Doe Order 413-3b

U.S.
Department of Energy PAGE CHANGE

Washington, D.C. DOE O 413.3B
Chg 3 (Page Chg): 12-20-2016
SUBJECT: PAGE CHANGE TO DOE O 413.3B, PROGRAM AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT

FOR THE ACQUISITION OF CAPITAL ASSETS
1. EXPLANATION OF CHANGES. This page change aligns the Order with FIT ARA and
the guidance issued in the Secretarial Information Technology Management Reforms
memorandum on October 21, 2016, making the Chief Information Officer an Energy
Systems Acquisition Advisory Board (ESAAB) member. In addition, the Deputy
Secretary decided to add the Department's Senior Procurement Executive as an ESAAB
member.
2. LOCATIONS OF CHANGES:
Page Paragraph Changed To
Appendix A 7.a.(7) and Added the Chief Information

A-24 (8) Officer and the Senior
Procurement Executive as
ESAAB members.
Appendix A 7.a.(7)-(10) Reordered to 7.a.(9)-(12)
A-24
Appendix A 7.b.(3) Added the CIO to the
A-25 streamlined ESAAB review
process.
Appendix B 13. Added the Office of Enterprise
B-9 Assessments
Appendix B 12.g. Reordered to 13.a.
B-9 The responsibility falls under the
Office of Enterprise
Assessments. It was incorrectly
included with the Office of the
Associate Under Secretary for
Environment, Health, Safety, and
Security.
Appendix B 13.-17. Reordered to 14.-18.
B-9 – B-12
Attachment 4 53. Added DOE O 415.1, Chg 1,
Page 3 Information Technology Project
Management, dated 12-3-12.
Attachment 4 53.-80. Reordered to 54.-81.
Pages 3-4
Page Paragraph Changed To
Attachment 4 82. Added Federal Information

Page 4 Technology Acquisition Reform
Act (FITARA), Title VIII,
Subtitle D of the National
Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2015,
Public Law No. 113-291.
Page 5
Attachment 4 92. Added OMB Circular A-130,
Page 5 Management of Federal
Information Resources, dated 7-
27-16.
Attachment 4 90. Reordered to 93.
Page 5
Attachment 4 94. Added OMB Memorandum M-
Page 5 15-14, Management and
Oversight of Federal Information
Technology, dated 6-10-15.
Page 5
U.S. Department of Energy ORDER
` Washington, D.C.
DOE O 413.3B
Approved: 11-29-2010
Chg 1 (Admin Chg): 10-22-2015
Chg 2 (Page Chg): 05-12-2016
Chg 3 (Page Chg): 12-20-2016
SUBJECT: PROGRAM AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT FOR THE ACQUISITION OF

CAPITAL ASSETS
1. PURPOSE.
a. To provide the Department of Energy (DOE) Elements, including the National

Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), with program and project management
direction for the acquisition of capital assets with the goal of delivering projects
within the original performance baseline (PB), cost and schedule, and fully
capable of meeting mission performance, safeguards and security, and
environmental, safety, and health requirements unless impacted by a directed
change.
b. To implement Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circulars to include:

A-11, and its supplement, Capital Programming Guide, which prescribes new
requirements and leading practices for project and acquisition management;
A-123, Management's Responsibility for Internal Control, which defines
management's responsibility for internal control in Federal agencies; and A-131,
Value Engineering, which requires that all Federal agencies use Value
Engineering (VE) as a management tool.
2. CANCELLATION. This Order cancels DOE O 413.3A, Chg 1, Program and Project
Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets, dated 11-17-08. Cancellation of a
directive does not, by itself, modify or otherwise affect any contractual or regulatory
obligation to comply with the directive. Contractor Requirements Documents (CRDs)
that have been incorporated into a contract remain in effect throughout the term of the
contract unless and until the contract is modified to either eliminate requirements that are
no longer applicable or substitute a new set of requirements.
3. APPLICABILITY.
a. Departmental Applicability.
The requirements identified in this Order are mandatory for all DOE Elements
(unless identified in Paragraph 3.c., Equivalencies/Exemptions) for all capital
asset projects having a Total Project Cost (TPC) greater than or equal to the minor
construction threshold.
Any reference to a Program Secretarial Officer (PSO) in this Order is also

applicable to the Deputy Administrator/Associate Administrators for the NNSA.
AVAILABLE ONLINE AT: INITIATED BY:

www.directives.doe.gov Office of Management
2 DOE O 413.3B
11-29-2010
The principles (see Appendix C, Paragraph 1.a.-l.) as set forth in this Order apply
to all capital asset projects. They also apply to General Plant Projects (GPPs) for
which the approved total estimated cost does not exceed the minor construction
threshold, as defined in DOE O 430.1B, using a tailored approach.
All projects with a TPC greater than or equal to the minor construction threshold
are required to report progress and provide documentation in the Project
Assessment and Reporting System (PARS II) at Critical Decision (CD)-0 and
thereafter, in accord with Appendix C. After CD-2 is approved for projects with a
TPC greater than or equal to $20M, earned value reporting shall apply.
Additionally, for all projects with a TPC greater than or equal to the minor
construction threshold, all approved CD or equivalent documents and
performance baseline changes shall be submitted to the Office of Project
Management Oversight and Assessments (PM).
This Order does not apply to Financial Assistance Awards (grants and cooperative
agreements) covered under 2 CFR Parts 200 and 910 and 10 CFR Part 600
(legacy awards).
The Administrator of NNSA will assure that NNSA employees and contractors
comply with their respective responsibilities under this directive. Nothing in this
Order will be construed to interfere with the NNSA Administrator's authority
under Section 3212(d) of Public Law (P.L.) 106-65 to establish
Administration-specific policies, unless disapproved by the Secretary.
b. DOE Contractors.
Except for the equivalencies/exemptions in paragraph 3.c., the CRD

(Attachment 1) sets forth requirements of this Order that will apply to contracts
that include the CRD.
The CRD must be included in all contracts that make the contractor responsible
for planning, design, construction and execution of capital asset projects subject
to this Order.
c. Equivalencies/Exemptions. Equivalencies and exemptions to this Order are

processed in accordance with DOE O 251.1C, Departmental Directives Program.
Central Technical Authority (CTA) (or designee) concurrence is required for both
exemptions and equivalencies to this Order for nuclear facilities. The Deputy
Secretary must approve all equivalencies and exemptions to the requirements
delineated in this Order except for those stipulated in Paragraphs 3.c.(3)-(4).
(1) Equivalency. In accordance with the responsibilities and authorities

assigned by Executive Order (EO) 12344, codified at 50 USC Sections
2406 and 2511 and to ensure consistency through the joint Navy/DOE
Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, the Deputy Administrator for Naval
DOE O 413.3B 3
11-29-2010
Reactors (Director) will implement and oversee requirements and

practices pertaining to this Directive for activities under the Director's
cognizance, as deemed appropriate.
(2) Equivalency. Bonneville Power Administration in accordance with

Secretarial Delegation Order 00-033.00B, dated 7-20-09.
(3) Exemption – Specific Capital Asset Project. For PSOs that are not exempt
as defined in Paragraph 3.c.(4) of this Order, the Programs may present
cases to the Project Management Risk Committee (PMRC) for a specific
project to have an exemption from a specific Order requirement. If the
consensus of the committee is to endorse the exemption request, approval
of the exemption request will be made by the appropriate Under Secretary.
However, if consensus cannot be attained, at the discretion of the Program,
the exemption request may be forwarded to the Deputy Secretary as the
Chief Executive for Project Management (CE) with formal review by the
PMRC outlining the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed
exemption. In this case, the exemption request will be entered into, and
processed through, the Department’s formal collaboration process.
(4) Exemption. PSOs that meet all of the following criteria may be excluded
from specific requirements of this Order. The intent of this exemption is to
shift CD authority to the PSO and place those activities normally carried
out by PM in the hands of the Project Management Support Office
(PMSO). They must have:
• An established PMSO with adequate project management

requirements, processes and procedures defined to enable
continued project success. This will be validated by PM and must
be consistent with the Acquisition Management System delineated
in the Order;
• An on-going set of active capital asset projects, post CD-2, of over

10 projects at any time during the current Fiscal Year (FY); and
• Completed 90% of projects across a three-year rolling average, not

to exceed by more than 10% of the original cost baseline for the
original approved scope at CD-2 for all capital asset projects with a
TPC greater than or equal to the minor construction threshold.
To allow PM to determine Departmental-wide metrics and to permit an

independent validation of the PSO eligibility to exercise this exemption,
all PSOs are still required to:
• Report all projects into PARS II monthly, including earned value

data, when applicable.
4 DOE O 413.3B
11-29-2010
• Submit all CD or equivalent documents to PM.
• Submit Performance Baseline Change Proposal approvals to PM.
• PM will lead Independent Cost Reviews and Independent Cost

Estimates as delineated in Appendix A, Tables 2.0 through 2.3.
For PSOs that are eligible for the exemption, the Deputy Secretary must
take affirmative action and approve the exemption through an action
memorandum from the PSO with concurrence from PM. The Deputy
Secretary may specify exceptions (e.g., retain high profile projects).
Additionally, the nuclear safety-related requirements of the Order,

including DOE-STD-1189-2008, shall not be exempted. Further, this
exemption does not apply to defense nuclear facilities.
The Deputy Secretary shall rescind this exemption if the PSOs are unable
to maintain the exemption requirements listed previously. The exemption
may also be rescinded at any time at the discretion of the Deputy
Secretary.
When a PSO is no longer exempt, the requirements of this Order must be

implemented within six months. Specifically, projects reaching a
particular CD or project closeout within six months of exemption
rescission are not required to comply with this Order for approval of that
CD. Those reaching a CD after six months of exemption rescission shall
comply with this Order to gain approval of that particular CD or for
project closeout.
4. REQUIREMENTS.
a. General.
(1) Detailed requirements on capital asset projects are provided in this Order.
(2) Guides are not requirements documents and are not to be construed as
requirements in any audit or appraisal for compliance with the parent
Policy, Order, Notice, or Manual. The Guides referenced in this Order are
meant as suggestions or potential guidelines for content and purpose of
documents.
(3) Tailoring is necessary for the efficient delivery of projects and should be
applied to all projects considering size, complexity, cost, and risks.
Tailoring does not imply the omission of requirements, and requirements
must be addressed to the extent necessary and practical. Tailoring may
involve consolidation or phasing of CDs, substituting equivalent
DOE O 413.3B 5 (and 6)
11-29-2010
documents, using a graded approach to document development and

content, concurrency of processes, or creating a portfolio of projects to
facilitate a single CD or Acquisition Strategy (AS) for the entire group of
projects. Tailoring may also include adjusting the scope of Independent
Project Reviews (IPRs) and External Independent Reviews (EIRs),
delegation of acquisition authority, and other elements. Major tailored
elements such as consolidating or phasing CDs or delegation of Project
Management Executive (PME) duties must be specified in the Project
Execution Plan (PEP) or the Tailoring Strategy and approved by the PME.
For Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities, the Tailoring Strategy
must include the approach to satisfying DOE-STD-1189-2008 safety
document development.
b. Implementation. The requirements in this update must be implemented

immediately upon issuance of this Order. Programs are not required to revisit
previously achieved critical decisions.
5. RESPONSIBILITIES. Key roles and responsibilities of line managers are described in

