
QCM denotes Project Quality Control Manager
MRS denotes Manuscript Routing Sheet
1
The Responsible Party will ensure that the process step is completed but will not always be the individual who performs the step.
2
The Submittal Planner information can be entered into the web page The DPC may use the Document Production Request/Tracking Form or another similar form to track submittal details, requests for work, and completed tasks.
3
Figure 6.6 A sample process summary that breaks technical document development into four phases.
174 Chapter 6
Technical Authorship and Reviewer Guidelines During Document Preparation and Technical Reviews Always confirm the correct document title with the Project Manager and client RPM. Obtain and research support information before writing (site files, contract statement of work, estimate, proposal, schedule) to avoid writing technical inconsistencies with the scope of work, technical assumptions, and estimate. Identify the primary client reviewer who will be reviewing the document before you get started. Call the person on the phone and ask for five things: (1) What she perceives as the most common problems (common review comments); (2) A copy of her document review checklist; (3) How she prefers to have undefined scope highlighted to prevent having your document downgraded; (4) A courtesy progress review; (5) How much advance scheduling notification she needs prior to her document review. You might be pleasantly surprised at how much the reviewer will appreciate that you care about simplifying their review task. Compile and maintain a list of questions that arise during technical information review and document authorship; provide the list to the Project Manager for resolution. Flag and note any document content that is “awaiting information” from the Client Project Manager (e.g. analytical data, scope clarification); reach client resolution before submitting draft document. Write to an annotated text outline that includes graphics (flow charts), maps, tables, and photographs (do not start from scratch). Make the document easy to read (e.g. 8th grade level) and avoid excessive technical jargon. Keep sentences short. Schedule 30% and 70% reviews with the Technical Reviewer to avoid major surprises. Use a document workspace (web page) with collaboration features such as Microsoft SharePoint to organize files (text, graphics, tables, photos, etc.) and maintain version control. Avoid e-mailing document sections to others for input. Instead, send others an e-mail with a link to the hosted file that can be “checked out” for editing. Be cautious when using boilerplate, or copying in content from other documents. Consider using a different font or some type of colour-scheming to make the boilerplate standout. Any evidence of boilerplate will be flagged and downgraded by client and regulatory agency reviewers. Provide and explain supporting information if the client expects the document to “stand alone”; this will cause the document to become larger.
Develop Superior Project Work Plans
175
Provide an “Introduction” section with background and objectives that clearly presents document context and chronology of events/decisions that led to the project. For reports, include statement of whether or not project objectives were met. Provide rationale for conclusions drawn, recommendations made, and actions taken. Use a consistent tense and voice throughout document. Provide information that is essential to enabling the reader to understand technical issues. Follow regulatory guidance for the type of document being prepared. Verify the accuracy and origin of graphics, maps, tables, and photographs that appear in photo logs. Write content that easily tracks with graphics (flow charts), maps, tables, and photographs and highlights the key features. Avoid poor quality images that appear to be third or fourth generation photocopies. Make sure you understand the procedure to properly query the client database for any data needed to write the plan or report, and review this data for accuracy. Avoid conflicting information among different sections, such as between the Work Plan and Sampling and Analysis Plan. Check referenced information for currency and correctness. Verify proper use of terminology, recognizing that each Government agency likely has their own glossary of terms and acronyms. Make sure your Government clients review and approve any “new information” before including it in your work plan or report. Explain deviations and justification from previous plans. Provide clear and concise objectives, and demonstrate that objectives were met. “Challenge” documented text, data, maps, and tables to the extent that a regulatory agency reviewer would not be justified to ask a question to clarify the data or information. Use a consistent format for “Comment Response Tables” and verify that all client and regulatory reviewer comments are addressed in the document.
Guidelines for Executive Summary for Final Reports • •
Written at the 8th grade level Less than three pages in length
176 Chapter 6 • • • •
Describes project objectives (including whether or not they were met) Summary technical approach (how objectives were achieved) Findings Recommendations
Individuals who perform Phase 4 activities should utilize QC checklists to make sure document details are verified. Figure 6.7 is an example. The Project Manager must avoid committing to unrealistic submittal schedule deadlines proposed by the client. Document development can be plagued by client delays in providing technical data, maps, or reports that are needed to complete the document. If this happens, the Project Manager must go on record with a letter to the Client Contracts Manager. Unfortunately, those who need the time most (document authors) are commonly squeezed and may work around-the-clock in order to satisfy the generous document review time frames (1 month is common) demanded by the client and regulatory agency.
Pre-Repro 1. Binder Cover & Spine (C&S) information matches the document. 2. The document version (draft, draft final, or final) is correct. 3. The Document Control Number is correct on Title Pages, Signature Pages, and footers. 4. The Publishing Date is correct. 5. Each document includes the appropriate signatures. 6. The Table of Contents matches the actual document. 7. The List of Figures matches the actual figures. 8. Each figure has been approved (Final versions only). 9. Each figure has the correct title block. 10. The List of Tables matches the actual tables. 11. The format of each table follows Style Guide specifications. 12. Tables have correct headings, unbroken lines, and proper pagination. 13. The List of Appendices/Attachments matches the actual document. 14. The correct footer on all appropriate pages.
Figure 6.7 QC checklists to make sure document details are verified.
Develop Superior Project Work Plans
177
Establish Final Report Structure, Content, and Assignments Before the Project Mobilizes This section emphasizes the challenge to developing high quality work plans consistently. The Final Report is another high visibility document that is vulnerable to poor planning and poor quality. While the work plan is the first impression made on the client, the Final Report is the last impression made on the client. That is another reason why technical document quality is highly influential. Contractors might do an impressive job designing, building, and operating a remedial action technology and meet site cleanup objectives. But then they “drop the ball” with the Final Report. The Final Report might be late, require extensive Client review comments, and the project ends with a low client performance evaluation. Project Superintendents are notorious for being narrowly focused on the physical “field execution”, not appreciating the importance of data, and not recognizing that project success depends on the final report. Their perception of project success might be cost-effective field execution. Several cause-drivers exist in the Final Report failure scenarios. Once again, poor Project Manager planning is at the top of the list. The most common problem is failure to develop the Final Report Table of Contents, section templates and section authorship assignments before the project mobilizes. Client Project Managers should consider listing the Final Report Table of Contents as a pre-mobilization submittal and place it on the agenda for the first project team meeting. Moreover, the Project Manager should obtain client Project Manager approval of the Final Report structure and content before the project mobilizes to the field. The Final Report Table of Contents should be established and distributed at the project Kickoff Meeting. The Project Manager must help the team, as Steven Covey says, “begin with the end in mind”. Final Report content must be developed during the project. At project demobilization, the Draft Final Report should be completed. This includes text, figures, maps, tables, test reports, analytical reports, and photographs. Many project teams fail because they wait too long to get started with the Final Report. Then key project staff get assigned to other projects, lose their focus, and the new Final Report author (who was not in the field) is given a collection of files and data to write the report. This is the worst possible assignment a young scientist or engineer can be given. In some cases, the Project Manager might get stuck writing the Final Report.
Leadership Commitment Your company cannot rise above the competition without a leadership commitment, mission, and plan to become the undisputed leader in technical document quality. Contractors need to apply the rigour reserved for developing proposals to developing technical documents.
178 Chapter 6 The plan to become the leader must include an approach to employee screening that identifies and hires candidates with excellent technical writing skills; a planning-oriented, web-based management system that organizes files, provides versioning control, and continual visibility; an efficient document development process with iterative technical reviews; a Document Production Coordinator to orchestrate document support and client interface; aggressive programme-level project monitoring of document issues and status; a commitment to sharing lessons learned from document quality deficiencies; technical writing training workshops; investment in software for creating professional graphics such as geologic maps; and recognizing project teams that deliver high quality technical documents. This level of leadership commitment appears to be much more difficult for Contractors than striving to become the leader in designing, constructing, and implementing remedial action technologies. The common Contractor Program Manager tendency is to provide Project Managers with independence to develop their own plans and reports (i.e. a hands-off approach). Most will develop high quality technical documents. All it takes is the 15–25% that are sub-par technical documents, and your reputation for consistency is shattered. Then clients can express a valid concern that they are not sure what level of technical document quality they will receive on the next project. And that is why, two decades later, no single Contractor in many geographic regions seems to rise above the pack. Just remember this point: On most projects, technical document quality makes the first and last impression on your clients.
CHAPTER 7
Implement Rigorous Scope Management Tools Earlier today I Googled “definition of quality”. And just 0.16 s later, beneath the famous little Google search box, flashed my search results: “About 70,700,000 results”. I was expecting about 700,000. So it exceeded my ballpark estimate by 70 million. Ten minutes later, I repeated the Google search and received 70,900,000 results – an increase of 200,000 hits in 10 min. The definition of quality appears to be expanding like the universe. If you Google “definition of quality” right now, how many results will you get? The definition of quality has something in common with the definition of scope on ER projects: it just seems to grow and grow. Many companies across many industries have mission statements that express leadership commitment to quality as “exceeding customer expectations”. The unwavering commitment to exceeding customer expectations is the hallmark of Total Quality Management (TQM). However, this type of mission statement, trickling down to the ER project team with a slogan in the site trailer, will have undesirable cost overrun consequences on environmental projects. The culture must be focused on performing project management, quality control, and quality assurance within the scope, schedule, and budget defined by evolving contract requirements and documented contractual agreements. Otherwise, each day your project teams will routinely do extra work that appears to be in scope, but is not. We call this category of value-added work that exceeds customer expectations: “in scope, but not in estimate (i.e. unbudgeted)”. It is OK to give Government ER RPMs little extras, as long as proper precautions are taken. We will start this chapter on flexible scope management by discussing quality as defined by conformance to properly defined requirements. In 1979, Mr. Philip Crosby made a strong business case why quality must be defined as “conformance to requirements” and promptly caused a backlash among many quality control experts. Some critics proclaimed that customers have difficulty expressing what they really want or need (Translation in our industry: Government ER Service Providers have difficulty adequately defining their scope). Government ER Service Providers commonly expect a competitive fixed price to achieve project objectives (e.g., projectiveness, site closure, etc.) at a site that has many unknowns in terms of contaminants, extent of contamination, and geology. Then, after contract award, we deal with Government ER RPMs, Government Contract Specialists, and regulatory agencies that have many different, “scope-affecting”, expectations and scope-related interpretations. They commonly pay for a Volkswagen, and then other stakeholders such as regulatory agencies Best Practices for Environmental Project Teams. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-444-53721-8.00007-5 # 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
179
180 Chapter 7 expect a Lexus with a variety of after-market enhancements. In some cases, their work habits have been influenced by many years on cost-reimbursable contracts. The first evidence is conflicting project work plan review comments. As the Contractor you are frequently caught in the middle. But, in each case, experienced Project Managers get into the habit of examining the written words in their proposal, estimate, awarded contract, and the scope of work. The burden of responsibility to define and effectively manage scope is on the Contractor Project Manager. The paying Government ER RPM wants to meet site cleanup requirements for the lowest possible price, and places a high value on making periodic “in-scope adjustments” without raising the contract value ceiling during the project (Translation to Contractor Project Manager: changes perceived by RPM to be in-scope but not in the Contractor estimate, or unbudgeted). It is like having an initial grocery list and fixed budget to buy six potatoes, two ears of corn, three heads of lettuce, five bananas, and then discovering you need four potatoes, no ears of corn, three extra heads of lettuce, and six oranges instead of five bananas (that is OK, just use the money left over from no ears of corn to buy the additional lettuce and orange). And then the three extra heads of lettuce are not enough – you need 10 more. Government ER RPMs will routinely request and expect a flexible shopping list and want to make in-process scope adjustments. They will routinely ask for seemingly minor changes on-the-fly and expect the Project Manager to say “Yes” without reviewing the accepted Contractor proposal and estimate. Government ER Service Providers implement budgeting processes that prioritizes site risk and allocates a specific amount of money to each site. RPMs are under pressure to achieve project objectives such as environmental protectiveness for that specific amount of money without costly change orders that exceed the funded contract ceiling. Top-performing Contractor project teams will embrace this need with processes that enable proactive scope communication and flexibility without losing control of scope, schedule, and budgets. Experienced Contractor project teams and Government RPMs do not know exactly what they will need as the project evolves. But they will constantly anticipate what they might need to minimize delays when it becomes clear what they will need. The baseline scope defines exactly what will be provided from Day #1 for the negotiated fixed price. Contract options can provide additional scope buffers for work elements. The following hypothetical case study resembles the grocery store analogy, and illustrates how rapidly a Contractor Project Manager can lose control of scope. A Contractor project team was awarded a fixed-price “Site X Groundwater Treatability Study” for 2.3 million USD. The project experienced a substantial amount of scope change, cost and schedule growth, and monthly cost report volatility (including a substantial projected loss at one point). The Government RPM started changing the scope after the project kickoff meeting. He subtracted two sites, added six other sites, and immediately awarded Option 1 for 40 additional reagent injections.
Implement Rigorous Scope Management Tools
181
The Government RPM did not disclose key information that subsequently increased the Contractor level of effort to rewrite the project work plan and perform the work. He kept the Contractor Project Manager “in the dark” regarding his intention to change the scope, made the announcement without any notice (at a Project Kickoff Meeting) and was heavy-handed in his intention to exercise “No-Cost Modifications” rather than any change that would increase the contract funding amount. The Contractor Project Manager and Contracts Manager wrote Notification of Changes letters, and in the spirit of trust and partnering, cooperated with the Client RPM by agreeing to work towards No-Cost Modifications. The Contractor Project Manager was continually caught off guard by the requested scope adjustments. In each case, he did not have the opportunity to understand and comprehend the realistic cost and schedule impact. The Government RPM was not disclosing what he was trying to accomplish, including pertinent scope details that increased the actual Contractor level of effort. It became apparent that many scope adjustments were being requested due to evolving developments and data being collected by other Contractors at nearby sites. For example, the Government RPM did not give the Contractor Project Manager site characterization data for the six new sites to be added. Additionally, he was not told he would need to query the client electronic data repository in order to download data and revise the work plan. The Contractor Project Manager did not consider approaching the first scope change as an opportunity to re-baseline the scope, fine-tune the estimate, refine assumptions, and weave in additional cost contingency in response to the uncertainties. Internally, the scope change was not evaluated with the same level of scrutiny as the original proposal. Consequently, the Contractor Project Manager relinquished his first opportunity to renegotiate and re-baseline the scope. The Contractor Project Manager got bogged down in revising the work plan due to the scope adjustments and the monthly financial reports began to present symptoms of various problems after getting into the field. In retrospect, the Contractor Project Manager had difficulty recovering due to: (1) being misled by the Government RPM; (2) not re-establishing a solid contractual basis for managing scope (e.g. defining scope and assumptions); and (3) lack of a plan to manage scope. The Government RPM, in this case, was trying to manage the fixed-price contract based on an inaccurate scope without triggering cost-bearing contract modifications. The Contractor Project Manager did not realize Government RPM got their job performances downgraded for change orders that increased the contract price. Figure 7.1 describes the process being used by this particular Government RPM to support the scope work elements with contract options (i.e. “scope contingency”), and then periodically readjust scope using no-cost modifications.
182 Chapter 7
Figure 7.1 The process being used by this particular Government RPM to support the scope work elements with contract options.
The focal point within the process flow chart describes a typical request from this particular Government RPM: “Our Site B2 scope was for X quantity, for which we awarded you Y dollars. Now we only need 75% of X quantity. We want to delete the 25% scope and move those dollars to perform Z tasks (new scope) at sites B1 and B3. The B1 and B3 work is in a radiological zone and near a shoreline but it is similar and we expect that you will be able to accomplish the z tasks (new scope) with the available funds. We are seeking to cut a No-Cost Mod to the project
Implement Rigorous Scope Management Tools
183
task order. By the way, we need you to revise your Work Plans to cover this change. Please expedite a draft rough order of magnitude estimate for my review because we are up against a regulatory deadline and we do not have time to go through an RFP process”. This scenario underscores what commonly happens due to the following: (1) RFP and SOW are written with uncertainty regarding the scope that will actually be needed; (2) fixed-price contract; (3) the Government RPM desires to adjust tasks within the scope “on-the-fly” during project execution as data and information become known, conveniently assuming a 1:1 cost trade-off of tasks (i.e. “apples to apples” trade-off); and (4) the Project Manager wants to please the Government RPM, and is afraid to make a stand that might irritate the Government RPM. This hypothetical case study shows a typical scope management challenge on an environmental project, and the challenge faced by Contractor Project Managers who are caught off guard. For those Project Managers who are caught off guard, the project becomes a “project controls nightmare”. For Contractor Project Managers that anticipate this type of scenario and implement a weekly scope communication process and better tools to manage dynamic scope, it is an opportunity to enable the RPM get the most value for their cleanup funds. A scope communication process and enhanced process control tools are needed to effectively manage risk and scope on dynamic ER projects. The four listed below are in addition to the Project Risk Register and web-based “Project Correspondence Log” (refer to Chapter 4): • • • •
Base-wide Risk Register Scope Register Scope Variance Communication Log (Field Change Log) Contract Scope Mutual Understanding Meeting
Figure 7.2 is a scope management process flow diagram that shows these tools within the context of common project tasks:
Process Overview The scope management process flow diagram has three themes: active risk management, scope communication, and scope management plan. The active risk management column likely reflects standard ER Contractor practices with the exception of the Base-wide Risk Register. The Scope Communication column is also standard ER Contractor practices until the step entitled, Scope Mutual Understanding Meeting. This meeting is not standard industry practice. The Government RPM will not call this meeting. The Contractor PM must call this meeting, and it should be one-on-one: Contractor PM and Government RPM. The purpose of this
184 Chapter 7
Figure 7.2 A scope management process flow diagram that shows these tools within the context of common project tasks.
Implement Rigorous Scope Management Tools
185
meeting is to establish a mutual understanding of the baseline project scope. The Contractor PM will share tools on how they intend to manage scope during the project, emphasizing an effort to anticipate in-scope adjustments to minimize project delays. The Scope Management Plan column features the Scope Register and Scope Variance Communication Log. Without a proactive scope management process, how long does it take for a typical ER project to run into trouble? Let us start with a hypothetical project work plan development scenario, which starts right after contract award: Government RFP requires Contractor to develop and submit a project work plan. The RFP states: “Draft Work Plan due 14 days following award. Final Work Plan due 7 days following response to comments on the Draft Report”. This is what actually takes place: • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Contractor PM prepares Internal Draft Work Plan; Government RPM and his designated reviewers provide review comments in individual e-mails, letters, and formats; Government RPM requests Contractor PM to create a Draft Comment/Response Table (CRT); Government RPM reviews CRT and provides comments to Contractor PM; Contractor writes Draft WP to include RTC Table and submits to Government RPM; Government RPM distributes Draft WP to stakeholder groups (Regulators, City, Consultants); Stakeholder reviewers provide work plan comment e-mails to the Government RPM; Government RPM e-mails various comments to Contractor PM, who develops another CRT; Contractor PM submits Final Draft RTC to Government RPM for distribution to stakeholder reviewers; Stakeholder reviewers provide RTC comments to Government RPM; Government RPM provides stakeholder reviewer comments to Contractor PM; Contractor PM develops Final WP and CRT; Contractor PM submits Final WP to Government RPM.
Contract requirements state a very simplistic process that involves award þ 14 days þ 30 days (standard customer review) þ 7 days to final work plan delivery. The process represents 51 days or less than 2 months. The actual process, in this case, took 8 months. The Contractor PM and Program Manager should have wrote a Notification of Changes Letter to document the situation including impacts to cost and schedule. Your experience reveals the process will take 6–8 months. However, rather than inflate your bid for the work plan, based on knowledge of customer expectations (and likely lose the project to a lower bidder), you bid strictly to the RFP requirements including RFP schedule milestones and then submit a Notification of Changes Letter. How could RFPs be entirely unrepresentative of the actual process? Perhaps the Government RPM may be in the habit of using a boilerplate RFP Statement of Work?
186 Chapter 7
Base-Wide Risk Register Each location-based Government ER team (e.g. Base Cleanup Team) develops their own charter, plans, procedures, and agreements that affect how environmental site cleanup work gets done throughout the location. The Government ER BCT usually has a “location master environmental cleanup schedule” that shows all sites throughout the location. Site cleanups are performed over several years based on the site cleanup priorities and available budget. Contractor project teams who gain experience with client project teams gain familiarity with the base cleanup team culture, team approach to scoping work, executing work, common challenges and problems, recurring stakeholder concerns (e.g. pressure to use local subcontractors, truck routes, noise, dust, odour, etc.), and common sources of delay including the reputations of regulatory agencies. Contractors should build their Base-wide Risk Register based on location-related knowledge and lessons learned, and take those risks into consideration for each new project opportunity. The Base-wide Risk Register can help Contractor project teams identify and anticipate risks that are unique to client teams, sites, and stakeholders. The Base-wide Risk Register is supported by the process to develop a BCT profile in Chapter 2.
Project Scope Register Most Project Managers and teams are familiar with the project Risk Register. Unfortunately, the Risk Register only highlights a limited number of perceived significant risks that are envisioned by the Contractor Project Manager. The most common significant risk on each project will not be listed on the project Risk Register: Losing overall control of project scope, which complicates and endangers project cost control. The previous hypothetical case studies reveal the reality of how quickly a Project Manager and team can lose control of project scope. Scope control is important enough to justify its own Register. A good analogy for a Scope Register: Football (NFL) is popular in the United States. In recent years, the NFL team coaches can be seen on television standing on the sidelines with their colourful laminated play sheet to manage the game. Between plays they cover their mouth with the laminated play sheet while they converse through the headset with their staff in the stadium skybox. They are never seen standing there thumbing through the entire playbook, which has too many details. The same can be said about the estimate. An estimate can be 30–50 pages of details. It is not user-friendly to manage scope on a fast-paced ER project. Project Managers and teams need the equivalent of the laminated cheat sheet used by NFL head coaches. When the site task leader gets on the mobile phone to discuss a potential scope issue, they are not fumbling through a copy of the detailed estimate that shows private information such as task budgets.
Implement Rigorous Scope Management Tools
187
Figure 7.3 Sample scope register.
Figure 7.3 highlights the Scope Register. The Scope Register is not something described in the PMI PMBOK or any environmental remediation literature. The Scope Register is derived (filtered) directly from the detailed estimate spreadsheet that was submitted with the proposal to the client (e.g. Microsoft Excel). Thus, it can be generated by the Estimator in less than 20 min. The Scope Register contains the following columns: Bid item section number, Task WBS, Description, and Notes. It deletes the direct cost. The key is the Notes field. The Notes are taken directly from RFP requirements. Notes include the basis of Contractor estimate for each task including productivity assumptions required to accomplish each task on schedule and within budget. The Project Manager uses the Scope Register as one of the tools to establish and maintain project team scope awareness. The Project Manager should discuss the Scope Register with the project team leadership staff, and then place the Scope Register in the same three-ring binder on site that contains the Risk Register, contract, and contract modifications, RFP and RFP Amendments. The key is continual project team scope awareness. Many Project Managers provide a hardcopy of the project work plan and schedule on site, but these documents do not include the important contract scope details that need to be understood by the Construction Manager or Superintendent, Technical Task Leaders, and Project QC
188 Chapter 7 Manager. A project work plan does not accurately represent project scope. The Scope Register provides a convenient 2-min reference tool to flag tasks and quantity increases that are “in-scope but not in estimate (unbudgeted)”. Thus, project team members can provide prompt notification to the Project Manager. Without the Scope Register, project team members may have difficulty recognizing when they are performing and inspecting out-of-scope work. They are not going to dig into a voluminous detailed estimate for routine checks.
Scope Variance Communication Log Most Project Managers and teams use a traditional “Field Change Log” to document and track the contractual status of field changes. Unfortunately, “Field Change Log” is commonly perceived by Project Managers as a tracking tool to react to field changes and track status, rather than a broader scope monitoring tool to identify and track potential and actual scope adjustments. The Field Change Log does not serve the essential broader purpose of a “Scope Adjustment Radar Screen”. A Program or Project Manager might counter, “I’ll just apply the scope variance communication process to the existing Field Change Log”. The Field Change Log title will reinforce the traditional Project Manager habits for reacting to field changes. Many experienced and self-assured Project Managers will proclaim, “I know how to manage a Field Change Log” and be resistant to broaden their perspective. The Scope Variance Communication Log also helps a Program Manager and Contractor Project Managers stay abreast of potential scope that will not be needed based on site data discoveries during the project. Government RPMs will rarely issue a contract modification to de-obligate the amount; instead they will usually identify new scope. In some cases, the unneeded scope and associated funding amount might be substantial and exceed 100K USD. Unused scope and funds are perceived by Government RPMs “low-hanging fruit”. This amount could help the Government RPM accomplish other scope that was not envisioned, but emerged during the project. Again, some Contractor Program Managers might say, “Too bad – that’s our additional profit and the fixed-price contract rules are in our favour”. The temptation can be significant, especially if a different project might be projected to miss the targeted profit margin. If the Contractor exercises their contractual right to book the substantial profit they will likely never win another contract from this Client RPM. At a minimum, the critical trust factor in the Contractor Project Manager–Government RPM relationship will be dissolved. The Government RPM will feel victimized and likely share his negative experience with other Government RPMs. On the other hand, what about the Government RPM who wants to utilize every last penny from the unused scope to accomplish new scope, in addition to the squeezing the Contractor Project Manager for incremental scope growth on various work elements? Contractor Program
Implement Rigorous Scope Management Tools
189
Managers fear this scenario. The scope dealings must be equitable. The Government RPM and Contract Specialist cannot have it both ways. The Government Contract Specialist who seeks to achieve recognition by squeezing the Contractor tries to interpret vague scope in their favour and have it both ways. Beware of the Contract Specialist who acts this way. The initial Scope Variance Communication Log is generated from the above described Scope Register spreadsheet. While the Scope Register might be a two-to-three page spreadsheet, the Scope Variance Communication Log might initially be a single page spreadsheet. It contains the scope items that are most likely to be adjusted (exceeded, changed, or not needed) during the project. Spreadsheet Task rows can utilize screening criteria and be colour-shaded as high risk/red, medium risk/orange, and low risk/yellow. For example, during proposal development, the “Base-wide Risk Register” noted “Client work plan approval delays” with a notes field stating that typical client work plan review cycles including regulatory reviews were taking 4–6 months, and never 13 weeks. To keep your price competitive and meet the required schedule, you submitted a conforming proposal (i.e. submitted a proposal based on an RFP-required 9-week work plan development phase, even though this was highly unrealistic based on historical experience at the location). Work plan task was also shaded “high risk/red” in Scope Register. Export each Project Risk Register line item and each Scope Register high risk/red and medium risk/orange task line item to your Scope Variance Communication Log. In this case, the unrealistic project work plan development task would be one of several red rows on the Scope Register that is moved directly to the baseline Scope Variance Communication Log. On Day #1 after contract award, the Scope Variance Communication Log contains scope items that are most likely to be exceeded, changed, or not needed during the project. The Scope Variance Communication Log also tracks the written communications, including e-mail, that relate to the item. The second aspect of the Scope Variance Communication Log involves the status of contractual actions between the Contractor and Government Contracts Specialist in response to the scope issue. The intent is not to “nickel and dime” and irritate the Government RPM for every potential scope change, and argue for a contract modification each time a scope change takes place. The intent is to document and maintain continual control and visibility of potential and actual project scope adjustments. The Scope Variance Communication Log can be viewed as a practical tool to anticipate and effectively manage the inevitable scope adjustments that arise on every environmental remediation project. At the end of the project, the Government RPM is “very satisfied” if she received optimum value and project objectives for the contract funds. The Contractor Program and Project Manager typically have lower standards for being very satisfied: achieving the stated project objectives and targeted profit margin. In the final analysis (e.g. Contractor Performance
190 Chapter 7
Figure 7.4 Scope variance communication log.
Evaluation), the Government RPM optimum value perception will rarely represent execution of the original scope that was envisioned and defined when the RFP was being fast-tracked through the Government contracts organization. They know that, but RFPs will continue be written as if everything will go as planned. Contract options for additional tasks provide an additional buffer for scope adjustments. If RFP contract options exist, the dollars represented by those options will serve the dual purpose of cost contingency for the inevitable scope adjustments that will be necessary (Figure 7.4).
Contract Scope Mutual Understanding Meeting Most projects have a Project Kickoff Meeting after contract award. Shortly thereafter, the hypothetical case study shows how quickly the Government RPM attention can be diverted from contract scope details. These scope details should not be discussed in the project kickoff meeting with the large client and Contractor audience. Instead, the Project Manager should have a follow-up one-on-one Contract Scope Mutual Understanding Meeting with the Government RPM to discuss the Scope Variance Communication Log. As mentioned before, the Project Manager will avoid giving the impression that her objective is to maximize change orders on the project. Her objective is to set the stage that she is committed to making sure the Government RPM gets the most value over the course of the project, and conveying she will be receptive to discussing possible scope adjustments in a proactive way with the client. This includes noting scope items that might be unrealistic based on past experience. The Project Manager can discuss these concerns with the Government RPM, and look for ways to improve the process. This meeting sends a message to the Government RPM that rigorous scope monitoring and documented contractual communications will be the norm.
Implement Rigorous Scope Management Tools
191
Key Takeaway Points: Flexible Project Scope Management 1. Bid the RFP scope and nothing more. Avoid reading between the lines to add more scope, schedule, and budget. Otherwise, you may be disqualified, too expensive, and lose. 2. Submit your proposal and estimate with scope-defining details that clearly define the scope being offered including assumptions. 3. Develop and utilize a Base-wide Risk Register to anticipate scope growth items and support project-specific Risk Register development and maintenance. 4. Do not limit your project Risk Register to prioritizing risks and applying cost contingency; it can also become a competitive advantage tool if your Project Manager and technical team take the time to perform cause analysis (refer to Chapter 9) and convey a logical understanding of risks and solutions in the technical approach. 5. Generate a two-to-three page Scope Register from the detailed estimate spreadsheet. The Scope Register “Notes” are taken directly from RFP requirements. Notes include the basis of Contractor estimate for each task including productivity assumptions required to accomplish each task on schedule and within budget. Use task colour-shading to highlight priority or importance. The Scope Register enables project team members to quickly recognize and report out-of-scope work, including the common “in scope – but not in estimate” category tasks and quantities. 6. Generate a Scope Variance Communication Log (instead of a Field Change Log) featuring scope items that are most likely to be adjusted (exceeded, changed, or not needed) during the project. This is the scope adjustment communication and status-tracking tool. Use task colour-shading to highlight priority or importance. 7. After the project kickoff meeting, the Contractor Project Manager must have a private “Scope Mutual Understanding Meeting” with the Government RPM to discuss the awarded contract scope and Scope Variance Communication Log. This meeting includes reaching agreement on a weekly communication plan for proactively managing scope during the project and complying with contract requirements for making scope adjustments. 8. Establish and maintain project team scope awareness. The Contractor Project Manager must establish and maintain heightened project team scope awareness by placing all contract documents into three-ring binder(s) in the site trailer. Documents include the Scope Register (on top), Risk Register, contract, and contract modifications, RFP and RFP Amendments, proposal, and awarded contract. The project work plan is not sufficient, and, frankly, inadequate to enable the project team to maintain scope awareness. Note: The Project Manager maintains the Scope Variance Communication Log, which does not need to be at the site trailer. 9. During project execution, the Project Manager must continually communicate with their Program Manager regarding potential scope concerns and the status of scope actions reflected on the Scope Variance Communication Log.
