ML20148N829
| ML20148N829 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/24/1997 |
| From: | Ross D NRC OFFICE FOR ANALYSIS & EVALUATION OF OPERATIONAL DATA (AEOD) |
| To: | Leyse R AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20148N835 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9706300222 | |
| Download: ML20148N829 (95) | |
Text
.
PDC f"%
/d oo,,a Ccpy g
lt UNITED STATES I
{
s j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O (%./M X b WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001
.....p June 24, 1997 Mr. Robert H. Leyse 12136 Brookglen Drive Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mr. Leyse:
N g I am responding to your e-mail messages to ChairngJackson akedhf7 31 and June 2,1997, concerning the December 30,1996,Wrb0r, ersen report. My office, I
the Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (
bibysponsible for initiating and providing oversight for the Arthur Andersen study of the' Senior Management i
Meeting process.
1 The services of Arthur Andersen were obtained through a purchase order in accordance with an existing GSA supply schedule contract. Initially, three companies which were deemed appropriate by knowledgeable AEOD staff were selected from the GSA schedule, i
These vendors were sent a " Request for Quote" (RFO) regarding the proposed work. The technical specifications for this RFO were written by AEOD management. Arthur Andersen was the only vendor to respond to this request. Their preposal met the requirements of the work and they were found to be technically qualified. Copies of the RFO, slides used by Arthur Andersen during their oral presentation, the evaluation of the RFQ response, the Purchase / Delivery Order documentation which includes the cost of the work and estimated hours, and the Statement of Work have been placed in the Public
)
Document Room (PDR). Also, as you requested, a copy of the final report from the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, " Senior Management Meeting Performance Data Additions," dated December 1996 and the resum6s of key Arthur Andersen personnel have been placed in the PDR.
During the study, interviews of senior NRC staff were conducted by Arthur Andersen and NRC personnel. Structured questionnaires were not used and interviewees were assured anonymity. Consequently, no documents are available because allinterview records and
)
notes were destroyed af ter the report was issued. The results of these interviews were characterized in the report.
Transcripts of open Commission Meetings and transcripts of ACRS and ACNW meetings are routinely released in ASCI text and are available on diskette for purchase at the PDR.
They are also placed on Fedworld for 30 days where they can be downloaded.
Additionally, the transcripts of ACRS and ACNW meetings are available from the NRC Worldwide Web site where they can be searched by key word. Transcripts of Commission Y&
ba. 03o I
f 9%
(%,ww
\\
s..
R. H. Leyse meetings will also be placed on this site by June 18,1997. The NRC currei:tly has no plans for compiling Commission transcripts on a searchable CD Rom.
I hope this letter has been responsive to your questions.
Si carel 'lSigned by:
hngilla Denwood F. Ross Denwood F. Ross, Jr., Director Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data Distribution:
JCallan AEOD R/F EJordan IRD R/F HThompson ER R/F PNorry EDO Control: G970418 JBlaha CRC No: 97-0557 SBurns Public EHalman File Center i
s "See previous concurrence:
DISK / DOCUMENT NAME: a:\\ albert \\semifola.aa To rac'iva a copy of this document, indicate in the box:
"C" = Copy w/o attachment, "E" = Copy w/sttachment, "N" = No copy OFC AEOD:lRD D:AEOD:lRD D:AEOD d)
CIO ADM:DCPM NAME AMadison*
FJCongel" DFRoss ((
AGalante
- TFHagan*
06/h DATE 06/12/97 06/13/97 06/16/97 06/23/97 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY k
k RE ST FOR QUOTATION rer'
'^ 6'
'*M"*'"********"**
l l90 M ISNOTANORDER)
- i. =oussr no.
- a. naru em.so
- a. mou 1--u asoutsr ao.
.. crav. con nar. one.
aar o 82678033 AUG S 1996 82678033 380*^ ",* 2,
""""" U.S. Nuclear Regul atory Co;rlission, Di v. of Contrat &'* " *"
ue o _r_o o w nn+nn nr 9ncqq
- ss roa mrwewm cauerceasi
- 1. m uvent a=<
true = s amesa O aos ossrs.arioa n rs*'"
^ ^ ' ^ ' '
- o* **^
- 301 415-8160
. ua o co s.o.
- a. ro-U.S.N.R.C.
= =aa.
6coneaur
..r,.u aconta 11545 Rockville Pike crry z -.
_1 _. __
Rockville
. crrt
. spf, guy,a cy ;,;c,g
. stars
. a com MD 20852 in auam rua sw ouorations to.4 cet r><
w rant r,6.,p
..e....
e
( sea.no si ed.e'e r,e m et a R T.h. ee.s a
a.somnue s
. -. u.m =: -
. A,
u.e-i n
. - s
.,..y y so.m mauseG orru2 ed stock SA o g' o ingi,,,
o.w.raen e e. p seroas ctou ce sumann m i e
.e e-w-
s.e a
oi.
8/16/96
~***
- 11. SCHEDULE (Incisa*e apphceNo Federal. State and local tones) rrtas seo.
suppurs/stavicas ouANrfrY ueWT UsWT Pascs AMOUNT
=
=>
in Services as described on attached S0W in accordance with your GSA Supply Echedule Contract for Group 874 entitled " Qui lity Management Implementation Services e nd Products. '
You are requested to submit a cost quotation and make an oral presentation as outlined on tne atti.ched provisions.
This RFQ is being issued on a competi ti ve basis as described herein.
A single delivery order pursuant to the appropriate GSA Supp j Schedule Cont ract will result.
.iocaunaanonrs m a ao c amana oars m ao w ee a oars m
.c auo o ys f
- 12. DISCOUNT FOR PROMPT PAYMENT eeusaeta et ctuimos NOE h proviesons and representacons we we not attactied.
is.ma anoacousso,avaran i.. =anag,ogneoa Aumoauro vo is. oa ri oc ouoTA=
i...o s.naas trs==
a*=wl 6 reuresoses s wi 1
.pgA cooE
. (3rY
. STATE L ZF GODE 11ru(Tgpo-m /
paJhSE.
I 1
Ac.sa.am een.r.ea LOCAA.aspitocucreDee E,T.A.ND.s e,D FORM.15 en.v. e osi AR Pe n.s a me p. re esA. raat eCran83.2ieiw i
.=.
4 1
E STATEMENT OF WORK PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR WATCH LIST PLANTS f
HACKGROUND Senior Management Meetina Process 3
i The decision to add or remove a plant from the NRC Watch List is made semiannually at the Senior Management Meeting (SMM). The Watch List plants are those whose performance warrant NRC monitoring beyond that normally required *, These meetings have occurred since 1986 and the final outcomes are listed in the Summary of Senior Management Meeting Results'. Throughout the process, the information about the performance of the plants is l
provided primarily by the regions and the Office for Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR). The regions are responsible for the inspection activity of the plants, and have first-hand information based on their observations and assessments, and NRR provides oversight, licensing and event review for the reactor program. The Office for Analysis and Evaluation 2
i of Operational Data (AEOD) provides insights based on performance indicators, independent l
analysis of experience and Accident Sequence Precursors (ASP) that are based on information reported to the NRC.
The SMM process begins with the independent screening of licensee performance by different organizations of the NRC staff. Each organization does some evaluation of the plants' i
performance. The organizations come together in a prebriefing to form a consensus on the plants for discussion based on input from their respective organizations. Following the prebriefing, the organizations prepare a Senior Management Meeting Executive Summary with written discussions about the performance of selected plants; these contain plant specific discussions and pei
~mce indicators. At SMM, th agency develops actions to address performance issues, including additions and deletions of plants from the Watch List.
l Following each SMM, the licensees are informed of any NRC decisions or actions that have been taken with respect to their plants or facilities. The Commission is advised of the Watch List status, and reasons for addition or removal from the Watch List at the Periodic Briefing l
on Operating Reactors and Fuel Facilities. This meeting is transcribed. Following placement on the Watch List, inspection and other regulatory activity is generally refocused on the problems and the licensees generally document their improved performance. Removal of plants from the Watch List is part of the SMM process.
There are three categories of Watch List plants: Category 3 are shutdown plants requiring NRC authorization to startup and that the NRC will monitor closely; Category 2 plants are those authorized to operate that the NRC will monitor closely; and Category 1 plants are those removed from the Watch List.
2
\\
1 4
The SMM process is described in detail in Attachments 1 and 2 of SECY-96-093, Guidance for Senior Management Meeting and Plant Evaluation Processes (to be provided upon award).
Senior Manauement Meetina Performance Indicator Studv The Commission has requested that the staff evaluate the development of improved indicators j
d that can provide a more objective basis for judging whether a plant should be placed on or
]
deleted from the Watch List. The Commission stated that the staff should look at the j
dominant and recurring characteristics of those plants that have been placed on the Watch List in the past, including 1) a high level of operational events,2) inadequate engineering and technical support, and 3) management ineffectiveness. These characteristics are to be assessed through objective measures that are directly related to plant performance.
A study shall be completed with the assistance of contractors in response to the Commission request. The study needs to result in better identification of what makes a problem plant; their characterization needs to be more objective, consistent, measurable, and timely. In addition indicators must be developed from performance characteristics and measures in a logical sequence.
For the purposes of this study, the following definitions will apply:
Characteristics are aspects of a plant's behavior that are important to safety performance.
Measures are aspects of plant operation that are directly observable through data collection or inspection.
Indi : tors are quantitative combinaf:'n or arrangements of measures ' ~ suggest or predict a characteristic which affects performance.
The study will mvolve four components: 1) examination of characteristics and attributes of past problem plants and those associated with good performers which were considered important in past senior management meeting deliberations,2) identification of objective and timely indicators which relate to those characteristics,3) correlation of indicators to historic performance trends, and 4) definition of the relationship between the resulting indicators and risk.
The scope of this contract will be to complete components 1 and 2, and to prepare an overall report integrating the results of all four components.
The examination of dominant characteristics (component 1) and the identification of candidate indicators (component 2) shall involve a thorough review of existing records, irn.luding the SMM briefing books, transcripts of Commission briefings and past detailed plant reviews including major team inspections and the study of Diagnostic Evaluation Inspection Reports 3
k
(DET study). Interviews with senior NRC staff, management, and selected licensees shall also be conducted. The effort shall be performed by an established management consulting firm.
AEOD has a study in progress to look at common characteristics and attributes of plants for which there was a DET. This will become an input to the contractor effort.
The correlation of indicators to past performance trends (component 3) will proceed in parallel using a technical contractor. The output of that review will be a list of data and information to be gathered in order to support the necessary analysis.
The dermition of the relationship between the resulting indicators and risk (component 4) will be performed by NRC staff. AEOD has a " c-term effort in progress to develop risk-based indicators. This work will be used to the extent practical in the current study. It is essential to maintain logical models in which other candidate indicators can be evaluated.
A simple model is shown in Figure 1. The NRC maintains the risk at a particular plant is dominated by the potential for accidents resulting in severe core damage. Probabilistic analyses have shown that such accidents result from a sequence of failures starting with an initiating event which perturbs the plant from its normal operation. Human errors are known to be major contributors to such accidents. Other contributors include design deficiencies and safety system failures, some of which can occur from common causes. Figure I shows that the characteristics, measures and indicators of plant performance can be directly related to all of the factors that contribute to risk from core damage accidents. For example, the likelihood of design problems, human errors and equipment failures is strongly affected by the overall performance of the operating organization. The goal of component 4 of this study will be to relate the characteristics, measures and indicators to the risk-significant factors shown in Figure 1.
OILIECTIVE Identify the characteristics, measures, and indicators that have been, could be, and should be used regarding the placement and removal of plants from the Watch List. Identity the characteristics, measures, and indicators that relate to nu. lear safety in a systematic manner and result in the improvement to the objectivity, consistency, quantification, and timeliness of Watch List plant identification. In addition to examining the bases for past NRC decisions, identify new perspectives that can be applied.
QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED The contractors shall have key personnel whose training, experience, and overall qtalifications permit the conduct of an integrated management analysis study. The contractors shait also have personnel with methodological skills to design studies, interface appropriately with and interview executives. develop and deliver data collection instruments, tabulate and statistically present qualitative and quantitative fmdings, and analyze and interpret such fmdings into acceptable written report formats. The contractors shall have the ability to rapidly assimilate 4
v
4 1
Plant i
Risk Containment Failure Core Damage Health Effects,
)
Probability Frequency etc.
l Initiating Safety Common cause Human Design Event System Failure Error Frequency Reliability Probability Probability i
t l
I l
Characteristics - Measures - Indicators Figure 1: Relationship of Characteristics, Measures, and Indicators to Plant Risk informaticn ssociat" 'vith the nuclear industry regulatory environment and express findings in the terminology of that environment.
The individual who wili direct the task shall have demonstrated the highest degree of professional competence. The individual shall have a minimum of 20 years of professional experience to include 10 years of upper management experience in a large organization. A working knowledge of operating and management processes of an electric utility is desired.
The individual shall have had experience with the identification and resolution of significant performance problems in industrial organizations. The individual will also have experience with strategic planning. The individual shall have had the experience with developing performance characteristics, measures, and indicators, and assessing results. A bachelors degree is mandatory and an advanced degree (s) is preferred (e.g., M.Il.A., M.S., Ph.D.s in a related technical or business field).
The investigator (s) shall have at least 10 years of professional experience, preferably including experience with the electric utility industry. At least one individual or consultant shall possess a working knowledge of operating and management process of a nuclear electric utility. The 5
c_
1 individual shall have had experience with developing performance characteristics, measurement, and indicators in an operating environment and assessing results. A bachelors degree is mandatory and an advanced degree (s) is preferred (e.g., M.B.A., M.S., Ph.D.s in a j
related technical or business Held).
WORK REQUIREMENTS The contractor shall provide the necessary quali6ed personnel, facilities, materials and services to complete the task. While in Washington, NRC will provide of6ce space and access to NRC documents and information systems. Contractor personnel shall be available to travel and respond to NRC staff questions and comments on all phases of this project throughout the period of performance.
STATEMENT OF WORK The contractor shall submit a report that identines the enaracteristics, measures, and indicators that have been, could be, and are recommended for consideration regarding the placement and removal of plants from the Watch List. The contractor shall identify the characteristics, measures, and indicators that relate to nuclear safety in a systematic manner and result in the improvement to the objectivity, consistency, quanti 6 cation, and timeliness of Watch List plant identincation. The report shall identify characteristics, measures, and indicators that focus on the dominant and recurring characteristics of past Watch List plants. The report should also address leading indicators, measures, and characteristics such as economic stress measures that NRC should observe to increase watchfulness for evidence of safety performance change.
As described in more detail below, the contractor shall integrate the review of NRC information, the interviews, data, analysis, Endings, results and recommendations into a single report. The report shall be based on the collective :nalysis and evaluation of material provided by the NRC, the contractor's participation in interviews of NRC and licensee management, and the contractor's past experience.
Prior to the Gnal report, a draft report shall be issued for NRC comment. The contractor shall address and resolve the comments to the NRC's satisfaction. After issuance of the Gnal report the contractor shall be requested to present the results, possibly in a public forum.
The following work shall be performed and documented in the report:
1.
The contractor shall review all the background information provided by the NRC and any material identined as relevant by the contractor.
2.
Identify what performance ' characteristics, measures, and indicators have been used to put a plant on, and remove a plant from, past Watch Lists and analyze the results.
This shall be done for the plants identi6ed (Reference 1) from January,1991, to through January 1996 (exclude Browns Ferry Unit 1). Develop a matrix to show links 6
i
~
Letween the corresponding characteristics, measures, and indicators. This matrix shall identify gaps in the information. The information shall be analyzed and documented in the report.