Appendix B.
6. DEFINITIONS. See Attachment 2. See Attachment 3 for Acronyms.
7. REFERENCES. See Attachment 4.
8. CONTACT. Questions concerning this Order should be directed to PM, 202-586-3524.
BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY:
ELIZABETH SHERWOOD-RANDALL
Deputy Secretary
DOE O 413.3B i
11-29-2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Topics addressed are accessible through links in the following topic list:
Appendix A: Requirements
1. Objective ..............................................................................................................................1
2. DOE Acquisition Management System ...............................................................................1
3. Critical Decision Approval Authority and Thresholds ........................................................3
4. Requirements for Approval of Critical Decisions................................................................4
a. CD-0, Approve Mission Need .................................................................................4
b. CD-1, Approve Alternative Selection and Cost Range............................................5
c. CD-2, Approve Performance Baseline.....................................................................9
d. CD-3, Approve Start of Construction/Execution ...................................................13
e. CD-4, Approve Start of Operations or Project Completion ...................................15
f. Project Closeout .....................................................................................................17
5. Application of Requirements for Different Circumstances ...............................................18
a. Environmental Cleanup Projects............................................................................18
b. Design-Build Projects ............................................................................................18
c. Projects Requiring Long-Lead Procurement..........................................................19
d. Commissioning of Capital Asset Projects for Nuclear/Chemical
Process Facilities....................................................................................................19
e. Alternative Financing.............................................................................................19
6. Baseline Management ........................................................................................................20
a. Performance Baseline Deviation............................................................................20
b. Performance Baseline Changes..............................................................................20
c. Directed Changes ...................................................................................................22
d. Change Control ......................................................................................................22
e. Contract Modifications for New Performance Baseline ........................................22
f. Cancellations of Projects........................................................................................22
7. Energy Systems Acquisition Advisory Board ...................................................................22
a. ESAAB Membership .............................................................................................23
b. “Paper” ESAAB: Streamlined ESAAB Process ....................................................25
c. ESAAB Issue Resolution .......................................................................................25
d. ESAAB Secretariat ................................................................................................25
e. Non-Major System Project Advisory Board ..........................................................25
f. Project Management Risk Committee ...................................................................24
ii DOE O 413.3B
11-29-2010
Appendix B: Responsibilities
1. Deputy Secretary ..................................................................................................................1

2. Under Secretaries .................................................................................................................2
3. Program Secretarial Officers and Deputy Administrators / Associate Administrators for
the NNSA .............................................................................................................................3
4. Project Owner ......................................................................................................................3
5. Project Management Support Offices (when established) ...................................................4
6. Program Managers and Heads of Field Organizations ........................................................4
7. Project Management Executives ..........................................................................................5
8. Federal Project Director .......................................................................................................6
9. Departmental Staff and Support Offices ..............................................................................8
10. DOE / NNSA Senior Procurement Executives ....................................................................8
11. Contracting Officer ..............................................................................................................8
12. Office of the Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security ....9
13. Office of Project Management Oversight and Assessments ................................................9
14. Integrated Project Team .....................................................................................................10
15. Central Technical Authorities ............................................................................................11
16. Chief of Defense Nuclear Safety and Chief of Nuclear Safety..........................................11
17. Project Management Governance Board ...........................................................................12
Appendix C: Topical Areas
1. Project Management Principles ...........................................................................................1

2. Acquisition Strategy.............................................................................................................3
3. Analysis of Alternatives .......................................................................................................3
4. Baseline Clarity....................................................................................................................4
5. Cost Estimating ....................................................................................................................4
6. Design Management ............................................................................................................5
7. Design Maturity ...................................................................................................................6
8. Earned Value Management System ...................................................................................10
9. Environmental Safety and Health Documentation Development ......................................12
10. Integrated Project Team .....................................................................................................14
11. Integrated Safety Management System..............................................................................15
12. Key Performance Parameters .............................................................................................16
13. Lessons Learned Process ...................................................................................................16
14. Nuclear Facilities: Safety Design Strategy and Code of Record .......................................16
15. Performace Baseline ..........................................................................................................16
DOE O 413.3B iii
11-29-2010
16. Planning and Scheduling....................................................................................................17

17. Project Definition Rating Index .........................................................................................17
18. Project Execution Plan .......................................................................................................17
19. Project Funding ..................................................................................................................17
20. Project Reporting, Assessments and Progress Reviews.....................................................18
21. Project Scope......................................................................................................................20
22. Quality Assurance ..............................................................................................................20
23. Reviews..............................................................................................................................20
24. Risk Management ..............................................................................................................25
25. Safeguards and Security .....................................................................................................26
26. Site Development Planning................................................................................................26
27. Tailoring .............................................................................................................................26
28. Technology Readiness Assessment ...................................................................................31
List of Attachments:
Attachment 1. Contractor Requirements Document

Attachment 2. Definitions
Attachment 3. Acronyms
Attachment 4. References
List of Tables:
Table 1. Critical Decision Authority Thresholds ................................................................. A-4

Table 2.0. CD-0 Requirements................................................................................................ A-5
Table 2.1. CD-1 Requirements................................................................................................ A-6
Table 2.2. CD-2 Requirements.............................................................................................. A-10
Table 2.5. Project Closeout Requirements ............................................................................ A-18
Table 3. Performance Baseline Change Authority............................................................. A-21
iv DOE O 413.3B
11-29-2010
List of Figures:
Figure 1. Typical DOE Acquisition Management System

for Line Item Capital Asset Projects ...................................................................... A-2
for Other Capital Asset Projects............................................................................. A-3
Figure 3. Facility Design Maturity General Guidelines for CD-2..........................................C-9
Figure 4. Phasing of a Large Project ....................................................................................C-28
DOE O 413.3B Appendix A
11-29-2010 A-1
APPENDIX A
REQUIREMENTS
1. Objective.
The Department's ultimate objective is to deliver every project at the original PB, on
schedule, within budget, and fully capable of meeting mission performance, safeguards
and security, quality assurance (QA), sustainability, and environmental, safety, and
health requirements. Consistent with this objective, a project shall be completed at
CD-4 within the original approved performance baseline (CD-2), unless otherwise
impacted by a directed change.
The authority and accountability for any project, including its costs, must be vested
firmly in the hands of the Federal Project Director (FPD).
Some cost estimate, or cost range, should be provided at each CD gateway, but the
degree of rigor and detail for a cost estimate should be carefully defined, depending on
the degree of confidence in project scale and scope that is reasonable to expect at that
stage. Whatever figure or range that is provided should explicitly note relevant caveats
concerning uncertainties inherent in estimates at CD-0 and CD-1 stages.
A project owner should never be the sole cost estimator, at any stage (i.e., from CD-0
on), given the inherent conflict of interest.
The second cost estimator should come from outside of the line manager’s chain of
command, to avoid conflict of interest.
2. DOE Acquisition Management System.
The DOE Acquisition Management System establishes principles and processes that
translate user needs and technological opportunities into reliable and sustainable
facilities, systems, and assets that provide a required mission capability. The system
will be organized by project phases and CDs, progressing from broadly-stated mission
needs into well-defined requirements resulting in operationally effective, suitable, and
affordable facilities, systems, and other products.
Within DOE, projects typically progress through five CDs, which serve as major
milestones approved by the Chief Executive for Project Management (CE) or PME.
Each CD marks an authorization to increase the commitment of resources by DOE and
requires successful completion of the preceding phase or CD. The amount of time
between decisions will vary. The CDs are:
• CD-0, Approve Mission Need. There is a need that cannot be met through other
than material means;
• CD-1, Approve Alternative Selection and Cost Range. The selected alternative
and approach is the optimum solution;
Appendix A DOE O 413.3B
A-2 11-29-2010
• CD-2, Approve Performance Baseline. Definitive scope, schedule and cost

baselines have been developed;
• CD-3, Approve Start of Construction/Execution. The project is ready for

implementation; and
• CD-4, Approve Start of Operations or Project Completion. The project is ready

for turnover or transition to operations, if applicable.
Figure 1 illustrates the requirements for the typical implementation of the DOE
Acquisition Management System for Line Item Capital Asset Projects. Figure 2 depicts
the implementation for Other Capital Asset Projects such as Major Items of Equipment
(MIE) and Operating Expense (OE) projects.

for Line Item Capital Asset Projects
11-29-2010 A-3
Figure 2. Typical DOE Acquisition Management System for Other Capital

Asset Projects (i.e., Major Items of Equipment and Operating Expense Projects)
3. Critical Decision Approval Authority and Thresholds.
The Deputy Secretary serves as the Department’s CE and promulgates Department-wide

policy and direction. The CD authorities, thresholds and delegations are identified in
Table 1.
a. Major System Projects.
Projects with a TPC greater than or equal to $750M are Major System Projects.
All Major System Project CDs must be proposed by the appropriate PSO and
approved by the Deputy Secretary as DOE's designated CE before proceeding to
the next project phase or CD.
b. Non-Major System Projects.
Projects with a TPC less than $750M are Non-Major System Projects. The
designated PME must approve all Non-Major System Project CDs, except for
CD-0, which cannot be delegated below the PSO.
A-4 11-29-2010
Table 1. Critical Decision Authority Thresholds

Critical
Decision Total Project Cost Thresholds
Authority
≥ $750M
Deputy
(or any project on an exception basis when designated by the Deputy Secretary)
Secretary
Further delegation is allowed.
≥ $100M and < $750M

Under
Secretaries (or any project on an exception basis when designated by the Under Secretaries)
Further delegation is allowed.
Program ≥ $10M* and < $100M

Secretarial
Officer Further delegation is allowed.
* This is subject to change with the minor construction threshold.
4. Requirements for Approval of Critical Decisions.
a. CD-0, Approve Mission Need.
The Initiation Phase begins with the identification of a mission-related need. A

Program Office will identify a credible performance gap between its current
capabilities and capacities and those required to achieve the goals articulated in
its strategic plan. The Mission Need Statement (MNS) is the translation of this
gap into functional requirements that cannot be met through other than material
means. It should describe the general parameters of the solution and why it is
critical to the overall accomplishment of the Department’s mission, including the
benefits to be realized. The mission need is independent of a particular solution,
and should not be defined by equipment, facility, technological solution, or
physical end-item. This approach allows the Program Office the flexibility to
explore a variety of solutions and not limit potential solutions (refer to
DOE G 413.3-17). Table 2.0 lists the requirements needed to attain CD-0.
The cost range provided at CD-0 should be Rough-Order of Magnitude (ROM)

and is used to determine the PME authority designation. It does not represent the
PB, which will be established at CD-2.
11-29-2010 A-5
Table 2.0 CD-0 Requirements1