192 Chapter 7 10. The Program Manager and Project Manager must conduct all scope-related communications in writing with the Government Contract Specialist. Early notifications and recommended options are critical. No surprises. Never submit contract letters and RFIs that cite out-of-scope work, scope changes, errors, or concerns without including options (potential solutions) that have been pre-screened by the Government RPM. Avoid submitting late requests for additional funds based on Government RPM scope actions or delays that took place several weeks prior to the written request. This gives the appearance that you ran out of budget and want to place blame on the Government RPM. 11. All scope-related e-mail correspondence with the Government Contract Specialist (incoming e-mails and outgoing e-mails) that include notification letters (e.g. notification of changes), RFIs, RFPs, proposals, client letters of technical direction, field work variances, etc., shall be posted to the Project website “Project Correspondence Log” and include the e-mail file (e.g. Microsoft Outlook file in .msg format). 12. In the event a scope problem becomes exposed in a Contractor internal project review (i.e. late detection), the Project Manager should perform a cause analysis that includes a factbased timeline based on e-mail evidence, cause analysis, researching the scope, and recommended actions for client consideration.
Why are Government ER Service Providers Using These Fixed-Price, Performance-Based Multiple Award Contracts (PB-MACs) on Poorly Defined ER Scopes? Some of you might be thinking: “What you are describing in this project scope management chapter amounts to tools and processes to help the Government RPMs play a shell game, with the shells being chunks of scope . . . why are Government ER Service Providers using fixed-price contracts instead of cost-reimbursable contracts? It is obvious the dynamic projects you are describing should not be fixed-price contracts”.
Using fixed-price contracts to manage poorly defined scopes runs counter to business academia, procurement contracting guidelines, industry wisdom, and government acquisition literature in the public domain. Then why is this happening? Why are most Government ER Service Providers reluctant to use cost-reimbursable contracts? The main reason is the political perception of cost-plus contracts in certain countries including the United States. Many governments and client organizations perceive that Contractors view cost-reimbursable contracts like a “blank cheque” because all risks associated with uncertainty, lack of technology effectiveness, and lack of Contractor productivity are shifted to the Government. Consequently, “cost-plus” contracts are not “politically correct” and become easy targets for government accounting audits that seek to uncover any evidence of contract waste, fraud, and abuse. The typical political argument waged by
Implement Rigorous Scope Management Tools
193
cost-reimbursable contract critics goes something like this: “Government agencies and public taxpayers accept the cost overrun risk, which does not motivate Contractors, and then they (Contractors) are often given financial incentives in addition to being fully reimbursed for costs”. The first wave of the U.S. Environmental ER contracts were conducted in the late 1980s and 1990s using mostly cost-reimbursable plus award-fee contracts. In many cases, Government RPMs received “reasonable value” on these projects. Early study contracts tended to produce “gold-plated” documents, reports, and detailed technical packages for cleanup. The award-fee incentive (“carrot”) motivated ER cleanup Contractors to maximize “remedies in place” within the least amount time. On the downside, some Contractors may have over-resourced some projects in an ongoing effort to maximize remedies-in-place and resource utilization (e.g. expensive remediation equipment and labour staying on a project too long). Above every large cost-reimbursable ER contract is a high-placed Contractor accountant who attempts to figure out how to maximize profit on the programme and projects. Project Managers are constantly battling with these high-placed accountants that act like the Government Contract Specialists who want it both ways on scope negotiations. The top level of each ER Contractor contains financial accountants, technology-savvy risk experts, and attorneys. They are risk-adverse professionals who are expected to keep the Company out of trouble. For example, a particular individual is light on work. So a request is made to the Project Manager: “Our groundwater modelling PhD is light on work; can you find something on the project to assign to this individual?” The Client RPM gets the invoice and wonders, “Who is (name) and what did this person do on the project?” An expensive piece of equipment is utilized on a full-scale Soil Vapour Extraction System for many months beyond the point that data demonstrate it should be downsized or removed (the Contractor is searching for a new project home for the equipment). Some Contractor ER project teams in the late 1990s were narrowly focused on executing the scope as if everything would work as envisioned, and then many acted surprised when that was not the case and their award-fee amounts were downgraded.
Award Fee Is Not a Project Team Motivator In recent years, the impact of award fee as a project team motivator has been diminished. The primary motivator that drives many Contractor project teams is the prospect of earning repeat projects due to outstanding performance. It is not the short-term financial gain of a cost-reimbursable contract. It is not maximizing the project award fee. It is not just winning the first project. Instead, it is winning the second, third, fourth, and so on. Senior management expects a high award fee. The Contractor Project Manager stands a better chance of being
194 Chapter 7 recognized for not meeting the high award-fee target than achieving a few award-fee percentage points above the target. A typical Contractor award-fee target ranging from 92% to 95% is commonly factored into Contractor financial forecast. This is not based on any official survey, just dialogue among Contractors over the years. The Government rarely awards 100% because there is always room for improvement. When you examine scope-related aspects of these popular contract types for environmental cleanup projects, the following definition clarifications come to mind: Cost-reimbursable contracts: the client accepts the risk of cost overruns due to scope changes and growth. Fixed-price performance-based contracts: the Contractor accepts the risk of cost overruns that can result when the client continually adjusts a poorly defined scope. The latter definition is why Chapter 9 places a major emphasis on risk analysis, and ER Contractors need more rigourous scope management tools. Contractor project teams should anticipate continual scope adjustments and recognize they are inevitable for delivering best value and client satisfaction. In the absence of scope management tools, chaos is inevitable. A contemporary example of cost-plus award-fee politics and criticism can be read in the report released by the U.S. EPA Office of Inspector General, EPA Should Further Limit Use of Cost-Plus-Award-Fee Contracts, Report No. 08-P-0093 (26 February 2008). The report adds a Noteworthy Achievement on Page 2: “In lieu of Cost-Plus Award-Fee contracts, EPA in some instances has begun using performance-based contracts and competition to motivate Contractor performance. Many Performance Evaluation Board (PEB) members believe competition and the anticipation of future work are better motivators than award fees” The most valuable attribute on a Project Manager resume is her or his track record for winning follow-up work with a particular client, not how much profit or award fee a Project Manager made on an individual project. Sustainable client relationships and follow-on projects means the Project Manager established trust with the client Project Manager and built a sustainable top performing team that was recognized and valued by the client.
Base Tenant Clients Tend to Be Naı¨ve with Project Scope Government RPMs commonly provide services to Base tenant client organization, such as a military installation. They have a very simplistic view of environmental cleanup. They would much rather be spending the money in another way, so they just seek to minimize their expenditure. You may periodically encounter a Base tenant client that expects your client Project Manager to tell them before the project starts, “How much is it going to cost – what is the
Implement Rigorous Scope Management Tools
195
price tag for site closure?” These clients will cling to the first price they get, and then get upset when they are confronted with a price increase regardless of the circumstances. It can be as obvious as, “The price increase is caused by the effort required to address undisclosed buried drums of munitions debris, or to characterize, package, and transport asbestos waste (undisclosed in RFP) to a permitted facility”. They intend to hold the Contractor accountable to the initial price tag. It does not matter what gets discovered during the project. From their simplistic viewpoint, “contamination is contamination”. All clients have a certain annual budget that they divide among many sites based on priority. They try to hold each Government RPM accountable to achieving specific site cleanup milestones that can be accomplished for the incremental funding amount. That is one possible reason that explains why clients do not want change orders that increase the price. They too have limited contingency dollars. When they develop a draft scope for a site, the scope is driven by the following thinking: “We have X number of dollars for site X for the next budget cycle. What tangible results (e.g. protectiveness) and cleanup milestones (e.g. Response Complete) can we achieve for the funding amount, which will get us closer to our unrestricted site release cleanup objective?” One of my college friends was a former Government RPM dedicated to an active military installation in the desert. A few years ago we were golfing and he told me the story about how his innovative bioremediation cell was featured on the front page of the installation newsletter. He underestimated the positive recognition he received. The next week he made a trip to the installation. While driving by the bioremediation cell, which had the configuration of a racquetball court containing a bed of soil and irrigation system, he noticed a government pick-up truck was unloading some red garbage bags. Upon closer examination, the bioremediation cell was full of a variety of hazardous waste items that were tossed into the cell. The innovative bioremediation cell resembled an overflowing hazardous waste receptacle. Apparently, the installation newsletter article was so impressive that some military staff assumed this convenient onsite bioremediation cell could miraculously render any hazardous waste item inert in a matter of time. Perhaps they assumed a magical ingredient came out of the sprinkler system?
The Critical Importance of Timely Notification in Response to Problems One main difference between ER project problems compared with other industries is the time-critical nature and specific reporting requirements. Recall Chapter 4. The most important feature on the home page is the “Project Correspondence Log”, which memorializes the contractual information exchanges over time between the Contractor and Government. It includes Government-required reporting, deliverables, non-conformances, scope change
196 Chapter 7 letters, etc. The Project Correspondence Log is the master project timeline that tracks issues and attaches actual e-mail files that show who was notified, when, and the information provided.
Role of the Field Work Variance How does a Contractor project team achieve control when some requirement details within the contract scope are not defined? How can a Contractor Project Manager and QC staff deal with this “in scope but not in estimate” grey zone that emerges on most projects without delaying the project? The wrong ways: • • • • • •
Just do the work without any documentation. Say “yes” to the Government RPM request before you research your work plan, scope, proposal, estimate, WBS, and budgets. Do the work based on e-mails and verbal Government RPM request. Constantly revise and amend the project work plan. Write non-conformance reports and do the work. Do not bother to seek advice from your Program Manager and Contracts Manager.
The right ways: •
• •
• •
•
•
Know and constantly review your project work plan, contract, schedule, scope control tools (i.e. Scope Register, Scope Variance Communication Log), Risk Register, and financial report trends. Reinforce this information with your project team and make scope information available at the project site. Upon identifying or receiving the client request for possible “out-of-scope” work, Project Manager must avoid impulse responses that might be perceived as confrontational (i.e. that is out of scope!) Convey an attitude of teamwork and cooperation without committing to “Yes” (buy some time by saying you want to review the work plan) Document issue and submit Field Work Variances (FWVs) or Request for Information (RFIs), whichever has been established as the standard programme practice, to the Government Contracts Specialist in a timely manner. Always obtain written Government contractual concurrence or technical direction on tasks that are no longer needed and will be “de-scoped” in a subsequent no-cost contract modification. Maintain Field Work Variances (FWVs) Status Log, or Request for Information (RFIs) Status Log to track these important communications
Implement Rigorous Scope Management Tools • •
197
Maintain Field Work Variances (FWVs) Status Log and/or Request for Information (RFIs) records Write letter to client RPM and Contracts Manager requesting an RFP for a contract modification for significant scope changes.
Field Work Variance Process ER project work plans are commonly written without complete data, information, and knowledge. Project work plans are written in a manner that enables flexibility within the technical approach because many requirements are unknown and unknowable. The project work plan does not, and should not, be prescriptive with all requirement details. Thus, Contractors and project teams need an additional process called a “Field Work Variance” to document and control actions taken that are not described in the work plan. Note: No action should be taken on out-of-scope work without written authorization from the Client Contracts Manager (if it is not important to get paid, then go ahead and do it). It is not practical and feasible to revise and resubmit the project work plan for the inevitable refinements to the technical approach and requirement clarifications. Here is a practical way to view the important role of the Field Work Variance. If your team had a “crystal ball” when developing the project work plan, including the sampling and analysis plan, would you include these requirement details? If the answer is “Yes”, then use a Field Work Variance. Here is another question: If the regulatory agency representative examines your project work plan while reviewing your final report (to determine if your field work complied with your work plan commitments), will they observe any disconnects or inconsistencies that might cause the regulatory agency to ask “Why?” If “Yes”, document a field work variance. If the regulatory agency questions the action or the Government Service Provider assigns a new Government RPM or Contract Specialist to your project, the Contractor has a record (Field Work Variance) that memorialized the important details, rationale, and approvals. Without a Field Work Variance, the Contractor is scrambling to track down various e-mails in order to reconstruct the situation. A strong case can be made that Field Work Variance records are more important and relevant to meeting project objectives, such as obtaining site closure, than Non-conformance Report records. Field Work Variance: actions taken that are not described in the project work plan, either because the requirements were unknown or the action is justified based on new data or information. A Field Work Variance process helps project teams avoid delays. The Project Manager discusses the issue with the Government RPM, uses the Field Work Variance process to document the issue, cite new/clarified requirements, describe causes, actions taken, and approvals. Field Work Variances should be maintained and controlled with the Project
198 Chapter 7 Work Plan, and are essential records to writing the final report. They are commonly used to support clarifications to the sampling and analysis plan. Do not revise and resubmit project work plans unless required by the client. Instead, persuade the Government RPM to consider and allow the team to use Field Work Variance forms. Each Field Work Variance should be viewed by the Project Manager as a “red flag” that triggers a prompt review of the Scope Register, work plan, contract, WBS, and budget. These might be “in scope/unbudgeted task items”. Contractor Project Managers must be constantly sensitive to potential changes in contract scope and quickly recognize when a casual Government RPM verbal request and field work variance represents a potential or actual scope change. For example, in addition to the scoped sampling and analysis, the regulatory agency representative persuaded the Government RPM to test the soil for pesticides because pesticide contamination appeared at a nearby site. This was not in your scope or budget. Your Government RPM replies, “Since we won’t be needing 10 of the 50 requested soil samples, I want you to use the available budget to take 10 samples and have them analyzed for pesticides”. In other words, the Government RPM might act like the decision to take pesticide samples is (1) “in scope”, and (2) a 1:1 trade-off with no-cost impacts. Then you discover the pesticide samples will be more expensive to analyze. They do not consider the cost to open and execute the procurement, the cost to document the field work variance, the cost to analyze the new data, etc. Your Field Work Variance form and process should include a Program Manager review. Expect your Program Manager to scrutinize each Field Work Variance as a scope change unless proven otherwise. Your Program Manager will review the Field Work Variance and ask questions related to scope, cost, budget, and schedule. For example, if this task is in scope then why is it unbudgeted? What is the estimated level of effort and cost? If the task was not budgeted, how are you going to charge the task because the money has to come from somewhere? Are you going to hit contingency? Does this task have the potential to grow? If so, how much can it grow? Is there any schedule impact? If so, how many days? There is a popular Greek mythology expression that seems to thrive on environmental remediation projects: “Are we going to open Pandora’s Box?” Government RPMs probably use this expression more than Contractors, because they deal directly with regulatory agencies. Government Service Provider legal organizations maintain standard “ARARs Text” for each installation and are very careful to avoid setting new legal precedents that pave the way for future regulatory agency ratcheting across all sites on the installation. Pandora’s Box: A source of many unforeseen troubles. Example: Regulatory agency representative says, “I want you to also test the groundwater for perchlorate contamination because a rocket fuel plant was operating 150 km to the north next to the big river that runs by your site – and, by the way, we expect you use the new analytical method that can detect perchlorate at four parts per billion”.
Implement Rigorous Scope Management Tools
199
The cousin to the Pandora’s Box expression is called the “Ripple effect”. Ripple effect: The high likelihood that the casual client request for one seemingly little thing (e.g. scope) will have unforeseen cost impacts on many other things (tasks). Example: Revise sampling and analysis plan to address perchlorate sampling. Resolve client review comments. Procure an analytical lab, etc. Your Program Manager may require writing a letter to the Government Contracts Specialist, even if he shares the view of the field work variance being in scope. While the client RPM may discourage the Project Manager to write a letter, the Program Manager can be “the bad guy” who requires the letter. If in doubt, the wise Program Manager will always default to writing a courtesy letter to the Government Contracts Specialist to document the issue. It is prudent to “go on record” with a courtesy notification.
Request for Information Another popular scope management practice on U.S. Government contracts is the Request for Information (RFI) process, which is popular on many construction contracts. Figure 7.5 is a sample RFI form. If the Government contract requires an RFI process, it should be described in the Contractor’s Project QC Plan. The Contractor should also
Figure 7.5 A sample RFI form.
200 Chapter 7 develop and include a contract-compliant RFI procedure in the Program QC Plan. The RFI process provides Contractors with a procedure for reporting out-of-scope work and/or requesting Government clarification to erroneous or inadequate contract information (erroneous site information, inaccurate as-built drawings, map errors, etc.) that conflict with observed field conditions. For example, the Contractor might be tasked with an excavation and encounter utility or subsurface building obstructions that are not shown on the Government-furnished drawings. The Contractor stops to assess the situation. They will create an RFI to document (1) information requested from the Government (e.g. corrected drawing); (2) date requested; (3) Contractors recommendation; (4) estimated cost and schedule impacts; and (5) attachments such as marked up drawings and photos. The Contractor may need the Government RPM to engage the base civil engineering or facilities maintenance organization to resolve the issue in order for remediation work to continue. If the Contractor considers the RFI issue to be a changed condition (i.e. out of scope), they should note this on the RFI and write a separate letter to the Government Contract Specialist in accordance with contract provisions. The Government Contract Specialist will issue an RFP if she agrees. The Government values a clear definition of the problem, options including costs and schedule impacts, and the option recommended by the Contractor including the justification. The Contractor proceeds at risk if they decide to implement their “recommended option” based on verbal feedback from the Government RPM rather than the Government Contract Specialist. Each Government Service Provider has their preferred version of the RFI process. Some have their own RFI form. Others, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, have a web-based approach. Contractors track RFI status using an RFI Log, which may be on a Governmentfurnished form.
Managing Scope on Government Cost-Reimbursable Contracts for Environmental Remediation Services One reason Cost-Reimbursable ER Contracts are being phased out is the lack of perceived financial risk and consequences for Contractor project teams.
Hypothetical Case Study: The Production-Driven Contractor Here is a hypothetical case study of a production-driven ER Contractor who won a contract to remove 89 underground storage tanks at a military base. The prolific “production-driven mentality” of this particular environmental remediation Contractor project team was not
Implement Rigorous Scope Management Tools
201
representative of all projects within the company, but it was fairly common among some of them. Before proceeding with this story, consider the following. Many of the encountered problems on the hypothetical project to be described represent the predictable problems that will arise in any country that has recently embarked on their national environmental cleanup programme. Why? Because Contractors want to get paid as soon as possible. A common set of underlying condition causes exist among production-driven Contractors on ER projects. Contractor payments, based on the contract payment schedule, are usually linked with physical % complete (progress). Many companies are publicly traded. They forecast earnings per share for the upcoming quarter based on the roll-up from several Project Managers. Contractor invoices for project work plan development are relatively small dollar amounts compared to the invoices during remedial action field construction. When the schedule slips for developing the project work plan and obtaining the required approvals, the Project Manager contributes less than his estimated quarterly earnings to corporate. His financial forecast assumed he would be in the field and invoicing larger currency amounts for remedial action construction. Consequently, upon contract award, many Contractor project teams are in a rush to get the work plan approved so they can get to the field and submit larger invoices in order to meet their revenue targets. The Contractor financial underperformance cause chain, working backwards from the problem statement: Contractor missed quarterly earnings per share estimate > lack of revenue > multiple causes (including specific projects had cost overruns and specific projects did not invoice per their financial forecast) > multiple causes (including project delayed getting to field) > delay getting project work plans approved by client and regulatory agency > multiple causes (including excessive review comments). That is why many Project Managers and teams feel pressure to rush the work plan and get to the field. Moving on to the hypothetical case study involving a production-driven Contractor project team, embellished to emphasize the common pitfalls and lessons learned. Setting: The first weekly project meeting on site. The Government QA representative walked in the site trailer at exactly 0900 with a large three-ring binder. The Contractor team (PM, Site Superintendent, Foremen, QC Manager, Site Safety and Health Officer) just stared at the binder as the Government QA Rep entered the site trailer. The reaction was classic – like a policeman walking through the door. Except, in this case, they were not staring at the policeman – they were all simultaneously gazing at the three-ring binder. The PM asked, “So Mr. (Government QA Rep), what is that thick three-ring binder in your hand? The Government QA Rep responded, “It is your recently approved Project Work Plan, which slowly I read, cover-to-cover”. The response confirmed the worst fears of the team. As he held up the binder, it looked like an entire pad of yellow-stickies were used to flag
202 Chapter 7 the most important requirements on every single page. This dramatic yellow-sticky visual escalated the level of anxiety among the Contractor staff. Why? Because not a single person, with the possible exception of the QC Manager, took the time to study it. After all, the recently hired junior engineer in the smallest office cubicle wrote it. From the perspective of the macho Superintendent, getting the Project Work Plan approved was just a speed bump to “getting out to the field to get the real work done”. As the Superintendent described the general field work that was planned for the coming week, the Government QA Rep periodically interrupted the Superintendent to quiz everyone on relevant project work plan requirements. Each time the Government QA Rep asked a question, everyone just looked at him with a blank stare. Finally, the PM politely asked the Government QA Rep why he was quizzing them with detailed work plan questions. He said, “I spent many hours reading, reviewing, and commenting on your Project Work Plan . . . I just want to make sure you follow it . . . and so far I’m not convinced your team is committed to complying with work plan requirements”. The PM asked why he seemed to be taking things to the extreme by quizzing the team. He countered that “A similar project at another location spent millions of dollars removing USTs, but then had trouble obtaining regulatory agency site closure on a single UST because the Contractor was in a hurry and had various deviations from the project work plan, ranging from forgetting to take certain soil samples, to not having the proper records. The Contractor was focused on getting the job done quickly within the budget, and claimed the sites were all clean (the sites “looked” fully restored). Now everyone realizes they missed some very important project work plan details”. The Contractor PM and Superintendent looked the Government QA rep in the eye, and with genuine sincerity said they would make sure they followed the work plan. However, not soon after field work started they shifted their primary focus to maximizing field production. Did the PM, Superintendent, and project team heed the warning expressed by the Government QA Rep? They expressed concern, and certainly had genuine good intentions to adhere to work plan requirements. But then field work started and the work plan sat on the book shelf in the trailer. The Superintendent boasted to the QC Manager “I’ve yanked over 500 tanks in my career and I don’t need no *expletive* work plan” and began excavating USTs in the three different locations. Field-sampling technicians, who were required to take samples of the excavations, were viewed as obstacles to production because the construction crews had to stop and wait for them to collect their samples. Field sample technicians were criticized for moving slower and paying attention to details even though data were necessary to achieving site closure. The construction crew attitude was, “Anyone can take a *expletive* sample”. Field-sampling technicians would be reprimanded if they were a few minutes late arriving to the excavation. The Superintendent and Foremen responsible for each crew failed to understand and
Implement Rigorous Scope Management Tools
203
appreciate the role of data on the project. The client QA rep also inspected the project more frequently due to lack of confidence. After a few hard-charging months the Project Manager realized they were rapidly running out of budget. In some cases, crews excavated and did not find the UST. On other excavations they ruptured water lines because they did not pay close attention to the drawings prior to starting excavation. The temporary shutdown of water lines inconvenienced the local housing tenants. The work crews who ruptured water lines often struggled to locate the valves to shut down water flow and make repairs. They failed to plan for the possibility of water line ruptures before each excavation. For example, they did not study the drawings to confirm and mark out water shut off valves. These were the types of daily crises that emerged with this production-driven Contractor project team. QC inspections and non-conformances, such as ruptured water lines, are speed bumps that get fixed so production can continue. Step 1: Problem identified; Step 2: Just fix it (Corrective Action); Step 3: Get your *expletive* back to work. To make matters worse, they encountered and executed some out-of-scope conditions, such as adjacent building obstructions, without realizing they were out of scope (until several weeks later when they searched for excuses for why they ran out of money). This revealed another common source of client concern: Contractors who provide late notification for running out of money, and then write a long, detailed letter with an attached spreadsheet, trying to make a case that various client-requested out-of-scope work (previously undocumented) had to be done, which contributed to exhausting the budget. By the way, this particular problem will usually get the Contractor promoted to the client blacklist (list of Contractors who will never get repeat business). This story gets progressively dismal. The Project Manager realized he lacked budget to complete the 89 USTs project. He faced the prospect of having several open excavations and not enough budget to backfill all the existing open excavations (PM feared client might take a hard line and say, “Sorry PM, the extra money will not be available for weeks, or, even worse, no more money”). This scenario was especially troubling, because, predictably, the Government Project Manager asked, “How many USTs can you “close” with the current budget . . . You obviously cannot close all 89, but calculate and tell me how many USTs you can backfill, restore, report, and close – just in case I cannot secure an immediate source for additional funds”. UST site closure includes site restoration and closure reports approved by the regulatory agency. The Government RPM had to ask for information that he thought would be obvious if the Contractor Project Manager was capable of thinking like a consultant. The Project Manager quickly developed a cost-to-complete and new estimate-at-completion that was about 450K USD above the budget, and verbally passed this information to the distressed Client RPM, who, in turn, floated the price tag to his Manager. The Manager was
204 Chapter 7 very upset with his RPM for surprising him (this showed a lack of control over the Contractor). As the Government RPM was getting reprimanded for reporting the new inflated price tag up his chain-of-command, the Contractor Project Manager and estimator sharpened their pencil and came up with the final cost-to-complete figure of about 850K USD (a huge increase that stunned the Government). At this point, the Government RPM lost confidence in the Project Manager, agreeing with his superiors who believed the Project Manager lost control of the project. Rather than firing the Contractor, the Government RPM requested the Contractor Program Manager to conduct a root cause analysis to determine the causes of the cost overrun and recovery plan. The Project Manager who assisted with the root cause analysis stayed involved as lead Project Manager to assist the Project Manager with recovery plan implementation. A recovery plan based on solutions to causes was implemented. A fewer number of USTs were closed, but the remaining work was performed in a controlled manner and not plagued by surprises. What are the classic early warning signs of a production-driven Contractor project team that will repeat this type of chaos? When the ER Contractor culture values getting the project done as quickly as possible, the first clue is the project work plan being viewed as a hurdle to mobilizing to the field. The work plan is merely the first in a series of speed bumps. The Contractor may even forget to change the project details in the work plan footer, and the name of a different Contractor may appear throughout the text. The technical approach contains many gaps in logic, as if the Contractor has not “thought through” the process. These production-driven Contractors rush through document authorship thinking, “If we write it quickly and we get three to five pages of work plan review comments, we’ll still decrease our overall effort because we’ll just revise what they tell us to revise, and then we will have an approved work plan”. The wise Government RPM will be able to anticipate what comes next: project team in a hurry; various undocumented deviations from project work plan and procedures; consistent analytical data plagued by sprinklings of wacky analytical data that were not readily detected and questioned, therefore, must be explained in the final report; and a sloppy final report that cannot be submitted to a regulatory agency without substantial revision. Or worse, when clarified, the final report reveals major Contractor omissions that jeopardize the case for site closure, such as “it appears the Contractor forgot to take certain samples”. Here is another tell-tale warning sign of a production-driven Contractor: The final report assignment is not started until after the project de-mobilizes. The final report authorship task is assigned to junior professional who was not on site during the project. He may be a recent college graduate. The Superintendent and field staff promptly depart to their next field assignments (to maximize their billing or “utilization”). The unfortunate junior author is given a tote box full of disorganized records and told to write the final report. It is a difficult and thankless job.
Implement Rigorous Scope Management Tools
205
Once the “physical field work” is done, some Superintendents act like the project is done. The Superintendent in no way is accountable for the quality of data and the technical adequacy and completeness of the final report – that is for somebody else to worry about. Result: a poor quality draft final report that requires substantial revision before it can be submitted to the regulatory agency. That is why, after 5 or 10 years of contracting experience, many Government contracts include monetary incentives and disincentives: to counter the common Contractor tendency to emphasize the revenue-generating field work at the expense of the project work plan, adherence to the project work plan, and the final report. Do not be surprised if a Government designs their RFP and contract to link payments and incentives with project work plan and final report approvals. This indicates a wise and experienced Government client. RFPs may provide clues that clients value high quality plans and reports. Competing Contractors should take this as a clue to distinguish their value proposition in the proposal on their process for developing high quality documents, such as the final report draft being completed prior to site demobilization. In my experience, Contractor cultures that drive to maximize production over conformance to work plan requirements (that is the responsibility of the QC Manager) usually backfire on ER projects. Consequently, Government RPMs expend an excessive amount of time and effort to pull the Contractor across the finish line. Government RPMs who are burned by this type of Contractors will steer clear in the future. The Contractor project team may have met their target profit margin, but they are “one and done”.
Misconception: Cost-Reimbursable Contracts Make It Easier to Manage Scope Would the Contractor in the previous case study allow this to happen on a fixed-price contract? Possibly. They are in a hurry to get done. “Effectively managing scope is probably much easier on cost-reimbursable contracts due to less contract administration effort for the Contractor and Government” Not true. Cost-reimbursable contracts require more contract administration effort due the contract clauses that are intended to prevent Contractor waste, fraud, and abuse. Multiple contract clauses apply to managing scope on a cost-reimbursable contract. It is a major challenge to develop and train Project Managers and teams on these processes. Government-published guidelines that describe how to implement these processes on a project, if they existed, would probably exceed 100 pages of text. While Contractor project teams will be reimbursed for cost growth, they do NOT earn award fee on cost and scope growth. Award fee is usually 8–10% of the contract value. Therefore, Contractors who cannot effectively manage scope on a cost-reimbursable contract may forfeit up to 100,000 USD on a 2- to 3-million USD project.
