Contractor Assurance in NNSA

1. Contractor Assurance in NNSA National Laboratory Improvement Council May 17, 2007 Bill Wadt Los Alamos National Laboratory

2. Outline • NNSA approach to contractor assurance • Potential benefits for M&O contractors • NNSA Line Oversight / Contractor Assurance System (LOCAS) Integration Council • Status of four sub-teams • Role for NLIC • EFCOG Contractor Performance Assurance Working Group • Discussion

3. Two different bases for Contractor Assurance Systems

4. Significant benefits to contractors and government from NNSA approach to contractor assurance

5. CAS can help reinvigorate the M&O contract • The M&O contract was designed • As a “hybrid” that would give the government the flexibility to attract world-class scientific talent, and manage and adjust programs and budgets in response to urgent and changing national needs without the need to renegotiate complex changes in the contract document • To give contractors the agility and flexibility to operate the laboratories within the basic terms and conditions of the contract to achieve scientific and technical excellence in support of the Department’s missions • M&O contract contains few if any “deliverables,” in the usual sense • The construct relies on performance measures to ensure that the contractor is working to the best of its ability • Performance-based management, in stark contrast to compliance-based management, requires that the government determine what the contractors are to do, and leave it to the contractor to decide how to best meet these goals • Only in this way is the original promise of flexibility and agility (and efficiency) of the M&O relationship preserved.

6. Success = as good or better performance for less cost and fewer human resources NNSA expectations for contractor assurance • Single management system used by the leadership and workers • Integrates ISM, ISSM, QA with CAS • Provides useful leading indicators and avoids bigger problems • Timely, accurate, complete information with meaningful data analysis • Robust set of self-assessments & independent assessments • Parent boards of directors involved and contributing • More industry standards and third-party certifications • Transparent to site offices & HQ • A constituent element of federal oversight • NNSA shift resources to more strategic matters & contract management

7. LOCAS Integration Council • Action from NNSA 10th QA Roadmap and 2nd CAS Working Meeting Summary in December 2006 • Chartered February 22, 2007 • Jay Norman, Chair (NA-10, Deputy for Site Operations) • Representative from each site and NNSA site office • Two VTCs and two telecons to date • Are meeting weekly now

8. Integration Council chartered 4 sub-teams • Team 1 - Peer Review/CAS Implementation Plan Elements • Developed and issued on May 1 LOCAS Inventory to all sites and site offices – due May 11 • Team 2 - Performance Measures • Developing common set of “critical few” measures for CAS • Collect key performance measures from KCP & LANL • Team 3 - Portal Design and Implementation • Identified 2 potential electronic media for future "portal"-like website (the NNSA Portal called "the Source" and the NNSA Intranet Defense Programs Nuclear Facilities QA Roadmap (DPQA) site) • Team 4 - Policy Integration • Iterating draft revisions to NNSA Line Oversight and Contractors’ Assurance System Policy

9. Role for NLIC • EFCOG chartering a working group on Contractor Performance Assurance • Roland Knapp (LANL) is the chair • Promote sharing of successful approaches and lessons learned • Develop LOCAS case studies for future workshops / training courses • What role makes sense for NLIC vis-à-vis NNSA and EFCOG coordination efforts? • Discussion • Path forward