Prior to CD-0 Approval Authority2
Perform Pre-Conceptual Planning activities that focus on the Program Offices' strategic goals and
objectives, safety planning, design, development of capability gaps, high-level project
parameters, a ROM cost range, and schedule estimates.
Perform a Mission Validation Independent Review on all Major System Projects. (Refer to PSO
DOE G 413.3-9.)
Approve a Mission Need Statement Document with recommendation from PM for projects with a PSO
TPC ≥ $100M. (Refer to DOE G 413.3-17.)
For Major System Projects, or for projects as designated by the CE, PM will conduct
an Independent Cost Review (ICR).
For Major System Projects, the Project Management Risk Committee (PMRC) will review and CE ≥ $750M
analyze the CD and make recommendations to the ESAAB, CE, or PME, as applicable, before
approval.
For NNSA only, prepare a Program Requirements Document that defines the ultimate goals PSO
which the project must satisfy. (Refer to NNSA Business and Operating Policy.)
For Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities, and to the specificity possible, document Safety Basis Approval
DOE expectations for Safety-in-Design. (Refer to DOE-STD-1189-2008.) Authority (SBAA)
Post CD-0 Approval
Submit all CD documents to PM.
Develop a Project Data Sheet (PDS) for Line Item Projects to request Project Engineering and
Design (PED) funds. Develop funding documents for MIE or OE projects for the design, and
OMB A-11 Business Cases. (Refer to DOE CFO Budget Call for PDS and Business Case
Template.)
Initiate monthly PARS II reporting (excluding earned value data). FPD, Program Manager and
PM will provide monthly assessments, as appropriate.
Initiate Quarterly Project Reviews (QPRs) with the PME or their designee.
Conduct a project peer review of active projects when the top-end range is $100M or greater.
Proceed with conceptual planning and design used to develop alternative concepts and functional
requirements using operating funds.
NOTES:
1. Documents and reports are not intended to be stand-alone and may be combined.
2. Where no approval authorities are noted, authorities are established through other directives or the Program Offices (e.g.,
Functions and Requirements Assignment Matrix).
3. Title 10 CFR Part 830 does not apply to accelerators and their operations.
b. CD-1, Approve Alternative Selection and Cost Range.
CD-1 approval marks the completion of the project definition phase and the
conceptual design. This is an iterative process to define, analyze, and refine
project concepts and alternatives. This process uses a systems engineering
methodology that integrates requirements analysis, risk identification and
A-6 11-29-2010
analysis, acquisition strategies, and concept exploration in order to evolve a

cost-effective, preferred solution to meet a mission need (refer to
DOE G 413.3-1 for more information). The recommended alternative should
provide the essential functions and capabilities at an optimum life-cycle cost,
consistent with required cost, scope, schedule, performance, and risk
considerations. It should be reflected in the site’s long-range planning
documents as well. Approval of CD-1 provides the authorization to begin the
project Execution Phase and allows PED funds to be used. Table 2.1 lists the
requirements needed to attain CD-1.
For each project, the appropriate Under Secretary will designate a project owner.
Each Under Secretary will also establish a clear line of functional responsibility
that extends from the Under Secretary to the project owner to the Federal Project
Director. This shall be documented in the preliminary project execution plan at
CD-1.
The cost range provided at CD-1 is the preliminary estimate for the selected
alternative. As CD-1 progresses to CD-2, the TPC will be refined and the TPC
established at CD-2 may be higher than the range defined at CD-1, in which case
the PME must be notified. The CD-1 cost range is not the PB cost. The PB
against which project success is measured will be established at CD-2. The only
exception is when a construction budget request is submitted in advance of an
approved CD-2. In this circumstance, refer to Appendix A, Paragraph 4.c.(2).
If the top end of the original approved CD-1 cost range grows by more than 50%
as the project proceeds toward CD-2, the Program, in coordination with the
PME, must reassess the alternative selection process. Upon completing the
review, the PME must approve a revised CD-1 identifying the new or reaffirmed
selected alternative and an updated CD-1 cost range. This revised CD-1
information, to include the new CD-1 cost range and CD-1 approval date, will be
reflected within PARS II and all subsequent PDS and similar project
documentation.

Approve an Acquisition Strategy (AS) with endorsement from PM for Major System Projects. PSO
(Refer to DOE G 413.3-13.)
Approve a preliminary Project Execution Plan (PEP). The Tailoring Strategy, if required, can be CE or PME
included in the PEP or placed in a separate document. (Refer to DOE G 413.3-15.)
• Approve appointment of the Federal Project Director considering the requirements in CE or PME
DOE O 361.1C.
• Establish and charter an Integrated Project Team to include a responsibility assignment PSO ≥ $750M
matrix. The Charter may be included in the PEP. (Refer to DOE G 413.3-18A.) FPD < $750M
11-29-2010 A-7

• Develop a Risk Management Plan (RMP) and complete an initial risk assessment of a
recommended alternative. This may be included in the PEP. For evaluating the
Safety-in-Design Strategy, prepare Risk and Opportunity Assessments for input to the
RMP. (Refer to DOE G 413.3-7A and DOE-STD-1189-2008.)
For projects with a TPC ≥ $100M, PM will develop an Independent Cost Estimate and/or
conduct an Independent Cost Review, as they deem appropriate.
For projects with a TPC ≥ $100M, the PMRC will review and analyze the CD and make CE ≥ $750M
recommendations to the ESAAB, CE, or PME, as applicable, before approval. PME < $750M
Comply with the One-for-One Replacement legislation (excess space/offset requirement) as
mandated in House Report 109-86. (Refer to DOE O 430.1B.)
For Major System Projects, develop a Design Management Plan that establishes design maturity
targets at critical milestones through final design.
Complete a Conceptual Design.
• Document Guiding Principles for Federal Leadership in High Performance and
Sustainable Building provisions per EO 13693, Section 3(h), support for the Site or
Strategic Sustainability Plan(s) per DOE O 436.1 and/or other sustainability
considerations planned in the Conceptual Design Report, Acquisition Strategy, and/or
PEP, as appropriate. (Refer to DOE G 413.3-6A.)
• Conduct a Design Review of the conceptual design with reviewers external to the
project.
• For Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities, a Code of Record shall be
initiated during the conceptual design.
• Complete a Conceptual Design Report. Refer to Appendix C, Paragraph 8.
Conduct an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) that is independent of the contractor organization PME
responsible for managing the construction or constructing the capital asset project, for projects
with an estimated TPC greater than or equal to the minor construction threshold. For projects
with an estimated top-end range less than $50M, the AoA shall be commensurate with the
project cost and complexity. Refer to GAO-15-37.
For Major System Projects, or first-of-a-kind engineering endeavors, conduct a Technology PME
Readiness Assessment and develop a Technology Maturation Plan, as appropriate. At this stage,
each critical technology item or system shall achieve a Technology Readiness Level-4 (TRL-4).
(Refer to DOE G 413.3-4A.)
Prepare a Preliminary Hazard Analysis Report (PHAR) for facilities that are below the Hazard Field Organization
Category 3 nuclear facility threshold as defined in 10 CFR Part 830, Subpart B.
Develop and implement an Integrated Safety Management Plan into management and work
process planning at all levels per DOE G 450.4-1C.
Establish a Quality Assurance Program (QAP). (Refer to 10 CFR Part 830, Subpart A,
DOE O 414.1D, and DOE G 413.3-2.) For nuclear facilities, the applicable national consensus
standard shall be NQA-1-2008 (Edition) and NQA-1a-2009 (Addenda).
A-8 11-29-2010

Identify general Safeguards and Security requirements for the recommended alternative. (Refer
to DOE O 470.4B, Change 1, and DOE G 413.3-3A.)
Complete a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Strategy by issuing a determination
(e.g., Environmental Assessment), as required by DOE O 451.1B. Prepare an Environmental
Compliance Strategy, to include a schedule for timely acquisition of required permits and
licenses.
Update Project Data Sheet, or other funding documents for MIE and OE projects, and A-11
Business Case, if applicable. This must contain an estimate of the required amount of PED funds
to execute the planning and design portion of a project (period from CD-1 to completion of the
project’s design). (Refer to DOE CFO Budget Call for PDS and Business Case Template.)
For Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities, prepare a Safety Design Strategy (SDS), SBAA and FPD
with the concurrence of the CNS or with written advice of the CDNS, as appropriate, for
projects subject to DOE-STD-1189-2008.
For Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities, conduct an Independent Project Review PSO
(IPR) to ensure early integration of safety into the design process. (Refer to DOE G 413.3-9 and
DOE-STD-1189-2008.)
Prepare a Conceptual Safety Design Report (CSDR)4 for Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear SBAA via the CSVR
facilities, including preliminary hazard analysis. For a project involving a major modification
of an existing facility, the SDS must address the need for a CSDR, as well as the required PDSA.
(Refer to DOE-STD-1189-2008.)
Prepare a Conceptual Safety Validation Report (CSVR), with concurrence from the FPD, on the SBAA
DOE review of the CSDR for Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities. (Refer to
DOE-STD-1189-2008.)
Post CD-1 Approval
Begin expenditure of PED, MIE, or OE funds for the project design.
Develop an Acquisition Plan, if applicable.
Continue monthly PARS II reporting (excluding earned value). FPD, Program Manager and PM
will provide monthly assessments, as appropriate.
Annually conduct project peer reviews of active projects when the top-end range is $100M or
greater.
Continue QPRs with the PME of their designee.
For nuclear facilities, develop a Checkout, Testing and Commissioning Plan in preparation for
acceptance and turnover of the structures, systems and components at CD-4. (Refer to
DOE-STD-1189-2008.)
11-29-2010 A-9
NOTES:
2. Where no approval authorities are noted, authorities are established through other directives or the Program Offices
(e.g., Functions and Requirements Assignment Matrix).
4. Per 10 CFR 830.206(b), a major modification of an existing Hazard Category 1, 2 or 3 nuclear facility requires DOE
approval of the nuclear safety design criteria to be used in the PDSA, unless the contractor uses the design criteria in
DOE O 420.1, Facility Safety. Per DOE-STD-1189-2008, a SDS must be developed that addresses: (1) the need for a
CSDR or Preliminary Safety Design Report (PSDR) as well as the required PDSA, to support project phases; (2) the
graded content of the PDSA necessary to support the design and modification; (3) the application of nuclear safety
design criteria; and (4) the interface with the existing facility, its operations, and construction activities.
c. CD-2, Approve Performance Baseline.
(1) Completion of preliminary design is the first major milestone in the

project Execution Phase. The design must be sufficiently mature (refer to
Appendix C, Paragraph 7) at the time of CD-2 approval to provide
reasonable assurance that the design will be implementable within the
approved PB. The document signed by the CE or PME approving CD-2
must clearly specify the project’s approved PB, which includes the TPC,
CD-4 date (month and year), scope and minimum Key Performance
Parameters (KPPs) that must be achieved at CD-4. Table 2.2 lists the
requirements needed to attain CD-2.

Approve an updated Acquisition Strategy, if there are any major changes to the acquisition PSO
approach. Obtain endorsement from PM for Major System Projects. (Refer to
DOE G 413.3-13.)
Establish a Performance Baseline, reflective of identified and assessed risks and uncertainties, FPD
to include TPC, CD-4 date, and minimum KPPs. The key project milestones and completion
dates shall be stated no less specific than month and year. The scope will be stated in quantity,
size and other parameters that give shape and form to the project. The funding assumptions
upon which the PB is predicated will be clearly documented and approved. (Refer to
DOE G 413.3-5A.)
Approve updated Project Execution Plan. (Refer to DOE G 413.3-15.) CE or PME
• Prepare a Funding Profile to support the execution of the PB and reflect in the budget CE or PME
document. The funding profile may be included in the PEP.
• Approve Long-Lead Item Procurements, if necessary. Approval may be concurrent CE or PME
with (or prior to) CD-2 approval. (Long-lead item procurement approval will be
designated as CD-3A.)
Develop a Project Management Plan, if applicable. (Refer to Attachment 1.)
A-10 11-29-2010

Perform a Performance Baseline External Independent Review (EIR) or an Independent Project PM ≥ $100M
Review (IPR). PM will conduct EIRs to validate the PB for projects with a TPC ≥ $100M. PM PMSO < $100M
must issue a Performance Baseline Validation Letter to the PSO that describes the cost,
schedule, and scope being validated. PMSO will conduct IPRs to validate the PB for projects
with a TPC < $100M. (Refer to DOE G 413.3-9)
For projects with a TPC ≥ $100M, PM will develop an Independent Cost Estimate (ICE). The
ICE will support validation of the PB.
Complete a Preliminary and/or Final Design. Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities
shall achieve at least 90% design completion prior to CD-2 approval. Non-nuclear project
designs shall be sufficiently mature to prepare a project baseline with 80-90% confidence prior
to CD-2 approval. (See Appendix C, Paragraph 6a for definition of 90% design complete.)
• Incorporate the Guiding Principles for Federal Leadership in High Performance and
Sustainable Buildings per EO 13693, Section 3(h), sustainability requirements per
DOE O 436.1, and/or other sustainability considerations into the preliminary design
and design review. (Refer to DOE G 413.3-6A.)
• Conduct a Design Review of the preliminary and final designs.
• For Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities, design reviews should include a
focus on safety and security systems. Additionally, the Code of Record shall be placed
under configuration control during preliminary design. It is controlled during final
design and construction with a process for reviewing and evaluating new and revised
requirements. New or modified requirements are implemented if technical evaluations
determine that there is a substantial increase in the overall protection of the worker,
public or environment, and that the direct and indirect costs of implementation are
justified in view of this increased protection.
• Complete a Preliminary Design Report.
Conduct a Project Definition Rating Index Analysis, as appropriate, for projects with a TPC ≥ FPD
$100M. PM will review as part of the EIR. (Refer to DOE G 413.3-12.)
For Major System Projects, or first-of-a-kind engineering endeavors, conduct a Technology PME
Readiness Assessment and develop a Technology Maturation Plan, as appropriate. At this stage,
each critical technology item or system shall achieve a Technology Readiness Level-7 (TRL-7).
Employ an Earned Value Management System compliant with EIA-748C, or as required by the
contract. This is performed by the contractor. (Refer to DOE G 413.3-10A.)
Prepare a Hazard Analysis Report for facilities that are below the Hazard Category 3 nuclear Field Organization
facility threshold as defined in 10 CFR Part 830, Subpart B by updating the PHAR based on
new hazards and design information.
Determine that the Quality Assurance Program is acceptable and continues to apply. (Refer to
10 CFR Part 830, Subpart A, DOE O 414.1D, and DOE G 413.3-2.)
Conduct a Preliminary Security Vulnerability Assessment, if necessary. (Refer to
DOE O 470.4B, Change 1, and DOE G 413.3-3A.)
11-29-2010 A-11