206 Chapter 7 Contractor Project Managers and teams continually evaluate whether work is in-scope or outof-scope on their cost-reimbursable contracts – because the scope is usually vague and poorly defined from the start. Successful Contractor project teams on cost-reimbursable contracts learn to manage the scope and associated contractual communications like a fixed-price contract. Figure 7.6 represents a legally compliant change notification process flow on a U.S. Federal Government cost-reimbursable contract for environmental remediation. It is intended to show the rigorous level of detail commonly required. This process is compliant with the Federal Acquisition Requirements (FAR) clauses in the contract. The three key clauses in this case are Changes – Cost Reimbursement (FAR 52.243-2); Notification of Changes (FAR 52.243-7); and Limitation of Cost (FAR 52.232-20) Note: Chapter 10 will describe how to design user-friendly processes for environmental programmes and project teams. User-friendly processes save time because they are visual and contain no SOP narrative verbiage. In this particular example, the flow chart boxes link to sample letters and letter templates for project teams. The hard-copy version is a booklet with the flow chart on top and sample exhibits for each scenario. It is a visual process tutorial. The details (e.g. FAR Clauses) are available for reference.
Figure 7.6 Sample change notification process flow on a U.S. Federal Government cost reimbursable contract.
CHAPTER 8
Effectively Control Field Work In September, 2010, I attended a root-cause analysis symposium and was intrigued by a presentation from Ms. Elizabeth Lay. Ms. Lay was doing graduate level work in cognitive science, and spoke on the topic of “Using Cognitive Science to Craft Better Critical Incident Messages”. Her problem statement was that critical safety bulletin messages could not be recalled by most employees who read them. Her presentation provided examples to demonstrate why employees are more likely to remember messages based on narratives (short stories) supported by visuals rather than lectures. So I decided to follow the advice from Ms. Lay to launch this chapter. My objective: Situate you in the context of a short narrative, supported by a visual. If I am lucky, you might be able to recall your character role in this story from your memory bank when you encounter similar situations on your project. This story will help you teach your project team how to effectively control field work, which will be described in this chapter. Congratulations. You are the recently promoted Supervisor for a local bakery that has become very popular in the community: Betty’s Country Bakery. Sales for the signature chocolate chip cookie bars are skyrocketing! The demand now exceeds bakery capacity. The local stores are requesting more cookie bars to meet growing customer demand. Your owner, Betty, wants to meet this rising customer demand. Betty assigns you an important project. “QC” is part of your new Supervisor Job Description. Betty wants you to evaluate the option of outsourcing cookie bar baking to Hank’s Bakery down the street. She found out Hank uses the same type of commercial baking ovens. But Betty is still stressed-out. She’s been reading the internet blog posts from other bakery owners. Many say it’s next to impossible to apply an effective quality control process to outsourced baking. There are too many variables that need to be controlled. Betty wants you to determine if Hank’s Bakery can duplicate the cookie bars before she issues a purchase order. Otherwise, she will pull the plug on the idea. The only thing she gives you is the cookie bar recipe (see Figure 8.1). Betty wants you to help Hank implement a quality control process to consistently duplicate her popular cookie bars. She is concerned that most of Hank’s bakery employees, like hers, are not high school graduates. They need a very simplified QC process. She wants a simplified QC plan and procedure that can be given to Hank. This sounds to you like an unrealistic request with a high probability of failure. These bakery environments are fast-paced. Hank’s employees might not be capable of strictly adhering to a procedure. You are weighing two options on your approach.
Best Practices for Environmental Project Teams. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-444-53721-8.00008-7 # 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
207
208 Chapter 8
Figure 8.1 Chocolate Chip Cookie Bars Recipe.
Option 1: Develop Simplified QC Plan Based on a Popular Quality Standard Option 1 is to develop a Simplified QC Plan and procedure for the recipe based on a popular quality standard. You saw a simplified QC element table in a manufacturing magazine article many years ago. You made a photocopy. Since some of the QC elements do not apply, your Simplified QC Plan would just include paragraphs on the applicable elements and sections. Your QC Plan, Table of Contents, would look like this: Management Policy; Quality System; Design (Recipe) Control; Document Control (of Recipe); Purchasing (make sure they implement controls to procure right recipe ingredients); Customer-supplied material (Make sure they protect our proprietary baking sheet from damage); Process Control; Inspection and Testing; Inspection, Measuring, and Test Equipment; Control on Non-conforming Product (defective cookie bars); Corrective Action; Handling, Storage, Packaging, and Delivery; Records; and Training. Then you could write a QC procedure based on the Simplified QC Plan. Your main concern is lack of time. Option 1 might require several hours to develop the Simplified QC Plan and procedure. It might be tricky figuring out how to apply these QC elements and requirements to the task. They are not task-oriented. Furthermore, you already know the results you need to achieve. Your intuition says you need a QC process that is practical, task-oriented, and turnkey to bakery staff.
Option 2: Try Implementing the Three Phases of Control Now you focus your attention on a task-based QC process that you recently read about called, “The three phases of control”, which is used on construction and environmental restoration projects. You decide to roll the dice and choose Option 2. It seems to be more hands-on and requires less time.
Effectively Control Field Work
209
Option 2 allows you to skip the QC plan and procedure, and jump right into implementing the three phases of control based on a draft three-phase QC checklist. You want to discover, standardize, and control the most important process steps that are needed to consistently achieve desired results. Your objective is to collaborate with Betty and Hank to define the three-phase QC checks. You will bake test batches until the results meet Betty’s high expectations. Your project deliverables will be: (1) Batch of cookie bars that meet Betty’s high expectations; and (2) Single-page, colour-laminated, three-phase QC checklist for Hank’s Bakery that is based on proven success. The QC checklist needs to survive the harsh kitchen environment. First, you get together with Betty. You create three-phase control templates for each Definable Feature of Work (DFW): Buy Ingredients; Bake Chocolate Chip Cookie Bars; Package Chocolate Chip Cookie Bars; and Deliver Chocolate Chip Cookie Bars. You start with the DFW template that most concerns Betty: Bake Chocolate Chip Cookie Bars. You brainstorm with Betty for 30 min and complete the template in Figure 8.2. Your template includes “possible issues” (i.e. What can go wrong?) based on her experience baking chocolate chip
Figure 8.2 Example of three phases of control for baking chocolate chip cookie bars.
210 Chapter 8 cookie bars. You will emphasize these concerns during the upcoming Preparatory Meeting with Hank. You arrive at Hank’s Bakery and greet “The Hank”, a no-nonsense gentleman. You show Hank your three-phase QC checklist and he says, “What is this for? Betty e-mailed me a copy of her cookie bar recipe after I signed her Nondisclosure Agreement” You reply, “We’re going to jointly implement the three phases of control. We’re going to help your bakery staff consistently achieve the desired results that our customers expect”. Hank responds, “Well – OK, but we’re ready to get started now and, frankly, I don’t see the value in having another meeting – We’ve baked thousands of cookies and I assure you this will be no problem. The recipe is not rocket science”. You conduct the Preparatory Meeting with the reluctant Hank, and three of the possible issues surface that you previously identified with Betty (refer to Figure 8.2). You get these resolved. Then you jointly conduct the Preparatory (Pre-Bake) Inspection, and, once again, you discover Hank’s staff intended to substitute a key ingredient (Now you are wondering, “Did Hank pay close attention to the recipe?”). By this time, Hank is apologetic. Hank read the recipe. But he assumed Sylvia, his bakery shift supervisor, would read it and would know what to do. After resolving the preparatory phase issues, you start the Initial Phase Inspection. You are observing Sylvia prepare the first batch. Once again, issues arise including some you did not anticipate. Your recipe was not clear regarding how chopped the pecans needed to be. Fortunately, you brought along a sample cookie bar and examined the pecans with Hank and Sylvia. Hank’s underpowered pecan-choppomatic device did not produce the desired characteristic. You express concern that loyal customers would detect the difference. Therefore, one of your employees will bring you some chopped pecans (not a show-stopper). In the interim, Betty can supply the chopped pecans. Everyone tastes the first batch of cookie bars. Uh-Oh. The cookie bar bottoms do not have the right texture. The cookie bar sheet Hank insisted would be fine did not produce the desired results. The next batch must utilize one of Betty’s special cookie sheets that came from Holland. After 3 h of working together and four cookie bar batches, you successfully developed a three-phase QC checklist that enabled Hank’s Bakery to duplicate the cookie bars. The finalized three-phase QC checklist was colour-laser copied, laminated, and delivered to Betty and Hank. Hank and Sylvia gained an appreciation for the three-phase QC process and trained their bakers. More importantly, this experience enlightened Hank regarding the various human actions and procedural conditions (e.g., cookie sheets from Holland) that can cause inconsistent results, and he took steps to implement the three phases of control for his own baked goods.
Effectively Control Field Work
211
Welcome to Environmental Project Work There are remarkable parallels between this cookie bar story and what happens each day with work crews and subcontractors on fast-paced environmental projects. Take one more look at that seemingly simple cookie bar recipe, and then consider what actually happened in Hank’s Bakery. Workers, professionals included, routinely deviate from plans, procedures, and instructions on a daily basis – sometimes unknowingly, sometimes deliberately, and other times out of necessity because original assumptions were erroneous. Nobody is excluded. We all make mistakes. Many cases involve a breakdown in communication with the people performing the work. Some deviations go undetected until someone notices wacky results, or something really bad happens that irritates a customer. Then, negative e-mails spiral up the customer chain-of-command and hurt your reputation. The traditional methods of relying on Project QC plans and wordy standard operating procedures that are disjointed from the process are failing on projects every day. Surgical teams perform surgeries every day; so why is it common for someone on the surgical team to skip a routine step that causes adverse effects such as infections? Subcontractors have good intentions and want to do a good job. They want repeat business. Unfortunately, most subcontractors are fronted by well-intentioned people like Hank and cannot be relied upon to read, understand, and follow a statement of work. This phenomenon is not limited to shops who work on your car. Combine this challenge with the reality that many environmental project tasks have elements of uncertainty. Your work plan and procedures will contain erroneous assumptions regardless of how much time you spend upfront trying to cover every possible scenario. Imagine if you would have elected to follow the Option 1 path? How many hours would you have spent developing a detailed Project QC Plan and procedure? You realize the amount of time required to “just write” would have exceeded the minimal time you invested to obtain a field-proven three-phase QC checklist that enables consistent results. And it is highly unlikely the Option 1 QC deliverables (QC Plan, procedure) could be applied by Hank’s bakery team to the actual process. These detailed documents would just confuse them. Lack of communication and inadequate task supervision are major reasons why many project teams struggle implementing processes to achieve consistent results. Project teams gain little value from a quality management standard and QC plan that are not task-oriented. The consequence is excessive procedural complexity that is not user-friendly to teams and frequently collects dust on the shelf. Each journey to improve process control involves supervisory communication, mentoring, and result-validation to develop employee selfconfidence and competency. By the way, did you notice how your character succeeded in the Bakery Project by anticipating possible issues and “inspecting-quality” into the process? Hank and Sylvia also “inspected-in”
212 Chapter 8 employee mentoring and on-the-job training. Bakery staff benefited from seeing the in-process QC checks, not just reading about them. The three phases of control cuts through the traditional quality-speak verbiage and red-tape. It does not matter if you are baking chocolate chip cookie bars, injecting biological reagents into a complex geologic substrate, or baking soil at 40 C. It is communication-oriented, practical, and saves time. And it works particularly well on field tasks with many variables that can cause undesirable outcomes.
Three phases of control ¼ Three phases of effective supervision Each year I become more enlightened regarding how the power of a single word in a title, phase, or expression can shape human perception. Politicians and advertisers figured this out many decades ago. In this case, the word is “control”. The word “control” has a negative connotation with many people. Control sounds time-consuming. What if the “Three Phases of Control” was renamed “Three Phases of Effective Supervision?” Would it become more appealing to industry? A lot of people want to become an effective supervisor so they can become promotable within their organization. How many of you Project Managers believe the Bakery Project describes your “Dream Supervisor”? You might be impressed with how the Supervisor was able to overcome the “been-there-done-that” resistance by Hank, or how quickly the Supervisor applied a handson process to pave the way for consistent results. Perhaps you recalled a similar experience on your project? For those of you with no contract requirement for a documented QC program: Imagine how much you stand to gain by simply training your Supervisors (task leaders) on how to effectively implement the three phases of effective supervision for project tasks? How long would it take Supervisors to learn how to apply the three-phase QC process? Four hours? Six hours? Imagine your return on investment. Project Managers who lead environmental project teams commonly assign multiple task leaders with supervisory authority and responsibilities (e.g. superintendent, foreman, project engineer, project chemist, project geologist, project geophysicist, UXO Supervisor, etc.). These staff direct and mentor work crews and oversee subcontractors. Many PMs assume their task leaders know how to effectively mentor and supervise workers.
What do my supervisors do? How often do you find yourself asking “What does that Supervisor do – He always looks busy and bills a lot of hours to my project but what does he actually do?” My hunch is that most supervisors plan a daily task list with good intentions. The emerging catchphrase is “daily e-mail whirlwind”, which is likely compounded with random acts of “fire fighting” (not kindness). Reactive Supervisors usually succeed due to the experience of their team members,
Effectively Control Field Work
213
not their Supervisory Prowess. Consequently, reactive supervisors place their company and project team at risk when key people depart. Many reactive supervisors will say they do not have enough time and budget for QC, but they always seem to find the time and budget for time consuming rework.
What is a supervisor according to the Ontario ministry of labour?
Traditionally, “Supervisor” has been a job title given to an experienced and competent individual. This person might not have a clue how to lead, mentor, and monitor a team to achieve consistent results. Globally, I suspect that most Supervisors are given a group of employees (a.k.a., “subordinates”) and results-oriented job description that holds them accountable for team performance and results. Each Supervisor is expected to “figure out” how to help their team achieve consistent results. “Supervisor” might be the most popular performance-based job description in the world. How popular? A few minutes ago I Googled “Supervisor” and got about 56,900,000 results. That is 56 million, 900 thousand.
Break the project scope into tasks Figure 8.2 shows four tasks: 1. 2. 3. 4.
Buy Ingredients Bake Chocolate Chip Cookie Bars Package Chocolate Chip Cookie Bars Deliver Chocolate Chip Cookie Bars
It shows how these tasks relate to the schedule. For the task, “Bake Chocolate Chip Cookie Bars”, the schematic shows Preparatory Meeting (Pre-Bake Meeting); Preparatory Inspection (Pre-Bake Inspection); Initial Inspection (Activity Begins); Follow-Up Inspections (Baking Continuation); Completion Inspection (Nearing Completion). The body of Figure 8.2 shows sample process checks.
214 Chapter 8 U.S. Government quality control standards for construction and environmental restoration, since the early 1990s, have been based on conducting the 3-phases of control for each project “definable feature of work”. These standards are not copyrighted and can be downloaded at no cost from the internet (e.g., Unified Facility Guide Specification (UFGS) 01 45 00.00 20, Quality Control). These standards utilize the term “definable feature of work” instead of task. They define definable feature of work as “a task that is separate and distinct from other tasks and has separate quality control requirements”. The Government requires the Contractor project team to implement the three phases of control for each definable feature of work. The definable features of work concept is easier to apply for building construction. Each construction trade task (e.g., foundation, plumbing, framing, mechanical, electrical, drywall, insulation, landscaping, etc.) is a definable feature of work. Some project managers and environmental professionals who function as project task leaders struggle with the definable features of work concept. For example, some project managers try to correlate the definable features of work with the project work breakdown structure, with the common question being, “How detailed (i.e., WBS level) does the definable feature of work need to be?” Think about the process from planning to completion, the people who are involved, and the end result or deliverable. Consider working backwards from the end result and include any “internal and external customer” who judges acceptable work (e.g., system performance data, lab report) in the process cycle. Consider task risk, complexity, and potential consequences. If the project manager has a lower “WBS activity level” task that has the potential to delay a major task with critical importance, make it a stand-alone definable feature of work and utilize the three phase inspection process. Demand a preparatory telecon meeting to verify task prerequisites have been completed, and evaluate contingency measures. Some project managers admit a sense of QC and safety vulnerability in day-to-day field tasks that are “not directly under the radar”. On the other hand, in some cases such as the cookie bar example, it’s OK to combine tasks into a definable feature of work (e.g., “Package and Deliver Chocolate Chip Cookie Bars”, and/or merge “Buy Ingredients” into “Bake Chocolate Chip Cookie Bars”). A rule for identifying definable features of work does not exist, and should not exist. While Government RPMs and QA Representatives will commonly expect to be invited and involved in the three phase activities, RPMs will not dictate the Contractor selection of definable features of work. They only expect for definable features of work to be listed in the Contractor project QC plan. The educational Figure 8.2 graphic includes a “Completion Inspection” as part of the follow-up phase to make sure all work was completed and end results meet requirements and customer expectations—before you repeat the process many times and realize incorrect material is being installed, your field technician was not properly using a field instrument, or failed to collect data or information necessary to properly complete the task, or (pick your deficiency), etc. The R&D analogy is a “pilot run” to develop a “prototype”. Moreover, it
Effectively Control Field Work
215
might be possible to “reverse engineer” specific process improvements to optimize performance and results. The chart shows the completion inspection timing to be “nearing completion”. For example, the subcontractor should not demobilize prior to the completion inspection. If so, your project might need to pay a costly re-mobilization charge. Figures 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, and 8.6 provide additional environmental project examples. Figure 8.3 – Field Sampling and Analytical Services. This graphic helps dispel the common misconception that the three phases of control does not apply to field sampling and analytical services work, as commonly results when the Government QC specification is called, “Construction Quality Control”. Once again, the power of one word, in this case, “Construction,” can deceive Contractors into thinking the process only applies to “construction tasks”. This particular version was geared to a presentation requested by Mr. Narciso Ancog, Chief Quality Assurance Officer, NAVFAC Southwest, in San Diego, to assist contractors who were periodically subcontracting this work. Mr. Gerald Tamashiro of Trevet, Inc., provided his subcontractor perspective insights into the three-phase checks shown in this graphic. This does not include client-specific “hot buttons”. For example, some
Figure 8.3 Example of three phases of control for field sampling and laboratory services.
216 Chapter 8 clients might want the Chain-of-Custody to be filled out a certain way, or receive an e-mail with the scanned Chain-of-Custody upon receipt at the analytical laboratory. All environmental project teams plan, procure, perform and implement field sampling and analytical laboratory services. Consider obtaining a copy of “Sampling & Analysis of Environmental Chemical Pollutants – A Complete Guide” (2003) by Dr. Emma Popek, my book proposal co-author and valued colleague. Her book provides practical guidelines based on extensive project experience and lessons learned. One of my favorite quotes from Emma is “dismal scope ¼ dismal planning documents and dismal score” (from Government Reviewers who score Contractor SAPs). Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) authorship can sometimes be a frustrating and thankless job. Figure 8.4 – Geophysical Survey. Contractors routinely procure subcontractors such as those who perform geophysical surveys prior to intrusive work. This particular case involved coring through the concrete foundation of an existing building. For subcontracted tasks, the
Figure 8.4 Example of three phases of control for geophysical survey.
Effectively Control Field Work
217
Subcontract Statement of Work and associated drawings are used to develop the three phase inspection plan. Think “Subcontract Scope ¼ Definable Feature of Work”. The Contractor project team task supervisor will simply mark-up the statement of work and associated drawings for discussion with the subcontractor team in the preparatory meeting, preparatory inspections, etc., as shown in the graphic. Figure 8.5 – Pressure Test All Sector A Piping Systems. This graphic shows how the three phases of control can be used to control testing. Testing activities must be planned, controlled, and properly documented. Even though the project schedule may separate the four tasks shown, they could be combined into a single definable feature of work (e.g., Pressure Test all Sector A Piping Systems). Figure 8.6 – Perform Remedial Action System Operation and Maintenance. This graphic describes how to implement the three phases for system O&M. Contractors should not approach O&M in a passive manner, and rely on the Government RPM to provide advice based on contaminant removal data, unforeseen problems, and potential optimization opportunities. Many performance-based contracts include quantified performance standards, and link specific
Figure 8.5 Example of three phases of control for pressure testing all sector A piping systems.
218 Chapter 8
Figure 8.6 Example of three phases of control for performing remedial action system operation and maintenance.
contractor performance items with progress payments, penalties (e.g., short pay), and incentives (e.g., exercise additional contract option years). Consequently, one Contractor oversight due to inadequate control could be used to downgrade Contractor performance. And sometimes the Government RPM will downgrade performance ratings for a problem that had minimal cost and schedule impact on a fixed-price contract (i.e., contractor paid for cost impact). Additionally, your oversight erodes RPM confidence and creates concerns, such as: “If this problem was not recognized, how many other problems have gone undetected?”
Develop, Implement, and Improve Checklists In practice, these educational schematics must be translated into checklist format. Step-by-step process steps should include those needed to capture performance data and results necessary to demonstrate contract performance standards are being met. The checklist
Effectively Control Field Work
219
sequence must track with the actual process sequence and include preparatory, initial, and follow-up phases. It’s tailored to task-specific requirements. A well-designed checklist includes acceptance criteria for the task step and refers to enclosure supplements that provide reference details. Chapter 10 provides guidance for developing user-friendly work packages. Valuable checklist reference details can be kick-off meeting notes, a customer-furnished example of desirable results, SOW excerpts, estimate excerpt, work plan excerpts, schedule, procedure (SOP) excerpts, examples of completed forms or logs, illustrations, annotated photos, marked-up drawings and maps, excerpts from manufacturers’ manual, permits, Safety Activity Hazard Analysis, etc. Ideally, the checklist would be the top page of a three-ring binder, and binder sections would be the supporting information. The image you need to envision in your mind is various enclosures that are photocopied and marked-up with handwritten (“red-line”) notes and highlights (e.g., a collection of “cheat sheets”). Consider stamping each page of binder contents “Uncontrolled” to avoid causing a dispute with QA auditors who enforce document control. You understand that many environmental tasks involve a process of discovery and include inaccurate as-built drawings (if they exist). It’s impractical to go through a formalized document revision each time you discover an important detail in the field that the original content developer could not possibly anticipate. Each task (definable feature of work) has a binder with a standardized cover, spine, checklist on top, and supporting enclosure supplements. As each task leader gains more experience with worker capabilities and site-specific circumstances, they will become less dependent on drilling-down into supporting material. They will routinely use the binder to mentor and supervise the work crew throughout the 3-phase process. Bear in mind the work crew performs “first-tier” QC checks; each task leader provides the second-tier supervisory QC/Safety check within the framework of the three phase process, which should initially have a strong mentoring theme. The project manager and/or project QC manager provide the periodic “third-tier” “independent QA” check to verify the 3-phase process and QC checks are being implemented and consistently achieving the required results. The 3-ring binder helps the task leader avoid wasting time searching for details somewhere on a computer, E-mail Inbox, electronic media (CD, USB), network drive, or project website. And when a task leader is re-assigned, she can effectively mentor her replacement and transfer the binder.
Project Task Leader Involvement, Assignment, and Turnover In an ideal project world, the project manager and task leaders work together from proposal development to project closeout. This might be the scenario envisioned by college professors and students. This is not case over 99% of the time on environmental projects. The Contractor proposal team does not know if they will be awarded the project, and certainly have no idea regarding the specific date the project would be awarded. A Contractor cannot afford to have a project team on standby, waiting for a project contract award. Contractors and their professional employees strive to maximize their labor utilization.
220 Chapter 8 The project manager might be assigned the project several days or weeks after project award. The project manager may not have been involved with the proposal and estimate. But he’s expected to achieve the as-bid profit margin. The project manager might have one or two other ongoing projects. He might lack the specialized technical staff required to plan, procure, perform and execute various tasks. Task leader assignments are frequently “place-holders”, and sometimes performed by the assigned project manager until he can recruit a task leader. It starts with project work plan authorship. Sometimes project managers feel like they’re begging for staff, and the available task leader might not be locally available without budget for travel and per-diem. The task leader might be over 300 kilometers away in another office. The task leader they get might have a project manager in their office who has top priority and can exert more influence on their task priorities. Frequently, the seeds of failure for many project task deficiencies can be traced to a project manager who does not have adequate task leader involvement in the proposal and estimate (consequence: flawed task estimate), followed by an informal process for assigning the task. Rarely is each project task accurately scoped, defined, and budgeted to meet project objectives. Project managers might feel victimized. But they frequently compound their problem. Do not expect the task leader to develop their task checklist and 3-ring binder. They are too busy and it’s not a standard practice on other projects they support. At least get it started. Ask to see it before they jump into the task. And don’t forget to include highlighted examples of those customer “hot buttons” that were emphasized in the project kickoff meeting you may have attended. The “task turnover” or “task hand-off” between professionals (i.e., project manager to project manager; project manager to task leader; task leader to task leader) does not usually involve a formal briefing and indoctrination with a task documentation package, such as the 3-ring binder described above. The project manager or task leader will commonly have an informal verbal briefing, which triggers a myriad of task leader questions such as, “Where are we in the process?” “What has been done?” “What is the status of procurements?” and the most revealing question that cements the path to future problems, “Where can I find the task-related information?” The task leader has no idea how long it will take to track down the necessary information, read the information, understand requirements, study the estimate, and perform the task. The popular U.S. expression, “drinking water from a fire house” applies here. The project manager or task leader might not confirm the assigned individual subsequently obtained the complete set of task information, such as the most recent contract modification, subcontract amendments, reports and analytical data from the customer database. Consequently, when project managers are plagued by deficiencies and rework in the field, the cause analysis frequently traces back to the verbal, ad-hoc, and dysfunctional turnover of task assignments from one professional to another. This is compounded by late detection of deficiencies because the task leader did not implement the three phases of control. Indeed,
Effectively Control Field Work
221
someone on the project might be filling out Daily QC Reports, boilerplate Preparatory and Initial Inspection forms. But the field culture is “reactive” and only exposes obvious mistakes. It’s as if the task leader assumes people (who perform and inspect the work) read their statement of work, and just need minimal QC spot checks since they act like they “have done this type of work before”. In some cases the highly compensated task leader becomes a courier making frequent trips to the local Home Depot or Lowes store to buy a missing item that’s needed by the field crew. The same task leader did not conduct a preparatory inspection to verify the supplies were on site, inspected, conform to specifications, and approved for use on the job. Before any task leader is assigned, you must confirm the candidate is capable and willing to read and write. “Talking” is seldom the problem. My observation is that the “ratio of talking to reading/writing” is inversely proportional in individuals without four year college degrees. It does not matter if the task leader has gray hair and >30 years of experience. They may exude experience and confidence in their speech. If they are unwilling to read and pay attention to requirement details, then do NOT allow them to join your project. For example, an intelligent young project engineer/task leader told me he was concerned that he gave his task leader a specification to read and follow. At the preparatory meeting, he asked the individual (an experienced construction superintendent) to explain the most basic and important specification requirements. Not only did the individual not know the answers, he openly guessed at some and claimed his answer would be acceptable. He did not convey an appreciation of the importance of adhering to requirements. The project engineer told me: “He didn’t bother to read the requirements, so how can he be trusted to effectively supervise the task?” He is like “Hank” in the cookie bar example. People who avoid reading and writing fail to properly plan, and cannot be given task leader assignments. These people are usually experienced and resistant to change. So no matter how well your project managers and task leaders learn the three-phase process to effectively control field work, your team will struggle to effectively control field work and achieve consistent results if your project team: 1. Fails to get task leaders involved in the proposal and estimate; 2. Fails to formalize the task assignment/turnover process; and, 3. Assigns task leaders who are reluctant to read, study, and write. Certain individuals, such as the individual described in the previous example, actually prefer an informal process. This allows them to conduct casual “field oversight” and come back and say, “But you didn’t tell me that” when the work results are rejected. As the project manager, you are responsible. In fact, if this lesson is the only “takaway” from this book and fuels your goal to formalize task leader front-end involvement including all task assignment transitions, the cost savings will pay for this book many times over. And your task leaders will be very appreciative (If not, be suspicious—you’re likely dealing with a Hank who does not like to read and write things down). If you’re unwilling to
222 Chapter 8 enforce a process to properly plan field work, and holding task leaders accountable, you’ll be unable to effectively control field work.
Project Organization So now that we’ve solidified the basic fundamentals and prerequisites for effectively controlling field work, we’ll shift our focus to the type of Contractor project organization (structure, authority and functional responsibilities) to effectively implement the three phases of control. At this point, please Google, download (at no charge), and print a copy of the quality control standard (e.g., 01 45 00.00 20, Quality Control). This will be your sample QC specification that is commonly required by the Government statement of work. You can also Google and download Engineer Pamphlet EP 715-1-2, “A Guide to Effective Contractor Quality Control” (February 1990) and NAVFAC P-445, “Construction Quality Management Program” (June 2000, or most recent version) to guide your learning. We’re going to bypass how to write a project QC plan. In fact, 01 45 00.00 20, Quality Control, provides a QC Plan Table of Contents and content guidelines, which simplifies plan authorship and Government QA review. Figure 8.7 is a sample project quality control plan table of contents. This takes the guesswork out of writing a Project QC Plan. Recall the cookie bar example, the project QC plan is written at a general level too far above the process to effectively control field work. If the Company QA manual is written at 30,000 meters, the Project QC plan is 10,000 meters high, the typical standard operating procedure is 5,000 meters high, and project work plan sections range from 1,000 to 100 meters. Task-specific checklists and project submittals are the ground level (i.e., “where the rubber meets the road”). The project manager is responsible for implementing the three phases of control—it should not be delegated as a “one-off” procedure to the project QC manager or a single individual with “Function/QC” in their job title. The Contractor project team works together to effectively implement the three phases of control. This is a team process that should involve the Government and other external customers, as coordinated with the Government RPM. If your contract requires you to designate a project QC manager, that does not extend to micromanaging your team approach to implementing the three phases of control. The Government will often deliberately avoid prescribing “how” contractors manage the project.
Lean Contractor project organizations The competition to win fixed-priced Task Order contracts (projects) will cause Contractors to propose very lean project organizations to cut their labour cost and submit the lowest possible bid. The Contractor will scrutinize the RFP to determine the minimum staffing required by the RFP. When it comes to staffing the Project QC Manager, if the RFP allows the
Effectively Control Field Work
223
Figure 8.7 Project quality control plan, sample table of contents.
Project QC Manager to also perform the duties of the Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO), the Contractor will propose an individual who can perform both functions. Contractors think, “If we do not do this, our competitors who do will beat us on price”. If the RFP does not establish specific minimum requirements for staffing project functions, some Contractors who staff a full-time Site Superintendent will also task him with QC and health and safety responsibilities. This is called “triple-hatting”. The same person fills three boxes on the project organization chart: Superintendent, QC, and SSHO in What types of projects would a Contractor consider this approach if allowed by the RFP: One where they can get by with a single individual who works from the truck tailgate (no project trailer) and oversees a subcontractor crew performing well destruction.