2,1 Using the Senior Management Meeting Executive. Summaries (10 summaries about 200 pages each), the EDO list of dominant and recurring characteristics, Senior Management Meeting Summaries (10 summaries about 30 pages each), the transcripts of the Periodic Briefing on Operating Reactors and Fuel Facilities (10 summaries about 100 pages each), summary information developed for the Senior Management Meeting premeeting (10 packages about 100 pages each), and relevant licensee correspondence (documents to be provided), identify the characteristics, measures, and indicators that have been used to put a plant on, and remove a plant from, the Watch List. Develop a matrix of the corresponding characteristics, measures, and indicators. Analyze the information and document the analysis in the report. The analysis shall discuss the objectivity, consistency, and timeliness of the information.
The example matrix in Figure 2 is provided for illustration. It shows three potentially important characteristics of plant operations; root cause assessment, personnel qualifications and preventive maintenance. For each of these characteristics, at least one measure is listed. Two are given for preventive maintenance. Numerical indicators are given for two of the four measures.,
f,easu s
Characteristics Root Cause Assessments / Corrective Action Recurring Problems Personnel Qualifications Training Program Effectiveness Requanfication Failure Rate Preventive Maintenance Equipment Reliability
- Safety System Failure Rate Forcsd Outage Rate Material Condition Figure 2: Example Matrix of Characteristics, Measures, and Indicators 2.2 Using the Senior Management Meeting Executive Summaries, identify the characteristics, measures, and indicators that have been used to identify the plants selected for discussion, and highlighted as good performers. Compile the data in a matrix similar to Figure 2. The information shall be analyzed and documented in the 7
m
i report. The analysis shall discuss how the good performers characteristics, measures, and indicators differ from those of the Watch List plants.
2.3 Administer interviews of selected licensees and NRC senior managers. Licensee interviews shall be scheduled and accompanied by an NRC representative. In order to meet the tight schd.ule, parallel interviews and analysis may be necessary. The contractor shall provide and discuss interview questions with the NRC.
2.3.1 Conduct in',erviews of NRC senior managers to understand the judgements made and information used to evaluate licensee performance; identify what characteristics, measures, and indicators the managers judge to be the most vital l
in evaluating declining and improving performance.
2.3.2 Conduct interviews at the offices of two licensees of past Watch List plants to understand what characteristics, measures, and indicators they used to measure declining and improved performance. Also, interview one good performer to identify what they consider to be important characteristics, measures, and indicators to maintain good performance. This will require review of background information to be sapplied by the NRC.
2.4 Based on the reviews and interviews, provide a summary, discussion, and evaluation of the characteristics, measures, and indicators. Identify those most common, and the most relevant, characteristics, measures, and indicators used as well as gaps in the information. Evaluate the extent to which the Watch List plants distinguish themselves from good plants.
Where there is no link between characteristics, measures, and indicators, identity where additional measures could be applied.
Complete the matrix of the corresponding characteristics, measures, and indicators.
3.
Identify characteristics, measures, and indicators that could/should be obtained, and added to the matrix or used to fill in the gaps of information. Identify new perspectives on performance assessment, beyond those which the NRC has used in past decisions. The contractor shall use their (1) observations, analysis, and evaluation of the NRC information; (2) knowledge base from experience with electric utilities and other industries; and (3) experience with the development and analysis of performance factors. The contractor shall add this information to the matrix. Document the findings and observations in the report. Convey description of the characteristics, measures and indicators to the NRC contractor responsible for the third component,3) correlation of indicators to historic performance trends, and to the NRC for evaluation of the fourth component,4) definition of the relationship between the resulting indicators and risk.
8
1 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND DELIVERABLES All reports shall be sent to the NRC Project Officer with a copy to the NRC Project Manager and Technical Monitor. The contractor shall provide the following:
l.
A monthly business letter report shall be submitted detailing schedule and cost status; status of each deliverable, and expenditures versus forecast specified.
2.
A detailed plan to include a schedule with milestones, and individual man hour forecast for each task element,5 days from the start of the contrset.
3.
Interview questions 10 days before scheduled interviews.
4.
An evolving matrix of corresponding characteristics, measures, and indicators in the monthly business letter report as the task progresses.
5.
A draft report, which integrates the resuhs of the tasks and subtasks on November 15, 1996.
l 6.
A final report, reflecting NRC comments, December 13,1996.
The final report will be delivered with a camera ready copy suitable for inclusion in the NRC document control system. The report shall contain an executive summary, summary of findings and observations, con:lusions, and recommendations. The format of the reports shall be specified by the NRC Project Officer.
7.
The contractor shall deliver electronic discs containing the report to the NRC Project Officer upon completion of the task.
{
DELIVERABLE Completion Date 1
Detailed plan and milestones 5 days after contract award I
Interview questions 10 days before conduct of interviews Notes of Interview 3 days after the interview j
Initial Matrix from 2.0 October 11,1996 l
Initial Matrix from 3.0 October 25,1996 I
Draft Report November 15,1996 NRC Comments / Meeting November 29,1996 Comment resolution / Meeting December 9,1996 Final Report December 13,1996 Electronic copy December 13,1996 i
Completion dates based on a start date of September 3,1996 1
i l
i 9
I
t
. MEETINGS AND TRAVEL The following meetings and travel are anticipated can be used for planning purposes and estimating costs:
l Up to seven 3-person,2-day trips; one to each NRC Regional Offices to participate in interviews, and three licensee offices.
At least 10 trips of 4 days to the NRC Headquarters for each senior contractor investigator and the task executive director plus one trip for comment resolution and two trips for presentation of the report.
The contractor shall obtain verbal or written approval of the NRC Project Officer before any travel is undertaken for this project.
2 ESTIMATED LEVEL OF EFFORT The estimated level of effort is 2988 man-hours.
PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE The period of performance shall end 150 days from the contract award date.
APPLICABLE SPECIAL PROVISIONS The work specified in this SOW is not fee recoverable.
It is the i msibility of the contractor to a sign staff, employees, subcontractors, or consultants who have the required educational background, experience, or combination thereof to meet both the technical and regulatory objectives c' he work specified in this SOW. The NRC will rely on the representations made by me contractor concerning the qualifications of the personnel assigned to this project including assurances that all information contained in the technical and cost proposals, including resumes, is accurate and truthful.
The contractor will make provision to protect the confidentiality of sensitive unclassified material to be used in the conduct of this study, including but not limited to the Senior Management Meeting Summaries and summary information developed for the Senior Management prebriefs.
10
k
'f REFERENCES - REFERENCES #2 & #3 to be provided at time of award 1.
Summary of Senior Management Meeting Results 2.
U.S, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Orfice for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data, " Performance Indicators for Operating Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors, Data Through September 1995, Parts I and II."
3.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Guidance for Senior Management Meeting and Plant Evaluation Processes," Commission Paper SECY-93-093, May 1,1996.
i
=
1 11
M
^
~
Reference 1 Summary of Senior Management Meetine Results
. D a Discussed; DL = Declining Letter; N = No category assigned; 7/7 e Unit A/ Unit B)
(
i Apr Dct Jun Nov Jm Dec May Jan Jm Jan Jun Jan Jm Jan Jm Jan Jm Jan Jun Jan
' 86 86 87 87 88 88 89 90 90 91 91 92 92 73 93 94 94 95 95 96 Arkansas 1 & 2
.D...D...D..
~s uv:r valley 1 & 2
.D..
Broens 7erry 1
.N.. 3..3.. 3..3.. 3..3.. 3..3..3..3..3..3.. 3..3..3..3.. 3..3..3..
srowns Ferry 2
.W..3.. 3.. 3.. 3.. 3.. 3..3.. 3.. 3..2..2..1..
Browns Ferry 3
.N.. 3..3.. 3.. 3..3.. 3..3.
3..3..3..3..3..3.. 3..3..3..3..3..2..
sruna:Ick 1 & 2
.D...D...D...D..
.D...D...D.. 2.. 2.. 2.. 2..
1...D..
Cetv:rt Cliffs 1 & 2
.D.'..D..
2.. 2.. 2.. 2.. 2.. 2.. 1..
Catasha 1 & 2
.D.,
Clinton
.D...D...D..
Comanche Peak 1
.D..
Cooper Station
.D.. 0L..DL. 0L..DL..D.,
Cry 2t:L alver 3
.D.,
.D...D..
D:vis Sesse
.N.. 1..
.D..
Dresden 2 & 3
.D.. 2.. 2.. 2.. 1..
.2.. 2.. 2.. 2.. 2.. 2.. 2.. 2.. 2..
Duane Arnold
.D..
.D..
Tsrai 2
.N.. 2.. 2.. 2.. 2.. 2.. 1..
FittPetrick
.D..2..2..2..2.
1..
Fcrt Cathom
.2.. 2.. 1..
Ginne
.D..
Nirris
.D..
Hitch 1 & 2
.D...D..
.D...D..
Hope Creek
.0L.
Indian Point 2
.D...D...D..
Indian Point 3
.D...D..
.D...D..
2.i.2.. 2..
2.. 2.. 2.
LaSalle 1 & 2
.N.. 1..
.DL. 0L..D...D...D RcGuirs 1 & 2
.D..
Kittstone 1, 2 & 3
.D...D...D...D..
.D...D...D...D(2.2..
Nine uite Point 1&2 2/D. 2.. 2.. 2.. 2.. 2.. 1..
.D..
oconee 1, 2 & 3
.D..
Oystsr Creek
.D...D...D..
.D...u..
PsLirades
.D.. 3.. 2.. 1..
.D...D..
Palo V:rde 1, 2 & 3
.D..
.D...D...D...D...D.,
P tch Bottom 2 & 3
.N.. 2..3.. 3..3.. 3.. 2..1..
Parry 1
.D...D..
.0L..D...D..
Pilgric
.N.. 2.. 3.. 3.. 3.. 3.. 2.. 1..
Quad Cities 1,& 2
.D..
.D...DL..DL..DL..DL..D..
Ranchs Seco
.N.. 3.
1.. 3.. 2.
1..
.Rivsr Send
.D...D...D...D...J..
Robinson 2
.D...D..
321em 1 & 2
.D..
.D..
.D...D...D...D..
San Dnofre 1, 2 & 3
.D.,
sequoyah 1 & 2
.W.. 3.. 3.. 3. 3/2. 2.. 1..
.D.,.D...D..
.C..
South Tesas 1 & 2
.D..
.D.. 2.. 2.. 2.. 1...D..
surry 1 & 2
.D.. 2.. 2.. 1..
frojan
.D..
.D..
Turksy Point 3 & 4
.N..1..2..2..2..2..2.
1..
Vogtte 1 & 2
.D...D..
Urth, tuclear 2
.D...D...D...D...D...D...D..
. W2Lf Creek
.D...D.,
.D..
Zion 1 & 2
.D...D..
2.. 2.. 2.. 2..
1.
.D...D...D..
. Stagnary of Senior Management Meeting Results Good Performers (G e Good; Apr Oct Jun Nov Jun Dec May Jan Jun Jan J m Jan Jun Jan Jun Jan Jun 86 86 87 87 88 88 89 90 90 91 91 92 92 93 93 94 94 syron 1 & 2
.G...G..
Cetiaway G...G.,.G...G...G...G..
.G...G..
Diablo Canyon 1 & 2
.G...G..G...G...G..
Grand Gulf
.G...G...G..
.G..
R rris Kgweeee
.G...G.
Konticet t o
.G...G..
Prairie Island 1 & 2
.G...G...G...G.
G.,
St. Lucie 1 & 2 G..
.G...G...G...G...D..
. Sumer
.G...G...G...G...G...G..
Susquehanna 1 & 2
,G...G...G..
Three Mile ist. 1
..G..
.G...G..
gee.Rowe
PROPOSAL PRESENTATION AND FORMAT General Instructions j
-(a) Information submitted in response to this RFQ must be typed, printed, or reproduced on letter-size paper and er.ch copy must be legible.
)
(b) The quoter must submit the following material, which will constitute its cuotation as defined by FAR 2.101, in two separate and distinct parts, at the cate and time s]ecified in Block 10 of the SF 18 for receipt of quotations.
Quotations may 3e faxed to (301) 415-5761.
l Part 1 - Request for Quotation (SF 18).
One original or faxed signed copy of the SF 18 and attached organizational conflict of interest certification.
Part 2 - Cost Quotation.
One original or faxed copy of the cost quotation.
Specific information on cost quotation preparation is provided in below.
4 Oral Technical and Management Presentation and Supporting Documentation Requirements - Instructions (a) The quoter shall make an oral technical and management presentation in accordance with the instructions contained herein.
Inmediately after the oral presentation, the quoter shall participate in an interview conducted by Government representatives The sole purpose of the oral presentation and the interview is to permit the Government to test and evaluate the quoter's knowledge, competence and qualifications with regard to the Government's requirements and nrogram objectives.
(b) Neither the oral presentation nor the interview will constitute discussions within the meaning of FAR 15.601 and 15.610, and neither "lill obligate the Government to entertain revisions to the quote or to solicit revisions to quotations.
The NRC intends to award without discussions.
Nevertheless, the Agency may hold discussions and request revisions to quotations, if necessary.
(c) Quoters are prohibited from taping or recording their own oral presentations.
Should the NRC tape or record the quoter's presentation, the NRC will NOT provide the quoters with a copy of the tape or recording.
(d) The oral technical and management presentation and written supporting documentation may not contain any reference to cost.
(e) Caution--quoters are hereby notified that all information provided in its oral presentation and supporting documentation, including all resumes, must be accurate, truthful, and complete to the best of the quoter's knowledge and belief.
The Commission will rely upon all representations made by the quoter both in the evaluation process and for the performance of the 12
O work by the quoter selected for award.
The Cormlission may require the quoter to substantiate the credentials, education, and employment history of its employees, subcontractor personnel, and consultants, through submission of copies of transcripts, diplomas, licenses, etc.
(f) The quoter shall submit through the oral technical and management presentation and supporting documentation, full and complete information to permit the Government to make a thorough evaluation and a sound determination that the quoter will have a reasonable likelihood of meeting the requirements and objectives of this procurement.
l Oral Technical and Management Presentation - Location Oral technical and management presentations will be held at a conference room in NRC Headquarters located on Rockville Pike, in Rockville, Maryland.
Each conference room will have a viewing screen.
The NRC can provide an overhead projector for use at the request of the quoter.
Contact Debbie Neff, NRC Contract Specialist at 301-415-8160 should you require such equipment.
Oral Technical and Management Presentation - Schedule (a) The order in which the quoters will make their oral presentations will be determined by lottery by the Contracting Officer after receipt of quotations.
Oral presentations will be scheduled to begin no earlier than 9:00am on the second business day after the close of the solicitation.
(b) The Contracting Officer will notify all quoters of their scheduled oral l
presentation date and time.
Once notified, quoters shall com)lete their oral 1
presentations as scheduled.
Requests to reschedule will not 3e entertained.
The NRC reserves the right to reschedule oral presentations under extraordinary circumstances at the sole discretion of the NRC Contracting Officer.
(c) It is anticipated that oral presentations shall not exeed 1.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> in duration and shall be followed by a 30 minute recess.
The subsequent interview session wiiI conmence immediately after the recess and shall not exceed 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> in duration.
Oral Technical and Management Presentation - Topics The following topics must be addressed by the quoter through the oral technical and management presentation.
It is required that those individuals proposed as key personnel for this effort perform the presentation.
l 1.
PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS / EXPERIENCE 1
i The objective of this part of the oral presentation shall be to clearly i
demonstrate to the NRC what qualifications and experience the proposed l
personnel have to 3erform the effort as described in 50W. The quoters shall address the availa]ility of the proposed personnel and shall describe the l
composition of the pro)osed project team (s) to be assigned to this effort, and delineate the responsi)ilities of the team members inclusive of technical, 13
o i
[
management, and administrative functions.
i 2.
ORGANIZATIONAL EXPERIENCE AND PAST PERFORMANCE i
The quoter shall describe all corporate cualifications and experience in
[
performing contracts, similar in size anc scope to this procurement, over the
_past 3 years..and the extent to which the necessary knowledge, experience and skills remain available within the organization.
The oral presentation shall include, but shall not be limited to, a discussion of the quoter's l
qualifications and experience in regard to the following:
i
- -knowledge of operating and management of an electric utility
- resolution of performance problems in industrial organizations, strategic planning or total quality management
-_ performance measurement (i.e. developing links between performance elements and measures, benchmarking an individual performance in an industry.
measuring performance in an operating environment and assessing results)
- ability to-perform project management and quality assurance (completeness and accuracy) of technical re) orts l
- experience in planning, scleduling, and control of personnel and work flow l
- ability to control costs and provide project' status and cost information in i
the format and content specified in the 50W (provide examples of the system that will be used for monitoring and reporting detailed status'and cost i
information.
l The quoter shall identify the key personnel who performed under the contracts discussed.
3.
UNDERSTANDING OF CONTRACT OBJECTIVES 2
The objective of this part of the oral presentation shall be to clearly i
demonstrate to the NRC the cuoter's understanding of the technical i
requirements of the RF0 including problems to be co1ved, objectives to be achieved and scope, magnitude and complexity of the effort.
)
Supporting Documentation Requirements j
The quoter'; written documentation as defined below shall support the oral presentation.
(a) The quoter shall provide the following written documentation by the date and time specified in Block 10 of the SF 18 for receipt of quotations (three copies if delivered by hand or ex)ress mail).
Documentation may be faxed to (301) 415-5761.
Please notify De)bie Neff if over 20 pages are to be faxed.
(1) The quoter shall provide paper copies of overheads documenting the main points of each topic to be discussed through the oral presentation with the
~ identity of the individual presenting the topic noted. All printed cnoies must be legible and reproduced in black and white on standard letter-size
) aper.
No other material to be referenced through the oral presentation will
)e accepted.
)
14
1 (2) The quoter shall provide the information outlined below for its last three contracts similar in size and scope to this procurement completed over the past 3 years and all ongoing contracts.
The NRC will attempt to contact a reasonable number of the references provided.
This information will be used to evaluate the degree of the quoter's success in past performance.
Contract No..
Name and address of Government / commercial entity:
Point of
Contact:
4 Contracting Officer:
Telephone Number:
Technical Representative:
Telephone Number:
Date contract awarded:
Period of performance of the contract (including extensions):
Dollar value of the contract:
9 If applicable, the dollar value of the modifications to the contract:
Type of contract awarded:
Brief description of the work:
(3) The quoter shall identify all individuals anticipated to perform this effort and shall provide resumes for each individual in accordance with the format outlined below.
The resumes should be directed to the specific needs of the contract and not be general in nature.
Resumes shall be included for l
any subcontractor / consultant personnel, if known.
The quoter shall indicate i
the extent to which each individual will be available to perform this effort.
Resumes should not exceed 2 pages in length for each individual identified.
RESUME FORMAT a.
Name and Title b.
Name of Firm with which associated c.
Years of Experience with this Firm and other Firms d.
Education - Degree (s)/ Year / Specialization e.
Description of experience and qualifications relative to the effort described in the S0W of this RFQ j
f.
State whether the person proposed will fill a Key Personnel position and indicate the percentage of time this person will commit to this effort.
(4) All designated contractor employees should be in the employ of the quoter or designated subcontractor (s) at the time of the oral presentation.
If any of the personnel are not employed by the quoter or proposed subcontractor at that time, firm written commitments assuring the availability of such individuals are to be included with the supporting documentation.
15
l Cost Quotation i
(a) The quoter shall provide a written cost quotation for the effort described in this RFQ. 'The information to be provided in sup) ort of the cost quotation must include pertinent details sufficient to show t1e elements of cost upon which the total cost is predicated and shall also incluoe the following:
- the bases for the estimated labor hours
- a breakdown of the labor hours by labor category for the period of performance
- the source of labor rates for both contractor personnel and any subcontractor personnel (Note:
level-of-effort data shall be expressed in man-hours.)
- the source and bases for estimation of all other direct costs
- the rates for labor overhead, fringe benefits, general and administrative expenses, and fee or profit, if not already included in GSA approved loaded contract rates 1
1 I
1 4
16
i AWARD AND EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS.
(a) Quotations will be evaluated against the evaluation factors specified below. These factors are listed in their relative order of importance.
Award will be made to the quoter:
(1) Whose quotation is technically acceptable:
(2) Whose technical / cost relationship is most advantageous to the Government; and (3) Who is considered to be responsible within the meaning of Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 9.1.
4 (b) Although cost /] rice is an important factor in the evaluation of quotation, tec1nical merit in the evaluation criteria set forth below is 4
a more significant factor in the selection of a contractor. Further, to 1
be selected for an award, the quoted cost / price must be realistic and reasonable.
(c) The Government may:
(1) Reject any or all quotations.
(2) Accept other than the lowest cost / price quotation; and (3) Waive informalities and minor irregularities in quotations received.
EVALUATION FACTORS 1.
Personnel Qualifications, Experience and Availability i
Degree of qualification and experience of proposed personnel to perform required tasks (minimum qualification and experience level for certain personnel apply - see S0W).
Degree of availability of proposed personnel and commitment of qualified staff to contract.
(45 points).
2.
Organizatiunai Experience and Past Performance Extent to which the proposal demonstrates that the r or's proposed organization has the necessary experience and current capdbilities (including management and quality assurance capabilities) and has successfully pcrformed on past and current contracts for the type of work described in the 50W. (40 points).
3.
Understanding of Contract Objectives Degree to which offeror demonstrates an understanding of the technical requirements including an understanding of the problems to be solved and objectives to be achieved as well as the scope, ngnitude and complexity of the effort.
(15 points).
l 17 l
AUTOMATED CLEARING HOUSE (ACH) ELECTRONIC PAYMENT It is the policy of the Federal Government to pay government vendors by the Automated Clearing House (ACH) electronic funds transfer Jayment system in lieu of a U.S. Treasury check.
The electronic system is (nown as Vendor Express.
Payment shall be made in accordance with FAR 52.232-28. entitled
" Electronic Funds Transfer Payment Methods" which would appear in any resultant purchase order.
Upon notification of award, the successful quoter shall complete the " Company Information" portion of the attached Form SF 3881, entitled " Payment Information Form - ACH Vendor Payment System".
The contractor shall take the form to the ACH Coordinator at the financial institution that maintains its company's bank account.
The ACH Coordinator will fill out the " Financial Institution Information" portion of the form and return it to the Office of the Controller at the following address:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Division of Accounting and Finance. Mailstop T-9-E-2 Washington, DC 20555.
ATTN: ACH/ Vendor Express.
Once the Office of the Controller has processed the contractor's sign-up form, the contractor will begin to receive payments electronically via Vendor Express /ACH.
If the offeror / bidder has questions concerning ACH/ Vendor Express, he/she may call the Commercial Payments staff at (301) 415-7520."
(End of provision) 19
NRC FORM 103 THIS NUMBE R MUST APPE AR ON AL L DATE ig %)
INVOICE E AND'OR PACK AGES AND Ne4LM 5101 PAPER $ RE LATING TO THis ORDE R PURCHASE / DELIVERY ORDER ORDE R NUMBE R DR-40516 8/.2f/96 I
POINT OF ISSUE: U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMig,
- g.,q R E QUISIT ION NUM0 E R INSTRUCTIONS See bilhng address. lower tett corner of this to -
82678033 PURCHASE ORDER PER YOUR APPROPRI A TION AL LOT ME NT JOB CODE B & R NUMBE R BOC NUMBE R X0200 J3229 6821511 3025 OF CONSIGNE E AND DESTIN ATION NEGOTI ATE O PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF 41 USC 257lCH3L (SHIP TO NRC W ARE HOUSE UNLESS OTHE RWISE SPECIF IE DI U S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION X
DE LIVERY ORDE R UNDE R CONTR ACT NUMBE R' GS-22F-00938 AtiN:
W4114em Reughley, M/S T 4A9 ROCKV!LLE MD 20a52 TO (Scher)
Aft'lur Andersen & CO.,
SC DEuvtRY E O B PLACE C' INSPECHON AND ACCEPT ANCE lDATE
/.TT h:
Drew Valentine Destination N' b0 l
'S'
"'"**"' ^
"N'"^**"""5 TINh:gon350732690 1sn days Nat 30 PLE A3E FURNISH THE FOLLOWING ON THE TE RMS SPECIFIE D ON BOTH SIDES OF lHIS SHE ET AND ON THE ATTACHE D IF ANY. E XCEPT THAT ANY SUCH TE RYS WHICF MiGHT BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE TE RMS OF ANY E xlSTINC F EDE RAL CONTR ACT OR AGREE MENT UNDE R WHICH THIS ORDE R IS PLACE D Wil L NOT APPL Y ITEM NO.
AaTICLFS OR SE RVICES QU AN T IT Y UNIT UNIT PRICE AVOUNT TI Contractor shall provide servi.as es described in the attached Statement of '..'ork for the Office of f.n e. lys i t and Evaluation of Operational 'ata (AEODi at the following rates:
Fixed Hourly v0Mg#y E3L.
Matt S 1.
Preare.m Executive 120 HRL
$??0.9r $??,ne <r Engagennnt Leader 400 HRS
$16t.00 $ 7', '20.m 5 an Loacer 960 HRL
$72,m $% C80."
Team Member 1,42r HRL 140.9? $71,157.m Travel........................
JUT TD D,CEE."
$17,22n.tr fiRC Contactc:
3 Contractual:
Den 91e f4ef f ( 301 .*.1 "i '1 M P.'E Project Officer:
William Raughley s301; 415 7577 Contractor Contactt:
rew Valentino or KatF ryn Ko'ly '?~12'
'7C-%11/'e3G I
lPE RSON TO CONTACT REGARDING Thl5 0RDE R 1ELFPHONE ARE A CODE {NUMBE R TOTAL
~ cShic l'ef f 301 t1w1r0
$2F,167.L.
- SUHMIT INVOtCL IN DUPLICATE IN ACCONDANCE Wl'H INST RUC11C NS ON ME VE MSE StG ATUR '
T YPE ' N AME (P O NUM6E R MUST BE INCLUDED ON A LL INvotCE 51 ANO f ORW APD 10 I
? * /
Ls.J DIVISION CF ACCOUNTING AND FINANCE
[g/
'Vg
,4,8 UEFICE OF ThE CONTROLLEG T 9 E2
(-
J
-*'n I
ti S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CON T Rdl/NG OF F ICE R WASHINGTON D C 20555 0001 g
NZC FoRC 103A (11-87)
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OHuth %"*"
saco s' '
PUR ASE ORDER CONTINUATION DR-9F-0516 IN STQuCTION S. Putnase orde's cescob<ng sew es may provide data c'oss og toe Ovam.t v ve' ' Una Po e a4 Amoam columns
"'XRIT W 9ftbERSEN & CO, SC
' TEM NUM9ER AAfiCLE S OA SERVICE S OgANftfy UN f UNv f PA4CE AMOUNT Use of Automated Clearino House (ACH) Electronic Fayment it is the policy of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to pay government vendors by the Automated Clearing House (ACH) electronic funds transfer payment system in lieu of a U. S.
Treasury check.
The electronic system is known as Vendor Express.
Payment shall be made in accordance with FAR 52.232-28, entitled
" Electronic Funds Transfer Payment Methods."
To receive payment by Vendor express, the contractor shall com,lete t'te
" Company Information" portion of' the Form SF
- 3881, entitled " Payment Information Form - ACH Vendor Pryment System."
The contractor thall take the ferm to the ACH Coordinator at the financial institution that maintains its company's bank account.
The contractor shall discuss with the ACH Coordinator how the payment identification informatien (addendum record) will be passed to then once the payment is received by the financial institution.
The contractor must ensure that the addendum record will not be stripped from the payment.
The ACH Coordinator will fill out the
" Financial Institution information" portion of the form and return it to the Office of the Controller at the following edd rms: Nuclear Reg' ulatory Commission, Division of n courting and
- Finance, Maile.tco T-9E2, I
Wash.'ogton, DC 20555, ATTih ACH/ Vendor Express.
Once the Office of the Controller has processed the contractor's sign-up form, the contractor will becin to receive payments electronically via g
Vcndor express /ACH.
If you have questions concerning ACH/ Vendor Express, contact the Commercial Payments staff at (301) 415-7520.
I
j s
STATEMENT OF WORK PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR WATCH LIST PLANTS BACKGROUND Senior Management Meetine Process
. The decision to add or remove a plant from the NRC Watch List is m Senior Management Meeting (SMM). The Watch List plants are those who warrant NRC monitoring beyond that normally required *. These meetings have o Results'. Throughout the process, the informatio regions are responsible for the inspection activity of information based on their observations and assessments, and NRR providej licensing and event review for the reactor program. The Office for Analysis g,
of Operational Data (AEOD) provides insights based on performance in 2
analysis of experience and Accident Sequence Precursors (ASP) that are b reported to the NRC.
The SMM process begins with the independent screening oflicensee perfo organizations of the NRC staff. Each organization does some evaluation of the performance. The organizations come together in a prebriefing to form a consens plants for discussion based on input from their respective organizations. Foll written discussions about the performance of selec discussions and performance indicators. At SMM, the agency develops actio'as performance issues, Huding additions and de etions of plants from the Watch List.
Following each SMM, the licensees are informed of any NRC decisions or action been taken with respect to their plants or facilities. The Commission is advised List status, and reasons for addition or removal from the Watch List at th on Operating Reactors and Fuel Facilities. This meeting is transcribed. Followi on the Watch List, inspection and other regulatory activity is generally refocused on th problems and the licensees generally document their improved performance. Remov plants from the Watch List is part of the SMM process.
There are three categories of Watch List plants: Category 3 are shutdown plants requiri to startup and that the NRC will monitor closely; Category 2 plants are those authorized to will monitor closely; and Category I plants are those removed from the Watch List.
e 2
1
J The SMM process is described in detail in Attachments 1 and 2 of SECY.96-093, Guidance for Senior Management Meeting and Plant Evaluation Processes (to be provided upon award).
Senior Manacement Meetine Performance Indicator Studv The Commission has requested that the staff evaluate the development of improved indicators that can provide a more objective basis for judging whether a plant should be placed on or deleted from the Watch List. The Commission stated that the staff should look at the t
dominant and recurring characteristics of those plants that have been placed on the Watch List in the past, including 1) a high level of operational events,2) inadequate engineering and technical support, and 3) management ineffectiveness. These characteristics are to be assessed through objective measures that are directly related to plant performance.
A study shall be completed with the assistance of contractors in response to the Commission The study needs to result in better identification of what makes a problem plant:
request.
their characterization needs to be more objective, consistent, measurable, and timely. In addition indicators must be developed from performance characteristics and measures in a logical sequence.
For the purposes of this study, the following definitions will apply:
Characteristics are aspects of a plant's behavior that are important to safety performance.