Issue the final Environmental Impact Statement or Environmental Assessment and Finding of
No Significant Impact, as required by 10 CFR Part 1021. For an Environmental Impact
Statement, the appropriate authority shall issue the Record of Decision after CD-2 is granted,
but prior to CD-3 approval. (Refer to DOE O 451.1B.)
Update Project Data Sheet, or other funding documents for MIE and OE projects, and A-11
Business Case, if applicable. (Refer to DOE CFO Budget Call for PDS and Business Case
Template.)
For Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities, conduct a Technical Independent Project PSO
Review (TIPR).The TIPR is required at or near the completion of the preliminary design. The
TIPR is not required for non-nuclear facilities. (Refer to DOE G 413.3 9).
For Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities, update the Safety Design Strategy, with the SBAA and FPD
concurrence of CNS or with written advice from CDNS, as appropriate, for projects subject to
DOE-STD-1189-2008.
Prepare a Preliminary Safety Design Report (PSDR)3 that updates the CSDR for Hazard SBAA via the PSVR
Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities based on updated hazard analysis and design
information. For a project involving a major modification of an existing facility, the SDS must
address the need for a PSDR, as well as the required PDSA. (Refer to DOE-STD-1189-2008.)
Prepare a Preliminary Safety Validation Report (PSVR), with concurrence from the FPD, SBAA
based on a DOE review of the PSDR for Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities. (Refer
to DOE-STD-1189-2008.)
Prepare the Preliminary Documented Safety Analysis (PDSA)4 for newly planned Hazard SBAA via the SER
Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities based on updated hazard analysis and design
information; also for major modifications of existing facilities. (Refer to 10 CFR Part 830,
Subpart B, and DOE-STD-1189-2008.)
Prepare a Safety Evaluation Report, with concurrence from the FPD, based on review of the SBAA
PDSA for Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities. (Refer to 10 CFR Part 830,
Subpart B.)
Post CD-2 Approval
Submit all CD documents, and if there are changes to the PB, submit BCP documents to PM.
Submit budget request for the TPC. PME will request full funding for all new projects with an CE or PME
estimated TPC of $50M or less, within a single budget year request, unless justification for less
than full funding is provided to and approved by the ESAAB.
For projects with a TPC ≥ $100M, the PMRC will review and analyze the PB deviation CE ≥ $750M
disposition request and make recommendations to the ESAAB, CE, or PME, as applicable, PME < $750M
before approval. The resulting BCP must also be presented to the PMRC before convening an
ESAAB.
Obtain PME endorsement on any changes to the approved funding profile that negatively
impacts the project.
Continue monthly PARS II reporting (including earned value data). FPD, Program Manager and
PM will provide monthly assessments.
Continue QPRs with the PME or their designee.
A-12 11-29-2010

Post CD-2 Approval Post CD-2 Approval
Annually conduct project peer reviews for projects with a TPC > $100M.
NOTES:
4. Per 10 CFR 830.206(b), a major modification of an existing Hazard Category 1, 2 or 3 nuclear facility requires DOE
approval of the nuclear safety design criteria to be used in the PDSA, unless the contractor uses the design criteria in
DOE O 420.1, Facility Safety. Per DOE-STD-1189-2008, a SDS must be developed that addresses: (1) the need for a
CSDR as well as the required PDSA, to support project phases; (2) the graded content of the PDSA necessary to
support the design and modification; (3) the application of nuclear safety design criteria; and (4) the interface with the
existing facility, its operations, and construction activities.
(2) Optional budget request process for construction projects. Upon PME
approval, a construction project can submit a line item budget request
prior to CD-2 approval, provided the PME accepts the following
conditions:
• Project will document the strategy to request funds prior to CD-2

approval in the AS and preliminary PEP.
• Construction funds cannot be expensed until the approval of

CD-2 and CD-3, with exception of CD-3A, approval for long lead
procurement, where applicable.
• CD-2 approval is obtained within one year following OMB

budget submission to Congress. Typically, there are no
exceptions and subsequent budget requests would not be allowed
until CD-2 approval.
• If CD-2 approval is not achieved within one year following

budget submission, any future budget requests for construction
must be approved by the CE through the ESAAB process.
• A default original performance baseline (or TPC) will be

established equivalent to the top-end range at CD-1 with the
initial budget submission. At that time, a funding profile will be
established and included in the PDS to support this default cost
baseline.
• This original PB is refined with formal CD-2 approval and cannot

exceed the top-end range established at CD-1. The project
11-29-2010 A-13
funding profile will be modified accordingly to align with the

CD-2 cost baseline.
• If the ultimate CD-2 breaches the top-end cost range established

at CD-1, approval to continue the project will be obtained from
the CE through the ESAAB process.
• If long lead procurement is needed upon budget submission,

pursue CD-3A with the PME. (The default CD-2 performance
baseline [or TPC] is the upper limit of the CD-1 cost range.)
(3) Execution typically comprises the longest and most costly phase of the
project, but is only a fraction of the total life-cycle cost of a project.
Value Management (VM) and VE techniques, as appropriate, should be
used to ensure that the most effective life-cycle solutions are
implemented. Refer to OMB Circular A-131.
d. CD-3, Approve Start of Construction/Execution.
CD-3 is a continuation of the execution phase. The project is ready to complete

all construction, implementation, procurement, fabrication, acceptance and
turnover activities. Table 2.3 lists the requirements needed to attain CD-3.

Approve updated CD-2 Project Documentation that reflects major changes from Final Design, CE or PME
the PEP, PB, AS, and PDS/funding documents for MIE and OE funds.
Complete and review the Final Design for non-nuclear facilities and less than Hazard Category
3 nuclear facilities.
• Incorporate the Guiding Principles for Federal Leadership in High Performance and
Sustainable Buildings per EO 13693, Section 3(h), sustainability requirements per
DOE O 436.1, and/or other sustainability considerations into the Final Design and the
EIR. (Refer to DOE G 413.3-6A.)
Employ a certified Earned Value Management System compliant with EIA-748C, or as required Certified by:
by the contract. (Refer to DOE G 413.3-10A.) PM ≥ $100M
Perform an External Independent Review by PM for Construction or Execution Readiness on all PM ≥ $750M
Major System Projects. (Refer to DOE G 413.3-9.) PMSO < $750M
Perform an Independent Project Review by the appropriate PMSO for Non-Major System
Projects unless justification is provided and a waiver is granted by the PME.
For projects with a TPC ≥ $100M, PM will develop an Independent Cost Estimate.
recommendations to the ESAAB, CE, or PME, as appropriate, before approval. PME < $750M
A-14 11-29-2010

For Major System Projects where a significant critical technology element modification occurs PSO
subsequent to CD-2, conduct a Technology Readiness Assessment, as appropriate. (Refer to
DOE G 413.3-4A.)
Update the Hazard Analysis Report for facilities that are below the Hazard Category 3 nuclear Field Organization
facility threshold as defined in 10 CFR Part 830, Subpart B, based on new hazards and design
information.
Prior to start of construction, prepare a Construction Project Safety and Health Plan4 in Field Organization
accordance with 10 CFR Part 851, Appendix A, Section 1(d). This plan must be kept current
during construction.
Update the Quality Assurance Program for construction, field design changes, and procurement
activities. (Refer to 10 CFR Part 830, Subpart A, DOE O 414.1D, and DOE G 413.3-2.)
Finalize the Security Vulnerability Assessment Report, if necessary. (Refer to DOE O 470.4B
and DOE G 413.3-3A.)
Post CD-3 Approval
Commit all the resources necessary, within the funds provided and within the TPC, to execute
the project.
For projects with a TPC ≥ $100M, the PMRC will review and analyze the PB deviation CE ≥ $750M
disposition request and make recommendations to the ESAAB, CE, or PME, as applicable, PME < $750M
before approval. The resulting BCP must also be presented to the PMRC before convening an
ESAAB.
Within 90 days, submit Lessons Learned regarding up-front project planning and design to PSO
and PM.
Update PDS, or other funding documents for MIE and OE, and A-11 Business Case, if
applicable. (Refer to DOE CFO Budget Call for PDS and Business Case Template.)
Conduct EVMS surveillance to ensure compliance with EIA-748C, or as defined in the contract. Conducted by:
Contractor must conduct the surveillance annually. PM ≥ $100M
Continue monthly PARS II reporting (including earned value data). FPD, Program Manager and
PM will provide monthly assessments.
Continue QPRs with the PME or their designee.
Continue annual project peer reviews for projects with a TPC > $100M.
NOTES:
4. For Environmental Management Clean-up Projects, refer to 29 CFR 1910.120.
11-29-2010 A-15
e. CD-4, Approve Start of Operations or Project Completion.
CD-4 is the achievement of the project completion criteria defined in the PEP,
the approval of transition to operations, and it marks the completion of the
execution phase. The approval of CD-4 is predicated on the readiness to operate
and/or maintain the system, facility, or capability. Transition and turnover does
not necessarily terminate all project activity. In some cases, it marks a point
known as Beneficial Occupancy Date (BOD) at which the operations
organizations assume responsibility for starting operations and maintenance. The
CE or PME approves CD-4 upon notification from the project team that all
project completion criteria defined in the PEP have been met. The document
signed by the CE or PME approving CD-4 must clearly specify the scope
accomplished, the TPC, KPPs met, and the completion date (month and year) as
it relates to the original CD-2 performance baseline and latest approved baseline
change. The date the CE or PME signs the document represents the CD-4
completion date. Table 2.4 lists the requirements needed to attain CD-4.