224 Chapter 8 Clients know that Contractors will sniff-out every creative angle to decrease their labour costs, even on larger complex projects. Therefore, clients take steps to clarify the allowable and required RFP staffing requirements for QC and Health and Safety. Clients can solve the problem and “level the playing field” among Contractors by clarifying RFP requirements. For example, “Does the project QC manager need to meet specific education, qualification, and experience requirements?” “Does the project QC manager need to be on-site when field work is taking place?” “Can the project QC manager perform other non-QC duties?” “Can the project QC manager dual-hat at Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO)?” In my experience, the most effective project QC staffing approach for most environmental remediation projects involves a dual-hatted Project QC Manager/SSHO combined with Task Leaders/QC/SSHO Specialists. That is, each Task Leader triple-hats as Task Leader þ QC þ SSHO for their assigned tasks, or Definable Features of Work. Superintendents rarely function effectively as the project QC manager. Some common reasons: (1) they tend to be production driven; (2) most are not knowledgeable or experienced in tasks that emphasize more science and engineering, and gravitate towards construction tasks; (3) they do not have enough time to read requirement details in work plans and procedures, and would rather delegate their QC checks to a Foreman; (4) they do not like to document their work (many will do the minimum box checking on QC forms and checklists); (5) most do not like to write, and do not write well.
Task Leader QC Involvement This section will focus on the important role of “Task Leaders/QC/SSHO Specialists” on environmental projects. The [Project QC Manager þ Task Leader/QC/SSHO Specialists] team QC approach has worked well over the past 10 years. The “SSHO component” needs to be explained. The Project SSHO or Project QC Manager/SSHO who meets the qualification requirements for a “safety competent” professional as defined by EM-385-1-1 can also serve as the SSHO. Contractors commonly dual-hat SSHO on smaller projects, such as groundwater monitoring, if permitted by contract. But SSHOs will encounter the same problem as Project QC Managers on larger complex projects: they frequently lack practical experience with task-specific safety risks that are known by the Task Leader. The Task Leader understands the task-specific safety risks based on firsthand experience and should take the lead on developing the Activity Hazard Analysis (AHA) for their assigned task. The AHA is emphasized and implemented with the work crew or subcontractor at the preparatory and initial phase. For example, consider the inherent risks of some chemical oxidation treatment processes. If a worker makes a procedural mistake in mixing the reagents, it can cause a life-threatening exothermic chemical reaction. The Task Leader/QC/SSHO Specialist knows
Effectively Control Field Work
225
the critical steps that must be controlled to address inherent hazards and mitigation measures. The Task Leader/QC/SSHO Specialist must be engaged with the Activity Hazard Analysis for the chemical oxidation reagent mixing task, and work closely with the SSHO or project QC manager/SSHO, whichever applies. The Task Leader/QC/SSHO Specialist job title on the project organization chart will still be “Project Scientist”, “Project Geophysicist” “Project Engineer”, “Project Chemist”, etc. However, their project functional responsibilities will be “Task Leader/QC/SSHO Specialist” for their task. This is the leanest, safest, and most practical QC staffing approach to early detection and prevention of problems. Understanding this project QC approach is a prerequisite to understanding and effectively implementing a safe, team QC approach. The “Task Leader/QC/SSHO Specialist” resembles the “QC Specialist” job description in the unedited UFGS 01 45 00.00 20 (Feb 2010) Quality Control, guide specification. It describes the role of the “QC Specialist” for construction projects. Government agencies that procure environmental remediation services should revise their quality control RFP requirements, quality control specification, and training materials to clarify and describe the role of Task Leader/QC/SSHO Specialist on projects. For example, the next section is edited for clients to use on environmental projects.
Guidelines for assigning Task Leader/QC/SSHO Specialists •
•
•
•
•
Project Managers have the option to designate project technical staff with the functional responsibilities of Task Leader/QC/SSHO Specialists who assist the Project QC Manager with the three phases of control. Task Leader/QC/SSHO Specialists may be Project Engineers, Project Scientists, Project Geologists, Project Chemists, Radiological Survey Technicians, UXO QC Technicians, Project Superintendents, Construction Managers, or may belong to any other specialty disciplines. Subcontractor QC staff can assist as QC Specialists, but shall work under the direction of Contractor Task Leader/QC/SSHO Specialists. The Definable Features of Work Matrix in the Project QC Plan must identify Task Leader/ QC/SSHO Specialists by DFW, name and project title (e.g. Field Sampling, Rosemary Meyers, and Project Chemist). Task Leader/QC/SSHO Specialist cannot be a generic designation for unspecified project tasks. Individuals assigned to Task Leader/QC/SSHO Specialist do not need to include their resumes in the Project QC Plan, unless requested by the Contracting Officer. The assigned Task Leader/QC/SSHO Specialist shall lead the Preparatory Meeting for their task, supported by the Project QC Manager, which shall be attended by the crew or subcontractor staff who will be performing the task. The assigned Task Leader/QC/SSHO Specialist and Project QC Manager shall be present at the site to perform and document the preparatory meeting, preparatory inspection, and initial
226 Chapter 8 inspection. Task Leader/QC/SSHO Specialists shall prepare and submit the completed preparatory and initial inspection reports to the Project QC Manager. Either the Task Leader/ QC/SSHO Specialist or Project QC Manager shall be on-site during the follow-up phase to oversee workers performing the task, and report follow-up inspection results on the Daily QC Report. Inspection reports shall contain specifics regarding what was inspected during the day.
Procedures for Performing the Three Phases of Control The Project QC Plan features a DFW Matrix. The DFW Matrix lists each DFW according to the project schedule. Each DFW represents a “three-phase inspection unit”. This section will describe how the Project QC Team [Project QC Manager þ Task Leader/QC/SSHO Specialists] works together to implement the three-phase inspection process for each DFW, including DFWs performed by subcontractors. The Project QC Manager uses the DFW Matrix combined with the project schedule to plan and coordinate with assigned Task Leader/QC/SSHO Specialists. The Project QC Manager may need to familiarize some Task Leader/QC/SSHO Specialists with the three phases of control procedure. The three phases are preparatory, initial, and follow-up phases. Preparatory phase Notify the Customer QA Representative (or RPM) at least two work days in advance of each preparatory phase meeting. A preparatory phase meeting may cover more than one DFW. The meeting will be conducted by the Project QC Manager and attended by the QC Specialists, the Project Superintendent, and the foreman responsible for the DFW. When DFW(s) will be accomplished by a subcontractor(s), the subcontractor(s) representative who will be on-site shall attend the preparatory phase meeting. Document preparatory phase actions and inspections leading up to the preparatory phase meeting in the daily Contractor Quality Control Report and attach Preparatory Phase Checklist(s). Document preparatory phase meeting minutes within two working days after the preparatory phase meeting, and attach to the CQC Report. At a minimum, discuss the status of the following preparatory phase items prior to performing the DFW(s): a. Review Contract requirements and any open actions b. Review each applicable project work plan section, including sub-tier plans (e.g. Sampling and Analysis Plan, Environmental Protection Plan, Waste Management Plan, etc.) c. Review procurement documents, requirements, and pre-construction submittals that apply to the DFW (subcontract purchase order SOW, pre-construction submittals such as certifications, individual 40 h health and safety training certificates and annual 8 h refresher training certificates, etc.) d. Verify coordination and readiness of analytical laboratories
Effectively Control Field Work
227
e. Verify if base visitor pass instructions and other base procedures have been communicated to subcontractors f. Verify that project work plans, including sub-tier plans, have been submitted and approved g. Review the Testing Plan and Log to ensure that procurements have been placed for testing firms, testing firm and personnel certifications have been received and approved, test procedures have been approved, and that testing firms are ready to perform tests h. Report results of examining the work area to ensure that the required preliminary work has been completed i. Report status of receiving inspection for incoming materials and items for proper identification, storage, and segregation; conformance to contract requirements; any nonconforming items; and status of coordination with buyer on resolution j. Look for opportunities to return or recycle shipping/packaging materials, such as wood pallets, where economically feasible k. Equipment inspection results; verify all equipment is on-site and conforms to requirements and submittals l. Discuss traffic routes, hours of operation, noise, and dust control requirements m. Identify and discuss potential problems for each DFW, including readiness to implement mitigation options n. Review the APP and appropriate activity hazard analysis (AHA) to ensure that applicable safety requirements are met, and that required material safety data sheets (MSDS) are on file o. Verify that personnel have been briefed on emergency response protocol, procedures, and evacuation routes p. Review status of fire department notifications and permits any topics added by the Project Manager or Contracting Officer Initial phase Notify the Customer QA Representative (or RPM) at least two work days in advance of each initial phase. When field crews are ready to start work on a DFW, the Project QC Manager conducts the initial phase with the QC Specialists, the Project Superintendent, and the foreman responsible for that DFW. Observe initial DFW segment to ensure work complies with Contract requirements. Document initial phase results in the daily CQC Report and in Initial Phase Checklist. Repeat initial phase for each new crew to work on-site, or when acceptable levels of specified quality are not being met. Perform the following for each DFW: a. Establish the quality of workmanship required b. Resolve conflicts
228 Chapter 8 c. Ensure that testing is performed by the approved laboratory d. Verify compliance with the APP and the appropriate AHA to ensure that applicable safety requirements are met Follow-up phase Perform the following for ongoing work daily, or more frequently as necessary, until the completion of each DFW and document in the daily CQC Report: a. b. c. d. e.
Ensure the work is in compliance with Contract requirements Maintain the quality of workmanship required Ensure that testing is performed by the approved laboratory Ensure that rework items are being corrected Verify continued compliance with the Accident Prevention Plan (APP) and the appropriate Activity Hazard Analysis (AHA) to ensure that applicable safety requirements are met
Additional preparatory and initial phases Conduct additional preparatory and initial phases on the same DFW if the quality of ongoing work is unacceptable, if there are changes in the applicable QC organization, if there are changes in the on-site field supervision or work crew, if work on a DFW is resumed after substantial period of inactivity, or if other problems develop. Notification of three phases of control for off-site work Notify the Customer QA Representative (or RPM) atleast 2 weeks prior to the start of the preparatory and initial phases.
QC Documentation The Project QC Plan should contain required QC documentation. Some of these forms submitted with the Project QC Plan will be initiated and contain project-specific information that will be maintained during the project. For example, the Submittal Register and Testing Plan and Log will be completed to the extent these requirements are known at the time the Project QC Plan is submitted, and then maintained during the project. Other attachments are included as blank forms required by the client that will be filled out during the project. If the Project QC Manager has a Program Quality Control Plan, the blank forms do not need to be included as Attachments in the Project QC Plan. On the other hand, if you lack a client-approved Program QC Plan, your Project QC Plans will be “stand-alone” and contain all the guide specification procedural details and all the forms that will be implemented on the project. The Project QC Plan, in this case, can be between 30 and 60 pages.
Effectively Control Field Work
229
Project QC Forms that Support the Three Phases of Control Process The Project QC Manager must train each Task Leader/QC/SSHO Specialist on the QC forms and checklists that apply to implementing the three phases of control. These include the following: • • • •
Preparatory Phase Checklist Preparatory Phase Checklist, Continuation Sheet Initial Phase Inspection Checklist Contractor Quality Control Report, also known as “Daily QC Report”.
These are public domain documents that can be downloaded in electronic format (e.g. Microsoft Word, Adobe Acrobat) from multiple websites.
Preparatory Phase Checklist This is a two-page form. The forms are designed to walk users through the process steps that are required. For example, note how the Preparatory Phase Checklist (for each DFW) is structured to cover the status of the following: • • • • • • • • •
Personnel Present (at Preparatory Meeting) Submittals Material Storage Specifications Preliminary Work and Permits Testing Safety Meeting Comments Other Items or Remark
Common Pitfalls The Project QC Manager must recognize and emphasize the limitations of these forms to the team of Task Leaders/QC/SSHO Specialists. Any Contractor Project QC Manager who allows filling out the forms to drive the three-phase QC planning process for each DFW will undermine the effectiveness of the process. Note: The three-phase case study that follows this section illustrates the importance of conducting due diligence for each environmental project DFW. Each task has very important and specific planning considerations that will not be captured by the generic Preparatory and Initial Phase Inspection Checklists.
230 Chapter 8 The forms represent good basic guidelines that cover the basic topic categories. However, the Preparatory and Initial Phase Checklist forms are geared for construction projects. For example, the forms assume each project has “specifications” that are identified on the form. Construction projects have binders full of construction specifications that are part of the design or technical package. This is not the case on environmental projects. Many generic “Definable Features of Work Matrix” forms have a specification column on the far left, to reference the specification number. Environmental projects have project work plans, so the work plan title and section number are listed in the column (instead of the specification number). The work plan section number should be referenced on the checklist. If a specification is provided by the client for a DFW (e.g. restoration tasks such as re-paving a road or placing concrete), then the project work plan and specification number should be referenced.
Sample Project Team Interfaces Figure 8.3 provides a visual guide depicting the three phases. The hypothetical project tasks are as follows: Utility clearance and surveying; field sampling and laboratory services; waste segregation; investigation-derived waste processing and disposal; and waste transportation and disposal support. The graphic emphasizes the breakout of field sampling and laboratory services. The Contractor Project Chemist, designated as Task Leader/QC/SSHO Specialist for field sampling and laboratory services, schedules a preparatory meeting with the field sampling subcontractor and analytical laboratory about 1–2 weeks before field sampling begins. The preparatory meeting is held on-site, and may start with a site walk to tour the site and review the sample locations. The Task Leader/QC/SSHO Specialist provides the Preparatory Meeting agenda to review the status of completing prerequisite tasks. The client QA Manager is invited. The Preparatory Meeting is similar to an operational readiness review. Key actions include reviewing the Subcontract Statement of Work, reviewing Project Sampling and Analysis Plan requirements, maps, safety and PPE requirements, scheduling and coordination with the analytical laboratory, and site security requirements. Action items are assigned. The Project QC manager may be taking notes, and the Task Leader/QC/SSHO Specialist issues the Preparatory Meeting Minutes. The Preparatory Phase also includes the day-to-day preparatory inspections that take place leading up to the task start date. For example, the Task Leader/QC/SSHO Specialist will usually have a “Pre-Mobilization Checklist”. This includes verifying that the Sampling and Analysis Plan has been approved by the Customer QA Representative, forms and logs are available, permits are received, etc. The goal: no requirements slip through the crack.
Effectively Control Field Work
231
Documentation: The Task Leader/QC/SSHO Specialist completes a Preparatory Inspection checklist and submits it to the Project QC Manager. The Project QC Manager attaches the Preparatory Inspection checklist to the Daily QC Report. The Initial Phase is when field sampling starts. The Customer QA Representative is notified in advance of the Initial phase and might decide to observe task start-up. The Task Leader/QC/ SSHO Specialist will be on-site to witness the field sampling effort. The team first attends the pre-task health and safety briefing (e.g. Health and Safety Plan, Activity Hazard Analysis) and proper sample technician PPE is verified by the Task Leader/QC/SSHO Specialist and SSHO. She will verify the proper sample collection locations and make sure the Sampling and Analysis Plan is being followed. She will verify that instrumentation is being used in accordance with the procedure and manufacturer’s instructions. She will verify that instruments are calibrated and sample collection technicians are familiar with the procedure and instrumentation. She will make sure data is being properly documented on the log form and chain of custody form. She will make sure samples are properly packaged and preserved. If an unforeseen issue arises, such as the sample cannot be collected exactly according to plan, the Task Leader/QC/SSHO Specialist will determine if a Field Work Variance is needed. The Project QC Manager is an observer during the initial inspection, noting any areas of emphasis expressed by the Task Leader/QC/SSHO Specialist. The initial phase inspection includes steps taken to coordinate with the analytical laboratory. The lab will perform a receiving inspection and verify that all requirements are met (e.g. holding times) for the first samples. The initial phase inspection will not end until the Task Leader/QC/SSHO Specialist is confident that work is being properly performed and documented. Prior to departing, the Task Leader/QC/SSHO Specialist and Project QC Manager will coordinate on the Follow-Up inspection plan. Either the Task Leader/QC/SSHO Specialist or Project QC Manager must be on-site when work is being performed by the field sampling subcontractor. The Task Leader/QC/SSHO Specialist will review the first lab report to make sure the documentation meets project requirements, and help the Project Manager interpret preliminary lab results prior to independent data validation for early notification to the client project manager. Follow-up inspections will be performed daily to verify the field sampling technicians continue to follow the Sampling and Analysis Plan. If a new field sampling technician arrives, the subcontractor must notify the Task Leader/QC/SSHO to repeat an Initial Phase inspection to make sure the new field sampling technician properly follows the Sampling and Analysis Plan and properly performs the work. Completion Inspection: The Task Leader/QC/SSHO Specialist will perform a comprehensive task review to make sure all Sampling and Analysis Plan requirements have been met before the subcontractor departs from the site. This is an important rule: The Task Leader/QC/SSHO Specialist and Project QC Manager should verify that all work is completed before the subcontractor leaves.
232 Chapter 8
Effectively Planning and Implementing the Three Phases of Control for Subcontracted Work The three-phases of control graphics provide an excellent perspective of the general approach, but do not disclose the level of rigour required to effectively plan and implement inspections, especially for major tasks that are subcontracted (e.g. off-site fabrication of a remedial action system). The Project QC Manager needs to assist the Subcontract Administrator and Project Engineer to make sure the three-phase requirements are included in the bid package and subcontract statement of work. The Subcontract needs to clearly state that the Subcontractor is responsible for performing quality control of his work. As prime Contractor, you perform quality assurance to make sure the Subcontractor performs his quality control inspections. The Project QC Manager should assist the project engineer and Subcontract Administrator with the statement of work, and include a “Source Inspection” requirement at the subcontractor facility during remedial system fabrication. If possible, the Project Engineer should develop and include a test specification in the bid package, so that system start-up testing can be witnessed and evaluated at the subcontractors’ fabrication facility. The Subcontract Administrator should include a “Work Release” clause in the subcontract that requires source inspector approval in order to authorize remedial action technology shipment to the jobsite. Otherwise, the Subcontractor might ship a technology that does not meet the design requirements, which can cause a major delay. The Source Inspection is a key part of the Preparatory Phase for technologies that are developed, fabricated, and tested off-site prior to shipment to the jobsite. The Project QC Manager develops a preparatory (source inspection) QC plan/checklist to verify the fabricated remedial action system and components such as generators and compressors meet design requirements, which may include a test plan based on the test specification to witness remedial action system testing. The Project QC Manager or engineer performing the source inspection should always evaluate dimensional requirements that are necessary to properly fit the system to on-site piping and other utilities upon arrival. The source inspection will help the project team avoid surprises when the remedial action system arrives at the jobsite. The remedial action system may travel several hundred kilometres or come from overseas. The technology might show up a few days before the scheduled system start-up. In many cases, it is not feasible or cost-effective to reject a technology that arrives on-site. Three-phase inspection plans for subcontracted tasks must be based on the contractual SOW, including the maps and drawings that are part of the package. The Project QC Manager should mark a photocopy of the SOW, drawing, and maps with a highlighter pen for drawing features, dimensions, drawing notes, and SOW text. Sooner is better (ideally
Effectively Control Field Work
233
before the subcontract is awarded). In some cases, drawing errors might be discovered before work starts that could have led to incorrect or incomplete field work. Preparatory and Initial Inspection checkboxes can be hand-drawn in the SOW margins and drawings, and then verified with a check and initials during the preparatory and initial inspections. Consider reviewing the inspection plan mark-up with the Subcontractor during the preparatory meeting. You might discover the Subcontractor was not intending to meet certain requirement. Three-phase inspections of subcontracted work that solely rely on the generic Preparatory and Initial Phase checklists will not be effective. These are adequate for conveying a general punch-list of inspection topics, but they are not a substitute for verifying specific requirements in the subcontract SOW, drawings and maps, including the subcontractor proposal. Your ability to prevent surprises in the field, and detect problems early, will be directly based on the degree of rigour put into researching the specific requirements that apply to the task and developing your inspection plan.
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER 9
Implement Cause Analysis to Generate Solutions In 2005, I volunteered to be a science coach for some local middle school eight graders in the annual “National Science Olympiad” competition in San Diego. Young science students were nominated by their schools to compete against others schools on science-related problem solving exercises. Each Science Olympiad coach was assigned a team of two students. These students understood how to use the scientific method to solve problems. Many websites have been created to help kids excel in science, such as ScienceBuddies.org. The Science Buddies website has an attractive flow chart on the Scientific Method. They note, “The scientific method is a process for experimentation that is used to explore observations and answer questions. Scientists use the scientific method to search for cause and effect relationships in nature”. Professionals who pioneered the development of popular root cause analysis methods were striving to develop a more effective way to implement the scientific method to solve problems. Think of root cause analysis as an effective way to apply the scientific method to solve problems. Figure 9.1 will be used to walk readers through a formal cause analysis process for a significant problem to explain similarities with the scientific method. The scientific method is the common thread among root cause analysis methodologies. Everyone in the world learns the scientific method in grade school. Grade school students learn the scientific method to pass the science test. Then many of us go through high school, college, and into the professional workforce. We get to the workforce and realize that problems are all around us in business and on projects. Most are minor hassles. Some are significant and threaten project success. Catastrophic problems can threaten the company reputation due to the media bashing. Overall, companies and project teams struggle to solve significant problems, as evidenced by repetitive problems. You will notice that Figure 9.1 includes two hatched flow chart boxes (Define Problem; Implement Solutions). The scientific method starts when you ask a question about something that you observe: How, What, When, Who, Which, Why, or Where? Root cause analysis starts with a Company Manager, such as a Project Manager, who recognizes the seriousness of a problem and appoints an individual with cause analysis expertise to facilitate a problem investigation team. In root cause analysis, the team facilitator and cause analysis team start by asking “What is the problem?” Therefore, the first flow chart step will be “Define Problem”. Next, instead Best Practices for Environmental Project Teams. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-444-53721-8.00009-9 # 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
235
236 Chapter 9
Figure 9.1 Relationship between scientific method and cause analysis process.
of asking a question about something that you observe (i.e. “Ask Question”), cause analysis teams ask a series of “Why” questions starting with the Defined Problem to map the cause and effect chain working backwards in time. This collaborative process involves brainstorming. Many cause steps branch out because multiple effects are possible. This creative cause map paves the way for multiple solution opportunities that act on specific cause steps. The resultant cause map can be viewed as “What is Possible”. The cause map format is commonly yellow-stickies. The next step in the scientific method is “Do Background Research”. In root cause analysis, the primary objective of this step is to collect and examine evidence (e.g. records) to support each cause step. It includes an element of “background research” because you are collecting information related to systems, equipment, materials, procedures, etc., that are associated with the cause step. The next step in the Scientific Method is “Construct Hypothesis”. In root cause analysis, this involves making adjustments to your cause map based on knowledge gained from evidence gathering. The resultant map can be viewed as “What Likely Happened”. The degree of team confidence in the cause chains will be influenced by the availability and strength of gathered evidence. The cause map format should be converted from “yellow-stickies on the white board” to
Implement Cause Analysis to Generate Solutions 237 electronic format using software, and printed from a plotter. This will be a very detailed cause map. The cause map will show each cause step and footnote to specific evidence related to the cause step (e.g. Cause Map Evidence Table). The Cause Map Evidence Table will consist of the following columns: Cause, Attached Exhibit, Evidence Supports Cause, Indeterminate, and Evidence Refutes Cause (more on this later). Once this cause chart is posted, the cause analysis team will brainstorm specific solution opportunities that directly act on specific causes on the cause map. Solutions ¼ Preventive Actions. The best solutions are measurable, prevent recurrence, within project team control, and meet project goals and objectives. This includes satisfying your client. The cause map should show solution(s) linked to specific causes, which are footnoted to a Draft Action Plan Table. The cause analysis team will use a Draft Action Plan Table to document Action Items (i.e. solutions, preventive action measures), responsible individual, due date, and status. The status options are “Open, Date Completed, and Verified”. The term “Draft” is used because each solution has an associated cost to implement. The best solutions, from the perspective of the Project Manager, will be the cheapest solutions that provide the best chance of preventing the problem. These are business decisions. While the strongest and most innovative solutions typically improve the design to eliminate the possibility of problem recurrence, these are typically the more expensive options. Project managers commonly favour lower cost solutions first, monitoring performance and results, and then reconsidering higher cost solutions, if necessary. The cause analysis team finalizes the Action Plan after meeting with the Project Manager. It becomes the project team plan for implementing selected solutions. The flow chart indicates next step in the Scientific Method: “Test with an Experiment”. However, in root cause analysis, teams commonly skip this step because it takes additional time and requires an investment. They also skip “Analyze Results – Draw Conclusion;” “Hypothesis is True” or “Hypothesis is False or Partially True”. Root cause analysis teams leap to “Report Results”. That is, in root cause analysis, teams issue the cause analysis report to the Project Manager for review and comment without testing. The cause analysis team deliverable should consist of a Summary Cause Analysis Report and three attachments: Attachment A: Action Plan; Attachment B: Cause Map: Attachment C: Cause Map Evidence Table. Attachment C might be a stand-alone table or include evidence records. The Project Manager will select solutions to be implemented. She will usually hold a project team meeting to discuss the Cause Analysis Report. This meeting serves a two-fold purpose: (1) Highlight the cause analysis findings and lessons learned, and, (2) Kick off the project Action Plan. The Project Manager feels a sense of ownership of the cause analysis report because she was given the opportunity to review the Draft Action Plan, and select the solutions to be implemented. At this point, the cause analysis team leaves. They have completed their assignment. The project team will execute the added flow chart step: “Implement Solutions” (Action Plan). This step is synonymous with “Test with an Experiment”. Recall, as previously noted, that
238 Chapter 9 most cause analysis teams skip this step because it requires an investment. For example, they cannot test solutions that require new equipment or design changes. The project team will implement the action plan and “Analyze Results – Draw Conclusions”. Note how the scientific method notes two possible outcomes: “Hypothesis is True” or “Hypothesis is False or Partially True”. Project teams will increase their process knowledge, including their ability to achieve early detection of problems. In some cases, project teams will discover a cause step assumption was false, partially true, or omitted (not detected). For example, the cause map might have incorporated a faulty cause hypothesis in a specific step. Perhaps the cause analysis team lacked evidence? However, the solutions enable you to gather data and evidence, and assess the effectiveness of preventive measures. And that brings us to the other scientific method box in Figure 9.1, “Think! Try Again”. The original cause map can be refined based on confirmation or validation of cause steps in the chain. Additionally, solutions may be refined or added to the Action Plan based on results. In essence, the project team is going through the part of the scientific method that was skipped: “Test with an Experiment”; “Analyze Results – Draw Conclusion”; and “Hypothesis is True” or “Hypothesis is False or Partially True”. The Action Plan results can be used to finalize your cause map, which can be viewed as a “Confirmatory Cause Map”. Some Project Managers may elect to issue the first Cause Analysis Report as Draft, and then issue a Cause Analysis Closeout Report after the project team has the opportunity to test and verify solutions. In summary, cause analysis is an iterative process that closely resembles the scientific method. Cause maps commonly go through three iterations: • • •
What is Possible (The result of mapping all cause chain possibilities) What Likely Happened (The result of evaluating evidence) Confirmatory Cause Map (The result of monitoring solutions)
Root cause analysis effectively implements the scientific method to solve problems related to operations, safety, quality control, and project management. Project teams can capitalize on the power of cause-mapping techniques to quickly expose multiple solution opportunities for many different situations. This chapter will provide practical guidelines for implementing cause analysis, with an emphasis on how to effectively map causes to maximize solution opportunities.
Practical Applications for Cause Analysis on Environmental Projects Table 9.1 highlights some practical applications. The description below provides more detail. Cause analysis plays a pivotal role in the effectiveness of several project activities on environmental projects:
Implement Cause Analysis to Generate Solutions 239 Table 9.1 Practical applications for cause analysis on environmental projects Business development (capture planning) Identify client-perceived technology preferences Identify risks and solutions for your technical approach; including risks and potential consequences of competitor technical approach (ghosting) Proposal development Substantiate proposal discriminators or competitive advantages Project management Analyze risks on Risk Register, in order of highest to lowest cost contingency Analyze proposal for causes for qualifying bid (assumptions) and high price bid items (including solutions) Analyze sub proposals for causes for qualifying bid (assumptions) and high price bid items (including solutions to decrease cost) Identify causes of cost and schedule overrun; develop recovery plan with recommended options Crisis in client confidence Perceived inability to resolve problem or performance issue Operations Troubleshoot and fix recurring problem Start-up, shakedown and technology optimization Technology underperforming: figure out why and propose solutions Safety Support development of Activity Hazard Analysis for dangerous task with major potential risk consequences Effectively implement Hierarchy of Controls Support cause(s) for near-miss or lost-time accident Conduct Major Accident Investigation Quality control Problems/opportunities where primary objective is continuous process improvement Problem investigation for Corrective Action Request Reliability Recurring failures and unplanned expenditures Regulatory compliance Investigate causes and preventive actions for Regulatory Notices of Violation (NOV)
Quality Control and Quality Assurance Contractor “corrective action” procedure that requires responsible managers to investigate causes of “significant” non-conformances in order to identify and implement corrective actions and preventive actions. Example: regulatory violation received for incident involving site subsurface discharge of chemical oxidation reagent into the bay. Importance of cause analysis Prevent recurring non-conformances; recurring non-conformances reflect a breakdown in the quality management system.
240 Chapter 9 Consequences of inadequate cause analysis Tendency to speculate on an erroneous cause or blame another organization, which reflects poorly on the Contractor when the same problem recurs; high probability of repeat nonconformances; overlooking process changes and data collection opportunities that could provide early detection of future problems; creating negative client perception that “quality management system is broken” (i.e. not functioning properly).
Safety Accident prevention procedure that requires vehicle accident investigations, near miss investigations, recordable injury investigations, and responses to regulatory safety violations issued by a government safety inspector. Example: Contractor investigation in response to a safety violation issued by the government safety inspector, called “Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)” in the U.S. Importance of cause analysis Properly investigating a problem to the depth necessary to identify all action and condition (environment)-related causes, and identifying multiple solutions to achieve compliance and decrease future risk of safety incidents. Consequences of inadequate cause analysis Tendency to speculate on an erroneous cause, or blame the individual who violates the safety rule or experiences the injury; tendency to select the safety incident cause from predefined categories; overlook role of culture, system, and environmental factors that increase hazards; vulnerability to recurring safety incidents; exposing company to increased severity of regulatory monetary fines that may escalate when Contractor experiences recurring safety violations or incidents.