Measures are aspects of plant operation that are directly observable through data collection or inspection.
Indicators are quantitative combinations or arrangements of measures that suggest or predict a characteristic which affects performance.
The study will involve four components: 1) examination of characteristics and attributes of past problem plants and those associated with good,nerformers which were considered important in past senior management meeting deliberations,2) identification of objective and timely indicators which relate to those characteristics,3) correlation ofindicators to historic performance trends, and 4) definition of the relationship between the resulting indicators and risk.
The scope of this comract will b & complete components 1 and 2, and to prepare an overall report integrating the results of all four components.
The examination of dominant characteristics (component 1) and the identification of candidate indicators (component 2) shall involve a thorough review of existing records, including the SMM briefing books, transcripts of Commission briefings and past detailed plant reviews including major team intpections and the study of Diagnostic Evaluation Inspection Reports 3
5 (DET study). Interviews with senior NRC staff, manegement, and selected licens be conducted. The effort shall be performed by an established management consu AEOD has a study in progress to look at common characteristics and attributes of p which there was a DET. This will become an input to the contractor effort.
The correlation ofindicators to past performance trends (component 3) will proceed in parallel using a technical contractor. The output of that review will be a list of data ano information to be gathered in order to support the necessary analysis.
l The definition of the relationship between the resulting indicators and risk (component 4) w.
be performed by NRC staff. AEOD has a long-term effort in progress to develop risk-based indicators. This work will be used to the extent practical in the current study. It is essential to maintain logical models in which other candidate indicators can be evaluated.
A simple model is shown in Figure 1. The NRC maintains the risk at a particular plant is dominated by the potential for accidents resulting in severe core damage. Probabilistic analyses have shown that such accidents result from a sequence of failures starting with an initiating event which perturbs the plant from its normal operation. Iluman errors are known to be major contributors to cach accidents. Other contributors include design deficiencies and safety system failures, some of which can occur from common causes. Figure I shows that the characteristics, measures and indicators of plant performance can be directly related to all of the factors that contribute to risk from core damage accidents. For example, the likelihood of design problems, human errors and equipment failures is strongly affected by the overall performance of the operating organization. The goal of component 4 of this study will be to relate the characteristics, measures and indicators to the risk-significant factors shown in Figure 1.
OILIECTIVE j
Identify the characteristics, measures, and indicators that have been, could be, and should be l
used regarding the placement and removal of plants from the Watch '
Identify the characteristics, measures, and indicators that relate to nuclear safety in a systematic manner and result in the improvement to the objectivity, consistency, quantification, and timeliness of Watch List plant identification. In additico to examining the bases for past NRC decisions, identify new perspectives that can be applied QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED 4
The contractors shall have key personnel whose training, experience, and overall qualifications permit the conduct of an integrated management analysis study. The contractors shall also have personnel with methodological skills to design studies, interface appropriately with and intersiew executives, develop and deliver data collection instruments, tabulate and statistically present qualitative and quantitative findings, and analyze and interpret such findings into acceptable written report formats. The contractors shall have the ability to rapidly assimilate 4
_... ~ _ _
l 1
1 Plant Risk Containment Failure Core Damage Health Effects, Probability Frequency etc.
I i
I e
initiating Safety Common cause Human Design Event System Failure Error Frequency Reliability Probability Probability a
1 i
Characteristics - Measures - Indicators i
Mgure 1: Relationship of Characteristics, Measures, and Indicators to Plant Risk information associated with the nuclear industry regulatory environment and express findings in the terminology of that environment.
The individu... who will direct the task shall have demonstrated the highest degree of i
professional competence. The individual shall have a minimum of 20 years of professional l
experience to include 10 years of upper management experience in a large organization. A working knowledge of operating and management processes of an electric utility is desired.
The individual shall have had experience with the identification and resolution of significant 1-performance problems in industrial organizations. The individual will also have experience with strategic planning. The individual shall have had the experience with developing performance characteristics, measures, and indicators, and assessing results. A bachelors degree is mandatory and an advanced degree (s) is preferred (e.g., M.B.A., M.S., Ph.D.s in a s'
i related technical or business field).
I The investigator (s) shall have at least 10 years of professional experience, preferably including experience with the electric utility industry. At least one individual or consultant shall possess i
a working knowledge of operating and management process of a nuclear electric utility. The 5
4 I
4
t 9
individual shall have had experience with developing performance characteristics, measurement, and indicators in an operating environment and assessing results. A bachs degree is mandatory and an advanced degree (s) is preferred (e.g., M.B.A., M.S., Ph.D.s ir related technical or business field).
WORK REQUIREMENTS The contractor shall provide the necessary qualified personnel, facilities, materials and services to complete the task. While in Washington, NRC will provide office space and access to NRC documents and information systems. Contractor personnel shall be available to travel and respond to NRC staff questions and comments on all phases of this project throughout the period of performance.
STATEMENT OF WORK 1
The contractor shall submit a report that identifies the characteristics, measures, and indicators that have been, could be, and are recommended for consideration regarding the placement and removal of plants from the Watch List. The centractor shall identify the characteristics, i
measures, and indicators that relate to nuclear safety in a systematic manner and result in the improvement to the objectivity, consistency, quantification, and timeliness of Watch List plant identification. The report shall identify characteristics, measures, and indicators that focus on the dominant and recurring characteristics of past Watch List plants. The report should also address leading indicators, measures, and characteristics such as economic stress measures that NRC should observe to increase watchfulness for evidence of safety performance change.
As described in more detail below, the contractor shall integrate the review of NRC information, the interviews, data, analysis, findings, results and recommendations into a single report. The report shall be based on the collective analysis and evaluation of material provided by the NRC, the contractor's participation in interviews ef NRC and licensee management, and the contractor's past experience.
s Prior to the fmal report, a draft report shall be issued for NRC comment. The contractor shall address and resolve the comments to the NRC's satisfacCon. After issuance of the final report the contractor shall be requested to present the results, possibly in a public forum.
The following work shall be performed and documented in the report:
1.
The contractor shall review all the background information provided by the NRC and any material identified as relevant by the contractor.
2.
Identify what performance characteristics, measures, and indicators have been used to put a plant on, and remove a plant from, past Watch Lists and analyze the results.
This shall be done for the plants identified (Reference 1) from January,1991, to through January 1996 (exclude Browns Ferry Unit 1). Develop a matrix to show links 6
i betuen the corresponding characteristics, measures, and indicators. This m, identify gaps in the information. The information shall be analyzed and docu.
in the report.
i 2.1 Using the Senior Management Meeting Executive Summaries (10 summaries abou i
)
pages each), the EDO list of dominant and recurring characteristics, Senior i
Management Meeting Summaries (10 summaries about 30 pages each), the transcript of the Periodic Briefing on Operating Reactors and Fuel Facilities (10 summaries abot 100 pages each), summary information developed for the Senior Management Meeting premeeting (10 packages about 100 pages each), and relevant licensee correspondence (documents to be provided), identify the characteristics, measures, and indicators that have been used to put a plant on, and remove a plant from, the Watch List. Develop a matrix of the corresponding characteristics, measures, and indicators. Analyze the information and document the analysis in the report. The analysis shall discuss the objectivity, consistency, and timeliness of the information.
The example matrix in Figure 2 is provided for illustration. It shows three potentially important characteristics of plant operations; root cause assessment, personnel qualifications and preventive maintenance. For each of these characteristics, at least one measure is listed. Two are given for preventive maintenance. Numerical indicators are given for two of the four measures.
easu s Characteristics Root Cause Assessments / Corrective Action Recurring Prot,lems Personnel Qualifications Training Program Effectiveness
- Requalification Fallure Rate Preventive Maintenance Equipment Reliability
- Safety System Failure Rate
- Forced Outage Rate Material Condition Figure 2: Example Matrix of Characteristics, Measures, and Indicators 2.2 Using the Semor Management Meeting Executive Summaries, identify the characteristics, measures, and indicators that have been used to identify the plants selected for discussion, and highlighted as good performers. Compile the data in a matrix similar to Figure 2. The information shall be analyzed and documented in the
- /
report. The analysis shall discuss how the good performers characteristics, me s
and indicators differ from those of the Watch List plants.
2.3 Administer interviews of selected licensees and NRC senior managers. Licensee interviews shall be scheduled and accompanied by an NRC representative. In order meet the tight schedule, parallel interviews and analysis may be necessary. The contractor shall provide and discuss interview questions with the NRC.
2.3.1 Conduct interviews of NRC senior managers to understand the judgements made and information used to evaluate licensee performance; identify what characteristics, measures, and indicators the managers judge to be the most vital in evaluating declining and improving performance.
+
2.3.2 Conduct interviews at the offices of two licensees of past Watch List plants to understand what characteristics, measures, and indicators they used to measure declining and improved performance. Also, interview one good performer to identify what they consider to be important characteristics, measures, and indicators to maintain good performance. This will require review of background information to be supplied by the NRC.
l I
'4 Based on the reviews and interviews, provide a summary, discussion, and evaluation of the characteristics, measures, and indicators. Identify those most common, and the most relevant, characteristics, measures, and indicators used as well as gaps in the information. Evaluate the extent to which the Watch List plants distinguish themselves i
from good plants.
j' Where there is no link between characteristics (measures, and indicators, identity where additional measures could be applieM' Comp!ete the matrix of the corresponding c' aracteristics, measures, and indicators.
3.
Identify characteristics, measures, and indicators that could/should be obtained, and added to the matrix or used to fill in the gaps ofinformation. Identify new perspectives on performance assessment, beyond those which the NRC has used in past decisions. The contractor shall use their (1) observations, analysis, and evaluation of the NRC information; (2) knowledge base from experience with electric utilities and other industries; and (3) experience with the development and analysis of performance factors. The contractor shall add this information to the matrix. Document the findings and observations in the report. Convey description of the characteristics, measures and indicators to the NRC contractor responsible for the third component,3) correlation of indicators to historic performance trends, and to the NRC for evaluation of the fourth component,4) definition of the relationship between the resulting indicators and risk.
8 f
...__..____,__._-m
- a 4
\\-
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND DELIVERAHLES All reports shall be sent to the NRC Project Officer with a copy to the NRC Project Manager and Technical Monitor. The contractor shall provide the following:
1.
A monthly business letter report shall be submitted detailing schedule and cost status; status of each deliverable, and expendituies versus forecast specified.
2.
A detailed plan to include a schedule with milestones, and individual man hour forecast for each task element,5 days from the start of the contract.
3.
Interview questions 10 days before scheduled interviews.
4.
An evolving matrix of corresponding characteristics, measures, and indicators in the monthly business letter report as the task progresses.
5.
A draft report, which integrates the results of the tasks and subtasks on November 15, 1996.
6.
A final report, reflecting NRC comments, December 13, 1996.
The final report will be delivered with a camera ready copy suitable for inclusion in the NRC document control system. The report shall contain an executive summary, summary of findings and observations, conclusions, and recommendations. The format
{
of the reports shall be specified by the NRC Project Officer.
7.
The contractor shall deliver electronic discs containing the report to the NRC Project i
Ollicer upon completion of the task.
DEllVERABI.E Comt letion Date Detai.ed plan and milestones 5 days after contract awara Interview questions 10 days before conduct ofinterviews Notes of Intervies 3 days after the interview Initial Matrix from 2.0 October 11,1996 Initial Matrix from 3.0 October 25,1996-Draft Report November 15,1996 NRC Comments / Meeting November 29,1996 Comment resolution / Meeting December 9,1996 Final Report December 13,1996 Electronic copy December 13,1996 Completion dates based on a start date of September 3,1996 l
-l 9
i i
~
MEETINGS AND TRAVEL The following meetings and travel are anticipated:
Up to seven 3 person,2-day trips; one to each NRC Regional Offices to j
interviews, and three licensee offices.
At least 10 trips of 4 days to the NRC Headquarters for each senior contractor i
investigator and the task executive director plus one trip for comment resolut two trips for presentation of the report.
and i
(
The contractor shall obtain verbal or written approval of the NRC Project travel is undertaken for this project.
ESTIMATED LEVEL OF EFFORT The estimated level of effort is 2988 man-hours.
4 PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE The period of performance shall commence on September 3,1996 and expire on 13,1996.
t APPLICABLE SPECIAL PROVISIONS i
The work specified in this SOW is not fee recoverable.
it is the responsibility of the contractor to assign staff, employees, subcontracto consultants who have the required educational background, experience. or combin j
thereof to meet both the technical and regulatory objectives of the work speci
)
this 50W. The NRC will rely on the representations made by the contractor concerning the qualifications of the personnel assigned to this project including 2
assurances that all information contained in the technical and cost proposals, in resumes, is accurate and truthful.
s.
The contractor will make provision to protect the confidentiality of sensitive unclassified material to be used in the conduct of this study, including but not limite to the Senior Management Meeting Summaries and summary information de for the Senior Management prebriefs.
It is agreed that the Government may work at the contractor's facility during the period of this agreement at no additional cost to the Government, and/or the contra may work at the Government's facility during the period of this agreement at no additional cost to the Government.
10 t
j w
.,r w
_. _.. _ ~ _. _. _...... _ _.. _. -
1
.g-9 P
REFERENCES
'1.
Summary of Senior Management Meeting Results 2.
^ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data, " Performance Indicators for Operating Commercial Nuclear Power I
Reactors, Data Through September 1995, Parts I and II."
3.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Guidance for Senior Management Meeting and Plant Evaluation Processes," Commission Paper SECY-96-093, May 1,1996.
i l
l l
i a
11
U a
James F McConnell Jim McConnell is an experienced manager in Arthur Andersen's Business Consulting practice.
He serves clients in the public utility, construction, and manufacturing industries by providing management information and cost accounting solutions to a vanety of business issues. Jim has over ten years of expenence using financial and operating information on special purpose projects such as operational consulting assignments and business disputes.
RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
- Arthur Andersen LLP Experienced Manager, Business Consulting Electric and Gas Utility--Developed a refined Asset Management strategy with a large utility that included streamlining reporting and new systems requirements.
Implemented a new Units of Property with financial and engineering / operations needs m mind to more efficiently deploy assets and monitor work orders through steam, nuclear, hydro, transmission, distribution, gas and general plant areas. Developed the framework for reorganizing and validating units of property working with engineering and operations personnel.
Midwestern utility client -- Reviewed the project controls during a management prudency review performed for a completing a nuclear generating station. The review included utility budgeting practices, cost and schedule control procedures, work force and productivity planning, and control and management reporting systems.
Western utility client -- Conducted detailed cost growth and schedule extension analyses during a rate case prudency review over the construction costs of a nuclear generating station. Detailed studies analyzing expenditures, work force, productivity, and schedule delays over the course of the project were conducted to associate cost and cchedule increases with various project events. Prepared responses to intervenor data requests and prepared formal testimony on behalf of the utihty client.
bas,ctric Utility -- Conducted extensive benchmarking reviews and developed activity Ele ed perforraar
..isures to help this chent to u. prove its competition. Joint Andersen/ client team worked with financial and business unit personnel to re-cost the company's performance measurement system from a department / functional view into a process team oriented system. Capital, O&M and Revenues were combined to form Shareholder Value Added Performance Metrics.
Kuwait Oil Company - Project Manager for an extensive reengineering project to help the company's financial services following the devastation of the Iraq invasion of Kuwait. Recommended and implemented technical and procedural solutions to handle the enormous efforts and costs expended to control the damage caused by Iraq's sabotage of Kuwait's oil fields. Provided assistance in re-staffmg and training financial and operations personnel. Worked closely with technical and environmental specialists to assess losses and report on clean-up and reconstruction progress. Calculated weekly cash call requirements and developed procedures and controls to safeguard financial and physic al assets.