Verify that Key Performance Parameters and Project Completion Criteria have been met and FPD
that mission requirements have been achieved. The FPD will verify and document the scope
accomplished, TPC, KPPs met, and the completion date as it relates to the original CD-2
performance baseline and the latest approved baseline change.
Issue a Project Transition to Operations Plan3 that clearly defines the basis for attaining initial
operating capability, full operating capability, or project closeout, as applicable. The plan will
include documentation, training, interfaces, and draft schedules. (Refer to DOE G 413.3-16A.)
For non-nuclear projects, conduct a formal assessment of the project's Readiness to Operate, as
appropriate. Determine the basis for DOE acceptance of the asset and if the facility or area can
be occupied from both a regulatory and a work function standpoint. Establish a beneficial
occupancy/utilization date for the facility and/or equipment.
Finalize the Hazard Analysis Report for facilities that are below the Hazard Category 3 Field Organization
threshold as defined in 10 CFR Part 830, Subpart B.
Revise the Environmental Management System in accordance with DOE O 436.1, as
appropriate.
If applicable, complete and submit Contractor Evaluation Documents to the PME, the
appropriate PSO, Federal procurement office, and PM in accordance with FAR 42.15.
Conduct an Operational Readiness Review (ORR) or Readiness Assessment (RA) for Hazard
Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities in accordance with DOE O 425.1D and
DOE-STD-3006-2010.
Prepare the Documented Safety Analysis3 with Technical Safety Requirements for Hazard SBAA via the SER
Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities. (Refer to 10 CFR Part 830, Subpart B.)
A-16 11-29-2010

Prepare a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) based on a review of the Documented Safety
Analysis and Technical Safety Requirements for Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities.
(Refer to 10 CFR Part 830, Subpart B.)
For nuclear facilities, the Code of Record must be included as part of the turnover
documentation from a design and construction phase contractor to the operating phase
contractor; from an operating phase contractor to the decommissioning phase contractor; and
when a change in contractor occurs during any single life-cycle phase and is maintained under
configuration control.
Post CD-4 Approval
Finalize PARS II reporting (including reporting earned value data through completion of the
PMB).
Within 90 days, submit Lessons Learned regarding project execution and facility start-up to
PSO and PM.
Within 90 days, submit an Initial Project Closeout Report.

NOTES:
4. For Environmental Management Clean-up Projects, refer to 29 CFR 1910.120.
f. Project Closeout.
After the project is complete, the next step is project closeout. Project Closeout
provides a determination of the overall closure status of the project, contracts,
regulatory drivers, and fiscal condition. After CD-4 approval, the project is
required to complete the activities listed in Table 2.5.
Table 2.5 Project Closeout Requirements1

Prior to Project Closeout Approval Authority2
Perform final administrative and financial closeout. Prepare the final Project Closeout Report
once all project costs are incurred and invoiced and all contracts are closed. The report includes
final cost details as required to include claims and claims settlement strategy where appropriate.
Complete and document achievement of Facility Sustainment goals (e.g., LEED Gold, LEED
Silver, etc.), as applicable, via an independent third-party entity within one year of facility
occupancy in accordance with EO 13693, Section 3(h), EO 13514, Section 3, and
DOE O 436.1.
11-29-2010 A-17
Table 2.5 Project Closeout Requirements1

Prior to Project Closeout Approval Authority2
Establish and/or update the property record in the Facilities Information Management System
(FIMS) for all construction of or modifications to real property. Adjust the site’s Ten Year Site
Plan. (Refer to DOE O 430.1B.)
NOTES:
5. Application of Requirements for Different Circumstances.
Although most DOE projects will follow the requirements outlined in this Order, there
are some differing project situations where customizing the process is beneficial:
a. Environmental Management Cleanup Projects.
When the Department, Congress or a regulatory agreement transfers or formally

assigns cleanup responsibilities for a parcel of land or facilities to EM for
cleanup, this will serve as the basis for a “Mission Need” in support of CD-0
approval by the PME. Characterization and analysis efforts are considered
operational activities and shall be conducted prior to selecting scope and
performance parameters and establishing a PB. Any project costs that occur after
CD-0 and prior to CD-4 approval are considered to be part of the project’s TPC.
Normally, CD-1/2/3 will be accomplished simultaneously, since project
requirements (e.g., baseline development) and associated environmental
documents (e.g., regulatory agreements) are finalized in unison. See
DOE G 413.3-8 for additional guidance.
b. Design-Build Projects.
To address potential mission impacts, aggressive risk mitigation strategies are

required for close-coupled or fast-tracked design-build projects. Risk
management strategies must be outlined in the RMP and at a minimum must
address:
• All technical uncertainties;
• The establishment of design margins to address the unique nature of the

design; and
• Increased technical oversight requirements.

A-18 11-29-2010
The PDS must be submitted for the budget year in which the Design-Build
contract is to be awarded and must include the costs of design as part of the
TPC. The PSO may budget for PED funds if there is a need to develop
significant performance or technical specifications for the project. For
Design-Build projects, PED funds may be used for the design of line item
projects and may be used to develop a statement of work or a request for
proposal; whereas, operating funds are used for MIE or OE projects.
c. Projects Requiring Long-Lead Procurement.
It may be necessary to obtain CD-3 approval early, namely CD-3A, for long-lead
item procurement. When exercising long-lead procurement, the FPD must
consider design maturity and the associated project risk. If the long-lead item is
nuclear safety-related or nuclear safety-related equipment, safety document
maturity must also be considered. A budget document, such as a PDS, should be
submitted within the budget process requesting construction funds to procure
long lead items or indicating the use of PED funds for long-lead procurement.
This is the only instance when a CD action may be taken out of sequence (i.e.,
CD-3A in advance of CD-2). Activities such as site preparation work, site
characterization, limited access, safety and security issues (i.e., fences) are often
necessary prior to CD-3, and may be pursued as long as project documents such
as a PDS requesting construction or PED funds to procure the long-lead items
and funding approvals are in place. The default CD-2 performance baseline (or
TPC) is the upper limit of the CD-1 cost range. This represents that project
execution has started, but only for the procurement of specified long-lead items.
d. Commissioning of Capital Asset Projects for Nuclear/Chemical Process

Facilities.
For projects involving nuclear/chemical processes, Program Offices shall define

a capital asset project as completed (CD-4) in a PEP. The Program Office must
determine if hot commissioning (i.e., introduction of radioactive material) is a
condition of CD-4. Ultimately, the capital asset must have the capability to meet
the end-state capacity requirements approved in the CD-2 decision by the
respective PME, but not as a condition of CD-4.
e. Alternative Financing.
In some instances, Alternative Financing may be the most appropriate method to

obtain use of capital assets. In these instances, it is required that CD-0 and CD-1
approval be attained so that a full evaluation of the mission need and the
alternatives can be accomplished. If alternative financing is selected and
approved, further compliance with this Order will not be required. At that time,
other policies, laws and regulations will apply. For further details, refer to DOE
Acquisition Guide, Subchapter 70.3270 and DOE G 430.1-7.
11-29-2010 A-19
6. Baseline Management.
a. Performance Baseline Deviation.
A performance baseline deviation occurs when the approved TPC, CD-4

completion date, or performance and scope parameters cannot be met. This
includes any disaggregation of scope in an effort to establish a smaller discrete
project (or projects) for the immediate or at a later date. The FPD must promptly
notify management whenever project performance indicates the likelihood of a
PB deviation. When a deviation occurs, the approving authority must make a
specific determination whether to terminate the project or establish a new PB by
requesting the FPD to submit a BCP.
Additionally, all PB deviation decisions must be reported to the CE and PM. New
PBs to be established because of a deviation must be validated by PM for projects
with a TPC greater than or equal to $100M and by the PMSO for projects with a
TPC less than $100M. In circumstances where a PB deviation is beneficial to the
project—such as a lower TPC, earlier completion date, or significant scope
enhancements, a validation of the PB deviation or approval by the PSO is not
required.
When the Integrated Project Team (IPT), Program Office or independent

oversight offices determine the Performance Baseline scope, schedule, or cost
thresholds will be breached, the Program Office is required to conduct an
independent and objective root cause analysis to determine the underlying
contributing causes of cost overruns, schedule delays, and performance
shortcomings. The root cause analysis will be provided to the PME as part of the
rebaselining process to inform the PME’s decision of whether to terminate or
proceed with the project. Corrective actions shall be identified and presented to
the PME for action approval.
b. Performance Baseline Changes.
A performance baseline change represents an irregular event which should be

avoided to the maximum extent. Table 3 identifies when a deviation must be
approved by the CE. The approval by the CE does not constitute approval of
individual contract changes and modifications. If a contract change is necessary,
the contracting officer has exclusive authority to issue changes and modify
contracts, but only if the changes or modifications comply with regulatory and
statutory requirements. It is critical that the FPD and the contracting officer
ensure that changes to the contract are identified, issued, administered, and
managed in a timely manner over the life of the project and contract. The
performance baseline change process should not be used to circumvent proper
change control management (refer to DOE G 413.3-20) and contract management.
The document signed by the CE approving the BCP must clearly specify the
A-20 11-29-2010
project’s revised PB, which includes the TPC, CD-4 date (month and year), scope
and minimum KPPs that must be achieved at CD-4.
Table 3. Performance Baseline Change Authority

Performance Baseline Changes Requiring CE Approval
Major System and Non-Major System Projects
Any change in scope and/or performance that affect the ability to

Technical
satisfy the mission need or are not in conformance with the current
approved PEP and PDS.
OR
Increase in excess of the lesser of $100M or 50% (cumulative) of

Cost
the original CD-2 cost baseline.
In addition, the CE must endorse any reduction in funding that adversely affects
the project's approved funding profile for all non-Major System Projects and
previously approved CE BCP actions. PM shall be notified of these funding
decrements. The CE and PM shall be notified of all:
• Schedule delays that breach the original PB by greater than 12 months; or
• Post-CD-2 projects that get terminated; or
• Capital asset projects, regardless of value, no longer able to meet the

Department's objective (see Appendix A, Paragraph 1).
The Under Secretaries are the approval authorities for PB changes below CE
approval level. These approval authorities may not be delegated below the PSOs.
New PB or PMB approval thresholds and authorities should be documented in the
PEP for project changes below the thresholds identified above. These approval
levels must be incorporated into the change control process for each project.
Decrements to approved PB funding profiles must be endorsed by the PME. In
circumstances where a PB change is beneficial to the project, such as a lower
TPC, earlier completion date, or significant scope enhancements, PB changes can
be approved at lower levels as designated in the PEP.
c. Directed Changes.
Directed changes are caused by DOE policy directives (such as those that have
the force and effect of law and regulation), regulatory, or statutory actions and are
initiated by entities external to the Department, to include external funding
reductions. Directed change decisions are reviewed and verified by PM and OMB
and follow the appropriate baseline management process.
11-29-2010 A-21
d. Change Control.
Change control, as defined in the PEP, ensures that project changes are identified,
evaluated, coordinated, controlled, reviewed, approved/disapproved, and
documented in a manner that best serves the project. One key goal of change
control is to ensure that PB thresholds are not exceeded. Approval authority for
changes depends upon the estimated impact(s) of the change and can range from
the contractor to the CE, usually with the involvement and support of a Change
Control Board (CCB). The CCB membership, authorities, thresholds, and
procedures should be detailed or referenced within the PEP.
e. Contract Modifications for New Performance Baseline, if Applicable.
Prior to approval of a baseline change by the PME, the FPD shall coordinate with
the Contracting Officer to identify the specific contract changes that may be
required, develop an Independent Government Cost Estimate (refer to FAR
36.203 and FAR 15.406-1), establish a schedule for receipt of a contractor's
proposal(s), obtain audit support, and ensure the timely analysis, negotiation, and
execution of contract modification(s) that comply with regulatory and statutory
requirements.
f. Cancellations of Projects.
If a project is to be cancelled at any point after CD-0, the respective PME shall
approve a cancellation decision and PARS II will be updated to reflect the
cancellation of the project. For all post CD-2 cancellations, a formal written
notification shall be issued to the Under Secretary and the Office of the Chief
Financial Officer (CFO) via PM. The formal written notification shall outline the
reasons for the cancellation, how the mission need will be impacted, and a
disclosure of all funds expended prior to the cancellation and the costs associated
with the cancellation. The CE shall be similarly notified of all post CD-2
cancellations.
7. Energy Systems Acquisition Advisory Board.
The purpose of the Energy Systems Acquisition Advisory Board (ESAAB) is to support
the Department of Energy’s strategic objective of achieving and maintaining excellence in
project management. The ESAAB advises the Secretary, Chief Executive for Project
Management, and Departmental Project Management Executives on enterprise-wide
project management policy and issues and assists the CE on critical on CD milestones for
Major System Projects and PB deviation dispositions with a TPC of $750M or greater. The
ESAAB will be supported by the Project Management Risk Committee (PMRC), which
provides enterprise-wide project management risk assessment and expert advice.
The ESAAB will not be responsible for project implementation and execution, which
remains with the CE, PME, project owner, and FPD. The authority for approving CDs for
A-22 11-29-2010
Major System Projects will continue to reside with the CE and for non-Major System
Projects will continue to reside with the appropriate PME. The ESAAB’s role is to provide
recommendations to the CE at those CD points and to the CE and PME at any other times
as needed.
The ESAAB will convene at least quarterly to review all capital asset projects with a TPC
of $100M or greater, focusing in particular on projects at risk of not meeting their PBs;
discuss project management and project execution across the Department; and, if
applicable, provide recommendations to the CE on CD milestones for Major System
Projects. The ESAAB shall meet as often as deemed necessary for the execution of the
ESAAB’s functions. A call for a special ESAAB can also be made when an unforeseen
review of a capital asset project is required. During these quarterly meetings, the ESAAB
will meet with the PMRC and be briefed by the Chair of the PMRC or others as designated
by the Chair.
Based on analysis provided by the program and other project management organizations,
and any additional input from the committee, the ESAAB will evaluate project scope,
cost and schedule estimates, management oversight processes, technical readiness, and
other issues (including organization and staffing) that may have a material bearing on a
project’s successful delivery. In addition to the PMRC, the ESAAB may also identify and
advise on uncertainties and risk factors affecting successful project execution as well as
on compliance with applicable project management policies and procedures. To support
the ESAAB’s efforts, the ESAAB will have access to all relevant project-related
information and data, including any PMRC analyses.
The ESAAB shall advise the CE on decisions related to CD milestones, including