Project Management Contractor “risk management” procedure that describes how to develop and implement the Risk Register. Importance of cause analysis Important risk items are thoroughly evaluated based on knowledge of client perceptions, concerns, hopes, and biases. Risk items featured on the Risk Register are more rigourously evaluated to identify options for risk avoidance, mitigation, and handling.
Implement Cause Analysis to Generate Solutions 241 Sample “Success” Cause Chain: Contract win > lower bid price > less cost contingency added > high Risk Evaluation Board confidence > PM understood risks > PM implemented solutions > PM negotiated cost avoidance solutions with subs > PM cause-mapped subcontractor proposal risks > PM had enough time > PM started risk evaluation 2 weeks before client RFP released > PM received 10 K USD capture funding, etc. Consequences of inadequate cause analysis Risk Register is just a subjective list of risks that are not subjected to screening criteria, supported by cause analysis, and not challenged for solutions to decrease risk and cost. Consequently, high profile risks on the risk register may not be properly evaluated, resulting in the necessity for more cost contingency, which means the proposal price might be too high to win the project. Sample Failure Cause Chain: Contract loss > high bid price > more cost contingency added > less Risk Evaluation Board confidence > PM did not understand risks > PM did not implement solutions > PM did not negotiate cost avoidance solutions with subs > PM did not cause map subcontractor proposal risks > PM did not have enough time > PM started risk evaluation 2 weeks after client RFPs released > PM request for 10 K USD capture funding was rejected > etc.
Response to Client Contract Deficiencies Contract-specific requirements and procedures that require Contractors to provide written responses to Government contract discrepancy reports; performance evaluation “areas needing improvement”; and Cure Notices. Importance of cause analysis Demonstrates to government clients that you take the problem seriously, will seek out all causes, and take actions to prevent recurrence. Consequences of inadequate cause analysis Lack of government confidence that causes have been properly evaluated, and lack of confidence that Contractor actions (not supported by cause analysis) will prevent problem recurrence and improve performance.
Proposal Development Contractor project opportunity capture plan procedure; proposal development procedure.
242 Chapter 9 Importance of cause analysis Capture Plan: Develop a superior technical approach that capitalizes on risk-based discriminators that address client perceptions, concerns, hopes, and biases. Make compelling case why technology chosen by competitor was not selected for the site (Ghost competing technology). Proposal: Demonstrate superior knowledge and understanding of technical risks. Gives impression that your team values protecting the client. Identify and implement lower cost approaches due to creativity. Preparedness to recommend and implement solution options in response to possible adverse outcomes. Consequences of inadequate cause analysis Lack of dynamic approach to achieving project objectives, which may include the scope and site exit strategy. Higher cost approach due to lack of creativity. Proposal creates impression that technical remedy and technical approach will achieve the performance objectives without any surprises. Contractor will likely be unprepared to deal with performance and results that do not meet expectations during field execution.
Screening Issues for Significance Figure 9.2 is an example of project management challenges and adverse issues that can occur throughout the environmental project life cycle (project management, QC, safety, regulatory, and client concerns). It shows some common elements such as taking prompt corrective action and containment measures, applying screening criteria to determine the significance, documenting adverse issues, and conducting a basic or advanced cause analysis based on the significance (minor significance, major significance). The Figure 9.3 timeline supplement provides Project Managers and teams with guidance for conducting internal analysis to adverse issues. This includes “new information and data” that triggers a response based on analytical data decision rules or opportunities for improvement. Project teams should strive to avoid late recognition and delayed responses to adverse issues, major client concerns, and new information and data. The task-based three phases of control process, described in Chapter 8, is designed to provide early identification of adverse issues, such as mistakes in the field that are causing erroneous data. Problems identified sooner will be the cheaper to correct. Some industries and organizations place a major emphasis on quality audits. Audits can reveal some adverse issues, such as a violation of a permit or regulatory requirement. But how long has the adverse issue existed? Weeks? Months? Years?
Implement Cause Analysis to Generate Solutions 243
Figure 9.2 An example of project management challenges and adverse issues that can occur throughout the environmental project life cycle.
Figure 9.3 Timeline for the events.
244 Chapter 9
Root Cause Analysis Misconceptions “Root cause analysis” is a misnomer. Most problems and associated cause chains have multiple causes. And the good news is that each cause, not just the suspected or subjectively designated “root cause”, represents a solution opportunity to collect data, prevent problem recurrence, and improve performance. The single root cause myth is a common point of confusion in quality standards and literature. How many times have you read a quality standard or article that states, “Identify the root cause and corrective action to prevent recurrence?” These writings typically go on to say, “Don’t implement corrective actions until you have identified the root cause”. Further, how many times have you been in project meeting and debated the proposed root cause of a problem or nonconformance? It is not a coincidence that professionals cannot usually agree on a single root cause. Take the hypothetical case of an innovative biological reagent technology that a Contractor project team selected to treat 600,000 square meters of soil contaminated with a dangerous pesticide that was used in the 1970s. What was the root cause of “technology failed to destroy the pesticide (primary contaminant of concern) below the target cleanup level of 440 ug/kg?” Were poor results caused by not delivering the volume of water evenly across the parcel to drive the biological and chemical reaction? Answer: Perhaps. Were poor results caused by inadequately tilling and blending the reagent in the water-soaked soil? Answer: Perhaps. Were poor results caused by the tractor unable to access some areas due to obstructions? Answer: Perhaps. Were poor results caused by the local farmer who temporarily cut off your water supply from his lake? Answer: Perhaps. In fact, in this hypothetical case, several cause factors could contribute to ineffective biological treatment of the 600,000 square meters of soil. There are so many causes that your team should have mapped them and made sure each was scrutinized. Your wise client Project Managers are naturally sceptical of your assumptions and claims. Your competitors want to expose that your team failed to properly consider all risks associated with your technical approach. What commonly happens when a problem investigation team conducts a cause analysis, other than debating over the root cause? When they investigate the problem they find a pervasive lack of evidence associated with specific cause steps in the cause chain. It becomes apparent they had inadequate process design and control. Why? Because the team assumed everything would go as planned. They lacked data, monitoring, and control of each cause, which in this case, was ineffective treatment. This indicated the Contractor work plan likely failed to describe a technical approach with integrated decision rules that monitored and acted upon each cause factor in a timely manner. In most cases, clients are justified for expressing concerns over Contractor failure to demonstrate and articulate a plan in response to possible risks in the proposal.
Implement Cause Analysis to Generate Solutions 245 Therefore, what is more important: Learning how to perform “root cause analysis” in order to identify a single root cause (that serves as an excuse for something that created a problem or opportunity to blame an individual for the problem)? Or, learning how to perform cause analysis in order to identify multiple solutions to monitor, change, control, or eliminate specific controllable causes, and prevent problems?
Role of Cause Analysis in Risk Management The Project Management Institute, PMBOK, 4th edition, describes root cause analysis as a specific technique to: (1) identify a problem; (2) discover the underlying causes that lead to it, and (3) develop preventive actions. The PMBOK describes the role of root cause analysis in the Project Quality Management Knowledge Area and Risk Management Knowledge Area (identify risks/tools and techniques). In the Project Quality Management Knowledge Area, root cause analysis is a tool to support the cause investigation of significant non-conformances. This applies to any industry. In the Risk Management Knowledge Area, the PMBOK describes the “Risk Register” as the output from conducting root cause analysis of risks. The Risk Register, accordingly, refers to “identified risks, root causes of risks, lists of potential responses, risk owners, symptoms and warning signs, the relative rating or priority list of project risks, a list of risks requiring response in the short term, a list of risks for additional analysis and response, trends in qualitative analysis results, and a watch list of low-priority risks”. Figure 9.4 is a sample Risk Register available for free download, courtesy of Ms. Amy Mombert, from BrightHub.com.
Figure 9.4 A sample risk register available for free download.
246 Chapter 9 The Risk Register has three sections: Basic Risk Information; Risk Assessment Information; and Risk Response Information. Cause analysis generates the Risk Response Information. Therefore, it takes place behind the scenes of the Risk Register. The cause map is a Risk Register supplement. Are risk responses featured on your Risk Register supported by cause analysis? If so, you likely develop more options to handle risks. These are some reasons why individual Risk Register items might not be supported by cause analysis: (1) Lack of site information provided by client precludes Contractor from “defining the problem” in order to conduct a cause analysis; (2) Insufficient time to properly analyze risks and explore possible solutions due to an aggressive client proposal due date; (3) Project manager and team might not know how to conduct cause analysis; and (4) Cause analysis might not be required by the company risk management procedure. Problems or opportunities for improvement that materialize on environmental projects are usually “event-oriented” and commonly triggered by new data or results that did not conform to unrealistic system performance assumptions; scope changes; and late recognition of not following important procedures. They can emerge at any point in time after field work begins. Some, if not recognized and acted upon, evolve into larger issues or recurring problems with cost and schedule impacts.
Cause Analysis Methods Several cause analysis methods or tools have been developed over the years to investigate problems. You likely know that, unless you are a college student. For example, the Why–Why Chart (Five Whys), Ishikawa Cause and Effect (Fishbone Diagram), Fault Tree Analysis, Failure Modes and Effect Analysis, Barrier Analysis, etc. To my knowledge, these cause analysis methods were not incubated and developed by colleges. They were developed by working professionals engaged in problem solving at their companies. You get the impression when you read the history behind various methods that after failing to properly fix so many recurring problems, that brilliant people eventually figured out cause analysis methods that could help prevent problems. They likely published articles, caught the attention of influential people within other companies, and each method developed a small following. In general, companies do not mandate a specific root cause method or tool in their procedures (i.e. one-size-fits-all). As mentioned, certain company procedures within specific disciplines (e.g. project management, safety, QC, reliability) will require cause identification, but procedures might not dictate “how” to conduct the cause analysis. In most cases, forms in these procedures just have a “cause” block to be filled out. In other cases, the procedure and form will list cause categories, and users are required to select the root cause, or cause, from a list of causes. Then causes may be entered into a database. Charts are created and reports are issued to managers.
Implement Cause Analysis to Generate Solutions 247 On the other side of the spectrum, some companies will have a detailed root cause analysis procedure that covers several cause analysis methods. The procedure might include a flow chart that helps users determine the most appropriate root cause analysis tool based on the problem significance and other selection criteria. In some cases, a combination of root cause tools will be used on a single complex problem. These companies likely have a training and qualification programme for root cause facilitators who are assigned to lead investigation teams. The Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council (ITRC) recently formed a Remediation and Risk Management Team to address project risk management for site remediation projects. Their publication, “Project Risk Management for Site Remediation” (March 2011) can be downloaded from the ITRC website. The publication is a must-read and long overdue in our industry. It uses the term “remediation risk management” (RRM) and includes a roadmap illustrating that RRM applies at each phase in the site remediation process. They emphasize that “all sites benefit from using RRM” but do not convey how to conduct cause analysis. Some professionals who are responsible for facilitating and performing cause analysis have strong preferences regarding cause methods. Some professionals rally around quality tools such as “Six Sigma” and may become evangelists about Six Sigma. Other people have strong preferences for specific root cause methods (e.g. Method A is superior to Method B). These people are in the minority. Most companies and professionals are open-minded regarding the cause analysis method and approach. Therefore, at most companies each problem investigation team usually has the freedom to select their cause analysis method. Project managers stand to gain the most by learning and applying cause analysis. It does not make any sense why the overwhelming majority of Project Managers continue to rely on support professionals for cause analysis (e.g. Safety, QC, Reliability). Two common project activities come to mind: (1) Proposal risk evaluations, and, (2) Safety near-miss or accident reviews. These two activities commonly receive higher level manager engagement and scrutiny (Board Review Meeting). Example: Proposal Risk Evaluation. The Project Manager develops the proposal and does the project-level risk evaluation, which is then subject to a higher level reviews based on the type of contract and price level. Some senior risk reviewers have a knack for sniffing out potential problems based on extensive past experience. For example, the Risk Register (refer to PMI PMBOK) is commonly scrutinized in the risk review meeting prior to authorizing a project proposal and bid. Riskadverse senior managers will interrogate each Project Manager on their Risk Register items. For example, someone will read a stated risk, associated analysis, and get the negative impression that the Project Manager did not dig deep enough. She starts asking “Why. . .?” PM responds – answer still unacceptable. “Why. . .?,” etc. It commonly sounds like an on-the-fly verbal cause analysis. The question exchange could probably be caused mapped, because
248 Chapter 9 the line of questioning starts with the stated risk and digs deeper with each question. With each probing question the Project Manager becomes more uncomfortable, which is commonly depicted by long pauses of Project Manager silence over the speaker phone. And with each increasingly timid, voice-cracking Project Manager response the inquiring manager loses more confidence. It is like a crafty attorney who grills a witness into submission. The Verdict: Project manager failed to effectively evaluate project risk. The Project Manager comes to the realization that he did not think through project risk factors. The lack of higher level confidence translates into a directive to increase the cost contingency on his proposal. A total lack of confidence might cause a “No Bid” Decision, which means a wasted proposal preparation effort. For many of the practicing Project Managers in the world, this experience is like going to the dentist to get a root canal. Each Company will have their checks and balances that will repeatedly test the Project Manager’s ability to evaluate risk with results that are defensible. An increase in cost contingency often reflects the perception that the Risk Board does not think the Project Manager properly evaluated risk. The incremental increase in cost contingency might also be enough to cause the Project Manager to lose the project to a competitor on price. The Risk Board is just trying to protect the Company. Project managers who learn and apply cause analysis will develop more defensible risk evaluations that give approving managers confidence that the Project Manager has properly analyzed risks. Effective cause analysis results make a positive impression on senior managers, which will result in more competitive pricing (less cost contingency) on proposals and a higher chance of winning the project. Note: If you are a Project Manager with aspirations to be promoted to senior management, learn how to perform cause analysis. Have you noticed that many VP-level managers have established reputations as risk managers? It might be in the form of conducting due diligence for potential acquisitions. A senior executive is expected to keep the Company out of trouble.
Cause Analysis Fundamentals The next section will cover cause analysis fundamentals. Cause analysis approaches for routine project support activities are broken into three basic steps: (1) Define the problem; (2) Map Causes; (3) Identify and Implement Solutions.
Step 1: Define the Problem The Facilitator will help the team reach consensus on defining the problem. For nonconformances, the problem is noted on the non-conformance report or corrective action request form. The defined problem becomes the starting point for asking “why” or “caused by” in Step 2. Examples of problem definitions and typical sources: • •
Late project work plans (client performance evaluation downgrade) Workload might exceed analytical laboratory capacity (risk item)
Implement Cause Analysis to Generate Solutions 249 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Parcel C plume treatment might fail (risk item) Plume treatment reagent escaped to bay (project incident) Ruptured reagent injection well casing (project incident) Hazardous waste transferred into incorrect tank (project corrective action request) Hazardous waste manifest errors (client performance evaluation downgrade) Anomalies exceeding estimate (adverse project trend) Improper response to leak detection alarm (project incident) Discharged water exceeded permit limit (Regulatory Notice of Violation) Hazardous waste drum exploded (project incident) 50 K USD cost overrun on reagent injection task (adverse project trend) Waste water overflow (project incident) 80 l diesel spill (project incident) Water truck rolled into excavation (project incident) Sample holding time might be exceeded (risk item) Government vehicle stolen (incident) Late invoices (client performance evaluation downgrade) Erroneous project financial closeout packages (client performance evaluation downgrade)
Problem definitions should be short and concise. Problem definitions can also be expressed as potential problems (problem might happen) as they are on a Risk Register (i.e. What might go wrong?) or desired outcomes. The defined problem must be supported by important details: • • • •
Dates and times problem was identified Organization and individual who identified the problem Specific location of problem Photographs, records, and other documented evidence
An accurate timeline of events leading to problem is a handy supplement to the problem statement. The defined problem can always be refined during the cause analysis, if necessary. Tip: Construct an event timeline following the problem statement, and before evidence gathering, that lists key events (date and time) supported by evidence (e.g. records, e-mails, etc.) before you start mapping the causes. This will become a handy reference tool as you sequence the causes. Assess problem significance based on screening criteria Contractors and Project Managers should develop and apply screening criteria that include thresholds to determine significance. Here are some practical examples of screening criteria and thresholds that should elevate an adverse issue to “major significance”:
250 Chapter 9 Risk Evaluation: Any request by the client RFP to evaluate risks with the technical approach and provide options, or any proposal evaluation criteria that increases Contractor proposal rating for risk recognition and responses (The client has done the screening for you). Any issue featured by the Contractor Project Manager on project Risk Register. Safety: Near-miss incidents. Employee lost time incidents. Vehicle accidents. Safety violations from the regulatory agency. Any of these elevate significance to major, which requires more rigourous cause analysis. Environmental: Legal violation, which may include a fine, from permit-issuing regulatory agency for failing to comply with permit requirements or not complying with laws. Significant environmental impacts as defined by companies that have an ISO-14001 Environmental Management System (EMS). Technology/Operations: Any problem that jeopardizes the case for obtaining regulatory agency site closure. Contaminant removal are ineffective, or contaminant removal trends becoming asymptotic over time (cost per unit mass removed increases with time). Treatment system problems that cause treated and discharged by-products such as water or air to exceed permit discharge levels. Operations: Unplanned event exceeds specified amount, such as 50,000 USD. Recurring remedial action system downtime exceeds 1 day per occurrence, or client complains about “excessive system downtime”. Revenue: >25,000 USD profit loss. Cost: >variance trigger level that, according to the internal Contractor procedure, requires the Project Manager to provide a “recovery plan”. Schedule: Adverse productivity trend 10% into project (e.g. earned value metric triggers such as CPI). Project work plan approval delayed by over 1 month. Quality control: Client perception of “poor quality” work plan or final report. Rework or repair exceeds specified amount, such as 25,000 USD. Recurring non-conformances have been identified and noted by the client. Any client performance evaluation that downgrades the quality programme with regard to a specific adverse issue (e.g. “Contractor Quality Management System (QMS) was ineffective in dealing with the noted problem”). Major client concerns: Failure to meet contract performance standards. Client contract performance discrepancy report that has been elevated to the contracting officer. Major adverse performance issue cited on client performance evaluation. Any client contract letters that can be interpreted as: “Provide letter describing how you will remedy a serious problem by (date) or we will exercise our right to terminate the contract”.
Implement Cause Analysis to Generate Solutions 251
Step 2: Map Causes The defined problem is the starting point for the team to map “why” or “caused by” and tracking the action cause chain backwards in time. This can be done using yellow-stickies and a sharpie. The print needs to be visible from a few meters away. Figure 9.5 shows how to generate a cause map sequence by asking “Why? or “Caused By”. The first yellow-sticky, on left, represents “Define Problem”: (acid burned right forearm of employee). The yellow-sticky sequence, plotted left to right, works backwards in time by asking “Why? or “Caused By”. If possible, keep these brief. Avoid combining two actions on one yellow-sticky. Why–Why example Acid burned right forearm of employee (Why?) acid splash contacted forearm (Why?) plastic garbage bag broke (Why?) broken acid bottle pierced plastic bag (Why?) impact on pickup truck tailgate (Why?) employee tossed bag across truck bed (Why?) assumed plastic bags contained oily rags (Why?) told by onsite customer representative Caused By example Acid burned right forearm of employee (Caused By) acid splash contacted forearm (Caused By) plastic garbage bag broke (Caused By) broken acid bottle pierced plastic bag (Caused By) impact on pickup truck tailgate (Caused By) employee tossed bag across truck bed (Caused By) assumed plastic bags contained oily rags (Caused By) told by onsite customer representative Carrot symbol substitution for Why or Caused By Acid burned right forearm of employee > acid splash contacted forearm > plastic garbage bag broke > broken acid bottle pierced plastic bag > impact on pickup truck tailgate > employee tossed bag across truck bed > assumed plastic bags contained oily rags > told by onsite customer representative This cause analysis method is called the Why–Why Mapping. The original thinking behind the method was that five whys will usually dig deep enough into causes. You should never stop because you identify the fifth why. Note there are seven whys in this yellow-sticky example, and it
Figure 9.5 To generate a cause map sequence by asking “Why? or “Caused By”.
252 Chapter 9 could continue for many more steps. You should cause map until you need more information (?) or have a reason for stopping. How much time does a typical yellow-sticky cause map consume? Many are less than 1 h. Although Why–Why Mapping does not approach the level of detail that will be taught in this section, these yellow-sticky causes would pave the way for the team to identify some excellent preventive measures that act on one or more cause steps. If they did nothing more than this, they would still have a cause analysis that could help identify cause-specific solutions that would be effective in preventing problem recurrence. If the potential consequences are not significant, many teams will not go much beyond this basic approach. Now let us discuss a progressive list of cause mapping enhancements to the basic Why–Why map. We will start with an important mapping support task: adding evidence to each cause. Support each cause with evidence After developing the cause map based on input from participants, seek evidence to support each cause. Evidence includes interviews from eyewitnesses and records (e-mails, photos, operating logs, instrument data, operator logbook, equipment charts, manifests, receipts, truck tickets, etc.). Consider adding a letter footnote reference to the corner of the yellow sticky (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4) and have an Evidence Table (Table 9.2) that lists the evidence for each cause. Each cause on the cause map is restated, along with the Attached Exhibit, Evidence Supports Cause, Indeterminate, and Evidence Refutes Cause. A photo with a time stamp is an example of “Evidence Supports Cause”. An e-mail record can be “Evidence Supports Cause”. If the cause step cannot be substantiated by evidence, it should be considered “Indeterminate”. An Indeterminate cause might have been possible, and might even expose an opportunity for an effective solution, so “Indeterminate” should not be a justification to delete a cause step from the Why–Why sequence. A common “Indeterminate” example is a verbal claim with no other witness or supporting evidence. If the evidence collected contradicts the cause step, it is checked as “Evidence Refutes Cause” and the Cause step is either revised to be accurate or eliminated from the cause map.
Table 9.2 Evidence table Cause Step 1. 2. 3.
Attached Exhibit
Evidence Supports Cause
Indeterminate
Evidence Refutes Cause
Implement Cause Analysis to Generate Solutions 253 Why is evidence important? Here is a hypothetical example. You read a cause statement on a Corrective Action Request (CAR) that states a recently poured concrete wall for an aboveground bioremediation cell had to be torn down and re-poured because it was leaning. The CAR cause block stated the non-conformance was caused by probable thread failure (shear) in a 45 steel angle brace. The subcontractor project engineer participated in the cause mapping and offered “failed angle brace thread” in one of the cause sequences. When asked if the braces were inspected for evidence of thread failure, the project engineer stated the threads were inaccessible for visual inspection due to sleeves covering the threads that could not be removed. However, after draft cause mapping in the site trailer, and during the evidence gathering phase, the braces were examined in the field and could be decoupled. Each brace was inspected for evidence of failed threads. No evidence of thread damage was found. Therefore, the team focus shifted to collecting evidence for other cause map sequences within the overall cause map. It is very common to develop multiple “possible cause chains” that radiate away from the defined problem during the initial mapping. This is because more than one cause is commonly possible. In other cases, rather that place a yellow-sticky with a [?/Stop] (the cause map sequence), the Facilitator breaks the cause map into two or more branches that list possible cause steps. This keeps the team momentum going by continuing with the cause map sequences. It is not necessary to demand evidence for each cause step during the mapping process. However, additional evidence must be sought after cause mapping to substantiate each cause step. For example, in the simple yellow-sticky example above, show us the broken acid bottle so we can confirm the acid is capable of causing a burn. It is no different than a mechanic who says a faulty part needs to be replaced due to a crack. Please provide the part with the crack, or a picture of the part with the crack. Good mechanics will save the faulty parts to show their customers. Police detectives learned many decades ago: people might fail to disclose, distort, mislead, or cover up actions that led to the problem. Some root cause analysis consulting firms emphasize the importance of maintaining harmony and teamwork during cause mapping. Never conduct cause analysis with a theme of searching to convict a guilty person. However, experienced project practitioners will tell you a typical clue of possible inadequate disclosure will be the poorly written problem description on a report. The description may sound confusing. After reading it several times to try and figure it out, it becomes apparent that key information has been omitted. It might be a very lengthy and abstract problem description with sprinklings of technical verbiage. Workers, supervisors, technical staff, and managers might be reluctant to disclose important problem description details. Some people do this because they fear disciplinary action, or feel embarrassed. For example, the substantial cost overrun “suddenly appears” in the project cost
254 Chapter 9 report and higher level managers want a justification for late identification. This is the reality of some cause analysis efforts. People knew about the problem much sooner, may have ignored it or tried to recover, were unable to recover, and then the problem is disclosed. Tip: Take steps to preserve and obtain evidence as soon as possible after the problem is identified. It becomes increasingly difficult to reconstruct the cause sequence with each passing day. Generate “Condition Causes” because they maximize potential solution opportunities Solutions in response to condition causes pave the way for the best possible preventive measures for most companies, Project Managers, and project teams. They would like to “take the human mistake possibility” out of the future equation. The “silver bullet” fixes, innovative “game-changing” ideas, proposal discriminators that fuel a positioning strategy, risk evaluations that decrease need for cost contingency, competitive design advantages, etc., rarely arise from a stroke of sudden enlightenment, or solutions in response to specific action causes. Instead, they emerge when people expand their perspective of “What is Possible” by generating condition causes. If cause analysis and mapping is your method of choice to become enlightened regarding what is possible (because you are deliberately searching for solution opportunities), then you must understand the concept of “condition causes”. You need to learn how to deliberately generate condition causes in a cause map. Condition causes are elusive because humans take them for granted. The Apollo cause analysis process does an excellent job of teaching the role of condition causes. If you want to learn more about condition causes, consider purchasing the book, Apollo Root Cause Analysis by Mr. Dean Gano. The process described below to develop condition causes does not strictly adhere to the approach recommended by Apollo. We both have the same objective: identify condition causes. How you achieve this objective is your choice.
Definitions: Action cause versus condition cause Action cause: momentary causes that bring conditions together to cause an effect. Condition cause: causes that existed in the snapshot in time before an action came together to cause an effect. Stated as noun (the unstated and understood verb is “exists”) Condition causes will cause the maps to become very detailed. Each condition cause is also a potential starting point for asking “Why” and mapping the cause chain. For example: Define problem: Fire. Caused by Match Strike (Action Cause). Condition Causes for Match Strike: (1) Match; (2) Oily Rags, and (3) Oxygen. In order to ask “Why” for a condition cause, you need to interpret the cause as (condition cause exists). For example: Oily Rags (exist) Why do Oily Rags exist? > Staged by Janitor > Why? etc. If you do not include the “exist” you might get stuck on the condition cause.
Implement Cause Analysis to Generate Solutions 255 Adding condition causes might seem like overkill. So you need to ask the question: How important is it to maximize the number of solution opportunities? If problem or client opportunity significance does not justify the additional time and effort, then do not spend the time. Just stick to simple Why–Why cause analysis and do not be concerned if the cause is an action or condition cause. However, you might be missing some valuable solution opportunities. Condition causes reveal the best solutions. Here is a brief tutorial on how to generate condition causes. Define problem: Car Stolen. The cause analysis team maps the Why–Why cause actions working sequentially back in time. The first four yellow-stickies illustrate this progression, which, as you can imagine, continues into a map that branches off into several possible cause sequence scenarios. Once the team is comfortable with the first-cut cause map brainstorm sequence, they go to each cause step to deliberately generate condition causes. When a team brainstorms the first version of the cause map, nobody cares about classifying the cause – it is just a cause. One cause per yellow-sticky. It is not important on the first cut of the cause map. Trying to do this would just bog down the team. As mentioned, condition causes are caused-mapped as nouns, not verb actions. Condition causes do not create a different cause chain. Instead, they branch off from each action cause as shown in the stolen car example. A condition cause might be a rule of nature (e.g. gravity) and give the impression that nothing can be done about it. It always exists. Nevertheless, it’s possible to take actions (e.g. engineering controls) to prevent conditions such as gravity to enable the unwanted effect. View the map. The team comes to the second cause step: “Thief drove off in car”. They proceed to brainstorm what appears to be the obvious. For example, what conditions had to exist at the snapshot in time to enable the specific cause step: “Thief drove off in car”?
256 Chapter 9 The cause analysis facilitator can ask the following question to stimulate thinking: “What conditions had to exist to enable the action: “Thief drove off in car”? “Enable” is a key term. Sample condition causes for thief drove off in car: • • • • • •
Fuel (would enable thief to drive off in car) Ignition (would enable thief to drive off in car) Steering wheel (would enable thief to drive off in car) Brakes (would enable thief to drive off in car) Four inflated tires (would enable thief to drive off in car) Street (would enable thief to drive off in car)
Each condition cause existed at the snapshot in time during the cause step: Thief drove off in Car. If any one of these enabling causes was not available, then the thief could not drive off in car. Then, the cause analysis facilitator may ask the following question to “qualify” each condition cause: • • • • • •
Would eliminating fuel disable the action? (thief drive off in car). Would eliminating ignition disable the action? (thief drive off in car) Would eliminating steering wheel disable the action? (thief drive off in car) Would eliminating brakes disable the action? (thief drive off in car) Would eliminating four inflated tires disable the action? (thief drive off in car) Would eliminating street disable the action? (thief drive off in car)
“Yes” means the cause qualifies as a solution opportunity. The yellow-sticky gets to stay on the cause map. Note: This can seem like a very mechanistic process. The Facilitator needs to help team members overcome the common tendency to dismiss the importance of condition causes. Participants perceive to be “stating the obvious” for each cause step. Some technical experts act like “the smartest person in the room” and chuckle during this process. Expertise has a way of causing tunnel-vision, which is why breakthrough ideas, solutions, and products usually come from an Outsider in a different field. They do not have the mental baggage of rules and truths. For people who prefer to focus on the initial action cause sequence, they might feel that listing condition causes is a waste of time. They might say, “We detected the ‘root cause’ in that particular yellow-sticky cause step – the solution is obvious – why are we continuing? (Response: Because it might not be the only solution desired by our Project Manager who is paying for us to go through this exercise). Even though many solutions to condition causes may require design changes or engineering controls, these can become the most effective solutions. Can a thief steal car without fuel? No. Some might feel like interjecting, “That’s stupid. Of course the car had fuel otherwise the person could not have parked it there” While the supplier that provides the ignition system to the car manufacturer might say, “Sure, our engineers can design the ignition system to cut off fuel injection if the anti-theft system is activated”.