Telecommunications Company --Lead Analyst on the Administrative and Support Business Value Driver team charged with modeling company costs from functional / department views into process views. Determined significant operational metrics used to measure performance by customer aligned process views versus traditional department budgets in order to help the client achieve improved cost and quality performance. Responsible for training and directing the roll-out of value drivers (over please)
4 James FMcConnell over 40 client managers, who in turn championed the program throughout the company.
Conducted extensive cost and production studies evaluating the impact of a major supplier's poor performance on a new aircraft program. The studies covered all areas of a major commercial aircraft program including engineering and testing, purchasing, industria.! and manufacturing engineering, marketing and financial departments.
Prepare negotiatirsn packages for senior management to present in meetings that led to a favorable settkment with supplier.
1 Reviewed cost allocation methodologies and reported cost overruns on a contract for were conducted for factory overhead, purchased by the authority. Detailed reviews the manufacture of new rolling stock direct labor and materials, engineermg and administrative expenses. Extended arbitration was avoided and an equitable contract purchase price adjustment was agreed upon by both parties.
EDUCATION:
M.B.A, Finance, University of Wisconsin B.B.A, Finance, Marketing and Management, University of Wisconsin I
t (Over please)
Gary M. Rodrigues Garyjoined Arthur Andersen in mid-1995 from PANGAEA Consulting, an environmental j
business and strategy consulting firm. Prior to serving with PANGAEA, he served as: vice i
president of Med-Tox Associates, Inc., an environmental, health, and safe:y consulting firm i
(Anaheim, CA); director of environmental training and technical senices) at Metcalf & Eddy,
)
Inc. (Wakefield, MA); and director of technical services in New England for General Physics Corporation of Columbia, MD.
i i
)
In more than fifleen y ears of consulting, Gary has served on or managed several dozen strategic or performance related consulting engagements with clients in government and industry, including: environmental engineering (water, wastewater, and hazardous waste), environmental technology, oil and petrochemical, manufacturing, electric utility (nuclear and fossil power),
j biotechnology, and many other industries.
I Functional Expertise:
Industry Expertise:
1; Performance Improvement Environmental Technology j
Strategic Planning Environmental Senices j
Environmental, Health and Safety Electric Utility (Nuclear 4
i Management Systems and Fossil) 4 Training Systems Development Oil / Petrochemical Business Process Reengineering Manufacturing Business Integration Government I
4 RELEVANT EXPERIENCE:
Arthur Anderten LLP Senior Manager, Lm uonmental Services Completed a study of the U.S. market for radioactive wastes generated by commercial o
nuclear power plants for a leading environmental waste technology-based firnt Defined the size and scope of the myket, current waste disposal practices and options, key industry players, competitive industry characteristics, and the forces driving change in that industry.
Provided quality and performance improvement related consulting services on more than a o
dozen engagements at nuclear power plants operated by Boston Edison, Vermont Yankee, GPU-Nuclear, and Taiwan Power. Major projects included serving as project manager and lead instructor for Pilgrim's Institute of Nuclear Power Operations' accredited program for Certified as Quality Assurance / Quality Control Inspector (ANSI, Level 11) at Pilgrim Nuclear o
Power Station. Conducted a comprehensive audit of Pilgrim's materials management and spare parts program.
Recently performed comprehensive environmental management system reviews for both a major electric utility and a major U.S. defense contractor using key elements ofISO-14001 and U.S. DOJ Sentencing Guidelines as the primary criteria against which the review was performed.
Gary M. Rodrigues and U.S. DOJ Sentencing Guidelines as the primary cdteria against which the review was performed.
Served as Project Manager for the design and development of a $1.2 million environmental management program developed for the executive committee and Tier 1 managers at one of the world's largest petrochemical companies.
Currently managing a scope of work focused on the redesign of key permitting and e
compliance and enforcement business processes for a state environmental agency's water quality division. Project work includes the design of eighteen new opportunities aimed at assisting the state agency transition into a more risk-based and customer-focused organization Work includes cost-benefit and service level impact analyses, development of performance e
[
measures, and preparation of detailed implementation plans for each of the opportunities, and pilot implementation of selected opportunities Managed an earlier scope of work which assessed the adequacy of the state's Water Quality Point Source Program.
EDUCATION:
Executive M.B.A. Business management / strategic planning, Pepperdine University.
United States Navy s nuclear power program, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
4 4
4
.I l
Rilick G, Noel Rilck Noelis a Senior Manager in the Arthur Andersen Business Consulting Group with 14 years of utility and utility-related experience. He has managed and conducted several studies related to performance improvement, benchmarking, management reviews and '
litigation support for gas and electnc utilities, and non-utihties. He spent eight of the fourteen years workmg for Southern California Edison and Commonwealth Edison Company in performance improvement and power generation, respectively.
RELEVANT EXPERIENCE Adhur Andersen LLP Senior Manager, Business Consulting Group Assisted a major midwestern electric utility with the development ofits strategic plan.
Directed scenario analyses related to the impact of various productivity initiatives on the company's cost structure.
Directing ongoing review of the construction services procurement process of a Neveda gas utility for fairness, competitiveness, efficiency and effectiveness. This engagement also includes assisting the company with the implementation of the recommendations from the review.
Assisting a major southern California utility with the outsourcing study of its QF contracts department. The engagement encompasses the identification of the scope of services to be outsourced, the identification of potential suppliers, and the selection of the winning supplier (s).
Directing the selection and automation of key business processes at a non-regulated entity of a holding company. The engagement n;volves the automation of financial and accounting processes as weh as the development af a strategi: systems plan for the future automation of key processes.
i Southern California Edison Company:
Under the guidance of two senior executives, directed a cadre of internal and external consultants in successfully designing and implementing a customer-focused and process-based productivity improvement project that resulted in 30% cost savings and significant effectiveness improvement in several organizations and processes, including Customer Bilbng, Information Technology, Corporate Communications, Sharehoider Services, Corporate Security and Nuclear Security.
Led a corporate-wide productivity improvement project with the support of both internal and external consultants and guidance from senior executives. Significant efficiency and effectiveness opportunities have been identified as a result of this project.
Big Six Firm:
In the Utility, Telecommunication and Energy Transportation Group of a Big Six Firm, Rilck managed and conducted studies related to performance improvement, benchmarking, management reviews and litigation support. These studies included the following:
'Rilis k G. N6el Performance Improvement Process improvement activities at Baltimore Gas & Electric Company as commissioned by the company, Assisted the Company with a Baldrige award assessment at its nuclear plant. Specific activities included interviews of plant executives and team members, facilitation of team meetings and analysis of assessment survey data.
Process improvement /Reengineering at Public Service Electric & Cas (PSE&G). He trained and facilitated PSE&G nuclear organization teams tasked with improving the obsolete spare parts procurement, the nuclear technician training, and the design change processes.
Process improvement /Reengineering implementation at Niagara Mohawk as commissioned by the company. Specific responsibilities include preparing and conducting team caining and benchmarking the fossil power production units performance and practices against other utilities.
Southern California Edison (SCE) 1995 General Rate Case corporate benchmarking testimony. As the Big Six Firm project manager, he developed the corperate benchmarking exhibit for the 1995 general rate case. He also advised several SCE organizations of their benchmarking testimony write-ups to ensure consistency.
Benchmarking study of international utilities on behalf of the World Bank.
As the project manager, he was responsible for comparing the Indian Power sector's operational and financial performance to a group of other countries.
Wisconsin Gas process reengineering effort as commissioned by the company. He was responsible for training and facilitating two teams tasked with assessing the service delivery and the after sales support processes.
Benci..
king study of planning and budgeting practices in different industries as commissioned by a confidential combination utility client. He analyzed the budgeting and planning practices of several companies to identify the best ones.
Benchmarking study commissioned by a group of utilities forming the Big
)
Six Firm Utility Benchmarking Consortium. He developed several of the performance indicators and analyzed the data being collected by the utilities j
to identify best practices.
l Process Reengineering Training at Babcock and Wilcox as commissioned by the company. Specific responsibilities include preparing and delivering TQM/ Con'inuous improvement presentations and education modules to B&W team members.
Demand-Side Management Studies-
{
1 Assistance in the design of a demand-side management program for
-Washington Gas. He analyzed the potential reduction in consumption to be derived from using high efficiency food service gas equipment, and the j
impact on consumption levels of demand side management pilot programs.
Rilick G. Noel i
i Assistance to Union Gas in analyzing potential peak shifting techniques.
e Specific responsibilities included the performanco of a feasibility study of gas thermal storage compared to electne thermal storage.
General Mananement Studies Assistance to the Southeast Compact Commission for Low-Level Radioactive Waste m performing a diagnostic review of the North Carohna low-level radioactive waste site. As a lead consultant, his specific responsibilities included analyzing project management, the contract between the state of North Carolina and the prime contractor, and schedule delays.
i Management audit of Duquesne Light Cor.ipany as commissioned by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. Specific responsibilities included the analysis of the management of the nuclear operations and maintenance.
Assistance in producing" A Guide to Marketing Information Systems of Electric Utilities," for the Electric Power Research Institute. He performed a survey of electric utilities to determine the state of the art and identifv l
successful marketing information systems development practices.
Prospective management review of Jersey Central Power and Light as commissioned by the Board of Regulatory Commissioners. As a lead consultant, his specific responsibilities included the analysis of division operations, transmission and distribution operations, and engineering, as well as support services including legal, insurance and claims, fleet management, procurement and materials management, facihties management, and real estate.
Prospective management review of South Jersey Gas Company as commissioned by the Company. Specific responsibilities included analyzing thi cc nstruction program and the matar,als management process.
Focused management review of Commonwealth Electric Company as commissioned by the Department of Public Utihties of Massachusetts.
Specific responsibilities included analyzing the management of outside services area and the budget development and control area.
Litination Support Prudence audit of the South Texas Nuclear Project as commissioned by the Public Utility Commission of Texas. He assisted in writing portions of the final report, and also interviewed Houston Lighting & Power officials.
Specific responsibilities in this engagement included the analysis of engineering management.
owner versus a major utility. He reviewed the actions of the utility's senior management with respect to their impact on the nuclear power plant's extended outage.
Litigation support of a nuclear plant minority owner versus the plant operator and majority owner. He analyzed the possible breach of
Rilick G. Noel contractual obligations by t!.e plant operator as suggested by the plant operation and maintenance performance.
Assistance to a nuclear plant minority owner contesting the costs associated with its share of the plant. He analyzed the plant operations and maintenance costs in relation to a group of similar plants and to the national average of such costs.
Assistance to a gas utility intervening in an electric utility's rate case proceedings. He analyzed the electric utility's revenue requirements model I
to determine excessive seasonal variations of the proposed rate increase.
Prudence audit of Commonwealth Edison's Byron Nuclear Station as commissioned by the lilinois Commerce Commission. Performed a survey of nuclear plant construction sites manpower levels to determine the availability of craft to nuclear projects a; given periods.
Commonwealth Edison Company:
For six years, Rilck was involved in the nuclear power industry at Commonwealth Edison. His responsibilities included the following:
Managing multimillion dollar engmeering modifications and other projects necessary to restart or operate Dresden and Quad cities nuclear power plants, including interacting with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission as a project manager in nuclear engineering services.
Leading engineering groups performing system tests as a start-up group leader at the Braidwood Nuclear Station.
Performing technical review of test procedures as a member of the design review group at Braidwood Nuclear Station.
Performing testing of various plant elet ro-mechanical systems and instructing sy stems personnel on inspection pocedures and criteria as a system test engineer at the Byron Nuclear Station.
6 l
I I
EDUCATION j
Master of Management degree, Finance and M.I.S.,
^
J.L. Kellogg Graduate Schoo! of Management, Northwestern University B.S., Therma Mechanical Engineering, University of Illinois at Chicago Certificate in business French from the Paris Chamber of Commerce e
Completed Part I of the Professional Engineering Exam, Engineering-in-Training Fluent in French and Spanish i
LAWRENCE M. OLIVA Arthur Andersen Principal Lawrence Oliva has substantial experience in assisting senior management with the analysis and implementation of strategies in a competitive market. He has served chents in infrastructure, energy and regulated industries, law firms and government agencies for over 20 years.
Mr. Oliva is an expert in energy markets, competition and regulatory policy. He has provided public testimony, given numerous speeches and seminars and written extensively on infrastructure and competitive market issues, most recently on electric industry restructuring. His latest article,"The New Information Utilities: How Will the ISO and PX Actually Work," was published as part of Arthur Andersen's " Power Thinking Series."
REPRESENTATIVE ENGAGEMENTS-ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL j
POLICY ANALYSIS Mr. Oliva has performed numerous engagements for government clients and industry organizations in energy, environment and housing matters. These have mostly involved commercial strategies for emerging industries, such as recycling and energy recovery from waste, and the impact of new government policies on commercial development.
He assisted a blue ribbon panel appointed by an Assistant Secretary for the U.S.
Department of Energy in evaluating strategic, organizational, market and production planning of the U.S. Uranium Enrichment Enterprise.
For an elect-
- ty organi.'ation he analyzed olicy options concerning pricing, marketing strategy and advanced technology selection related to the enrichment of uranium for commercial power plants.
Mr. Oliva evaluated natural gas price forecasts related to a municipal utilities' concern abou; :le. Mcity generation attematives to a nuclear power plant, and provided expert testimony regarding the same.
For the Electric Power Research Institute, he reviewed a commercialization program funded by the utility industry on multi megawatt fuel cells.
Mr. Oliva assisted the U.S. Department of Energy in analyzing policy options for regulating electric utilities, including regulating at the regional level and deregulating the generation component of the industry.
For a federal agency he analyzed the net fuel use effects of cogeneration and examined whether cogeneration could defer future utility coal plants in the United States.
O
l For a law firm he analyzed the effects of a Special Marketing Program proposed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on interstate gas pipehnes.
)
i For the Edison Electric Institute, he managed a project evaluating regulatory treatment of electric utility fuel adjustment clauses and affiliated transactions on a nationwide, state-by-state basis.
l REPRESENTATIVE ENGAGEMENTS - REGULATED INDUSTRY COMPETITION AND BUSINESS STRATEGY Mr. Oliva has asststed energy utilities in matters concerning emerging competition, innovative regulatory approaches and business strategy. He has worked closely with J
utility company executives in forecasting the effects of deregulation on key economic parameters including fuel costs, spot energy markets, and competitor response. Also, he has analyzed economic issues related tc, rate design and filed expert comments with regulators.
Mr. Oliva consulted to electric utility companies' legal teams in four separate regulatory proceedings involving the prudence of management decisions to complete nuclear power plants. Those proceedings involved the econometric analyses of cost and operational performance of nuclear units in the United States.
Mr. Oliva provided planning and economic analysis and litigatic,a support to a major electric utility company in a regulatory proceeding concerning the decision to j
restart construction of a partially completed nuclear power plant.
He assuted a municipal power agency ano a ger ration / transmission com., tive in analyzing the economic benefits of creating a joint operating agency. The analysis included evaluating savings in reduced generation reserves due to non-coincident peak, energy savmg from combined dispatch, and operations savings from eliminating redundant functions. The companies used the analysis to get approval from their respective boards for the venture. In early 1996, the companies announced that they successfully negotiated a joint operating business venture.
This is the first business combination of this type in the new era of electric industry restructuring.