baseline change proposals and other matters as appropriate. The ESAAB shall review
Major System Projects before all CDs and baseline change proposals are presented to the
CE using information and data provided by the program and other project management
organizations, including the PMRC. The PMRC, the cognizant FPD, and/or others, as
appropriate, will brief the ESAAB as part of each ESAAB’s review of projects for CDs.
The ESAAB may request additional information and analyses from other individuals and
organizations with project responsibilities, including Departmental staff.
a. ESAAB Membership. The members are (including anyone acting in such

capacity):
(1) Deputy Secretary, Chair
(2) Under Secretary for Management and Performance
(3) Under Secretary for Science and Energy
(4) Under Secretary for Nuclear Security
(5) General Counsel

11-29-2010 A-23
(6) Chief Financial Officer
(7) Chief Information Officer
(8) Senior Procurement Executive, as appropriate
(9) Executive Director, Loan Program Office
(10) Director, Office of Project Management Oversight and Assessments, Office

of the Under Secretary of Management and Performance (Secretariat)
(11) Chair of the Project Management Risk Committee
(12) The Secretary or Deputy Secretary may designate other PSOs or functional
staff as ESAAB members (temporary or permanent) as needed.
The Deputy Secretary will serve as the Chair and the Under Secretary for Management
and Performance will serve as the Vice Chair. In the event that the Deputy Secretary
position is vacant or the Deputy Secretary is recused from a matter involving the ESAAB
or is otherwise unable to attend an ESAAB meeting, the position of the Chair of the
ESAAB shall be filled by the Vice Chair. In the event that the Under Secretary for
Management and Performance position is vacant, the Secretary shall designate a Vice
Chair from among the members. In the event that both the Deputy Secretary and Under
Secretary for Management and Performance positions are vacant, the position of the
Chair shall be filled by the Secretary. The Chair may elect for the Vice Chair to convene
an ESAAB meeting to review a CD and to transmit the recommendation of the ESAAB
to the Chair.
In the case of all members of the ESAAB (except the Chair), if the individual is recused
from matters involving the ESAAB or is otherwise unable to attend an ESAAB meeting,
or if the position is vacant, their deputy (or if applicable, their principal deputy) shall
serve as an ESAAB member.
A simple majority of the ESAAB shall constitute a quorum. The ESAAB may invite
other federal Departmental officials or employees to participate in meetings or supply
information.
The ESAAB will document its recommendations and provide analysis prepared in
support of recommendations to the CE, PME, and other officials, as appropriate. The
ESAAB members will vote on all recommendations to the CE, PME, and other officials.
Recommendations by the ESAAB shall be made by majority vote and the votes will be
recorded in the minutes of the ESAAB meetings.
b. “Paper” ESAAB: Streamlined ESAAB Process.
In circumstances where the acquisition action is of relatively low monetary value,

low risk, and requires non-controversial decisions (i.e., baseline deviation and CD
A-24 11-29-2010
approvals) that need CE or PME approval, a streamlined ESAAB achieves the

required staff coordination and approval without convening a formal meeting of
all ESAAB members. This process should be considered, when the following
parameters are met:
(1) A Program Office requests PM to consider a streamlined ESAAB in lieu

of a formal ESAAB meeting;
(2) PM will determine: (1) if a streamlined ESAAB is appropriate; (2) level of

inter-office coordination required; and
(3) At a minimum, all streamlined ESAABs will be coordinated with PM,

CIO, CFO, and the Office of the General Counsel with the expectation of
expeditious review. If issues cannot be resolved within 15 days of
document submission to ESAAB members, PM will forward the issues to
the Deputy Secretary for final decision.
c. ESAAB Issue Resolution.
To ensure timely decision making, if open issues cannot be resolved in 15

calendar days following an ESAAB, PM will forward the issues to the Deputy
Secretary for final decision.
d. ESAAB Secretariat.
The ESAAB Secretariat resides in PM and provides administrative and analytical

support and recommendations to the ESAAB. When performing the Executive
Secretariat duties, the Director of PM is accountable to the Deputy Secretary. The
Executive Secretariat will prepare and coordinate all briefing materials in
collaboration with appropriate programs, and record and maintain all minutes of
the ESAAB meetings.
e. Non-Major System Project Advisory Boards.
The designated PME will appoint an Advisory Board to provide advice and
recommendations on actions for projects that are not designated as Major System
Projects. The designated PME is the Chair of the Advisory Board. The Advisory
Board replicates and conducts identical functions to those performed by the
ESAAB. Members may be selected from within the PME's organization.
However, at least one member from an office not under the PME will be
designated as a contributing representative. PM will not be a Board member for
projects with a TPC less than $750M, but must be invited to attend the Advisory
Board meetings. The implementing documentation (including CD and BCP
approval memoranda) and composition of each Advisory Board along with
meeting agendas and minutes will be provided to PM.
11-29-2010 A-25
f. Project Management Risk Committee.
The purpose of the PMRC is to support the Department of Energy’s strategic

objective of excellence in project management. The Committee will leverage
existing capabilities to provide enterprise-wide project management risk
assessment and expert advice to the Secretary, CE, PME and the ESAAB on cost,
schedule and technical issues regarding capital asset projects with a TPC of $100M
or greater. Upon request of the CE, PME, or ESAAB, the Committee will also
address projects with a TPC less than $100M that are at risk of not meeting their
performance baseline.
The Committee will not be responsible for project implementation and execution,
which remains with the CE, PME, project owner, and FPD. The authority for
approving CDs for Major System Projects will continue to reside with the CE and
for non-Major System Projects will continue to reside with the appropriate PME.
The Committee’s role is to provide recommendations to the CE, PME and ESAAB
at those CD points and at any other time as needed.
The Committee shall be an integral part of the ESAAB and shall advise the CE,
PME and ESAAB on decisions related to CD milestones, baseline change
proposals, and other matters as appropriate. They will also provide on-going
monitoring and assessments of projects throughout the CD process. In addition, the
Committee will review project management policies and procedures, including the
implementation of this Order, for Department-wide application and provide the
Secretary, CE, PME and ESAAB with expert advice. This includes assuring that
clear, strong Departmental functional responsibility extends from the PME to the
project owner to the FPD, and ensuring that issues are appropriately flagged and
elevated early so that they may be appropriately addressed. Finally, the committee
will enable the sharing of best practices and lessons learned information on a
routine basis. To support the Committee’s efforts, access to all project-related
information and data will be made available from project assessment and data
collections frameworks.
To support the committee’s efforts, access to all project-related information and

data will be made available from project assessment and data collections
frameworks.
Project Assessments. The committee will assess, on a periodic basis, reviews that
have been conducted at the Under Secretarial level, and advise the CE, PME,
ESAAB and other program officials on project performance. These assessments
will complement, but not duplicate or replace, the ongoing peer review processes
within the Under Secretaries’ organizations. The committee shall conduct more
frequent and detailed assessments of higher risk projects, and provide advice and
assistance to the CE, PME and ESAAB on a regular basis.
A-26 11-29-2010
The committee will utilize project analyses conducted by the programs and other
project management organizations to assess projects and advise the senior
leadership on appropriate actions to address and mitigate risks associated with
project scope, cost and schedule estimates, management oversight processes,
technical readiness, and other issues (including organization and staffing) that may
have a material bearing on the project’s successful implementation. The committee
will also identify and advise on uncertainties and risk factors affecting successful
project implementation as well as on compliance with applicable project
management policies and procedures.
Assessment of CD proposals and Baseline Change Proposals. The committee will

use information and data provided by the program and other project management
organizations to review and analyze projects before all CDs and BCP are presented
to the CE, PME, or ESAAB. As appropriate, the respective FPD or designated
program representative (prior to CD-1) will brief the committee as part of the
assessment process. The committee may request additional information and
analyses from the CE, PME and other individuals with project responsibilities,
including both Departmental staff and contractor managers. The committee, the
respective FPD, and/or others, as appropriate, will brief the ESAAB as part of the
ESAAB’s review process for CDs. The committee will perform its assessments to
support the CD milestone schedule established by the project owners such that the
committee does not unnecessarily delay CDs if there are no issues.
The assessments may address, but are not limited to:
• Alternatives analysis to ensure that all viable options are thoroughly

considered and the best alternative is recommended (CD-1)
• Scope, schedule, cost, design maturity level, and technology readiness level
to ensure they are appropriate prior to establishing a project baseline
(CD-2)
• Construction readiness to ensure the project is prepared to begin

construction (CD-3)
• Operational readiness to make certain a project is ready to start operations

(e.g., evaluating Operational Readiness Reviews) (CD-4)
Strengthening Peer Reviews. To enhance the peer review process, each Under
Secretary’s Office of Project Assessments will provide sufficient notice to the
committee regarding upcoming peer reviews. The committee will advise on
planned peer reviews, as needed, to ensure review groups are focused on pressing
issues, and recommend review team members, as appropriate. The committee will
evaluate results of the reviews as well as related corrective actions.
11-29-2010 A-27
Independent Assessments. The committee may recommend to the CE, PME or

ESAAB that an independent assessment of a project be conducted.
Advising Senior Leadership. The Committee will meet at least quarterly with the
ESAAB to review all capital asset projects with a TPC of $100M or greater with a
focus on projects at risk of not meeting their performance baselines, discuss project
management across the Department, and, if applicable, provide recommendations
to the ESAAB on CD milestones for projects under the Committee’s purview. The
Chair of the Committee or others as designated by the Chair will brief the ESAAB
at the quarterly meetings. The Committee may also recommend to the Secretary,
CE or ESAAB that the ESAAB review and advise on matters brought to its
attention by the Committee.
Membership. The Secretary shall appoint the members of the committee. All
committee members shall be federal employees who are experts in their
representative fields or senior leaders with significant decision-making authorities.
Standing members shall include:
(1) Associate Deputy Secretary (or other Senior Advisor designated by the
Secretary)
(2) Director, Office of Project Management Oversight and Assessments,

Office of the Under Secretary for Management and Performance
(Secretariat)
(3) Director, Office of Project Assessments, Office of the Under Secretary of

Management and Performance
(4) Deputy Assistant Secretary for Acquisition and Project Management,