Implement Cause Analysis to Generate Solutions 257 Another example is “steering wheel”. Can thief steal car without steering wheel? No. While some might say, “That’s stupid. You can’t take away the steering wheel”. “That is true, but it is possible to control it”. The inventor of The Club figured out a simple way for car owners to control the steering wheel by locking a colourful coated pipe on it. What type of solution does The Club represent on an environmental remediation project or treatment plant? Engineering control. The Club is a simple “lockout-tag out” procedure applied to a car. When cause analysis teams map near-miss or lost-time accidents, the condition cause solution options frequently have the potential to eliminate or disable the action from recurring. This is desirable. However, these solutions tend to be more costly to implement. Once each condition cause is qualified, it becomes a solution candidate. The cause analysis facilitator may ask the following question: How can we change, control, or eliminate [cause]: • • • • • •
Fuel – How can we change, control, or eliminate fuel? Ignition – How can we change, control, or eliminate ignition? Steering Wheel – How can we change, control, or eliminate the steering wheel? Brakes – How can we change, control, or eliminate the brakes? Four inflated tires – How can we change, control, or eliminate the four inflated tires? Street – How can we change, control, or eliminate the street?
The resultant ideas are noted as “solution opportunities” that are assigned to the specific cause. The Project Manager or cause analysis sponsor will select the desired solutions. Now imagine going to each action cause on the cause map and generating condition causes. The cause map can become very detailed. In the Car Stolen example, the next Action Cause in the sequence “Thief Could Drive Off” would duplicate many of the same condition causes as “Thief Drove Off in Car”. However, the next action cause “Thief Entered Car” would generate a different set of condition causes and potential solutions.
258 Chapter 9 Condition cause solution example: Designing safe nuclear fuel containers Have you ever seen photos of the containers used to store highly enriched uranium for nuclear fuel? They look like large plastic containers for oversized pretzels. They are exactly those dimensions because someone developed a solution to a condition cause: container geometry. In the 1950s, it was possible for an operator to make the unthinkable mistake of placing two containers of highly enriched uranium together and causing a nuclear criticality reaction. But realizing that humans had “two hands” (condition cause), the container geometries were redesigned to require three containers placed closely together to cause a nuclear criticality reaction. This solution was effective in preventing the possible human error action – because individuals do not have three hands. While the design change may have been resisted by some (e.g. “But we just bought 300 new containers”), the benefit justified the change. In the hierarchy of controls, this solution does not qualify as “eliminate” the risk, but the “substitution” of container geometry combined with “engineering control” solutions were effective in dramatically decreasing the risk of a mistake.
Step 3: Identify and Implement Solutions The Facilitator assists the team going to each specific cause step and asking: How can we change, control, or eliminate the [cause]. The process is no different than the example for “Thief Drove off in Car”. Recommended solutions might be added to a “Draft Action List” (or Preventive Action Table in the case of a QC Corrective Action Request). The Draft actions are reviewed by the Project Manager, who selects the desired solutions. The Cause Analysis Planning Checklist will help you define procedural guidelines in the solution phase. Hierarchy of Controls The popular international OSHAS 180001 Health and Safety Standard, Clause 4.3.1, Hazard Identification, risk assessment and determining controls, requires a “procedure for the ongoing identification of occupational health and safety hazards and risks and deciding which are significant. It further states, “When determining controls, or considering changes to existing controls, consideration shall be given to reducing the risks according to the following hierarchy (application of the “hierarchy of controls” is now a requirement). Hierarchy of controls 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Elimination Substitution Engineering Controls Administrative Controls Personal Protective Equipment
Implement Cause Analysis to Generate Solutions 259 Control methods at the top are potentially more effective and protective than those at the bottom, and commonly arise when solutions act on a condition cause (i.e. change, control, or eliminate the cause). Elimination and substitution, while more effective for decreasing hazards, tend to require larger investments because these solutions are commonly design or equipment-related changes. The cheapest solutions tend to be administrative (e.g. revise the procedure) and personnel protective equipment (PPE).
Hypothetical Case Study: Expansion Joint Rupture Define Problem: Oily Water Spill in Street. Cause map starts with problem statement on the left: Oily water spill in street > (>Caused by) Oily water shot through corrugated metal cover on pump station > Gaps in corrugated vault cover > Rubber expansion joint rupture > Possible pressure spike > or > Stress cause by excessive dimension mismatch with adjoining pipes, etc. Note: The actual cause map would be much more detailed. Condition causes for “Rubber expansion joint rupture” included pressure, oily water medium, and rubber expansion joint. Evidence for pressure: charts show no pressure spike. Evidence for released oily water: lab reports show no abnormal influent; spilled water did not contain chemicals that could damage rubber expansion joint material. Evidence for material: stamp on the destroyed rubber expansion joint material, which shows a part number. Part number linked to material specification. Material specification inconsistent with piping and instrumentation drawing. More Evidence: purchase order document shows material spec was not listed; consequently, supplier assumed a certain material with similar dimensions could be used. This expansion joint material was more susceptible to degradation in this type of application. Containment actions included identifying where the other wrong expansion joints were installed (so they could be replaced), inspecting the integrity of installed expansion joints for evidence of degradation, and contacting the supplier to exchange the materials.
Understanding Ishikawa (Fishbone) Diagram Limitations for Cause Analysis The Ishikawa (fishbone diagram) is the most popular type of cause and effect diagram in the world, and featured in the PMBOK. The American Society for Quality (ASQ) also views the Ishikawa Diagram as an effective cause and effect method. The end effect is shown on the right-hand side of the fishbone. “Cause categories” are shown on the map. For example: Material, Machine, Measurement, Man, and Method. However, it is impossible to start with an action or event-driven problem statement, and cause map actions that go backwards in time and stay within a particular category. Cause chains, like nature, are indifferent to categories. Certainly, it is possible to cause map a problem and then apply the
260 Chapter 9 categories to each cause (e.g. Cause 32 has “Measurement” header along top of cause box). But right next to it could be Cause 33 with the category header “Man”.) If you Google fishbone diagram images and view the image details, not a single one maps cause chains. Open any of them. View the problems that are listed under each category. For example, Machine (Poor Design); Materials (Lack of Good Spares), etc. How many times do you look at each problem and ask: “Why do we have that problem?” Most Fishbone diagrams are a collection of problem statements that are not supported by any cause analysis. What is your manager going to say if you give her a typical fishbone diagram? Most will say: “Good start – But this diagram does not really tell me anything I did not already know. Tell me our top three problems, figure out what is causing those problems, and recommend actions we can take to prevent the problems”. Hence, regardless of the intended use envisioned by the late Dr. Ishikawa, companies are using fishbone diagrams as categorization schemes. And categorization schemes are inconsistent with the scientific method. While many Fishbone users rank problems based on significance, they seldom drill down into the significant problems to develop cause chains and solutions that act on specific causes. Then why is the Fishbone Diagram mentioned in this section? The Fishbone Diagram is one option for organizing condition cause categories to support the cause mapping exercise. However “Material, Machine, Measurement, Man, and Method” is too general for environmental projects (Example of “Base Condition Cause List” is featured later in this chapter).
The Influence of Culture on Project Team Actions and Inactions When an experienced Cause Analysis Facilitator is mapping causes with the team (formalized cause analysis), she periodically asks questions to stimulate participant thinking to reveal condition cause categories that are related to an action cause step. One consistently relevant condition cause category is “Culture”. Perhaps the late Dr. Ishikawa intended culture to be included in the “Man” category? His book, “What is Total Quality Control – the Japanese Way” provides fascinating insights into the role of Japanese culture in the 1950s on quality control. My suggestion is to add culture as a stand-alone condition cause category on the fishbone. Culture is the spinal column that represents a category of cultural factors that is unique to the project and influences individual decisions to take actions, or not take actions (inactions) (see Figure 9.6). Culture should be the centreline of the Fishbone template that cross-cuts all the other cause categories. The spinal column is the bone, but culture is the spinal cord that runs through the skeleton (e.g. project nervous system). Note how the Fishbone template centreline does not have a cause category attached to it, so we can stake our claim to that part of the fish.
Implement Cause Analysis to Generate Solutions 261
Figure 9.6 Culture is the spinal column that represents a category of cultural factors.
How Environmental Project Cultures Evolve Each project team develops its own culture over time. When the project starts, the culture resembles the parent company. The project team will begin the journey to develop its own identity. Many successful projects start to assimilate a combination of the following: (1) the client culture (values, perceptions, hopes, fears, biases, etc., that get down to various details such as preferred communication style, how people dress and act in meetings, and procedure format) and (2) the culture established by the Project Manager through leadership. This is shown on the Fishbone. Client and company values flow down through the project organization and permeate the fishbone. However, over time, each project becomes less like their parent company culture, and more like the client organization culture. If the cultures conflict in some way, such as how people dress, most project teams choose to assimilate the client culture to make the client staff feel more comfortable. However, this does not always happen. For example, several years ago, on a previous Government ER programme a particular Contractor team would always show up at client meetings wearing formal business attire. Their men and women wore suits, dress shoes, and the men always wore ties. The top-ranking client individual, client staff and other Contractor participants were dressed “business casual” with no ties. After several meetings, this began to perturb some client team members. Some started to make jokes. That did not matter because this particular Contractor had a strong dress code policy that clashed with the client culture. It did not help that the Contractor parent culture was also arrogant (i.e. they projected an attitude that “We at (Company Name) know what is best for our clients”).
262 Chapter 9 They did not make their client feel comfortable, and it rubbed some client members in a negative way. The Contractor team chose not to assimilate the client culture with regard to dress code at meetings. Each project culture is different. No two project cultures are the same. This is an important concept for student readers (e.g. undergraduate scientists, engineers) who are considering a career in the environmental restoration industry. You might be miserable with one project team, and gratified on the next. Some project team cultures value the science and technical knowledge gained and want to send their technical staff to share their knowledge at a popular symposium, while others do not care. In rare cases, a college graduate will join a company, get their first project team assignment, and leave. They do not just leave the company – they leave the industry. The project culture at the site 20 km down the road might be their “dream project”. Moreover, when Project Managers establish project team chemistry, they strive to keep the teams together. Project staff may develop strong loyalties with their client counterpart and Project Manager. They strive to help their client counterpart and Project Manager succeed. The Project Manager reciprocates with loyalty to staff.
Client Project Managers Develop Loyalty Towards the Contractor Project Manager and Project Team People: Not the Company Brand Client Project Managers (e.g., RPMs) value their Contractor Project Manager counterpart and key individual counterparts more than the parent company. When asked the question, “Would you recommend the company?” client Project Managers may be indifferent. However, when asked “Would you recommend specific individuals within the company”, most say “Yes” “Maybe” or “No”. They develop relationships with people, not companies. Company executives know this, which is why they try to hire professionals that have established client relationships with client accounts they are seeking to gain.
Cultural Factors Commonly Emerge During Cause Analysis New project team members adapt to the written and unwritten rules that exist in each project culture. Unwritten rules trickle down from the project value system. Project team members may not take corrective action (and increase risk for a potential problem) due to the cultural influence. For example, individuals do not want to upset their direct report (e.g. Technical Lead, Superintendent, or Supervisor). Individuals may recall how they were lectured over an issue 3 weeks into the project. If a Project Manager is web portal-phobic and resistant to change, is he going to tolerate a young project engineer who uses the web portal to conduct collaborative reviews? No. He might say, “This isn’t that other project you support—we don’t do things like that on our project—don’t waste your time and our time on a web portal”. The Project Manager
Implement Cause Analysis to Generate Solutions 263 20 km down the road might be a portal power user, with everything from project submittals to procurement documents organized for reference. Condition causes can be real (supported by evidence) or perceived by individuals. The most common condition cause in the workplace has emerged during the last 15 years: e-mail. In many cases, the driver for an individual action is perception caused by interpretation of an e-mail. In some cases it is possible to trace the e-mail up the organization to a high level in the organization, unless the next higher level manager cuts off the previous e-mail(s) to protect the identity of the higher level manager(s) as the e-mail directive flows down through the organization. An e-mail might be interpreted in such a way that it causes a worker to make the decision to not take action required by plan or procedure. While the supervisor might say he did not direct the worker to not take action, the worker’s perception and inaction was influenced by the e-mail. A verbal request that causes a worker to not take action required by procedure is also a condition cause. An individual QC inspector perception that the improperly functioning pump does not require a non-conformance report or does not justify an “out of service tag” likely has an inspector-perceived condition cause. These are cultural condition causes, and they are not always obvious. Moreover, condition causes are commonly self-serving to the individual, such as being in a hurry to catch the futbol game. Goals and incentives such as bonuses are also common condition causes. Managers want to earn their bonuses.
Role of the “Mental Risk Register” Each project team member walks around with their own “Mental Risk Register” in his/her brain that is strongly influenced by the project culture. Some people are very cerebral and have highly developed Mental Risk Registers, and deliberately step back and process important task decisions through their Mental Risk Register. It usually does not involve a rigourous evaluation of risks. In the simplest form, it is considering the task at hand and weighing the pros, cons, and risk of decisions (e.g. “If I take Action A, then I might be exposing myself (and the project) to certain potential consequences. Action B involves other potential consequences. What might happen if I do nothing?).” What types of actions or inactions get consistently rewarded and recognized by the Technical Lead or Supervisor? (Each individual constantly observes and continually updates their Mental Risk Register). Does a young engineering professional ask for advice on how to do a task if he risks making a bad impression on the Technical Lead? (e.g. “Sorry Mr. Technical Lead, I really don’t know how to operate this field instrument technology, or
264 Chapter 9 use this device to collect a sample, or properly query the client analytical database”). Bear in mind that environmental projects involve a wide variety of skill sets and Technical Leads rely on professionals to be candid and forthright regarding their experience. The young professional will first process the Technical Lead work request through his Mental Risk Register. If he does not ask for help due to not wanting to be perceived as inexperienced (he might be ambitious), that decision escalated the probability for making subsequent costly mistakes that will require rework. Project deficiencies are commonly caused by ambitious young professionals who, for some psychological reason, perceive that asking questions or admitting they have never done something before will cause their direct report to view him negatively. The Mental Risk Register includes the risk associated with “How is the Technical Lead or Supervisor going to perceive me if I ask for help because I’m not sure how to do something” The answer should be, “More favourably than if I don’t ask for help and then make a costly mistake”.
Mechanistic Approaches to Work Other individuals have been conditioned on their project to be told what to do, and are not encouraged (or expected) to think. This is particularly prevalent on projects involving routine daily plant operation and maintenance tasks, such as a hazardous waste or industrial waste treatment plants. Behind many high-risk projects on the verge of a major problem, there might be project team members (e.g. plant operators, craft labour) who have become mechanistic in their approach to performing routine work and inspections. They perform routine work without thinking. Some safety professionals perceive this behaviour as complacency; however, a mechanistic worker can also be a hard-driving worker who is not thinking. Root cause analysis reports for major incidents commonly expose multiple condition causes that were not recognized and evaluated (relative to potential risks and consequences) and not properly acted upon by the observing individual. No amount of government regulation, or increased third party inspections, will change the culture. The cultural transition from a “reactive operation” to a proactive, “thinking operation”, must come from internal Project Manager leadership. These mechanistic and reactive characteristics might be prevalent on some projects, and rare on other projects within the same Company. Recall the “2-Minute QC Drill” checklist in Chapter 8? This represents a task self-assessment tool for individuals to stimulate and calibrate their Mental Risk Register. Nothing more. A mechanistic approach to work, or hurrying to get a task completed, can lead to nonconforming work and project rework. A seemingly low-risk task might have land mines that, if unrecognized and not properly documented, could result in significant rework or a safety accident. Individuals need to get in the habit of stepping back and thinking before
Implement Cause Analysis to Generate Solutions 265 they get immersed in trying to get task done as soon as possible. A Daily Safety Tailgate Meeting that includes an Activity Hazard Analysis and “QC 2-Minute Drill” exercise will reveal “red flags” that will sensitize work crews to task-specific risks and potential consequences.
Base Cleanup Team Culture Consider developing a “Base Cleanup Team Culture” profile to guide capture planning, proposal discriminators, and project team conduct. Below are some sample condition cause categories that are unique to each base. These condition causes strongly influence client perceptions. Condition causes drive client actions and decisions, including regulatory agency actions and decisions. Thus, these condition causes can be an excellent source of Contractor proposal discriminators. Then use client interviews combined with Why–Why Cause Mapping to reveal underlying cause drivers and solution opportunities. Base-specific condition causes must be uncovered, understood, and respected by Contractors. Otherwise, project teams will violate unwritten rules and their project opportunity will be short-lived (i.e. “one and done”) on the base. Base Cleanup Team (BCT) Culture • • • • • •
Client BCT member perceptions (hopes, fears, biases) Client BCT member perceptions of risk (e.g. technology, safety, regulatory compliance) Client BCT-perceived status of Contractors (e.g. “pecking order” of Contractor importance; ranking among Contractors) Client BCT communication interfaces and protocol Client BCT member technology preferences based on lessons learned (likes and dislikes) Client BCT Approach to Community Outreach
BCT Client (Base Tenant) Culture • • • • • •
Base tenant perceptions (hopes, fears, biases) Base Rules and Regulations (e.g. Security, Regulations, Working Hours, Visitors) Base Tenant Organization (which specific individuals exert clout and influence over client?) Base Tenant subcontractor biases (e.g. Liked/Disliked subcontractors based on their previous performance on base) Base Safety Practices Preferred method of “QA Oversight” of Contractors
Regulatory Agency Culture • •
Regulatory agency perception of trust towards your client Regulatory agency staff-specific hopes, fears, biases
266 Chapter 9 Base-Specific Regulatory Agreements and Requirements • • • • • •
Memorandum of Understanding (MOA) Federal Facility Agreements (FFA) FFA Schedule and Milestones Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (Base ARARs) Base Cleanup Plan Record of Decision (ROD)
Local Community Culture • • • • •
Understanding the political dynamic (e.g. Pressure to keep “money” in local community by utilizing local subcontractors) Community perception of trust towards your client Community perception of exposure risk posed by the existing plume and proposed technical remedy on their health Community degree of sensitivity/tolerance for noise, dust, odour, and trucks driving through community How community expects to stay informed during project
Client–Contractor Relationships • •
Client PM and Contractor PM Recognized Contractor Subject Matters Experts (e.g. “Go-to person” for base geology; regulatory requirements; client technical information database, etc.)
Base-Experience • •
Contractor PM Project team members
Geographic Proximity • •
Office to project site (kilometres) Contractor PMO Office to Client Home Office
Contractor Local Office and/or Project Site Trailer • •
Local office size and office accommodations Office communication Infrastructure (conference room; spare guest offices; high speed internet access)
Base Contract Requirements Contractual (RFP Template for Task Orders reflects the base culture): • •
Base-specific RFP templates for different statements of work Base-specific RFP template proposal evaluation criteria
Implement Cause Analysis to Generate Solutions 267 • • • •
Base RFP template Contractor performance evaluation criteria Base RFP template contract incentives (e.g. Award Fee Plan; potential additional extra contract option years) Base RFP template contract disincentives (Liquidated Damages) Base RFP template “Performance Measurement and Payment Summary” (i.e. How Contractors get paid)
Base-Specific Plans and Procedures • •
Base Cleanup Plan Base-wide plans and procedures
Base Site Cleanup Technologies •
Past and current technologies being implemented
Base Technical Document Expectations • • •
In-Progress reviews Consistent format for plans and reports “Comment–Response” procedural expectations
Base Websites, Software and Databases • • • •
Role of client websites to support projects Submittal management software/database/procedure Web-based Geographic Information System (GIS) Analytical Database
Base History and Site Conditions • • • •
Historical records of activities that caused contamination Base geology (geology including hydrogeology) Contaminants of concern Plume characteristics
Base Records •
Site information (drawings, figures, maps, reports)
Sometimes condition cause discriminators/potential discriminator opportunities can be difficult to discover. For example, your Program Manager wants you to figure out why the competitor’s office near the base became a Base Cleanup Team (BCT) magnet. The BCT always selects the competitor’s office to hold important Quarterly BCT Meetings, even though your office is closer to the base. You interview your client Project Manager over lunch, and then go back to your office to cause map your findings. Define Problem: Client BCT prefers competitor office. Sample Condition Causes in no specific order: Proximity to site (less that 10
268 Chapter 9 min commute); convenient parking; 300 Km from popular train station that goes to airport; large air conditioned conference room with nice view of bay; comfortable ergonomic chairs for up to 20 people; excellent conference room communication infrastructure including a T1 line, internet access, hub with numerous CAT 6 network cables for laptop connections, overhead projector, and speaker phone. You might even discover things like “Starbucks Coffee next door”; “Office vending machine carries nice snack and beverage selection, which, coincidentally, includes the BCT Leader’s favorite energy drink”; and “Courtesy computer desktop terminal with a convenient desktop icon link to the Southwest Airlines pre-boarding pass web page”. What do you make of this list of value satisfactions? Do you feel like you just cause mapped your competitor’s solutions to a BCT-perceived problem (i.e. multiple solutions acted on causes that previously impacted BCT Meeting productivity)? Are all these little things discriminators? That depends on two things: (1) Whether they deliver value to BCT members; and, (2) Can your Contractor office match them? If not, they are discriminators. It is all fair and legal, down to the little details such as the BCT Leader purchasing their favourite energy drink from the vending machine (not a gratuity). Credit your savvy competitor for performing due diligence and seizing the opportunity when he observed Quarterly BCT Meetings were previously an inconvenience.
Hypothetical Case Study: Hazardous Waste Treatment Plant This hypothetical case study illustrates the value of generating multiple solution opportunities from cause analysis. A project team was awarded a contract to operate a large hazardous waste treatment plant. The plant routinely received various hazardous waste streams that were delivered by truck. Waste would be pumped into the designated holding tank. It would accumulate in tanks and be periodically treated and disposed through a sewer connect in accordance with a discharge permit. The permit established maximum allowable concentrations of metals. A regulatory agency representative would take independent water samples from each discharge event. And then one day the project received a regulatory Notice of Violation (NOV) from the regulatory agency for discharging treated wastewater that contained metal concentrations that exceeded the permit. The regulatory agency provided a copy of the laboratory report. The project documented the problem on a Corrective Action Request (CAR) that was issued to the plant manager for cause analysis, corrective action, and preventive action. Immediately after the NOV, e-mails related to the incident were getting circulated up the client chain of command. The client pressed the plant manager for the cause of the problem. The plant manager felt pressure to promptly respond. Unfortunately, the plant manager and plant chemist hastily completed the CAR and speculated on
Implement Cause Analysis to Generate Solutions 269 the problem cause without performing a cause analysis. The suspected cause was wordy explanation that speculated about a mystery chemical provided by a waste generator. The client strongly disagreed with the explanation of cause. He wanted to schedule a meeting with the project team to discuss the incident and their concerns with the stated cause. While the plant manager defended his explanation, a cause analysis team consisting of the QC manager and plant chemist started a Why–Why cause analysis. They had 1 week before the scheduled meeting to identify causes and corrective and preventive actions. They worked backwards from the problem (NOV for discharge exceedance), asking “why” or “caused by” at each step to create a draft cause map. The Why–Why sequence looked like this: NOV due to (metal) concentration exceedance > Lab report data > Suspended (metal) particulates passed through Compositor > Precipitate passed through carbon filtering system > Precipitate passed through duel media bed filtering system >Not precipitated by Clarifier Tank > Insufficient polymer quantity transferred to Clarifier from polymer tank > Transfer pump flow rates set too low. Then they went into the evidence collection phase. At each step they interviewed plant operators who were involved with the specific treatment event, asking questions and researching plant treatment records (e.g. tank discharge volume, treatment chemical quantities used, operating logs, etc.). Of particular note, operators reported that only x gallons of polymer were consumed during the treatment (evidence), which seemed low considering the quantity of waste requiring clarifier treatment. From this evidence, they calculated the actual quantity of polymer that should have been consumed based on the tank volume. Further, they examined the pump settings and determined the settings were not set high enough to achieve polymer transfer rates. The evidence related to lack of polymer and the transfer pump settings enabled them to prepare a compelling cause analysis report for the client meeting. The client team entered the meeting with several representatives and their technical expert. They did not claim to know the causes, or come prepared to join the conjecturing on the suspected causes. However, they were prepared to criticize the initial “speculative” cause they were given by the plant manager. The cause analysis team provided a draft cause analysis report to the Project Manager and Vice President. The Vice President provided review comments and requested to join the meeting. The cause analysis team showed up with a meeting package for all attendees. The client team was expecting a plant manager defense of the original CAR cause and associated speculation. The client team looked through the handout and were surprised to see a new report, summary points (cover page), preventive action (1 page), and photos (1 page). As the cause analysis leader started describing the cause analysis approach and findings, the client representatives were silent and just listening to every word. Not a single person interrupted to disagree with the analysis.
270 Chapter 9 They accepted responsibility for the regulatory NOV, summarized the Why–Why analysis and supporting data, described preventive actions, and the vice president reiterated the apology. The lead client technical expert praised the project team for the cause analysis. The project team left the meeting and members shifted their attention to preventive actions. Going forward, they would pre-calculate polymer transfer quantities and monitor transfer rates during treatment. They created an operations log to document this data during the treatment. They would also set, document, and monitor transfer pump rates. They developed waste treatment “Readiness Review Checklist” to make sure they properly planned each future treatment event. They involved the operators. The team went into the next treatment with confidence they would be capable of real-time detection of polymer transfer problems. Less than 10 min into the next hazardous waste treatment they detected a serious problem. The technician who was now assigned to monitor polymer transfer rates observed that polymer was not being transferred at the proper rate. The plant supervisor looked at the three pumps and was stunned to see that all three were properly set and running. Not a single pump appeared to be malfunctioning. So they shut down the treatment operation. They traced the polymer line downstream towards the Clarifier and noticed a section of pipe containing an in-line static mixer assembly. It was removed for inspection. It contained a small injector port opening that was clogged with debris. They unclogged the debris and reviewed the plant drawing. According to the plant drawing, the static mixer orifice was undersized by a centimetre. They increased the port diameter and reinstalled the static mixer. The treatment was commenced and they sampled the treated waste prior to discharge. The treated water was clean. They implemented a preventive inspection schedule for the static mixer to make sure it remained unclogged. The project team effectively treated the hazardous waste for several months without a recurring violation. The cause analysis led the team to suspect that improper flow rates on polymer transfer pumps were causing the problem. That was incorrect. However, the cause analysis exposed the fact that the project team was conducting waste treatment operations in a reactive manner. In the previous reactive mode, plant treatment operators followed their procedure, made sure valves were properly aligned before the treatment, made sure the polymer tank was stocked, and monitored the plant for leaks during treatment. But they lacked a process and operational controls to achieve real-time recognition of a problem that would allow them to shut down the plant. The cause analysis exposed numerous solution opportunities to become proactive and prevent surprises. The solutions were the pivotal turning point for leading a cultural change. It was no longer acceptable to react to problems. The plant chemist who played a key role in the cause analysis was promoted to plant manager.
Implement Cause Analysis to Generate Solutions 271
Sample Cause Analysis Plan Major cause analysis assignments start with a Cause Analysis Sponsor (e.g. Program or Project Manager), Cause Analysis Facilitator, problem solving team, a serious problem or, in rare cases, a desire to identify multiple options to improve performance. Use Figure 9.7 to guide your formalized cause analysis effort (if you are a Project Manager) or with your Project Manager to clarify expectations. The checklist includes items that have an asterisk. A more streamlined cause analysis approach is offered if the project team wants to accelerate the process. The checklist places an emphasis on cause analysis objectives and deliverables. For example, what work results are you going to produce? Major cause analysis assignments are not as simple as: (1) Define the problem; (2) Map Causes; (3) Identify and Implement Solutions. By establishing a Cause Analysis Plan, you have a clear understanding of expectations. Note: Most cause analysis investigations can be informally mapped by an individual or small group in less than 2 h (Steps 1–4). Evidence gathering (Step 5) can require more time.
Figure 9.7 Cause analysis planning checklist.
272 Chapter 9
How to Build Higher Level Support for Cause Analysis How do you obtain in-house sponsorship for a management tool? Most executives have seen several quality improvement tools come and go throughout their career. They are especially sceptical of any management tool being hyped in the popular business press. It does not matter if it came from Harvard, or the book was a New York Times bestseller based on a 20-year study of the most successful companies. They have seen management fads run their cycle for many years. Senior managers recommend doing pilot projects within the organization, learning from those pilot projects, and then getting some impressive “quick wins”. The best testimonials come from important clients, Program Managers, and Project Managers within the company. That way, your introductory presentation builds on a proven foundation of project success within the company. People want to hear that you have tried the initiative, encountered some challenges, refined the approach, and, most importantly, have some impressive results. For example, “Project A was in serious trouble. The client was ready to terminate the contract. The Project A team applied cause analysis to solve the problem, implemented solutions, and prevented problem recurrence. These are the results including cost savings. The Client performance evaluation went from ‘Unsatisfactory’ to ‘Very Good’ in six months. The project team was recently awarded a new contract for five years, etc.”. This is how programme leaders and projects become receptive to listening. Senior managers want to know: How is this tool going to become a difference maker to help our project teams win additional work? Is it going to help project teams achieve results that will enable stellar project descriptions? Some senior managers are motivated by the potential “Wow Factor”. The interesting thing about “root cause analysis” is that it has never been “hyped” to the level of other management tools such as TQM, Re-Engineering, Lean Six Sigma, or The Balanced Scorecard. It just seems to move along outside the mainstream business press as a specialty tool for major accident investigations (e.g. commercial airline plane crashes, massive oil spills). Consequently, many managers envision a very detailed, time-consuming process that can take weeks to complete and include a detailed report. Most cause analysis exercises can be mapped in less than 2 h; the evidence gathering can become the time-consuming part.
Introductory Cause Analysis Awareness Training Do not conduct a Cause Analysis Awareness Training without two or three success stories from programmes or projects within your company, otherwise, the information will not gain any traction. Even if a Company executive forces managers to be receptive, they will lack conviction and motivation unless they perceive a real benefit.