He assisted a investor-owned utility in analyzing a potential acquisition. He assisted the firm in devising a plan for analyzing plant acquisition, assessed the value of the facilities, prepared fuel and energy forecasts used in the financial analysts and performed a screening study that provided results for management decision making and action.
Mr. Oliva directed an engagement for a local gas distribution company that involved an evaluation of competitive pricing of natural gas sold to California by 2
producers in Alberta, Canada. The study included an econometric analysis of all natural gas exports from Canada to the United States over a three-year period. This work was done in collaboration with Professor William W. Hogan, who filed testimony covering the study's results, before the California Public Utilities Commission.
Mr. Oliva directed an engagement for an interstate gas transmissicn company and analyzed the benefits of a main line expansion to rate payers. The analysis was used to evaluate approaches to regulated rates for the expansion.
He directed several assignments for interstate pipeline companies and a local gas distribution company that involved the evaluation of the economic and policy tradeoffs among interstate gas transportation rate making methods, i.e., " rolled-in vs. " incremental" approaches for pipelsie expansions. He co-authored comments on the issue with Colin C. Blaydon which were filed at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
He analyzed the economic benefits of uniform " postage-stamp" rates for natural gas transportation compared to zonal" distance-sensitive" rates, for an interstate pipeline company.
In two separate htigation support engagements for local telephone exchange carriers, Mr. Oliva studied antitrust issues concermag deregulation of inside wire maintenance and repair. On behalf of counsel, Mr. Oliva supported economic experts in evaluating market power, competition, fraud and damages.
For a large electric utility, Mr. Oliva directed an engagement that involved litigation support, expert testimony and analysis of economic issues concerning alleged '
breach of contract between the utility ard a geothermal steam supplies. The dispute involved sew
.adred mdhon doliacs of alleg d underpayments.to geothermal steam suppliers in California.
For outside counsel to an electric utility, Mr. Oliva directed the research of outside experts in a multi-billion-dollar breach of contract matter concerning the purchase of electric generation energy and capacity. The principle issues included fraud and damages mitigation analyses. The research team included 10 experts and over 30 full-time analysts.
On behalf or a California natural gas distribution company, he directed a study of whether long-term gas contracts should be priced at a premium above short-term
" spot" sales and presented a paper to the Califorma Public Utilities Commission.
For a law firm he analyzed liabilities and damages in a breach of contract dispute between the builder and an agricultural waste. fueled power plant developer.
For an electric utility's legal staff, Mr. Oliva analyzed a breach of contract and fraud dispute. The plaintiff was a high-tech mushroom grower in the utility's service area.
3
['
For a law firm representing a landfill operator, he analyzed damages to property values and the economic development potential of a municipality due to contamination of a bedrock aquifer caused by leachate from hazardous waste.
i He directed an engagement on behalf of United Airlines that provided analysis and expert testimony in State Court concerning the damages resulting fiom a breach of contract.' The contract covered responsibilities of two airlines and involved a computer reservations system.
REPRESENTATIVE ENGAGEMENTS - PROJECT FEASIBILITY AND S TRATEGY Mr. Oliva has assisted project developers, commercial clients and government managers in evaluating economic feasibility, planning and design strategies. His academic training in engineering and urban planning, complemented by his consulting experience in economic and business strategy, provide the multi-disciplined perspective required in any major development project.
Mr. Oliva provided economic and strategic counsel to a development consortium formed to build advanced technology rail transportation in Los Angeles. As a senior team committee member, Mr. Oliva directed economic studies and assisted in the conceptual design of the project, which involved commercial and institutional infrastructure along the rail corridor.
For a large commercial developer, Mr. Oliva managed a team of analysts charged with identifying a potential toll road project. Under California law AB680, private i
developers could propose a build-operate-transfer toll road project under a public,
I prive partner e.9. Mr. Oliva devel ; et' the de sign concept ultimately
-ted by the State Department of Transportation.
For a private developer, he evaluated the feasibility of two grain-to-alcohol fuel plants in the United States and Egypt.
j For an independent power plant developer, he analyzed fuel trend issues, especially e
concerning natural gas supplies to the Northeast.
He evaluated a hazardous waste facility operator's financial ability to comply with regulatory cleanup requirements.
He developed and maintained a probram and member subscription service to compile, analyze and monitor energy fuel market forecasts for an electnc utility organization.
For ' major U.S. chemical company, Mr. Oliva analyzed a venture to produce and
.naH et a new synthetic diesel fuel worldwide.
4
1 1
i a
l EMPLOYMENT IIISTORY AND EDUCATION Mr. Oliva joined Arthur Andersen & Co. in October 1995. Previously, he was a partner and director of Putnam Hayes & Bartlett, Inc. (PHB), an international consulting firm specializing in economic and management counsel to companies and governments.
Prior to joining PHB in 1984, Mr. Oliva was an associate at Resource Planning Associates, Inc., an international consulting firm that focused on strategic planning for commercial and gove:nment decision makers. Mr. Oliva began his consulting career m i
1974 as a staff engineer for SCS Engmeers, Inc.
i Mr. Oliva's education includes a B.S. with honors in civit engine' nng from Southern e
Methodist University and a M. Arch. in urban design from the Virginia Polytechnic
]
institute and State University (all but major paper). Mr. Oliva is an associate member of l
the American Bar Association and a licensed professional engmeer In 1992, he was appointed to a California State Senate Subcommittee on Environmental and Economic Improvement in Los Angeles.
LAWRENCE M. OLIVA REPRESENTATIVE CLIENTS j
Southern California Edison Company, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Northwest
' Pipeline Corporation, Virginia Natural Gas Compnay, Unicom Corporation, United Power Association, City of Pasadena Water and Power Department, Southern -
Minnesota Municipal Power Agency, Tucson Electric Power Company, U. S. West, South Central Bell, Great Lakes Gas Transmissien Limited Partnership, Philadelphia J
Electric Compary, Culf States Utilities Company, United Airlines, Dewey Ballantine, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Davis, Graham & Stubbs, Morgan, Lewis & Bockaus, Ross, Marsh & Foster, Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft, Hogan & Hartson, Electric Power l
Research Institute, Edison Electric Institute, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. E.P.A.
April 15,1996 l
i i
i i
5
Harold A. Valentine Mr. Valentine has more than twenty-five years experience in public and private sector consulting. He has expertise in management systems, strategic planning, quality management, organizational development, health care issues and performance management. Mr. Valentine's experience includes heading a GAO Issue area and managing the efforts of more than 100 GAO rnanagers and staffers conducting studies related to performance management and measurement.
RELEVANT EXPERIENCE:
i Arthur Andersen LLP, Washington, D.C.
Senior Manager, Office of Government Services Managed engagements for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. For these and other clients his work has focused on issues of quality management, reengineering, privati7ation, and performance management. Managed a major, raject for the Department of Commerce to implement a new financial and administrative management system called CAMS. He managed a recently completed study for the VHA which recommends conversion of the VHA to a government corporation. He has also participated in several studies focusing in the area of health care reform. His recent focus for federal government clients has been in the areas of l
performance management, privatization, reengineering, operations improvement, and change management.
Associate Director U.S. General Accounting Office Helped develop and implement a strategic planning process for GAO and its 36 issue areas.
Also assisted in the imniementation of a total quali:y management program and in the reengineering of major LAO projects and financial systems. Also, managed a variety of studies which focused on workforce productivity and performance management in the criminal justice environment.
Managed an issue area with over 100 staff years dedicated to conducting a variety of studies on
. performance issues for the US Congress. These studies related to efficiency, effectiveness, and productivity issues impacting selected federal agencies and departments. Testified before Congressional committees eleven times, summarizing GAO reports and fir Gings. Helped develop GAO's transition series reports which identified major management problems and the need for better internal controls in the Federal Government. Managed several studies l
concerning performance indicators for debt collection and testified before the Senate Banking Committee on the issue of management and measurement.
1 I
5
1 Harold A. Valentine (Con't) l l
Vice Prtsident l'or Strategic Planning NVR Corporation j
Responsible for strategic planning functions for the NVR Company, at that time the largest j
homebuilding and development company in the nation with over 2,500 employees in nine states. The company had annuai revenues of over $1.4 billion. Directed the strategic planmng process for four separate subsidiary companies and a mortgage company. Developed format and structure for the holding company's strategic plan and provided facilitation, communications, and coordination in support of the strategic planning proceos. Also l
responsible for identifying and recommending process reengineering efforts company-wide.
Principal Ernst and Young Conducted studies for the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 1
l the areas of planning, performance measurement, process improvement, and systems analysis.
Specifically, with the Department of Energy, managed several studies to assist organizational effectiveness and management practices of DOE components. Specifically, evaluated employee j
relations and morale issues. Al o conducted studits focused on performance management.
j Associate l
Booz-Allen and flamilton Managed a study examining the operations and efficiency of two federal court districts in l
Southwestern Illinois. Recommendations addressed improvements in the day to day operations of these court systems.
Managed several engagements for corporate clients explaining systems impacting their retail operations and profit projections. Worked in the area of customer surveys and satisfaction l
indices. Was also involved in several studies for international clients in the areas of strategic l
planning and marketing.
l Managed several assignments for the Department of Transportat6n, focusing on management l
processes, systems improvement, and continuous improvement.
i Managed several studies for the Department of Defense to analyze affirmative action planning conducted in the Army, Navy, and Air Force.
t i
l Managed a major training effort for the EPA which involved training over 1500 mid-level and j
senior managers in performance management, planning, and re-engineering issues.
l l
EDUCATION:
M.P. A., Public Administration, Syracuse University B. A., Pohtical Science, Georgetown University i
i i
Ira Gcidstein f ra Goldstein is the Partner in Charge of the Federal Government Practice of Arthur Andersen's Office of Gove nment Services. He has 24 years experience working with and for government agencies. Mr. Goldstein has led many of Andersen's efforts in Total Quality Management, Business Process Reengineering, Activity Based Costing, benchmarking, independent audit, change management, and training and facilitation.
Previously Mr. Goldstein was the Assistant Comptroller General at the U.S. General Accounting Office.
EXPERIENCE Arthur Andersen LLP Partner-in-Charge, Federal Government Practice 1991 - Present Provides overallleadership for Arthur Andersen's FederalIndustry work. Clients have included most federal agencies, mcludir,, particularly relevant experience at the U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Department of Treasury, U.S. Geological Survey, and U.S. Department of Defense.
Partner-in-Charge of Arthur Andersen's service delivery of TQM services for the federal government. Includes administrative responsibility for delivery from any of Arthur Andersen's 324 offices worldwide, using different skills for different agency needs. Achieves this service delivery under a GSA supply schedule arrangement.
Responsible for a wide range of services, from customer service consulting to process reengineering, program evaluation, enhanced efficiency and performance measures.
U.S. Department of Energy,' Richland Operations Office /IIanford Site.. Washington o
- ate - Partnec responsible in assisting the Department of Energy's (DOE) Richland l
Operations Office with the measurement and ventication of cost savings related to its Hanford Site activities. This engagement verifies the cost savings for FY 1995 as part of a four-year DOE effort to reduce costs by $2.3 billion and improve efficiency at the former nuclear weapons production site. The cost savings verification is part of a plan issued by DOE officials, regulators and contractors to drive down costs and focus on results at Hanford. Hanford is the largest environmental restoration effort in the 4
nation. The mission of the Richland Operations Office is to clean up the site, provide scientific technological excellence to meet global needs, and partner in the economic diversificaticn of the region. DOE's Hanford Site supports programs in waste management, environmeniJ mtcration, science and energy. It has a workforce of approximately 18,000 and an annual b:2dget of about $2 billion.
U.S. Department of Energy, Uranium linrichment Enterprise Options Study --
o Engagement partner to review the planning system used by its $2.5 billion Uranium Ennchment program. This extensive systems-based planning model was used to control production and operations, as well as client relationships. The Andersen Team was asked to validate and analyze its outputs. Analysis mvolved identifying inter.ied
~
3
{
financial impact and evaluating the extent to which the model and program expenenced such impact.
E e
U.S. Department of Energy, Isotope Production and Development Program --
}
Engaged by the Energy Department to perform a major organizational program analysis to develop and produce isotopes for industrial, research, and medical needs.
i included clarification of conflicting missions as well as review of costs for support j
functions, leading to recommendations for organizational restructuring recommendations, and quality improvement as well as ways to achieve goals more effectively and efficiently.
U.S. Department of Defense-Defense Financial Accounting Service (DFAS) e Engagement partner to assist with reviewing DFAS' departmental accounting j
functions. Departmental accounting consists of the rollup and reporting of financial i
i mformation for the various DoD departments (Army, Navy, Air Force, etc.) The work on this project utilizes parts of the Business Process Reengineering methodology including process mapping, the Global Best Practices Knowledge base, and Activity d
Based Costing.
l U.S. Depadment of Defense-Defense Financial Accounting Service (DFAS) At e
DFAS' request, provided briefing for newly-created DFAS senior educational managers l'
on Arthur Andersen's successful approach and program for career education training.
U.S. Department of Defense /OSD - Provided fmancial and cost accounting support e
for research on the Defense information infrastructure in association with DMRD 918 and 924. As a subcontractor, analyzed and compiled costs of central design and i
information processing activities, addressing the financial issues involved with i
governmental budget and cost accounting policies and procedures. Prepared a cost baseline of the current budget to aid management in deciding future action. Assessed Defense capaut,.... a acking actual program costs and wrote a report section for decision-making on adoption of enhanced cost tracking sptem and procedures.
i U.S. Depadment of the Army --Supervised the provision of financial management e
j services to the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Financial Management and j
Comptroller (ASA (FM&C), through an analysis of the Conventional Ammunition Working Capital Fund (CAWCF). Directed analysis of the automated management l-systems and development of alternatives to improve the Fund's accounting and
~
inventory practices to satisfy Congressional concerns Work consisted of interviews, site visits and research, including interaction with the Defense Fmance and Accounting Service (DFAS), the Armament, Munitions and Chemical Command (AMCCOM), the ASA, FM&C, the Systems Integration and Management Activity (SIMA) and Congressional staff. Analyzed numerous DoD j
systems, including several DFAS migratory systems, and ccmmercial off-the-shelf i
software products.
l Directed the analysis of the Fund's structure, business processes and accounting
~
policies. Supervised the identification of several areas requiring improvement L,
4 i
\\
I including, revising the inventory valuation policy to oonform with Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board Statement Number 3, revising the Fund's revenue recognition methodology, and revising the Fund's support costs and surcharge policies. Oversaw the identification of issues impacting the Fund's financial management practices U.S. Department of Education - Partner responsible for contract to serve as e
Department of Education's (ED's) financial advisor. Involved multiple subcontractors performing numerous task orders and using a wide variety of skills. Managed the successful proposal effort and satisfied ED's contractor requirements, which involved knowledge and use of project management tools and significant project management skills. Served as project director for all task-order contracts and responsible for monitoring the budget and adherence to deadlines. In most task orders, coordinated the work of multiple subcontractors, including quality control over deliverables.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Washington Administrative Service Center - Led e
project to assist this finance service center in identifying its costs to service outside agency users and construct a cost structure to equitably provide quality financial l
service to outside agency users at reasonable cost.
U.S. Treasury Depa 1 ment - Responsible for review of the processes and procedures j
used in the Financial Management Service in compiling the U.S. Government's 1993 prototype consolidated financial statements. Involved in review of FMS's activities and actions in collecting Federal agency data and consolidating it as well as making recommendations for improsed work flow. Analyzed fmancial management issues in performing this compilation. Helped establish debt collection prccesses and procedures, supporting the goal to provide debt collectian services to federal agencies.