Office of Environmental Management
(5) Director, Office of Project Assessment, Office of Science
(6) Deputy Director for Science Programs, Office of Science
(7) Director, Office of Project Assessment, Office of the Under Secretary for
Nuclear Security
(8) Associate Administrator for Acquisition and Project Management, Office

of the Under Secretary for Nuclear Security
(9) Chief Operating Officer, Loan Programs Office or Chief Engineer,

Director of Technical and Project Management, Loan Programs Office
The Secretary will appoint a Chair from among the members. The Chair may
designate a Vice Chair. The Director of PM will serve as the Executive Secretariat
of the PMRC. When performing those duties, the Secretariat will be accountable to
A-28 11-29-2010
the Deputy Secretary. The Executive Secretariat will prepare and coordinate all
briefing materials, in collaboration with appropriate programs, and record and
maintain all minutes of the committee meetings.
In the case of all members of the Committee (except the Chair), if the individual is
recused from matters involving the Committee or is otherwise unable to attend a
Committee meeting, or if the position is vacant, their deputy (or if applicable, their
principal deputy) shall serve as a Committee member.
A simple majority shall constitute a quorum. The committee may invite other
Departmental federal officials or employees to participate in meetings or supply
information.
To the extent reasonable and practicable, recommendations by the Committee shall

be made by consensus, although they may also be made by majority vote or, in the
event there are less than three sitting member, by unanimous vote. Any dissenting
votes will be noted in the minutes of the meetings. The Committee will document
its recommendations and provide analysis prepared in support of its
recommendations to the CE, PME, and ESAAB, as appropriate.
DOE O 413.3B Appendix B
11-29-2010 B-1
APPENDIX B
RESPONSIBILITIES
Three objectives regarding roles and responsibilities that are necessary to achieve defined project
objectives as well as the objectives of this Order are:
• Strengthening line management accountability for successful project management

results;
• Clearly defining the roles, responsibilities, authority, and accountability of the Federal
Project Management Team relative to the contractor Project Management Team; and
• Developing effective IPTs to assist the FPD in planning, programming, budgeting, and
successfully acquiring capital assets.
Line managers are responsible for successfully developing, executing, and managing projects
within the approved PB. Delegation of authority from one line manager to a lower-level line
manager must be documented and consistent with DOE delegation authorities and the
qualifications of the lower-level line manager. Although the authority and responsibility for
decision-making may be delegated to a lower-level manager, the senior manager remains
accountable for the decisions made by subordinate managers.
Clear roles, responsibilities and accountabilities among the project’s owner, line management
organizational elements, and support staff organizations shall be documented in the preliminary
project execution plan at CD-1 and updated during subsequent changes to the PEP.
Key roles and responsibilities of line managers are described in the following sections:
1. Deputy Secretary (Chief Executive for Project Management).
a. Serve as the Chief Executive responsible and accountable for all project
acquisitions.
b. Exercise decision-making authority, including CDs for all Major System Projects.
c. Ensure that the FPDs appointed for Major System Projects are qualified,
experienced, and have appropriate communication skills and leadership
characteristics prior to designation.
d. Identify special interest projects and ensure senior executive-level quarterly

reviews are provided for those projects.
e. Approve disposition of projects and PB changes at the CE approval level upon PB

deviations.
Appendix B DOE O 413.3B
B-2 11-29-2010
f. Serve as Chair for the ESAAB.
g. Approve site selection for facilities at new sites to include real estate purchases
outside of the current DOE footprint.
h. Conduct quarterly project reviews for Major System Projects, which may be
delegated to the Under Secretaries.
i. Approve exemptions as defined in Paragraph 3.c.(3) and (4).
2. Under Secretaries.
a. Receive PME authority from the CE, as appropriate.
b. Designate a project owner before CD-1.
c. Ensure that the FPDs appointed to Non-Major System Projects are qualified and
have appropriate communication skills and leadership characteristics prior to
designation.
d. Delegate PME authority, as appropriate (refer to Appendix A, Table 1).
e. Exercise decision-making authority, including CDs, functioning as the PME.
f. Hold line accountability for applicable program and capital asset project
execution and implementation of policy.
g. Hold accountability for project-related site environment, safety and health, and
safeguards and security.
h. Serve as Chair and appoint members for Acquisition Advisory Boards.
i. Approve disposition of projects and PB changes below CE approval level upon

PB deviations (may not be delegated below Program Secretarial Officers).
j. Maintain a list of special interest projects and ensure that senior executive-level
quarterly reviews are provided for those projects.
k. Establish PMSO or delegate this responsibility to the Program Secretarial Officer.
l. Address and resolve issues on projects which report to them.
m. Conduct quarterly project reviews when serving as the PME. These reviews may
be delegated to the Program Secretarial Officer.
11-29-2010 B-3
3. Program Secretarial Officers and Deputy Administrators/Associate Administrators for the

NNSA.
a. Hold line accountability for applicable capital asset project execution and
implementation of policy.
b. Hold accountability for project-related site environment, safety and health, and
safeguards and security.
c. Approve MNS documents and AS documents for all capital asset projects (cannot
be delegated).
d. Approve disposition of projects and PB changes below the CE approval level

following PB deviations. If delegated, this authority cannot be further
delegated.
e. Exercise decision-making authority, including CDs, when functioning as PME.
f. Ensure that the FPDs appointed to Non-Major System Projects are qualified
and have the appropriate communication skills and leadership characteristics
prior to designation.
g. Delegate PME functions, as appropriate (refer to Appendix A, Table 1).
h. Nominate FPDs, when the PME is above the Program Secretarial Officer, no
later than CD-1 (can be delegated). The FPD appointment is subject to the
approval of the PME.
i. Approve the IPT charter for Major System Projects.
j. Serve as Chair and appoint members for Acquisition Advisory Boards.
k. Establish PMSO when responsibility is delegated or directed by the Under

Secretaries.
l. Explicitly address integration of safety into design and construction for Hazard
Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities as a key consideration in approval of
project documentation and when functioning as PME.
m. Appoint a Safety Basis Approval Authority no later than CD-0 for projects
including the design and construction of Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear
facilities or for projects including major modifications thereto.
4. Project Owner.
a. Ensure the identification of requirements and request the necessary budget to

support the mission need.
B-4 11-29-2010
b. Request full funding for all new projects, with an estimated TPC of $50M or less,
within a single budget year request, unless justification for less than full funding
is provided to and approved by the ESAAB.
c. Visit the project site and review the progress against key milestones that were
approved as part of the performance baseline.
5. Project Management Support Offices (when established).
a. Provide independent oversight and report directly to the Under Secretaries, or

Program Secretarial Officer, as appropriate.
b. Serve as the Secretariat for the Program Secretarial Officer/NNSA-level

Advisory Board functions.
c. Coordinate quarterly project reports.
d. Perform IPRs, TIPRs, and Project Peer Reviews as requested by the PME or
Program Offices.
e. Develop Program-specific guidance, policies, and procedures.
f. Collect, analyze and disseminate lessons learned and “best practices.”
g. Coordinate with other DOE organizations and offices, including PM, to ensure the
effective and consistent implementation of project management policies and
directives.
h. Provide assistance and oversight to line project management organizations.
i. Analyze project management execution issues.
j. Actively assist senior management on issues related to project management

performance, including implementation of corrective actions.
k. Provide support to the FPDs.
l. Validate the PB for capital asset projects with a TPC less than $100M.
6. Program Managers and Heads of Field Organizations.
a. Direct initial project planning and execution roles for projects assigned by the
PME.
b. Initiate definition of mission need based on input from Sites, Laboratories and
Program Offices.
11-29-2010 B-5
c. Establish the initial IPT in advance of the designation of a FPD.
d. Oversee development of project definition, technical scope and budget to support

mission need.
e. Initiate development of the AS before CD-1 (during the period preceding

designation of the FPD).
f. Perform functions as a PME when so delegated.
g. Develop project performance measures and monitor and evaluate project

performance throughout the project.
h. Allocate resources throughout the program.
i. Oversee the project line management organization and ensure the line project
teams have the necessary experience, expertise, and training in design
engineering, safety and security analysis, construction, and testing.
j. Serve as the FPD until the FPD is appointed.
k. Ensure that performance measures, resource allocations, and project oversight, as

applicable, address integration of safety into design and construction for Hazard
Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities.
l. Review prerequisite documents (as listed in Appendix A, Tables 2.0-2.5) before

each CD submission.
m. Identify which contracts should incorporate the CRD and notify the Contracting
Officer to include the CRD in the contract.
7. Project Management Executives.
The following roles and responsibilities are for illustrative purposes and each designated
PME is guided by the specific limits of their delegated authority (see DOE/NNSA Senior
Procurement Executive for contract award and modification execution authority). There
can only be one designated PME per project.
a. Approve CDs for capital asset projects including CD-2, performance baseline
approval and its associated funding profile.
b. Appoint and chair Acquisition Advisory Boards to provide advice and

recommendations on key project decisions.
B-6 11-29-2010
c. Approve the appointment of the FPD. Ensure that the FPD has the appropriate
qualifications, competencies, and communication and leadership skills prior to
designation by interviewing the proposed FPD for each project. When the FPD is
not a designated career federal civil servant (i.e., contracted project manager) or is
under an Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) Agreement, the CE must
endorse their appointment.
d. For nuclear facilities, designate the Design Authority at CD-1.
e. Monitor the effectiveness of FPDs and their support staff.
f. Approve project changes in compliance with change control levels identified in

PEPs, to include all BCPs and funding profile changes that impact the PB.
g. Conduct quarterly project reviews.
h. Explicitly address integration of safety into design and construction for Hazard
Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities as a key consideration in QPRs and approval
of project CDs.
i. Direct IPRs be conducted.
j. Ensure the FPD has a contracting, construction and design organization(s) that is
prepared to execute the project planned.
k. Ensure the contractor has a competent manager supported by a qualified project

team.
l. Ensure there is adequate skilled staff for federal oversight of the contractor.
m. Visit the project site and review the progress against key milestones that were
approved as part of the performance baseline.
8. Federal Project Director.
Successful performance of DOE projects depends on professional and effective project

management by the FPD. The FPD is accountable to the PME, Program Secretarial Officer
or delegated authority, as appropriate, for the successful execution of the project within a
PB.
The FPD's assigned project must meet cost, schedule and performance targets unless
circumstances beyond the control of the project directly result in cost overruns and/or
delays. FPDs must demonstrate initiative in incorporating and managing an appropriate
level of risk to ensure best value for the government. In cases where significant cost
overruns and/or delays may occur, the FPD must alert senior management in a timely
manner and take appropriate steps to mitigate them.
11-29-2010 B-7
Roles and responsibilities of the FPD's team must be clearly defined relative to the
contractor management team. DOE Guides provide further information. These roles and
responsibilities include:
a. Attain and maintain certification in concert with the requirements outlined in

DOE O 361.1B before they are delegated the authority to serve as FPD and/or
within one year of appointment, achieve the appropriate level of certification.
b. Serve as the single point of contact between Federal and contractor staff for all
matters relating to a project and its performance.
c. Prepare and maintain the IPT Charter and operating guidance with IPT support and
ensure that the IPT is properly staffed. Define and oversee the roles and
responsibilities of each IPT member.
d. Appointed as the Contracting Officer's Representative, as delegated by the