Implement Cause Analysis to Generate Solutions 273 The ideal approach to teaching and promoting cause analysis starts with “baby steps” combined with in-house project success stories. For example, this is a typical agenda of a 1-h Cause Analysis Awareness presentation: • • • • • • • • •
Presentation Overview What is Cause Analysis? (Compare Scientific Method to Cause Analysis) Cause Mapping Purpose: Generate Multiple Solution Opportunities (not identify root causes) Cause Analysis features and benefits for project teams (Project Management, Safety, Quality, Proposals) Client-driven applications (When is it essential?) Why–Why Cause Map Example (Discuss map to explain basic concepts) Advanced Cause Map Example (Discuss map to explain solution generation techniques) Actual Project Cause Map Examples (Discuss results, value, and client satisfaction impact) Q&A
The Cause Analysis Awareness presentation should help participants understand the potential benefits to their own professional development. Participants should leave the awareness training thinking: “This is a must-learn skill that will enable me to help my project team succeed”. Get their attention with a purpose statement that surprises some participants: The purpose of cause analysis is to generate multiple solution opportunities based on causes – not to identify root causes. Cause analysis and mapping are just the means to identify solution opportunities that prevent problem recurrence. Companies and clients value solution opportunities that act on verified causes and prevent problem recurrence (the Program or Project Manager commonly selects or approves the solutions to be implemented). An effective way to engage participants is with user-friendly visual examples of cause maps. At least 30 min must be dedicated to viewing and discussing sample cause maps. Some textbook treatments of cause analysis tend to be philosophical. Important concepts and common pitfalls can be explained while participants are viewing sample cause maps (e.g. composition of the problem solving team; cause mapping etiquette; tips for defining the problem, how yellow-stickies are used for mapping on white board, etc.). After providing several diverse examples of problem statements (starting point for asking “Why”), the first cause map should be a Why–Why example. “Why–why” also sounds easy. Adults know some young kids ask “Why–Why–Why”. It should be a six-step Why–Why map (to reinforce that you do not stop after asking the fifth why). This example should show yellow-stickies in a linear sequence, starting with the problem statement and working backwards in time. Participants “see” how cause steps are worded in a concise manner. They see how easy it will be to practice.
274 Chapter 9 Then go to the Why–Why Map that shows the reality that cause maps are never linear. My favourite cause map for teaching is “Car Stolen”, because everyone relates well to a stolen car. The Car Stolen example shows how cause steps branch-out (more than one cause possibility). This cause map example can show how supporting evidence is tagged to each cause step (interview, eyewitness, photo, record, data, etc.). The “Car Stolen” example provides an opportunity to distinguish between “action causes” and “condition causes” in the cause chain. Then two actual project cause analysis maps (15 min) will be featured, as emphasized above. For example, they previously viewed how cause mapping works with simple everyday examples. Now they see actual cause maps from two projects. The cause map highlights are shown (i.e. causes, evidence, solutions). The 1-h session serves as a springboard for participants to seek more training and volunteer for problem investigation assignments. Many cause analysis consulting firms provide outstanding cause analysis workshops. These instructors mix their teaching with field assignments, so they convey real-world experience. Companies need to develop Facilitators who can catalyze cause analysis within their organization.
CHAPTER 10
Design User-Friendly Work Processes for Project Teams Chapter 6, Develop Superior Project Work Plans, mentioned The “I HATE TO WRITE” Writing Guide, which was a huge success with freshman college students who hated to write. This chapter features a condensed version of my “I HATE PROCEDURES” Development Guide for project teams. Recall the popular quote by Mr. Lou Riley: “Writing is thinking made visible”. Procedures are “process thinking” made visible. Some might counter with “Procedures are bureaucracy made visible”. Do your procedures make project teams think, or just do? Thinking project teams succeed on projects. Doer project teams become complacent, mechanistic, and reactive to problems on projects. Are your processes clearly visible to project team members, or are they buried in the excess verbiage of procedure narratives? Procedures help project teams implement the broad range of tasks described in typical project work plans for environmental remediation and restoration. Procedures always seem to meet “procedure owner” needs because their definition of success is different: To keep “me” and the Company out of trouble. It does not matter that project team members are supposed to be the “target audience” of procedures. Every resource organization will claim a commitment to helping projects succeed. This chapter places an emphasis on effective procedure design. The journey to effective procedure design begins with describing sample attributes of an effective process (see Figure 10.1). Note how the Figure 10.1 process attributes chart are broken into three groups: A, B, and C. It lists a total of 12 attributes. Starting clockwise, the A-group process attributes are highly valued by a Company and process owner, in order of their importance: • • • •
Helps company qualify for contract opportunities (eligibility) Enables program and project teams to generate records that demonstrate compliance (this includes resource organizations that support project teams) Enables program and project teams to pass audits (this includes audits of resource organizations that support project teams) Protects Company from litigation
Best Practices for Environmental Project Teams. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-444-53721-8.00010-5 # 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
275
276 Chapter 10
Figure 10.1 Sample Attributes of an effective process.
These are the critical process attributes that each Company and resource manager strives to achieve with their procedures. A weakness in any of these four attributes can jeopardize the company from competing for contracts, increase company susceptibility to audit findings, and expose the company to litigation. In fact, the focus on these attributes can be so high that none of the other desirable process attributes really matters. Once the process possesses these critical attributes, the process owner can enjoy piece of mind. These process attributes are high visibility. A significant deficiency in the A-group is like poor labour utilization: it places the resource organization in the cross-hairs of the executive management radar. These objectives are a main priority for small businesses that are making the tough transition to Government contracts. The B-group process attributes are highly valued by Program Managers, Project Managers, and clients. These might be acknowledged and encouraged by Company leaders. Processes usually fail to address these attributes because high risk conditions and unacceptable results are program- and project-specific (i.e. contract-specific). • •
Provides users with timely recognition of “high risk conditions” and unacceptable results (data/information). Captures performance improvement metrics.
The C-group process attributes are highly valued by project team members who implement the process. These are process users. • •
Process ownership by program or project team Users endorse and use process
Design User-Friendly Work Processes for Project Teams 277 • • • •
“User-Friendly” to those who implement and use Process easy to revise Represents most efficient process to accomplish work Simplifies training and mentoring
C-group process attributes are frequently overlooked by process owners who support program and project teams. They are primarily focused on providing processes that address A-group compliance-related process attributes that keep the company out of trouble.
Process Attribute Descriptions The remainder of this section describes each process attribute category, starting with A-group process attributes that are highly valued by your Company and process owner.
Helps Company Qualify for Contract Opportunities Companies design processes to comply with government standards, industry standards regulations, and laws because they want to be eligible for contracts. They design the procedures to demonstrate requirements will be met. The Company wants to obtain and stay eligible for work. Lack of compliant-procedures can become a barrier for companies seeking to perform work for the Government and other companies. Pre-Qualification Surveys subject company procedures to review by Government agencies (e.g. contract acquisition, accounting, Government property management, etc.), regulatory agencies,
278 Chapter 10 third party audits to standards (e.g. ISO-9001; ISO-14001; OSHAS 18001), and other companies (e.g. teaming agreements; qualified vendor list). These outside organizations may request to see copies of procedures, or certifications that indicate procedures have been reviewed and judged to meet specific standards.
Enables Program and Project Teams to Pass Audits Organizations that perform pre-qualification surveys commonly follow-up with audits to evaluate compliance with procedures. Then companies must demonstrate they are following them; if not, they jeopardize their contract eligibility status. Auditors develop checklists to evaluate compliance. They examine records (i.e. “objective evidence”) to make sure program and project teams comply with procedures. Significant and recurring audit findings jeopardize contract eligibility status. These audits can be stressful to resource managers who are process owners. Resource managers provide and dedicate staff members who support programs and projects, which may be audited for compliance. Resource organization project team members that allow programs and projects to deviate from procedures jeopardize company eligibility for future contracts.
Protects Company from Litigation Process design can help protect the Company from litigation. Companies seek to document safe processes to protect their employees. Some procedure forms are designed to help the Company establish a defensible position in court. Any process attribute that can help the Company prevail in litigation will be documented. Additionally, procedures will be designed to place accountability to individuals on the project team. This accountability is reinforced by procedure-specific training records (e.g. “Employee read and understood procedure”). Now let us breakout B-group process attributes which are highly valued by Program Managers, Project Managers, and clients. Processes usually fail to address these attributes because high risk conditions and unacceptable results are program- and project-specific (i.e. contract-specific).
Design User-Friendly Work Processes for Project Teams 279
Provides Users with Timely Recognition of High Risk Conditions and Unacceptable Results (e.g. Information and Data) One of the first questions a program and project team needs to ask when designing a process, or tailoring an existing process and procedure for a contract, is “What are the high risk conditions?” What are the worst things that can go wrong with this procedure? The inquiry should include an estimate of the probability of occurrence. Answers to these questions will influence how you approach task-specific controls and acceptance criteria, form and checklist design, and QC checks. High risk activities should utilize engineering controls and visual aids in the field. Process control measures will be established to change, control or eliminate the risk, and gain more confidence. The chart highlights information and data that are critical to the following: • • • • • • •
Maintaining safety and preventing incidents Protecting the environment Demonstrating project-specific compliance (e.g. Contract, regulations, permits, standards, work plan) Achieving technical approach performance objectives (e.g. technology performance; Hazardous waste treatment plant performance; etc.) Enabling clients to meet their work objectives (client satisfaction) Avoiding plant or system disruptions Maintaining zero disruptions to client service
280 Chapter 10 The chart provides some sample consequences. The project manager realizes that procedural deficiencies in these areas can jeopardize project success. The sample consequences illustrate how substantial risks are unique to programs and projects. This is just a partial list to convey the concept. Each program and project team will need to identify its own risks. What frequently happens in the aftermath of an incident or significant deficiency related to triggering one of these major risks? Answer: cause analysis. The objective of the cause analysis is to identify solutions to prevent problem recurrence. The best solutions act on condition causes to eliminate the possibility of a repeat problem. Procedures and procedure components are revised to implement the solutions. Does your procedure give your project team the impression that all process steps are equally important? If so, the procedures will lead to complacency, tunnel vision, and mechanistic work habits. Important requirements will not receive the level of focus justified by the risk due to lack of project team awareness of potential consequences. The project team should understand the most important steps, and the potential adverse consequences associated with those steps. The second process attribute that provides users with timely recognition of high risk conditions and unacceptable results is acceptance criteria. Acceptance criteria help users determine what constitutes acceptable or unacceptable conditions, performance, and results. For example, the chemical concentration must be below a specific value; the gauge reading must be within a specified data range; the temperature or pressure reading must be within a certain range. The procedure narrative might list the acceptance criteria, yet the form or operating log used to document the reading may have blank space (to record reading) without referencing the acceptance criteria. Project team members might write down a value or reading that fails to meet acceptance criteria, and not even realize it because they do not read the procedure. How often does your project receive a violation because a worker has unknowingly documented a result that does not comply with requirements? Moreover, one of the most serious risks is worker inaction due to failure to identify or recognize a high risk condition. The failure might also be missed by the supervisor. An additional process attribute that provides users with timely recognition and response is an acceptance criteria “buffer zone” before triggering an out-of-compliance or adverse performance operating condition. For example, if the carbon needs to be changed out after X hours of operation, the trigger should be set on a value that provides sufficient time to procure and install the carbon without causing a project delay. Perhaps that value is 80% of reaching X operating hours? The process and forms should allow your team time to respond without disrupting operations. Additionally, action level triggers should specify actions to be taken in response to the observed condition. This is the diamond shape decision step on the process flow chart. If A happens,
Design User-Friendly Work Processes for Project Teams 281 implement action B. If B happens, implement action C. Once again, it does make sense to bury corrective actions in the procedure narrative. Actions needs to be noted on the documents used to perform and document the work.
Captures Performance Improvement Metrics Performance improvement metrics are highly valued by Program Managers, Project Managers, and clients. Company procedures fail to address these attributes because attributes are programand project-specific. Contract-specific performance metrics need to be identified (in contract), captured, and monitored by process design. Examples include productivity tracking and improvement, contract performance indicators, technology performance, and databasefriendly metrics.
Productivity tracking and improvement metrics enable a project manager to determine the cost and level of effort required to implement a procedure. For example, many projects have a “Daily Production Report” that documents production quantities. This helps the project team determine daily productivity relative to baseline assumptions in the estimate, and monitor the quantities relative to the scope of work. Processes need to capture contract performance indicators. Performance-based contracts often include a statement of objectives or performance work statement (PWS) that specifies performance requirements (objectives, standards, or results). Some may include “Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs)” for specific PWS tasks. The PWS might specify a requirement such as “Samples must be analyzed within their holding time 97% of the time” or “Lab reports must be delivered by the due date 95% of the time” or “system downtime cannot exceed 24 continuous hours without Government notification”. The contract can contain several pages of reporting requirements with specific time frames, such as “The Contractor shall respond to a hazardous waste spill within one hour”.
282 Chapter 10 The Contractor project team, not the Government, has the burden of responsibility to demonstrate they are consistently meeting contract performance requirements, or their performance evaluation might be downgraded. Payments may also be delayed due to unfurnished proof of results. Contractor verbal claims are inadequate. The Government expects “objective evidence” that contract performance requirements are being met each month. Contractor program and project teams commonly start the contract without developing or modifying procedures to capture the contract-specific performance information. They might assume the Government will not hold them accountable for achieving performance as long as they do a good job. When the program or project team realizes this is not the case, they expend a great deal of effort each month trying to prove they met the contract performance requirements. They fail to design their processes to automatically capture information. Moreover, because the information is not captured, performance cannot be monitored. Project team members might be falling short of performance standards without any awareness until it is too late. Effective processes capture technology performance. An impressive body of literature began to emerge in 2004 on how to achieve Remedial Process Optimization (RPO). Many technical remedies, such as pump and treat, were installed and passively maintained with no documented plan to achieve a site exit strategy. Consequently, the Government became concerned at the increasing ratio of environmental restoration dollars that were tied up in long-term monitoring with no end in sight. It was like paying high interest on a long-term mortgage. Process metrics should be linked with the economics of remediation, such as the cost per unit mass destroyed. As mass removal trends become asymptotic, the cost per unit mass increases. Processes need to be designed to obtain data necessary to track the economics of remediation over time. Effective processes are database-friendly. If project information will be entered into a database, the process should be designed with forms that capture the information required by the database, and minimize the probability of data entry error. For example, the symbols and units need to be consistent between the hardcopy form and electronic database fields. This might seem like a minor process consideration. However, the Government and regulatory agencies place a high priority on capturing information and data for their database. You might be surprised to discover how many procedure forms capture information that is entered into a database. The information might establish a basis for accurately billing clients for your services. Database errors can be costly for your Government client to fix, and are commonly cited by the Government as a justification to downgrade contractor performance evaluations. Some PWS performance standards require 99% accuracy for database entry tasks. Now let us breakout C-group process attributes that are highly valued by Program Managers, Project Managers, and project team members who implement the process. The opposite of these performance attributes are the barriers that commonly inhibit continuous process improvement on programs and projects. Your program or project might possess some of these barriers. For example,
Design User-Friendly Work Processes for Project Teams 283 • • • • • •
Process is not owned by the program or project team Process users do not endorse or embrace the process Process is not “user-friendly” as perceived by users Process does not implement the most efficient way to perform the work Process does not simplify training and mentoring Process is not easy to revise
Process Ownership by Program or Project Team Programs and projects use a variety of procedures. Some are provided by the Company resource organization and Government client. Others are developed by the program and project teams. Procedures commonly supplement the project work plan. Programs and projects have a list of procedures being used. “Ownership” for the procedures varies. The lowest tier of many company quality management systems, including those based on ISO-9001, recognize program and project-specific procedures that are owned by the program and project team. They are responsible for procedure development, issuance, training, control, revision, specifying procedure review and approval requirements, etc. For example, the program or project might have a procedure that describes document control of program and project procedures. An effective process is endorsed and used by target audience of the procedure. Users tend to embrace procedures that utilize their input. Many procedures are developed by professionals who do not involve the users; consequently, they usually contain many errors. When users are involved, procedures are “controlled by us” rather than “imposed by them.” Effective procedures are user-friendly as perceived by users. User-friendly procedures are easy to access, easy to implement, and represent the most efficient approach to accomplishing work.
284 Chapter 10 Procedures that are easy to implement require less time to read and understand; clearly describe responsibilities; contain less narrative verbiage; process steps are in correct sequence; forms are accurate and clear; flow charts shows big picture; contains a checklist; and includes examples of acceptable work (e.g. Exhibits).
The most efficient approach to accomplishing work requires tasks to be described in the correct sequence (this will require less time to perform) and will eliminate process redundancies. Effective procedures simplify training and mentoring because new staff can be trained in less time and will gain confidence quicker.
Effective process design makes it easier to revise procedures because procedure components are not bundled with the procedure (i.e. procedure components do not share the same document control number). For example, a minor change to a procedure enclosure, such as a form, will not cause the entire procedure to go through a review and revision cycle. The common company procedure review cycle requires too much time and effort. The process becomes over-formalized to the extent that managers become reluctant to revise procedures. That is why many procedures go several years without being revised. This is a clear indicator the procedure is obsolete. Inconsistencies will develop between the
Design User-Friendly Work Processes for Project Teams 285 procedure and approach implemented by users. It also increases the likelihood that users have their “private stash” of highly coveted cheat sheets and mark-ups. For example, users might have a three-ring binder with laminated plastic slip sheets that contain red-line mark-ups of procedure forms, tables, flow charts, drawings, photographs, and logs. If they leave the project and take their private stash, the Manager cannot use the obsolete procedure to properly train the new individual.
Effective Processes Shift Focus from Procedure Narrative to the Process Summary and Procedure Components A prerequisite to user-friendly procedure design is removing the emphasis on procedure verbiage. Users do not have time to read verbiage. The new procedure sequence needs to be (1) Cover Sheet; (2) Process Summary; (3) Process Checklist; (4) Enclosures (flow charts, tables, forms, drawings, maps, etc.) (5) Exhibits; (6) Required Records Table; and (7) Attachments. The emphasis needs to shift to the Process Summary and procedure components that are traditionally in the back of procedures. Procedural details such as definitions and acronyms that are normally covered by an SOP section can become enclosures or attachments. For example, some munitions cleanup procedures have several pages of definitions and acronyms. The glossary should become a separately controlled component, and can support multiple munitions procedures.
286 Chapter 10 An effectively designed process covers all process attributes, and can be tailored by program and project teams to meet their needs without corporate bureaucracy. An effective process does not stop with compliance. Specifically, the Company management system must enable flexibility to address other attributes. The term “flexibility” is a recurring theme is this book. Now that we have gone through this process attributes exercise, how many of your recent “process improvement initiatives” resulted in actions that addressed process design weaknesses? For example, your corrective or preventive actions acted on causes related to poor process design. Time and time again, process improvement actions improve flawed process designs that previously failed to address risks, and previously failed to provide the data and information needed by project team members to immediately recognize a problem. Consider recent root cause analysis efforts. How many cause drivers for serious incidents, regulatory violations, and contract performance discrepancies were related to lack of process attributes described above? In particular, how many cause drivers for serious problems were related to missing process attributes that would have enabled project team members “with timely recognition of high risk condition(s) and unacceptable results (information/data)?” Some programs and project teams, if given management system flexibility, might not proactively develop, implement, and improve processes. If the program or project manager does not perceive a benefit or is not reimbursed by the contract for their effort, it will not happen. Also, nothing will happen if the program or project manager does not understand “how to” (i.e. lack an approach to effective process design and the competency to execute the approach). Consequently, they will continue down the path of only improving processes in response to serious problems that jeopardize program and project success. Hypothetical case study You are a Program Manager, recently hired by a contractor who was awarded a 5-year, $250 million cost reimbursable contract to cleanup contaminated sites at various military installations. Your program ramps-up quickly, and you have over 20 projects in the field. Your staff includes 12 project managers. Some project managers are experiencing problems with cost and schedule control. This adverse performance caused your Government client to downgrade your first program award fee evaluation, and that concerns your Division Vice President. Your Government client program manager starts probing you with questions regarding your project management procedures. You realize you do not have any project management procedures, and project managers are each doing things their own way. Some
Design User-Friendly Work Processes for Project Teams 287 project managers recently joined from another company and were thrown right into the fray with little or no company project management training. How do you start from scratch to fast-track user-friendly project management procedures? You have only three months until your next bi-annual award fee evaluation. Project Managers have given you one important request: No procedural verbiage! Project managers do not have time to read procedural verbiage. The project management procedures must be 100% visual. Project managers will interpret requirements by viewing process flow steps, responsibilities, and sample exhibits of required documents. You start by examining and interviewing project managers who are leading the top performing projects. What are they doing right? Then you interview project managers who are experiencing problems and probe into “why?” Your cause analysis identifies multiple causes and solution opportunities. Then you ask your project managers to identify and rank the most important processes that are essential for achieving cost and schedule control. You discover those are related to the following project management processes: (1) Cost Proposal Development; (2) Planning and Daily Controls; (3) Managing Open Purchase Orders; (4) Production Tracking; (5) Subcontractor Management; (6) Tracking Accruals; (7) Determining Revenue-to-Date; (8) Forecasting Estimate to Complete/Estimate at Completion; and (9) Contractual Scope Communications with Client. For each important project management process you develop a process flow chart, Process Summary, and identify related documents. The Process Summary sequentially tracks with the flow chart. Columns included Task, Responsibility, Related Documents (Exhibit Number), and Time Frame (skip to Figure 10.6). The Exhibit Numbers in the Related Documents column attach an example, or electronically link to a completed example. For example, if you click on the link you will open a file that shows an actual example, such as the required document, properly filled out. The filled out example might be annotated and educational to highlight the key information. In summary, each PM procedure was structured as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4.
Flow Chart Process Summary Related Documents (e.g. Sample Exhibits) Time Frame
Your approach was well received by project managers because it was user-friendly and did not contain verbiage. The approach was highly visual, educational, and user-friendly. Project managers understood the big picture (flow charts). They referred to the Process Summary,
288 Chapter 10 which re-stated the task step, identified who was involved, who had lead responsibility for each step, related documents (e.g. exhibits/examples), and time frames.
Five-Phase Process Design Improvement Approach Figure 10.2 provides a process design improvement roadmap on your existing or upcoming programs and projects. The primary barrier to process improvement is a document control system that uses the entire procedure as the document control unit. Consequently, the entire procedure must be revised and re-issued each time something changes in a procedure enclosure, form, flow chart, checklist, etc. The procedure narrative is the primary focal point of traditional procedures, which includes the purpose, scope, definitions, responsibilities, and procedure. The “procedure section” might not start until the third or fourth page. The procedure narrative is the least used component of the set because nobody has time to read it. Moreover, the procedure section within the narrative is usually the incorrect sequence. It may have been written by a professional who did not bother interviewing people who perform the work. The procedure narrative will be inaccurate if not linked with a process flow chart.
Phase 1: Segment Procedure Components into Separate Document Control Units Procedures represent turf. Expect resource organization managers to provide stiff resistance when you suggest making their procedure program or project-specific (i.e. tailor it to contract requirements). Therefore, start with procedures within your program or project control. For example, these might include plant operation procedures or projectspecific field sampling procedures. Most company Quality Management Systems describe a tiered approach. The lowest tier is usually owned by the program or project. Start with these procedures.
Figure 10.2 Five-phase process design improvement approach.
Design User-Friendly Work Processes for Project Teams 289
A Phase 1 key step involves design of the cover page format. This will become your method of overall procedure control, such as when individual procedure components are updated. It will be frequently updated. This is the trade-off for having an agile system that enables continuous process improvement. You will be updating this sheet more frequently because it is your new method of overall document control for the procedure and components. The cover page is like a procedure table of contents. It includes your organization, logo, program name, contract number, procedure title, date, list of procedure components and their issue date, and approval signature. The list of procedure components and their issue date comprise the body of the cover page. Many Government agencies that outsource environmental services to a Contractor Service Provider will not allow contractor branding on the procedure (e.g. company logo, header, footer). The Government owns the procedure. They prefer contractors to include this type of cover page for document control purposes. The remainder of the chart describes important document control considerations: Procedure Number or Contract Code; Procedure Code; Procedure number; Assign Series ID to Component Categories; Establish date format; and an Example. Consider a nomenclature that offers retrievability. For example, a nomenclature that starts with the Company assigned project number or last four digits of the contract will be searchable in a Web database, such as SharePoint. The Company can develop a repository of program and project procedures and components that are searchable and retrievable for use on other programs and projects. Figure 10.3 is a sample nomenclature.
290 Chapter 10
Figure 10.3 Sample nomenclature.
Note the nomenclature format in Figure 10.3. Consider assigning a Series ID to component categories.
The most important of these, from the perspective of project team users, is the Process Summary. This is table format. It will be further described in Phase 4. Figure 10.4 includes important details for Work Instructions, Enclosures, Exhibits, and the Required Records Table. In summary, Phase 1 does not involve any process improvement, other than improving the process for enabling future improvements to procedure components without having to revise the entire procedure. Don’t let the number scheme become an obstacle. The purpose is to break the procedure into separate control units. Pick your own numbering system.
Phase 2: Priortize Procedures for Improvement Program and project managers need to prioritize their procedures for improvement.
Phase 3: Improve Forms or Checklists (for Each Process) Figure 10.5 details the steps associated with improving one of the most important procedure components: forms or checklists. Recall the previous discussion of effective process attributes. Forms and checklists need to engage thinking, not just doing. Forms and checklists need to
Design User-Friendly Work Processes for Project Teams 291
Figure 10.4 Important details for Work Instructions, Enclosures, Exhibits, and the Required Records Table.
Figure 10.5 The steps associated with improving one of the most important procedure components: forms and checklists.
292 Chapter 10 contain acceptable criteria and consider risks. The map charts an approach for improving forms and checklists.
Phase 4: Create Process Summary (for Each Process) The Process Summary has four columns: Process Step; Responsibilities; Documents (e.g. enclosures, exhibits); and Time Frame (relative time requirements for task). The Process Summary appeals to people who don’t have time to read verbiage, which applies to 99% of the project team. The Process Summary can eliminate the need for a procedure narrative. It will become the “Go-To” document for project team users. The document on the right in Figure 10.6 is an image in the Process Summary layout.
Phase 5: Improve Procedure Visuals and Training Aids In addition to the Process Summary, the other valuable enhancement to procedures are Exhibits such as examples of properly completed forms, computer screen shots, photos with annotations, video clips, and any other training aids that simplify learning. These are the “examples” the project teams members seek when they are training or mentoring an individual. Exhibits are especially valuable for software and database-related procedures. Annotated screen shots can be generated using software such as “Snag-It” by TechSmith, and enhanced with annotations to emphasize the steps and key points.
Figure 10.6 Sample Flow Chart and Process Summary layout (right-hand side).
Design User-Friendly Work Processes for Project Teams 293
User-Friendly Work Packages Many significant problems that plague Contractor project teams are traceable to routine “postaward hand-offs” that take place between the Contractor Project Manager and the Project Task Leader (i.e., someone who was not invited or unavailable in the project planning stage). The common phrase is “Lost in Translation”. For example, the new Project Task Leader was not involved with the proposal, estimate, work plan, and client kick-off meeting. Consequently, the Task Leader did not witness the client voicing their “hot buttons” (i.e., strong preferences, likes, dislikes) during the kickoff meeting, and hearing the importance of certain paragraphs in the awarded contract statement of work. Fast-forward to the project (or major task) hand-off by the Project Manager, who attended the client kickoff meeting and assisted with the proposal. He’s pleased to obtain the Task Leader who will manage his project because it’s only two weeks before the first scheduled field event. Let’s say it’s a field sampling project for a client who must periodically sample their drinking water wells, reservoir and distribution points to comply with a drinking water permit. The Project Manager conducts a teleconference with the new Task Leader to discuss the project assignment. She will supervise two field sampling technicians. The Project Manager mentions some important project requirements, describes the client hot buttons and concludes the phone call by saying, “I’ll e-mail you a link . . . You can download all project-related information from the project website . . . Please contact me if you have future questions.” The Project Manager then shifts his attention to the next task at hand, and the Task Leader departs to her next meeting. Two months later the first client performance evaluation arrives. It was written by the same client who attended the project kickoff meeting and harshly criticizes the Contractor project team for various actions and inactions. The Contractor cause analysis identified multiple causes that point to a breakdown in communication between the Project Manager and the Task Leader who received the assignment. Lesson Learned: Numerous Project Managers and Task Leaders deal with task hand-offs each day. It’s inherent in the nature of environmental consulting and restoration work. Rarely does a Project Manager, or Task Leader, experience the opportunity to be involved with a project from scoping through project closeout. Many Project Managers seem to think that [Verbal Briefing þ “Download the files you need from the project website” ¼ Effective Project Turnover]. The emergence of project websites elevated this problem to epidemic levels because most project websites do not contain the basic customization required to effectively organize project files (e.g., too many files in a generic folder, such as the “Shared Documents” folder). Do not fall into the trap of transitioning important project assignments without a consistent and documented approach. It does not need to be elaborate. Figure 10.7 is a customized Sample Project Plan for a small sampling project. For example, the Project Manager uses the Project
294 Chapter 10
Figure 10.7 Sample Project Plan for Small Field Sampling Project (obtain image file for proof).
Design User-Friendly Work Processes for Project Teams 295 Plan to build and organize a user-friendly work package (3-ring binder). This is how things were commonly done 20 years ago. Now electronic information is scattered all over the place (hard drives, network drives, CDs, USB drives, e-mail inboxes, websites, and the new buzzword: “clouds”). The work package has the Project Plan on top which is the roadmap to binder contents. It includes requirement information, highlighted visual examples of client hot buttons, such as contract SOW sections, project site photos, or sample reports. It also contains all the important client e-mails from the Project Manager’s e-mail Inbox that relate to the project. The Project Manager briefing to the Task Leader involves discussing Project Plan elements including client hot buttons and reviewing flagged binder contents. The Task Leader leaves with the binder, and now has a convenient reference tool. If the Task Leader gets re-assigned two months later, the binder is transferred to the next Task Leader. They do not spend hours searching, viewing, downloading, and printing from the project website—and still wondering if all files have been located. Please note an important theme to the Sample Project Plan. The Task Leader is required to perform the three phases of control (Preparatory, Initial, Follow-Up) to confirm client satisfaction with their first performance cycle and first deliverable. Why is this important? Regardless of how much the client strives to include their requirements in the SOW and express their hot buttons in the kickoff meeting, they tend to forget little things that influence their satisfaction. This is especially common when the client was receiving a turnkey or full service experience from a previous service provider. Sometimes these things will come to mind when they see their first deliverable, and rarely will these preferences represent a scope change. Client feedback enables the Task Leader to fine-tune their process, checklist and binder with better visual examples. By the way, this is one major reason why Government RPMs complain about Contractor Project Manager and Task Leader turnover, especially on a cost-plus contract. Project Manager and Task Leader personnel transitions are commonly plagued with a long learning curve and late recognition of deficiencies. Contractors commonly fail to effectively execute the transition. The hand-off phenomena also applies to turnover among RPMs and regulatory agency personnel. In most cases, the project life cycle represents a revolving door of various organizations and professionals. That’s been a characteristic of our industry. Project managers and professional technical staff routinely transition from one project to another with informal project indoctrination. Inevitably, vital information, client knowledge and lessons learned get lost in translation. Develop and implement user-friendly work packages to improve staff transitions, accelerate the learning curve, and obtain client feedback on the first performance cycle and deliverable.