Developed and proposed a pilot debt collection program.
U.C. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE (GAO) 1982-1991 Assistant Comptroller General for Operations - Overall responsibility for e
l management of GAO operations, including education and training programs; financial management and accounting systems; research and consulting projects; management of government contracts; publishing functions; and other management functions.
These included accounting and cost management, budget / resources, staff and j
organization management, recruitment, ADP/information resources, product communications, and operation enhancements. Developed strategies and set direction for GAO operations, including launching CAO's adoption of agency-wide automated network and management information system. Instrumeiitalin formulating key l
federal financial legislation leading up to the Chief Financial Officers" Act of 1990.
l Deputy Director for Operations, Iluman Resources Division -- Managed the e
operations for the GAO programming division having oversight of Federal human resources departments and programs, including Education program,. Provided oversight of reviews of education program administration issues and participated in l
.~.- -
i numerous reviews of elementary, secondary and post-secondary education programs as well as adult and special education.
Director of Quality Assurance - Created and managed GAO's Office of Quality Assurance. Duties included establishing agency quality standards and reviewing i
major reports and other work products to assure adherence to the standards.
]
Established significant agency-wide quality work reforms to improve quality of GAO operations. Created and launched GAO's Training Institute, consolidating education and training programs into a newly targeted, customer-oriented organization.
1 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
)
Associate Commissioner of Social Security for Family Assistance (Acting)-
Managed the $14 billion Aid to Fimilies with Dependent Children and $2 billion Low Income Energy Assistarice programs.
]
1 Director of Policy, Office of Family Assistance -- Overall responsibility for setting and
=
writing pohcies and issuing rules for State administration of the Federal government's cash welfare program.
DEPARTMENT OF IIEALTII, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE (IIEW) j Director, Secretary's Policy Statement Staff-Worked with HEW Secretary on e
policy / program analyses charting national and Department directions in key areas, including education, vocational training, and adult continuing education, Executive Assistant to the Assistance Secretary for Planning and Evaluation -
e Helped forut ' " " t.1 program policy anu sup, arted research, planning, asid evaluation activities.
Legislative Coordinator-Coordinated development of the Department's yearly legislative program.
IIAZELTINE CORPORATION Program Manager -- Worked with defense program management. Responsible for e
program and business management within Hazeltine's Infiltration Surveillance Product Line. Responsibilities included large project and contract management in various Department of Defense areas. Extensive use of large-scale project management tools.
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Principal in the Council on Excellence in Government
=
i
Member of the U.S. Military Controllers from its inccption. Frequent speaker at group meetings Board Member, National Council for Public-Private Partnership a
Member, Association of Government Accountants Vice-President for Professional Development of the Institute of Internal Auditors EDUCATION M.B. A. Harvard University B.S. Electrical Engineering, University of Pennsylvania 4
DONALD E. BENNETT, JR.
Principal Don Bennett, a principal with Arthur Andersen's National Utility Consulting Group, has over 24 years of experience working in every aspect of utility finance, including managing both the corporate finance and financial planning functions at The Southern Company. Mr. Bennett managed from its inception The Southern Company's Management Information Reporting System (MIRS) project, an integrated performance management mitiative affecting every business function in the company. MIRS is widely regarded as the most ambitious and innovative performance management system in the energy utility industry.
Mr. Bennett's consulting practice is focused generally on management practices and processes leading to improved utility strategy development, performance management, finarx ial management, and related issues. Ustng a variety of tools and approaches, including activity-based costing and shareholder value-based management, he has assisted utilities on every continent in achieving a transformation to competitive business practices. Mr. Bennett is an industry leader in the development and application of business performance measures and other issues related to performance management with the utility industry. He brings to a client a unique insight based on many years of experience within the industry, as a manager in key functions for an industry-leading utility, as well as consulting experience with many leading utilities.
Mr. Bennett holds a BS degree in industrial management from Georgia Institute of Technology and an MBA with a concentration in finance from the University of North Carchna at Chapel Hill.
RELEVANT 'NPERIL TE Responsible for the MIRS project, a performance management project developing o
performance measures, analytical information and decision support tools, including a management accounting system and various types of non-fmancial and financial information for use throughout The Southem Company. The MIRS Project is bringing about a major change in management attitudes and practices by focusing managers on business results within their functions and relating their own performance to corporate results.
Responsible for a broad range of financial functions, including analysis and o
l recommendation of capital structure, dividend policy and capital structure. Played a l
lead role in the analysis of business combinations and other strategic policies and I
initiatives, Authored a briefing paper on the financial impacts of deregulation of the natural gas o
industry, with a focus on lessons learned for the electric utility industry.
l l
Donald E. Bennett, Jr.
Page 2 Developing transfer pricing concepts for the cost of electricity and transportation for o
use in business unit management at a major North American electric utility.
Leading a project to develop and implement shareholder value management concepts o
at a diversified holdmg company, including its major local gas distribution subsidiary.
Developed an innovative performance management system for power plant o
management to simulate competitive pressures on power plant management and develop a business-focused culture throughout the power supply organization. Project included assessment of high-level value drivers and activity-based costing within the power plant and the power supply function.
Participated in the development of a process costing methodolagy for large gas utihty, o
to be used to assess value added for various business functions.
Developed financial performance managemeitt systein for retail business fonction of o
large midwestern electric utility.
Projc -t developed husiness unit profitability measures as well as an analytical methodology to determine shareholder value impact of alternative capital expenditures.
Performed analysis of the mformation needs of the competitive electric utility o
company. Investigated information strategies of companies within and outside of the electric utihty industry to develop conclusions and recommendations as part of this EPRI-funded study.
Performed assessment of industry trends as thev pertain to the distribution business o
strategy for a major electnc utility and, for the same company, performed a review of the wholesale business strategy, including a market profile.
Performed an analysis of the budget and resource allocation process for a major gas o
distribution utility, provided recommendations for improvement to better align budgeting and resource allocation with a"ainment of the company's strategic objectives.
Developed profit center approach, including cost analysis, market profile and business o
plaa, for production service center of an Eastern US utility.
Performed an analysis of the financial and accounting functions of a major international o
utihty, including a best practices analysis of key financial management functions.
Recommended adoption of management practices tailored to the needs of the client
- company, Performed an assessment of the information needs for a small electric utihty, based o
upon changing competitive conditions. Analysis included an assessment of current information requirements as well as an assessment of requirements in the future, based on an assessment of management decision-making in a much more competitive environment.
Donald E. Bcnnett, Jr.
Page 3 Co-authored a white paper on the incorporation of risk factors into the investment o
hurdle rates for international electnc power projects for a major international electnc utility.
Prepared an assessment of the cost information requirements of a large electric utility o
holding company as the company shifts its focus to competitive bm.,iness practices.
Recommended an activity-based costing solution utilizing off-the-shelf PC software.
Participating in a transformatro.1 project for a small local gas distribution company.
o Will provide shareholder value and other financial expertise to the project tearn.
Analyzed synergies arising from potential merger of two utilities.
Developed o
innovative analysis of Clean Air Allowance trading issues.
Developed and delivered seminar on strategic issues with respect to privatization of a o
national utthty industry. Seminars focuse 1 on issues surrounding management in increasingly competitive markets.
Performed in-depth analysis of a very successful executive management information o
system for a major national utility. Wrote case study as result of analysis.
j o
Developing valuation of merchandising and bilhng and collection as a case study to demonstrate shareholder value analytical techniques for a major gas distributor.
Providing advice on implementation of shareholder value management concepts to a o
major electric holding company.
Donald E. Bennett, Jr.
Page 4 REPRESENTATIVE CLIENTS i
British Columbia Hydro and Power The Southern Company Company Alabama Power Company Brooklyn Union Gas Company Georgia Power Company Centerior Energy Company Gulf Power Company 2
Central and South West Mississippi Power Company Corporation Savannah Electric and Power CMS Energy Corporation Company Consumers Gas Company Southern Company Services Electric Power Research institute Southern Electric International (EPRI)
United Cities Gas Compa iy
=
Entergy United Illuminating Company j
Florida Power Corporation WICOR Louisville Gas and Electric Wisconsin Electric Power Company Company Wisconsin Public Service Company Northern Indiana Public Service Yankee Energy Company China Light & Power (Hong Kong)
Potomac Electric Power Company ESKOM (South Africa)
Southern California Gas Company Slovakian Electric Power Company (SEP)
Turkish Electric Authority (TEK)
2 J
Kathryn M. Kelly Kathryn Kelly remntly joined Adhur Andersen's Office of Government Services as a senior consultant. Ms. Kelly has six years experience leading teams in analyzing and improving the operations, performance measurement systems, organization, policies, and processes for a vanety of government organizations.
RELEVANT EXPERIENCE:
Arthur Andersen LLP, Washington, D.C.
Senior Consultant, Office of Government Services
)
. Department of Energy - Ms. Kelly has participated in two engagements for this major client. In an ongoing engagement, she is assisting DOE in integrating the i
cultural and strategic changes necessary to transition to a new type of management j
contract for the multi-billion dollar Hanford Site. This transition requires a. major
. cultural and organizational shift. Ms. Kelly is mapping the steps to take in the transition, identifying strategic integration issues, and assisting in developing i
i performance measures and building an internal controls system to ensure the l
transition is on-track.
i in a prior engagement, Ms. Kelly has assisted DOE in developing an integrated
. performance measurement system for the Hanford site to ensure that their site management contract and performance measures are aligned with the Hanford 4
j mission and strategic goals.
j U.S. Marshals Service - Ms Kelly has played a key role in this ongoing engagement
=
to improve the quality of the Marshals Service's Seized Assets Division. Ms. Kelly:
l.
analyzed and mapped the seizure, forfeiture, and property management processes at several dia.- offices; interviewed more th u. 30 Justice Department officials to obtain a clear idea of the processes and probleias of seaed asset management; and evaluated the control systems in place.
U.S. General Accounting Office j
Senior Policy Analyst l
j Federal Supply Service - Ms. Kelly led and conducted an organizational analysis of i
the Federal Supply Service, an agency that contracts for over $2 billion in goods and services for the federal government. Ms. Kelly analyzed alignment of operational goals, performance measures and incentive systems and discovered misalignments that led the agency to award over $1 billion in contracts to vendors with histories of poor performance. Ms. Kelly developed recommendations and authored a report of her results i
1 1
v.
i i
Kathryn M.' Kelly (Con't) 3 4i Governmentwide - Designed and managed a study of excess personal property e
i management involving multiple agencies with widely different information j
systems. The engagement included legislative analysis, process mapping, and
{
modeling supply and demand flow 2 for over $2.5 billion in excess property
)
i inventory.
I General Accounting Office - As part of a Tota! Quality Management team, Ms.
e
}
Kelly surveyed staff to identify needs for technical support, assessed available support and implemented training networks to ensure that staff were skilled in j
efficient data analysis and presentation techniques. In commenting on the team's
. results, top management wrote that the team's work gave them a strategic
" blueprint for action" to improve GAO's technical capabilities.
d j
General Services Administration - Ms. Kelly managed a review of the Office of e
j Finance to determine their effectiveness and efficiency in making and collecting i_
millions in damage claims. The engagement included management interviews, j
systems flow analysis, process analysis anci an internal controls assessment. This j
project caused the agency to streamline their claims processes and establish an integrated information system, i
i
. Military Academy - Ms. Kelly assisted in assessing the quality of the officers e
produced by the Military Academy. This year-long study involved interviews with top brass, analysigcost data and review of historical reports. The conclusions of j
this study were incorporated into testimony before the Senate Armed Services i
Committee.
t
]
Postal Service - Ms. Kelly conducted an analysis of the costs and benefitr af the Postal Service's sponsorship of the Olympic C.mes. The review mcluded both j
qualitative and quantitative factors and included interviews, analysis of sponsorship materials and a compliation of revenues and costs.
i j
EL)UCATION:
a j
M.B.A., Management, Stern School of Business, New York University B. A., Political Science, Vassar College l
Veronica R. Gilbert Ms. Gilbert is a senior consultant with Arthur Andersen's Office of Government Services. Her expertise is in program assessment, organizational and process analysis, and strategic management. She also has international work expenence, mainly in Latin America, and is fluent in Spanish.
ARTI1UR ANDERSEN EXPERIENCE Administrative Office of U.S. Courts (AOUSC)- Financial Training Needs Assessment Ms. Gilbert is presently on a team which is conducting financial training needs assessment for tne AOUSC, The assessment covers all Circuits, District and Bankruptcy Courts, and Probation and Pre-trial Services. It entails interviewing Federal Court personnel, mcluding judicial officers and court unit executives, across the country involved in finance, budget and accounting functions. Additionally, for this project Ms.
Gilbert assists with the facilitation of focus groups and nominal groups designed to l
elicit maximum information and insight from court personnel. The outputs of the project are a rester of competencies; a curricula for financial training for the next 3-5 years; and a plan for implementation of the curricula.
U.S. Marshals Service - Seized Assets Division Quality Management Program i
Ms. Gilbert is assisting with the design and implementation of a quality management program for the Seized Assets Division for the USMS. In addition to ~ conducting research and analysis on major program areas, Ms. Gilbert provides facilitation assistance for Quality Management Steering Committee meetings.
Defense Finance And Accounting Service (DFAS)- Study of Departmental Accounting and Cash Accountability Ms. Gilbert workM on a project to assist with reengineering DFAS' departmental accounting and cash accountabihty functions. Departmental accounting consists of the rollup and reportmg of fmancial information for the various DoD departments (Army, Navy, Air Force, etc.) Cash accountability is the consolidated reconciliation and reporting of cash data to Treasury. The work on this project utilized parts of our Business Process Reengineering methodology includmg process mapping, the Global Best Practices Knowledge Base, and Activity Based Costing.
. 7 i
~
i i'.
t Veronica R. Gilbert (continued) k Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) i f
Ms. Gilbert worked on this Arthur Andersen engagement to assess and propose cost j
accounting systems and billing and collection systems in support of FA A user fees. Ms.
Gilbert was responsible for estimating the operating and staffing requirements to operate the billing and collection systems. This task involved review of procedures,
- obtaining cost estimates on training and temporary / contracted personnel, consulting j
with FAA personnel on new processes and projected staffing, and obtaining billing and i
collection services information from banks. For the cost accounting component of the
)
project, Ms. Gilbert interviewed senior managers and program experts at the FAA to determine their programmatic cost accounting needs.
j Department of Transportation (DOT)
Ms. Gilbert worked on this Arthur Andersen engagement to review the non-technical, non-military training program. This review considered many aspects of DOT training including training policy, methods of procunng training, cost of training, and training evaluation. Ms. Gilbert assisted in developing the recommendations for improving the non-technical, non-military training.
Defense Industrial Supply Center (DISC)
For this engagement at DISC, which is a high velocity purchaser and supplier of industrial materials needed by the military for weapon and non-weapon systems, Ms.
Gilbert and the Arthur Andersen team helped analyze distribution systems that could potentially provide more efficient deliveries to DISC customers. Additionally, she-assisted with deve%ing recommendations and m?thodologies for DISC to improve its services to military customers.
Prior coming to Arthur Andersen, Ms. Gilbert worked as policy analyst on a US Agency for International Development project, performing research and analysis on the strategic management of policy implementation, including macroeconomic, environmental and governance policies,in developing countries. Additionally, Ms.
Gilbert prepared budgets and recruited teams for project assignments in Latin America and Africa.
EDUCATION M.A.
Yale University B A.
Stanford University W Universidad de Salamanca, Spain
e co acco NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR WATCHLISTPLANTS August 20,1996 ARTHUR ANDERSEN w--
- %4 k"kh'!