This page intentionally left blank
Index Note: Page numbers followed by f indicate figures and t indicate tables.
A Action causes, 254 Alternative Restoration Technology Team (ARTT) work group, 30 American Society for Quality (ASQ), 259 Ancog, Narciso, 215–216 ARTT work group. See Alternative Restoration Technology Team work group ASQ. See American Society for Quality
B Barrier Analysis, 246 Base and realignment closure (BRAC), 4 Base cleanup team (BCT) culture, 23–24 condition causes for, 265–268 proposal development, 122–124 BSGP, 122 competitors, 123–124 CSPs, 122–123 discriminator characteristics, 124 GESP, 122 partnering, 123 performance influences, 123 trust in, 123 Base Discriminator List, 126, 127 Base Government Service Provider (BGSP), 122 Base Risk Register, 126, 127
Base-Wide Risk Register, 183, 186 BCT culture. See Base cleanup team culture Best practices in proposal development, 122–128 in work plan development, 159–163 candidate screening, 159–160 content organization in, 162 estimate accuracy in, 160–162 schedules for, under regulatory review, 161t technical document review, 162–163 Beveridge, James M, 140 BGSP. See Base Government Service Provider BRAC. See Base and realignment closure
C CAR. See Corrective action request Cause analysis, 235–274 case studies, 259, 268–270 cause maps, 235–236, 237 client concerns and, 250 in client contract deficiencies, 241 costs of, 250 culture as influence on, 260, 261f, 262–263 environmental project evolution, 261–262
297
environmental issues in, 250 event timeline, 243f facilitators, 256 fundamentals of, 248–257 problem definition, 248–250 importance of, 239–240 inadequate, consequences of, 240 introductory awareness training for, 272–274 Ishikawa Cause and Effect and, 246, 259–260 as iterative process, 238 map causes, 251–257 action causes, 254 CAR, 253 condition cause generation, 254–257 evidence tables, 252, 252t sequence generation, 251f mechanistic approaches, 264–268 mental risk registers, 263–264 methods, 246–248 misconceptions about, 244–245 single root cause, 244 plans for, 271–272 checklist for, 271–272 practical applications for, 238–242 quality assurance, 239–240 quality control in, 239–240 in project management, 240–241 challenges in, 243f in proposal development, 241–242 quality control and, 250 revenue and, 250
298 Index Cause analysis (Continued) in risk evaluation, 245–246, 250 in risk management, 245–246 knowledge area, 245 risk registers, 245f root, 235–236 safety and, 240, 250 schedules, 250 scientific method and, 236f background research in, 236 flow chart in, 237 hypothesis construction, 236–237 screening issues, 242–243 solution identification in, 258–259 control hierarchy as part of, 258–259 sponsor of, 271 support construction for, 272 in technology operations, 250 in work plan development, 149 Cause mapping, fixed-price MACs, 112, 113f, 116 CEB. See Contracts Evaluation Board CERCLA. See Comprehensive Environmental Response; Compensation; and Liability Act CLEAN contractors, 7–8 Clinton, Bill, 5 Company operations managers, web sites, 67–68 Compliance matrix in proposal development process, 133 in work plan development, 149 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 3–4 contaminated sites remediation, 29t government compliance under, 4 milestones, 8t restoration phases, 6, 7f, 8t terminology, 8t US Navy and, as ER Service Provider, 29–30
Conceptual site model (CSM), 97 in work plan development, 151 Condition causes, 254–257 BCT culture, 265–268 Construction quality management (CQM), 35 Contaminated properties CERCLA, remediation processes, 29t DoD search for, 4 obstacles to cleanup, 7–9 CLEAN contractors, 7–8 prescriptive technical packages, 7–8 RAC for, 8–9 silver-bullet technologies, 10 single technology focus, 9 site cleanups of, 5–6 accelerated techniques, 11 technical document quality for, 10–11 UST sites, 29t Contract Scope Mutual Understanding Meeting, 183, 190 Contractor base capture system, 124–125, 125f base capture plans, 125–127 Base Discriminator List, 126, 127 Base Risk Register, 126, 127 document creation, 126 organization summary, 126 SharePoint and, 124 site-specific capture process, 127–128 checklist, 127f Contractor Service Providers (CSPs), 122–123 Contracts Evaluation Board (CEB), 130–131, 132 Corrective action request (CAR), 253 Cost-reimbursable contracts, 193, 194, 200–206 case studies, 200–205 FAR clauses, 206, 206f misconceptions about, 205–206 Cost-reimbursable plus award fee (CPAF), 7, 15 Cost-to-complete (CTC)
for IRP, 1 by US Navy, 30 Counter discriminators, 138 CPAF. See cost-reimbursable plus award fee CQM. See Construction quality management Crosby, Philip, 179 CSM. See Conceptual site model CSPs. See Contractor Service Providers CTC. See Cost-to-complete Culture, cause analysis influenced by, 260, 261f, 262–263 environmental project evolution, 261–262 Customer complaint records, 50f, 51, 52–53
D DCNs. See Document control numbers Decision documents, 119 Defense Environmental Restoration Account (DERA), 3–4 milestones, 8t Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP), 2. See also Green and Sustainable Remediation contractor quality management, 16 DENIX and, 2 EPA, 2–3 funding levels, 4f GSR, 16–19 historical overview, 2–4 milestones, 12f remedial process optimization, 12–13 RUR, 13 site closeouts, 11–12 DENIX. See DoD Environment; Safety; Occupational Health Network and Information Exchange Department of Defense (DoD). See also Environmental restoration
Index Department of Defense (DoD) (Continued) CERCLA and, 3–4 component agencies, 1 competition between, 9 guidance literature, 15 Navy policies, 13–15 technology optimization policies, 13–15 contaminated property search by, 4 DENIX and, 2 DERP and, 2–4 as driver of change, 1 as ER service provider, 1 acquisition strategy, 15–16 measures of merit, 6 milestones, 6, 12f risk reduction, 6 site progress, 6 national economic stimulus under, 5 obstacles to cleanup, 7–9 CPAF, 7 phases, 8t site cleanups by, 5–6 team challenges, 17–19 SVE systems, 11 terminology, 8t DERA. See Defense Environmental Restoration Account DERP. See Defense Environmental Restoration Program Discriminators Base Discriminator List, 126, 127 in BCT culture, characteristics of, 124 in proposal development process, 134–140 awards basis, 136f counter discriminators, 138 exploiters and, 138 flow charts and, 139 identification of, 139–140 matrix format conversion, 138, 140 samples, in key areas, 136–137 technical procedures for, 137f win themes, 137–138, 140
Document control numbers (DCNs), 53–54 in project correspondence logs, 77, 79 DoD. See Department of Defense DoD Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health Network and Information Exchange (DENIX), 2 Due diligence proposal development contractor challenges, 98–99 fixed-price MACs, 121
E Economic stimulus, under DoD, 5 EMS. See Environmental Management System Environmental cleanup industry, 5 Environmental Management System (EMS), 17 ISO-14001, 17, 40f Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2–3 work plan development within, 149 Environmental Protection Specialist (EPS), 38–39 Environmental quality management system (EQMS), 35–60 in construction trade, 41–42 contractor managers, 43–45 quality assurance support, 45 control process phases, 43 CQM, 35 customer complaint record, 50f, 51, 52–53 documentation for, 42–43 EPS, 38–39 FAR revisions, 48 FIP for, 48, 52f, 54 audit checklists, 55 flexibility of, 36 at company level, 36–39 features, 36–43 pipeline transfers, 38–39 flowcharts, 38f GSR trends, 35–36, 39 infrastructure features, 42
299
ISO-9001, 36, 37 ISO-14001, 36, 37 PAPs, 35, 55f, 56–57 flow charts, 56–57, 57f key for, 57f tables, 58f worksheets, 58f PBCs, 35 PB-MACs, 35 PBSA, 35 performance management systems, 44f performance-based contracts, 46t transitions to, 51 performance-based programs, 45–57 PMOs, 39 programme level documents, 39–40 project correspondence log, 53–54 project levels, 41–43 as project-specific, 41 subcontractors, 41–43 project tutorials, 45–57 project web sites, 53–54 PWS in, 46–47, 47f QASP, 35 quality control plans, 46, 48 corrective action summaries, 51 reports, 49–53, 49f RPMs, 48–49 sample, 37f staffing for, 43–45 checklists, 40f SVE documentation for, 42–43 web site organization, 72 work processes, 48–49 Environmental Restoration, Project Manager, Inc. (ERPMI), 19 Environmental restoration (ER), 1. See also Green and Sustainable Remediation contractor quality management, 16 DoD, 1 acquisition strategy, 15–16 CPAF contracts, 15 PB-MACs, 15–16
300 Index Environmental restoration (ER) (Continued) DoD search policy, 4 ERPMI, 19 in government client business model, 23 GSR, 16–19 National Technical Symposium for, 147 obstacles to cleanup, 7–9 CLEAN contractors, 7–8 prescriptive technical packages, 7–8 RAC for, 8–9 RPMs, 2 silver-bullet technologies, 10 single technology focus, 9 site cleanups in, 5–6 accelerated techniques, 11 technical document quality for, 10–11 by US Navy, 26–29 ARTT work groups, 30 under CERCLA, 29–30 CTC, 30 execution plans, 29–33 IR/GIS work groups, 30, 33 MR work groups, 31 NIRIS, 33 NMCI, 32 OPT work groups, 31–32 phases, 27t procurement of services, 33 progress reports, 29–33 RAW group, 31 under RCRA, 29–30 site closeout guidelines, 29–30 software for, 32 UST programmes, 26–30 work groups, 30–32 web site collaboration, 72f work plan development for, 147–178 best practices recommendations for, 159–163 breakthrough phase, 157 cause analysis in, 149 compliance matrix in, 149 contract start up, time frame for, 153–154
contractor response in, 155–156 CSM in, 151 document quality, 148 elements of, 150 EPA, 149 for final reports, 175–178 flexibility of, 152 flow charts in, 151–152 history of, 147 improvement phase, 156–157 interfaces, sample, 163–165, 163f problem recognition in, by client, 154–155 process flow, sample, 165–168, 166f project managers in, 166–168 recovery plans in, 155–156 ROD documents, 150 stages, 153 as stand-alone documents, 150 technical approach, 151, 152f technical documents, 169–172 TOWER approach in, 149 treatment maps, 151–152 EPA. See Environmental Protection Agency EPS. See Environmental Protection Specialist EQMS. See Environmental quality management system ER. See Environmental restoration ERPMI. See Environmental Restoration; Project Manager, Inc. Extranet web sites, 61, 70–71
F Failure Modes and Effect Analysis, 246 FAR revisions. See Federal Acquisition Regulations revisions Fault Tree Analysis, 246 Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) revisions, 48 in cost-reimbursable contracts, 206, 206f Field work, control of, 207–233
environmental projects and, applicability to, 213–218 phases of control, 226–228 basic guidelines, 230 checklists, 209f, 229 common pitfalls, 229–230 documentation, 231 follow-up, 228 implementation of, 208–210, 232–233 initial, 227–228, 231, 233 inspection as part of, 231, 232 for off-site works, 228 options for, 209 planning of, 232–233 preparatory, 226–227, 230 project forms, 229 quality standards, 208 subcontracted tasks, 232–233 supervisory, 212 surveying in, 230 utility clearance, 230 control procedures, 217f duties in, 224–226 responsibilities within, 224–226 sample, 216f table of contents for, sample, 218f Task Leader/SSHO Specialists, 224–226 supervisors, 212–213 supervisory phases, 212 three phases of inspection, 215f Field work variance (FWV), 196–197 process, 197–199 delays under, 197–198 ripple effects in, 198, 199 Scope-Register, 198 FIP. See Functional Inspection Plan Fixed-price MACs, 69, 96 assumptions in, 121 cause mapping, 112, 113f, 116 contract options, 118 decision documents, 119 due diligence, 121 flexible performance-based scope, 119, 121 government goals, 112, 113–122
Index Fixed-price MACs (Continued) less contractor-perceived risk, 114 liquidated damages, 114–115 scope management, 192–193 cost-reimbursable contracts, 193 history of, 193 solution opportunities, 120–121 value improvements for, 112–122 Fixed-price performance-based contracts, 194 Functional Inspection Plan (FIP), EQMS, 48, 52f, 54 audit checklists, 55 implementation, 55–56 FWV. See Field work variance
G Geographic Information System (GIS) databases, 97 GESP. See Governmental Environmental Service Provider GIS databases. See Geographic Information System databases Government client business model, 23–33 BCT culture, 23–24 contractor knowledge, trifecta of, 23–24, 24f RPMs, 24 site-specific intelligence, 24 ER Service Provider, 23 construction of, 24–25 federal requirements for, 25 GSR directives, 32 NAVFAC, 25–26 progress reporting metrics, 26–29 SRT, 32 for US Navy, 26–29 UST programmes, 26–27 NMCI, 32 Governmental Environmental Service Provider (GESP), 122 proposal development process improvement for, 128–145 scope management, 180
Green and Sustainable Remediation (GSR), 16–19 EMS, 17 EQMS and, 35–36, 39 in government client business models, 32 ITRC and, 16 SRT, 16–17 SURF, 16
H hazard identification, 258 hazardous waste treatment, case study, 268–270 Health and Safety Plan, 39, 74, 162, 167 for specific sites, 41 hierarchy of controls, 258
I Independent government estimate (IGE), 96 Information technology (IT), 61 Installation Restoration Program (IRP), 1, 2 CTC for, 1 Installation Restoration/Geographic Information System (IR/ GIS) work groups, 30, 33 Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council (ITRC), 16, 247 Intranet, NMCI, 32 IR/GIS work groups. See Installation Restoration/ Geographic Information System work groups IRP. See Installation Restoration Program Ishikawa Cause and Effect, 246, 259–260 ISO-9001, 37, 283 EQMS, 36 standards, 37 task-orientation in, 38 ISO-14001, 17, 37, 40f EQMS, 36 standards, 37 IT. See Information technology ITRC. See Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council
301
L Lay, Elizabeth, 207 life cycle cost analysis, 14, 23 liquidated damages, fixed price MACs, 114–115
M Mach, Richard, 11 MACs. See Multiple Award Contracts Manuscript Routing Sheet (MRS), 168 Master Records List, 86, 87f Media storage, in project correspondence logs, 81 Mental risk registers, 263–264 Microsoft SharePoint, 61–67, 62f collaborations within, 64f productivity obstacles, 66 contractor base capture system, 124 design chronology in, 64 disadvantages of, 64 e-mail attachments, 65–66 features, 74–75 frozen applications, 65 generations of, 63f home page template, 61–62 initial project development, 75 IP traffic, 65 late adopters of, 73 Quick Launch bar, 62 ratings for, 70 rental of, 73 security firewalls, 65 usage costs, 62–64 user-friendly software issues for, 70 web site customization, 74–75 web site mockup, 76f Microsoft Visio, 151 Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP), 1 MR work groups. See Munitions Response work groups MRS. See Manuscript Routing Sheet Multiple Award Contracts (MACs), 95 fixed-price, 69, 96
302 Index Multiple Award Contracts (MACs) (Continued) assumptions in, 121 cause mapping, 112, 113f, 116 contract options, 118 decision documents, 119 due diligence, 121 flexible performance-based scope, 119, 121 government goals, 112, 113–122 less contractor-perceived risk, 114 liquidated damages, 114–115 solution opportunities, 120–121 value improvements for, 112–122 Munitions Response (MR) work groups, 31 My Network Places, 90
N National Technical Symposium, for ER, 147 Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC), government client business models for, 25–26 federal requirements, 25–26 programme policies, 26 Navy, US as ER Service Provider, 26–29 ARTT work groups, 30 under CERCLA, 29–30 CTC, 30 execution plans, 29–33 IR/GIS work groups, 30, 33 MR work groups, 31 NIRIS, 33 NMCI, 32 OPT work groups, 31–32 phases, 27t procurement of services, 33 progress reports, 29–33 RAW group, 31 under RCRA, 29–30 site closeout guidelines, 29–30 software for, 32
UST programmes, 26–30 work groups, 30–32 Navy Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI), 32
O Optimization (OPT) work groups, 31–32
P PAPs. See Performance Assessment Plans PBCs. See Performance-Based Contracts PB-MACs. See Performance-Based, Multiple Award Contracts PBSA. See Performance-Based Service Acquisition Performance assessment plans (PAPs), 35, 55f, 56–57 EQMS flow charts, 56–57, 57f key for, 57f tables, 58f worksheets, 58f Performance work statement (PWS) in EQMS, 46–47, 47f PB-MACs, 15–16 Performance-Based, Multiple Award Contracts (PB-MACs), 15–16 EQMS, 35 PWS, 15–16, 47 scope management, 192–193 cost-reimbursable contracts, 193 history of, 193 Performance-Based Contracts (PBCs), 35 Popek, Emma, 216 Program Management Organization (PMO), 9 EQMS, 39 proposal development and, 95 web site teams, 67 project correspondence logs, 84–85 Program managers, web sites, 69 Project correspondence logs, 195–196
DCNs, 53–54 EQMS, 53–54 web site projects, 77–93 action plans, 92 analytical lab support, 90 client policies, 81–83 communication exchange, 77–78 company policies, 81–83 contracts, 78 as custom database list, 78–79 data entry fields, 80f DCNs, 77, 79 dispute resolution in, 78 edit in data sheet function, 89f field mobilization, 85 folder options, 89–90 government partnerships, 90–91 location identity of, 83–84 manager support, 91–92 Master Records List, 86, 87f media storage, 81 member document binders for, 92–93 My Network Places, 90 negotiations in, 78 plan files, 77f planning considerations for, 80–81 PMOs, 84–85 as public, 82 regulatory agency compliance, 81, 90–91 required records list, 86–89 security policies, 81 site administrators, 84 spreadsheets, 92 tiered structure, 84–85 work plan developments, 85 Project management office managers, 69 Project web sites. See Web sites, for projects Proposal development, 95–145. See also Contractor base capture system; Fixed-price MACs administration costs, 112 BCT culture, 122–124
Index Proposal development (Continued) BSGP, 122 competitors, 123–124 CSPs, 122–123 discriminator characteristics, 124 GESP, 122 partnering, 123 performance influences, 123 trust and, 123 best practices in, 122–128 cause analysis in, 241–242 contract requirements, 111 contractor base capture system in, 124–125, 125f base capture plans, 125–127 SharePoint and, 124 site-specific capture process, 127–128 contractor challenges, 96–102 client execution plans, 97 competitive bid process as, timing constraints for, 100 competitive pricing, 101–102 due diligence as, 98–99 pre-funding, 97–99 price volume limits, 99 project scope parameters, 100 Risk Board Review and, 101 technical volume limits, 99 time constraints, 99–100 costs of, 95 CSM, 97 discriminators in, 134–140 awards basis, 136f counter discriminators, 138 exploiters and, 138 flow charts and, 139 identification of, 139–140 matrix format conversion, 138, 140 samples, in key areas, 136–137 technical procedures for, 137f win themes, 137–138, 140 evaluator-friendly formats, 143–144 feature-benefit-proof in, 144–145 fixed-price MACs, 69, 96 assumptions in, 121 cause mapping, 112, 113f, 116
contract options, 118 decision documents, 119 due diligence, 121 flexible performance-based scope, 119, 121 government goals, 112, 113–122 less contractor-perceived risk, 114 liquidated damages, 114–115 solution opportunities, 120–121 value improvements for, 112–122 flexibility in, 106, 140–143 case studies in, 141–143 GIS databases, 97 government land mines, 102–112 anomaly density, 109 contaminant quantities, 108 contamination types, 108 Risk Board Review, 105 site conditions, 108–109 work plans, 109 IGE in, 96 improvement process for, 128–145, 130f CEB, 130–131, 132 compliance matrix in, 133 content boilerplates, avoidance of, 133–134 discriminator implementation, 134–140 GESP, 128–145 site-specific capture plan checklist, 129f TEB, 130–131 MACs, 95 fixed-price, 69, 96 meetings for, 109–110 negative productivity in, 108–109 options supplement in, 106–107 PMO and, 95 project team vulnerability, 110–112 ripple effect tasks, 110 risk evaluation in, 107 risk management in, 107 risk pendulum, 95 risk-sharing, 105–106
303
sampling plans, 105–106 SAP, 111 scope of, 107 SOW in, 102 TOs, 95 PWS. See Performance work statement
Q QA Surveillance Plan (QASP), 35 Quality assurance support, 45 Quality control plans EQMS, 46, 48 corrective action summaries, 51 reports, 49–53, 49f control procedures, 217f sample, 216f table of contents for, sample, 218f Task Leader/SSHO Specialists, 224–226 identification of, 225 preparatory meetings under, 225
R RAC. See Remedial Action Contract RAW group. See Risk Assessment Work group RCRA. See Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RD/RAWP. See Remedial Design/ Remedial Action Work Plan Record of decision (ROD) documents, 102 in work plan development, 150 Red and unsustainable remediation (RUR), 13 Remedial Action Contract (RAC), 8–9 Remedial Design/Remedial Action Work Plan (RD/RAWP), 102 Remedial project managers (RPMs) customer, on web sites, 68 EQMS, 48–49 ER, 2 in government client business models, 24
304 Index Remedial project managers (RPMs) (Continued) silver-bullet technologies and, 10 Requests for information (RFIs), 196, 199–200 create to document for, 200 purpose of, 200 sample form, 199f Required records list, 86–89 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), US Navy, as ER Service Provider, 29–30 Resource organization managers, web sites, 69, 71 RFIs. See Requests for information Riley, Lou, 275 Ripple effect tasks, 110 Risk Assessment Work (RAW) group, 31 Risk Board Reviews, for proposal development, 101, 105 Risk evaluation cause analysis in, 245–246, 250 in proposal development, 107 user-friendly work process attributes, 279–281 Risk pendulum, 95 Risk registers Base Risk Register, 126, 127 Base-Wide, 183, 186 in cause analysis, 245f mental, 263–264 ROD documents. See Record of decision documents RPMs. See Remedial project managers RUR. See Red and unsustainable remediation
S Safety, cause analysis and, 240, 250 Sampling and analysis plan (SAP), 111 SARA. See Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act ScienceBuddies.org, 235 scientific method
background research in, 236 cause analysis and, 236f flow chart in, 237 hypothesis construction, 236–237 Scope management, for projects, 179–206 award fees, 193–196 base tenant clients, 194–195 baseline guidelines, 180 Base-Wide Risk Register, 183, 186 characterization data for, 181 communication process, 183 Base-Wide Risk Register, 186 Contract Scope Mutual Understanding Meeting, 190 Scope Variance Communication Log, 183–185, 188–190, 190f Scope-Register, 183–185, 186–188 contract option process, 182f Contract Scope Mutual Understanding Meeting, 183, 190 cost contingencies in, 181 cost-reimbursable contracts, 193, 194, 200–206 case studies, 200–205 FAR clauses, 206, 206f misconceptions about, 205–206 fixed-price contract management, 181 performance-based, 194 flexible, 191–192 FWV in, 196–197 process, 197–199 Scope-Register, 198 for GESP, 180 no-cost modifications in, 181 PB-MACs, 192–193 cost-reimbursable contracts, 193 history of, 193 problem notification, timeliness of, 195–196 process overview, 183–185 communication theme, 183 contract requirements, 185
flow chart, 183, 184f plans, 183 risk management in, 183 timeline, 185 Project Correspondence log, 195–196 RFIs, 196, 199–200 create to document for, 200 purpose of, 200 sample form, 199f Scope Variance Communication Log, 183–185, 188–190, 190f as adjustment tool, 189 communication tracking with, 189 function of, 188 generation of, 189 risk assessment in, 189 scope monitoring and, 188 Scope-Register, 183–185, 186–188 generation of, 187 sample, 187f SOW in, 183 work plan revisions in, 181 Scope of work (SOW) legal risks in, 103–112 performance-based, 103, 104 project objectives in, 104f in proposal development, 102 RD/RAWP in, 102 record of decision in, 102 remedial action in, 102 in scope management, 183 UST for, 102 Scope Variance Communication Log, 183–185, 188–190, 190f as adjustment tool, 189 communication tracking with, 189 function of, 188 generation of, 189 risk assessment in, 189 scope monitoring and, 188 Scope-Register, 183–185, 186–188, 198 generation of, 187 sample, 187f
Index Security policies Microsoft SharePoint firewalls, 65 for web site projects, 81 Service providers. See Base Government Service Provider; Contractor Service Providers; Governmental Environmental Service Provider SharePoint. See Microsoft SharePoint Silver-bullet technologies for contaminated properties, 10 RPMs and, 10 Single technology focus, 9 UST sites, 9–10 Site cleanup. See Contaminated properties Site closeouts, 11–12 under US Navy, guidelines for, 29–30 Six Sigma, 247 Soil Vapour Extraction (SVE) systems, 11 EQMS documentation for, 42–43 SOW. See Scope of work SRT. See Sustainable Remediation Tool Superfund. See Comprehensive Environmental Response; Compensation; Liability Act Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), 3–4 SURF. See Sustainable Remediation Forum Sustainable Remediation Forum (SURF), 16 Sustainable Remediation Tool (SRT), 16–17 in government client business models, 32 SVE systems. See Soil Vapour Extraction systems
T Tamashiro, Gerald, 215–216 Task Leader/SSHO Specialists, 224–226
305
identification of, 225 preparatory meetings under, 225 Task orders (TOs), 95 Technical Evaluation Board (TEB) function, 131 structure, 131 TOs. See Task orders Total quality management (TQM), 179 TOWER approach, in work plan development, 149 TQM. See Total quality management
software exhibits, 292 training aids, 292 visual improvements, 292 endorsements for, 283 implementation of, 283–284 litigation and, as protection from, 278–279 ownership by program, 283–285 procedural details in, 285–286 procedure revisions, 284 review cycle in, 284–285 UST sites. See Underground storage tank sites
U
V
Underground storage tank (UST) sites, 9–10 contamination site remediation, 29t SOW for, 102 US Navy programmes, 26–30 User-friendly work processes, 275–295 attributes, 275, 276f acceptance criteria, 280 for A-groups, 275–276 for B-groups, 276 for C-groups, 276–277 contract opportunities, 277–278 descriptions, 277–288 for performance improvement metrics, 281–283 remediation, 282 risk evaluation, 279–281 for technology performance, 282 case studies, 286–288 components, 285–288 as database-friendly, 282 design improvement approaches, 288–295, 288f component segments, 288–290 form improvement, 290–292, 291f prioritization as part of, 290 procedure narratives, 288 process summary, 290, 292, 292f
Visio, Microsoft, 151
W Web sites, for projects. See also Extranet web sites; Intranet, NMCI; Microsoft SharePoint bandwidth, 70–71 collaborations, 66–67 within Microsoft SharePoint, 64f company operations managers, 67–68 competency, 74 customer RPMs, 68 development of, 61–93 EQMS, 53–54 in ER companies, 72f extranet, 61, 70–71 features, 76–77 Quick Launch bar, 61–62 organization, 72–75 EQMS, 72 PMO teams, 67 program managers, 69 project correspondence logs, 77–93 action plans, 92 analytical lab support, 90 client policies, 81–83 communication exchange, 77–78 company policies, 81–83 contracts, 78 as custom database list, 78–79
306 Index Web sites, for projects (Continued) data entry fields, 80f DCNs, 77, 79 dispute resolution in, 78 edit in data sheet function, 89f field mobilization, 85 folder options, 89–90 government partnerships, 90–91 location identity of, 83–84 manager support, 91–92 Master Records List, 86, 87f media storage, 81 member document binders for, 92–93 My Network Places, 90 negotiations in, 78 plan files, 77f planning considerations for, 80–81 PMOs, 84–85 as public, 82 regulatory agency compliance, 81, 90–91 required records list, 86–89 security policies, 81 site administrators, 84 spreadsheets, 92 tiered structure, 84–85 work plan developments, 85 project management office managers, 69 project team members, 70–71 file uploading, 70 rental of, 73 resource organization managers, 69, 71 team efficiency, 73–75 templates, 75–76 value perception of, from user perspective, 67 Why-Why charts, 246 Win themes, in proposal development process, 137–138 flexibility in, 140–143
Work plan development, in ER, 147–178 best practices recommendations for, 159–163 candidate screening, 159–160 content organization in, 162 estimate accuracy in, 160–162 schedules for, under regulatory review, 161t technical document review, 162–163 breakthrough phase, 157 cause drivers in, 157 cause analysis in, 149 compliance matrix in, 149 contract start up, time frame for, 153–154 cause drivers in, 154 contractor response in, 155–156 cause drivers in, 156 CSM in, 151 document quality, 148 elements of, 150 EPA, 149 for final reports, 175–178 assignment establishment, 177 checklists, 176f content in, 177 leadership commitment for, 177–178 structure establishment, 177 flexibility of, 152 flow charts in, 151–152 history of, 147 improvement phase, 156–157 cause drivers in, 157 interfaces, sample, 163–165, 163f timelines, 164f problem recognition in, by client, 154–155 cause drivers in, 155 process flow, sample, 165–168, 166f project managers in, 166–168 e-mail communications, 167
MRS, 168 notifications by, 168 recovery plans in, 155–156 cause drivers in, 156 ROD documents, 150 stages, 153 breakthrough, 157 contract start up, time frame for, 153–154 contractor response, 155–156 improvement, 156–157 problem recognition, by client, 154–155 recovery plans, 155–156 as stand-alone documents, 150 technical approach, 151, 152f technical documents, 169–172 authorship guidelines, 174–175 best practices recommendations for, 162–163 format consistency, 175 graphics, 175 images in, 175 informal, 169 objective clarification in, 175 process guidelines, 172–173 readability, 174 reference review, 175 reviewer identification, 174 sample process summary, 173f supportive information in, 174 terminology review in, 175 titles, 174 tracking spreadsheets, 169 web-based management systems, 169, 170f workspace creation, 174 TOWER approach in, 149 treatment maps, 151–152