STATEMENT OF WORK Perform a study for the NRC leading to the development ofimproved indicators that can provide a more objective basis forjudging whether a plant should be placed or deleted from the Watch List. The study involves four components:
examination of characteristics and attributes of past problem plants and those associated with good performers aidentification of objective and timely indicators which relate to those characteristics ARTHUR ANDERSEN e
e
t>R RE Cg I
STATEMENT OF WORK (cont.)
1 correlation ofindicators to historic performance trends defimition of the relationship between the resulting indicators and risk.
Arthur Andersen will complete components 1 and 2 and prepare an overall report integrating the results of all four j
components.
ARTHUR h
ANDERSEN j
~
1 y ~cy g
Y ARTHUR ANDERSEN WORLDWIDE i
The Andersen Worldwide Organization comprised of our two strategic business units, Arthur Andersen and
((((g Andersen Consulting, is one of the world's leading
" =m providers of professional services. Our "one-firm" M:q W/ \\\\\\!!!!!\\\\ll!!!!/// \\\\\\\\\\lf!,
network of 80,000 professionals in 72 countries r@ ig MF W provides you:
Access to information resources and professional We deliver "Real World" expertise throughout a worldwide network.
Solutions to Improve Integrated knowledge of specific industries, business Performance!
functions, business process reengineering, systems integration and other problem-solving methodologies.
The expertise of the Office of Government Services, organized to exclusively serve the Federal government.
ARTHUR ANDERSEN
,f- ~ %,,,
(
)
ARTHUR ANDERSEN SELECTED EXPERIENCEIN THE ENERGYFIELD NRC (OIG)- Assistance in developing strategic plan and performance indicators DOE (Richland Operations Ofnce) - verification and measurement of cost savings related to Hanford Site Activities
. ARTHUR ANDERSEN
.p m,
)
ARTHUR ANDERSENEXPERIENCE (cont.)
DOE (Isotope Production and Development) - Clarify program mission and strategy. Perform organization review and analysis DOE (Uranium Enrichment Enterprise)- Assist management with identifying cost reduction opportunities DOE (INEL) - Analyze performance incentives and performance indicators British Energy (Nuclear / Electric)- Assist in business planning and valuations. Develop service specifications, grouping by category and the development of performance criteria.
ARTHUR ANDERSEN
, - ~,,,,
ARTHUR ANDERSENSELECTED EXPERIENCE: PERFORMANCE i
MANAGEMENT / MEASUREMENT 1
GSA - Assist in benchmarking, best practices, and performance measurement GAO - Assist in process reengineering, performance measurement, and best practices Defense Industrial Supply Center (DISC) -
l 4
Assist in business process reengineering, benchmarking, performance metrics for DoD supply chain ARTHUR ANDERSEN a
po of c og?
N}%k,hk),
.s ARTHUR ANDERSENSELECTED EXPERIENCE: PERFORMANCE i
MANAGEMENT / MEASUREMENT (cont.)
DOT - Analyze training operations and benchmark commercial best practices
]
Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) - Analyze performance measurement implications of consolidating service accounting systems r
i ARTHUR ANDERSEN
,#pm REGy%,
4 L
t' ENGAGEMENT TEAMPROPOSED Leads Arthur Andersen's Federal Govt. Practice
-Assisted DOE-1lanford site f ra Goldstein measurement and cost savings Partnerin Charge project Uranium Isotope
-DOE, NRC, EPA experience Ilarold Valentine Don Bennett 25 yrs. consultmg re:
perfo;mance measurement l
Senior Manager SeniorAdvisor management 24 yrs. experience in utility finance Expert in energey markets, Focus on improved utility strategy competition, and regulatory
& performance measurement policy Larry Oh,va LouisAllenbach Team Leader Team Leader
. Experience assisting with DOE and Industry Il Stali
.. ARTHUR ANDERSEN
.I 6
s>Q"Ec,
u f.
. '.o,,
I 4
O
\\
PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT-s,
/
SOME FUNDAMENTALS 1
P Performance Measure a quantification of how well activities within a process or the outputs of a process achieve a specified goal l
1 1
I Quality based measures -
Cost based measures -
Time based measures i
examine how well products or tddress the financial siue of
- focus on speed and I
services meet customer needs performance responsiveness L
ARTHUR ANDERSEN
u DR M G j
f Og
[
{,Rhl%) PERFORMANCEMEASUREMENT:
STRATEGICMANAGEMENTMODEL
~~~
i Strategic Plans r
\\
Operations Performance
' Performance Review Indicators / Measures Programs t
l l
Budget Decisions
{
i f
ARTHUR ANDERSEN f
p Reco
(.'
?)
PERFORMANCEMEASUREMENT y
'*~
EVALUATIONMODEL Currer t Measures l
Are you measuring I
MISSION the right things?
E Y""" " '"'
nght measures.?
E
'^' Y " using perrormance data the nght way?
Identifies effective measures Identifies specific weaknesses or ineffective measures Establishes a baseline for tracking progress ARTHUR ANDERSEN
...._.m_-,......_.2~
.e.-,
O f...,,,
[Yf EFFECTIVE PERFORMANCE MEASUREINDICATORS Focus efforts and provide direction Monitor progress Benchmark against others Stimulate change and continuous improvement I
1 6
i ARTHUR t
ANDERSEN
S j e sec y o
6_%
s.
,i
/
EARLY WARNING SIGNS Measures do not tie to outcomes Measures do not reflect satisfaction of customer needs
. Measures of not capture process improvements Measures are expressed as absolute numbers Measures are limited to available data P
.ARTsua ANDERSEN s
,f R Rf Cg\\
gk
=
\\
~e PERFORMANCEMEASUREMENT:
s,
/
EFFECTIVENESS CRITERIA t
Equipment Process Effectiveness Leadership Effectiveness Effectiveness Stage 1 Reactive Multiple Approaches Individualistic Stage 2 Time / Pattern Based One Standard Leader Centered Stage 3 System Best Practices Distinctive Leadership Optimization Stage 4 Redesign out '
Quality redesign Self-directed failures ARTHUR ANDERSEN
f.
kI
%...../
THE ARTHUR ANDERSENADVANTAGE Engagement Team Proposed Best Practices Data Base Relevant Experience Committment to Client Satisfaction,
t Track Record of Performance i
i
. ARTHUR ANDERSEN 4
I
SELECTED RELEVANT EXPERIENCE l
1 l
1 1
i
-~_.-. - _. -.
- - - ~ -
. - ~ -
1 i
l 1
J i
i i
APPENDIX A PROJEG SUMMARIES j
ARTHUR ANDERSEN l
PROJEG SUMMARIES t
1 Program Evaluation, Management, and Analysis Internal Revenue Service 1
The Intemal Revenue Service (IRS) initiated a comprehensive reengmeermg effort withm its Chief Management and Administration area. Arthur Andersen was retamed to faci'2 tate this proiect in the functional areas of 3" ~png Human Resources, Real Estate Plam.mg and Management, and Corporate Education.
The approach mvolved supportmg 11 project teams located in cities across the country by providing a reengmeenng methodology and technical expertise to each team. It also provided integration and coordination support to the overall National Ofhce for inihative management. The Andersen role in this project included:
a Supportmg the identification and selection of candidate processes for reengineermg and team staffing as well as advising m the development of project charters a Coaching IRS puso:melin teengineermg planning, m'fing, and management and coordination functions a Developing and conducting training and workshop sessions for project team leaders, team members and regional IRS management a Facilitating the initiative's communication planning and change management efforts o Supporting all phases for reengineering projects including current process assessment, new process design, performance measurement development, and prototyping the pilot design and rollout This successful reengmeenng process was due to effective training, clear communication planning, efficient change management and thorough support of all reengmeermg phases.
ARTHUR Proprietary and Confidential XNDERSEN uw A,ema cc sc i
.~
i i
Department of Energy / Isotope Production and Development 4
The Department of Energy's (DOE) Isotope Production and Development Program iPDP) was faced with high product development costs and expenditures which i
outpaced cash receipts. DOE asked Arthur Andersen to perform a signihcant 1
organizanonal analysis to help IPDP become efhetent and sustatnable. Specthe tasks mcluded:
a Interviewtng IPDP and DOE personnel for fmancial and operatmg information 3 Conductmg process analysis and orgamzational structure reengineering 3 Determmmg benchmarkmg standards i
L 3 Conductmg "Best Practices" research
/
3 Reviewing the program's (mancial experience and status 3 Analyzmg market position, costs, pricing policies and profitability O Reviewtng its operation and busmess practices to provide a basis for recommendations l
After reviewing (mancial and operational information, the project team made recommendations to clarify the program's mission and strate y, how to strengthen the organizational structure, how to cut costs and establish market pncmg and how the program could move towards "Best Practices." Recommendations related to fmancial activities were: to reduce and stabtlize overhead costs, reduce costs for unprofitable capacity, manage profitability as opposed to cost and establish bustnessenented financial reportmg, i
4 ARTHUR Propnetary and Confidential ANDERSEN q
6 Department of Energy /Richland Operations Office The Department of Energy (DOE) Richland Operahons Ofhce is responsible for the management of the 560 mde Hanford Site near Richland in southeastern Washtngton State. Plutonium for the nahon's defense program was produced at this site for more than 40 years. As a result, many areas withm the site's boundanes are contammated by chenucal or radioactive waste. Today, Hanford is the largest environmental restoranon effort in the nation. Arthur Andersen has been engaged by DOE's Richland Operanons Olhce to assist with the measurement and verthcanon of costs savings related to its Hanford Site activities. Spectfx tasks include:
a Estabbshtng cost savings measurement and definthons a Reviewmg the FY95 beseUne for identthcahon ci docun entahon of cost savings O Assisting in identifytng, comptling and reporting cost savings realized in FY95 and providing the model for this type of work m the future o Recommendmg a process framework to identdy, collect, compdc and report cost savings tn FY% using lessons learned from the FY95 cost savings review The detaded cost saving review identdied an approximate 580 million reduchon in reported savings by the site in 1995 which was addressed when DOE Richland did a comp... year-end savings review. Additionally, this effort will reduce the tncenhve fee to the contractor by over $10 trullion. As a result of this cost savings review, DOE Headquarters is encouragtng other DOE sites to conduct stmdar cost savmg reviews with AA.
Proprietary and Confidential ARTHUR hNDERSEN Anm ^esus cc sc
h 1
i 4
i I
General Services Administration I
j The GeneralServices Admmistration (GSA) engaged Arthur Andersen as a consultant to thetr busmess itne analysis. The scope of this engagement is to i
i develop an alternative decision analysts model which considers options such as
}
outsourcing and pnvatization that can be apphed to the vanous bustness lines.
Andersen is providing tratntng and consultation to CSA in their approach to restructure the Agency, as well as facilitating the process to obtam external pnvate
~
tndustry measures to help perform benchmark comparisons. Spectftc engagement tasks tnclude:
s Q Factlitate the gathenng and analysts of costtng data to evaluate the costs and benehts of vanous altematives
)
i o Prepare a task mJestone calendar o Develop training on privatization and outsourcing
{
q i
o Establish benchmarks with private industry f
Q Develop and direct focus groups to insure that strategic issues are addressed I
i The project has been successful in helping GSA understand how to deliver service to its customers at the lowest cost to taxpayers. Five complex bustness lines have been analyzed to date and numerous presmtations have been made to the Office of Management and Budget and various congressional oversight committees.
j Andersen's objectivity and independence have been important to GSA regarding the integnty of this restructuring process with the oversight groups.
t3; 4
'r I
e 0
Proprietary and Confidential A
fN c.
1 a
General Accounting Office in recent years the General Accountmg Ofhce (GAO) has been comrnatted to Total Quahty Management Prmciples and to redesigntng its work processes and 1
i programs to reflect these prmciples. A major component of this effort is to evaluate and reengmeer its pobces and processes in order to shorten the time it takes to complete work, to streamhne its processes and to increase efhetency of staff utthzation. Arthur Andersen is helping the GAO achieve its evaluation and reengineering objectives. Specthe tasks include.
a Assisting with implementmg reforms in the job management process O Quantifytng expected staff time and savings 1
3 Identifymg addi'ional opportunities for procedu.e nnprovement O Developing a plan to foster comnutment to planned changes in policies -
and practices a Conductmg an activity analysts that includes an assessment of the demands placed on GAO personnel Producing a report on the best practices employed in the areas relevant to GAO's intemal process improvement program i
i l
ARTHUR Proprietary and Confidenrial ANDERSEN vne A-ca sc
Federal Aviation Administration For the Federal Aviabon Administrahon (FAA), the Andersen Team was engaged to develop a fmancial plan to restructure the att trafhe conttol system into a government corporahon, Atr Traffic Services Corporahon (ATS). To develop this plan, the Andersen Team worked closely with the FAA Corporation Assessment Task Force. The ultimate goal was to create a self-sustaming entity, no longer dependent on government appropnations. Specthe tasks mcluded:
a Participatmg in organizational structure dehberahons a Developmg a bustness plan and evaluating and makmg recommendahons about key assumptions underlymg the projected ftnancial statements for an ATS Corporation Q The analysis of the projected (mancial statements included how the FAA budget costs are converted to corporate expenses and recorded on corporate financial statements; the analysis of the construction of fmancial projections to include key forecast vanables; capital expenditure assumptions and presentahons; underlying fmancing assumptions; and transition issues.
i o
Proprietary and Confidential A
{
Anm.it AseruruCo SC
a
.i 4
i Department of Commerce / Bureau of Census Arthur Andersen is suppornng the Departrrent of Commerce-Bureau of Census with its conversion to the Core Financial System (CFS) by assisting with the review and analysis of its "Interfuna" Overhead Cost Distributton process. The Andersen approach tncludes:
a Determming the Auditor's and Census Personnel's concerns / problems i
with the current process -
a Reviewing pohcies and procedures and recommendtng alternahves 4
3 Identifying signihcant nsks of tmplementing reconunended altemauves O Preparing inibal draft reports and reviewing with Bureau persennel designated by the Bureau's Comptroller a Finalmng the report l
Based on this evaluahon, Arthur Andersen is recommending changes and enhancements that would improve, streamline and simplify the process in preparation for the conversion to the CFS.
4 M
Proprietary and Confidential A
EN Amd N EC45C
Financial Af anagement, Internal Controls and Systems Design Department of Defense / Defense Finance and Accounting Service Arthur Andersen was awarded a contract with the Department of Defense (DoD)/ Defense Finance and Accountmg Service (DFAS) to assist with reviewing their departmental accountmg functions. Departmental accounting consists of the rollup and reporting of financialinformahon for the vanous DoD departments (Army, Navy, Atr Force, etc.) The work on this project wtli utilize parts of our Bustness Process Reengineering methodology tncluding process mapping, the Global Best Prachces Knowledge Base, and Activity Based Costing. DFAS' objechves are to:
3 Determine the most efficient manner of performmg these functions a Provide for consolidated financial statements 3 Analyze wh:ter or not to consolidate the locations performing the functions Currently, the Andersen Team has traveled to DFAS centers in Denver, CO, Kansas City, KS, Columbus, OH, Cleveland, OH and Indianapolis, IN to factlitate process groups with subject matter experts; documenting process maps for the "as is" bustness procesesses; collecting cost and worldoad data which will be incorporated into the "as is" in the fw al report. The next step will be to review and analyze the informanon to prepare a report on the "to be" or the vision for the future.
I ARTHUR Proprietary and Confidential bNDERSEN m ^ew. scc sc 4e s