Contracting Officer.
e. Lead the IPT and provide broad project guidance. Delegate appropriate
decision-making authority to the IPT members.
f. Approve the IPT charter for non-Major System Projects.
g. Ensure the development and implementation of key project documentation (e.g.,

the PEP).
h. Define project cost, schedule, performance, and scope baselines.
i. Ensure that design, construction, environmental, sustainability, safety, security,

health and quality efforts performed comply with the contract, public law,
regulations and EOs.
j. Ensure timely, reliable and accurate integration of contractor performance data into
the project's scheduling, accounting, and performance measurement systems, to
include PARS II.
k. Evaluate and verify reported progress; make projections of progress and identify
trends.
l. Approve (in coordination with the Contracting Officer) changes in compliance with
the approved change control process documented or referenced in the PEP.
m. Ensure that safety is fully integrated into design and construction for Hazard
Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities.
B-8 11-29-2010
n. Ensure early warning systems (triggered by thresholds) and communication

channels are in place, so senior leadership is informed of potential project issues in
time to make productive changes.
9. Departmental Staff and Support Offices.
Departmental Staff and Support Offices develop policy and related implementing
guidance, perform review functions, and provide advice and recommendations to
Department leadership. Key roles and responsibilities of these offices regarding the
acquisition of capital assets follow.
10. DOE/NNSA Senior Procurement Executives.
The Senior Procurement Executive (SPE) will:
a. Execute the procurement functions and responsibilities in accordance with the

Office of Federal Procurement Policy and EO 12931.
b. Serve as the principal procurement advisor to the CE, PME and the Chief
Acquisition Officer.
c. Execute certain decisional authorities reserved for the SPE.
d. Exercise general procurement authority.
e. Delegate procurement authority to the Heads of Contracting Activity and

Contracting Officers.
11. Contracting Officer.
The Contracting Officer is the only member of the IPT delegated authority to enter into,
administer, modify, change, and/or terminate contracts. Significant responsibilities are:
a. Serve as the principal procurement advisor to the FPD.
b. Participate in the formulation of the DOE and NNSA Acquisition Strategy and
Acquisition Plan.
c. Work with the IPT to develop solicitations and evaluate and award
mission-oriented contracts.
d. Serve as a standing member of the CCB with sole authority to modify the contract.
e. Work with the IPT to ensure alignment between the PEP and the Contract
Management Plan.
f. Assist in the development of contract cost, schedule and performance incentives.

11-29-2010 B-9
g. Incorporate the applicable clauses, and terms and conditions in the solicitation and
the contract. Ensure that the prime contractor complies with the requirements to
include subcontractor flow down requirements of this Order, FAR clauses and
EVMS-related terms and conditions as identified by the FPD.
12. Office of the Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety and Security.
a. Advise the Deputy Secretary in his/her role as the CE on environmental, safety,

and security matters related to all CD approvals.
b. Serve as a member of the IPR team at the request of the CE, PSO, Program
Manager, Operations/Field Office Manager or FPD.
c. Participate on EIRs, as an observer, at the request of PM.
d. Participate in safety and security documentation and QA reviews for acquisition

projects at the request of PM and/or the PME when considered appropriate.
e. Participate in ORRs or RAs at the request of the line organizations.
f. Support the CTAs as requested.
13. Office of Enterprise Assessments.
Perform targeted reviews of technical processes and products associated with the design
and construction of nuclear facilities.
14. Office of Project Management Oversight and Assessments.
a. Serve as DOE's principal point of contact and advisor relating to project

management.
b. Develop policy, requirements and guidance for the planning and management of
capital asset projects.
c. Assist in the planning, programming, budgeting and execution process for the
acquisition of capital assets in coordination with the Program Secretarial Officer
and PMSO.
d. Support the Office of the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Under Secretaries and
Program Secretarial Officer in the CD process; and oversee the acquisition
management process.
e. Serve as a member and Executive Secretariat for the ESAAB and the PMRC.
When performing the Executive Secretariat duties, the Director of PM-1 is
accountable to the Deputy Secretary.
B-10 11-29-2010
f. Manage the Project Management Career Development Program (PMCDP).
g. Establish, maintain and execute the EVMS Certification and Surveillance

Review processes in accordance with established levels to ensure full
compliance with applicable FAR and OMB requirements.
h. Perform EVMS Certification and Surveillance Reviews of contractors with

projects that have a TPC of $100M or greater and, on an exception basis, or at
the request of the PMSO, of contractors with projects that have a TPC between
$20M and $100M.
i. Review MNS documents for projects with a TPC of $100M or greater.
j. Review the AS for Major System Projects.
k. Maintain a corporate project reporting capability.
l. Establish, maintain and execute a corporate EIR capability to provide an

independent assessment and analysis of project planning, execution and
performance.
m. Validate the PB for all capital asset projects with a TPC greater than or equal to
$100M to permit inclusion in the DOE annual budget.
n. For Major System Projects, conduct an ICR prior to CD-0. For projects with a
TPC of $100M or greater, develop an ICE and/or conduct an ICR prior to CD-1,
develop an ICE prior to CD-2 and CD-3.
15. Integrated Project Team.
a. Support the FPD.
b. Work with the Contracting Officer to develop a project AS and AP, as

applicable.
c. Ensure that project interfaces are identified, defined and managed to completion.
d. Identify, define and manage to completion the project environmental, safety,

health, security, risk and QA requirements.
e. Identify and define appropriate and adequate project technical scope, schedule
and cost parameters.
f. Perform periodic reviews and assessments of project performance and status

against established performance parameters, baselines, milestones and
deliverables.
11-29-2010 B-11
g. Plan and participate in project reviews, audits, and appraisals as necessary.
h. Review all CD packages and recommend approval/disapproval.
i. Review and comment on project deliverables (e.g., drawings, specifications,

procurement, and construction packages).
j. Review change requests, as appropriate, and support CCBs as requested.
k. Participate, as required, in ORRs or RAs.
l. Support preparation, review and approval of project completion and closeout

documentation.
m. Ensure safety is effectively integrated into design and construction as applicable

to each team member's respective functional area for design and construction of
Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities.
16. Central Technical Authorities.
The CTAs are responsible for maintaining operational awareness, especially with
respect to complex, high-hazard nuclear operations and ensuring that the Department's
nuclear safety policies and requirements are implemented adequately and properly (see
DOE O 410.1 for further discussion). In this context, it is important to recognize that the
CTAs have responsibilities related to nuclear safety directives that apply to projects.
The overall roles and responsibilities of the CTAs include:
a. Concur with the determination of the applicability of DOE directives involving

nuclear safety included in contracts pursuant to 48 CFR 970.5204-2(b).
b. Concur with nuclear safety requirements included in contracts pursuant to

48 CFR 970.5204-2.
c. Concur with all exemptions to nuclear safety requirements in contracts that were
added to the contract pursuant to 48 CFR 970.5204-2.
d. Recommend to the Associate Under Secretary for Environment, Health, Safety

and Security issues and proposed resolutions concerning DOE safety
requirements, concur in the adoption or revision of nuclear safety requirements
(including supplemental requirements) and provide expectations and guidance
for implementing nuclear safety requirements for use by DOE employees and
contractors.
e. For DOE nuclear facilities, CTA concurrence is required on the directives

included in requests for proposals for new prime contracts prior to its release and
in revisions to existing prime contracts as per DOE O 410.1.
B-12 11-29-2010
17. Chief of Defense Nuclear Safety and Chief of Nuclear Safety.
The Chiefs (and staff) are responsible for evaluating nuclear safety issues and
providing expert advice to the CTAs and other senior officials (see DOE O 410.1 for
further discussion). For Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities that are not
regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), or as requested by the CTA
or other senior officials for facilities regulated by the NRC, the Chief shall:
a. Provide support to both the CTA and PME regarding the effectiveness of
efforts to integrate safety into design at each of the CDs and as requested
during other project reviews.
b. Ensure that TIPRs and IPRs, as appropriate, evaluate: 1) the qualifications of

IPT members having nuclear safety-related responsibilities, and 2) the effective
implementation of DOE-STD-1189-2008 as applicable for design and
construction of nuclear facilities.
c. For nuclear facilities, concur on the nuclear safety scope and breadth of TIPRs
and IPRs. Ensure that TIPRs and IPRs evaluate the status of project planning to
achieve operational readiness.
d. Advise Safety Basis Approval Authorities and concur with (CNS) or provide
written advice (CDNS) prior to the approval of Safety Design Strategies and
revisions thereto.
18. Project Management Governance Board.
The governance board (and staff) is responsible for evaluating project management
issues and providing resolution to PMSOs and Program Managers. The responsibilities
will be an additional duty to the existing PMCDP certification review board whose
primary function is to certify FPDs.
a. Responsibilities:
(1) Identify issues through PM as the Secretariat.
(2) Provide interpretation or clarification of Order requirements and resolve

413-series Guide issues.
b. Membership:
(1) PM Director and NNSA Associate Administrator for Acquisition and

Project Management, or designees, co-chair the board.
11-29-2010 B-13
(2) One senior representative from each of the PMSOs to include EM, NNSA,
and SC.
(3) PM Deputy Director for Project Management Oversight and Assessments.
(4) PM serves as Secretariat.

DOE O 413.3B Appendix C
11-29-2010 C-1
APPENDIX C
TOPICAL AREAS
1. Project Management Principles. This is the Department's framework for successful

project execution:
a. Line management accountability.
b. Sound, disciplined, up-front project planning.
c. Well-defined and documented project requirements.
d. Development and implementation of sound acquisition strategies that

incorporate effective risk handling mechanisms.
e. Well-defined and managed project scope and risk-based PBs and stable funding
profiles that support original cost baseline execution.
f. Development of reliable and accurate cost estimates using appropriate cost

methodologies and databases.
g. Properly resourced and appropriately skilled project staffs.
h. Effective implementation of all management systems supporting the project

(e.g., quality assurance, integrated safety management, risk management,
change control, performance management and contract management).
i. Early integration of safety into the design process.
j. Effective communication among all project stakeholders.
k. Utilization of peer reviews throughout the life of a project to appropriately

assess and make course corrections.
l. Process to achieve operational readiness is defined early in the project for

Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities.
A project is a unique effort having defined start and end points which is undertaken to
create a product, facility or system. Built on interdependent activities that are planned
to meet a common objective, a project focuses on attaining or completing a deliverable
within a predetermined cost, schedule and technical scope baseline.
All projects entail risk. Generally, the larger and more complex the project, the higher
the probability that the PB may be breached. By dividing larger projects into multiple
smaller projects, the probability of success is generally increased as the duration,
complexity and attendant risks for each project have been reduced. Where appropriate,
Program Offices in coordination with the PME should consider breaking large projects
Appendix C DOE O 413.3B
C-2 11-29-2010
into multiple, smaller, discrete usable projects (mindful of project interfaces) that
collectively meet the mission need. However, the benefits of reduced risk exposure
should be balanced with the potential for increased overhead costs.
Some things to consider when breaking larger projects into multiple smaller projects
prior to establishing PBs (at CD-2):
• Time Horizon: Minimize the time horizon and risk to the maximum extent
possible. Ideally, execution should take no more than four (4) years starting
from CD-3.
• Funding Profile: Develop each project's funding profile to support the optimum
project schedule; fully fund when appropriate, and deliver projects quickly.
• Segregate by Building or Group Similar Types of Facilities: Segregate nuclear

from non-nuclear work; utility systems/buildings from general use facilities;
fixed price work from cost reimbursable work.
• Phase Projects: Execute well-defined, lower-risk, complete and usable projects

first, allowing additional time to advance designs on more complex and/or
technical projects. Project phases should not impede one another. Refer to
Appendix C, Paragraph 27.b.
• Span of Control: Ensure that the planned scope and pace of work is matched to
the capacity and capabilities of the management team.
• Segregate Projects by Geographic Area: Occasionally, projects involve separate

geographic locations with different site conditions, construction workforce
environments, and regulatory and political pressures.
• Workforce Phasing: Phase construction and environmental remediation projects

within the program to take advantage of “leap-frogging” trades (i.e., concrete
workers moving from one project to the next).
A capital asset project can range from the construction of a simple facility, such as a
warehouse, to a group of closely-related projects managed in a coordinated way. This
effort is known as program management.
Selection and designation of a Program Manager (see Appendix B, Paragraph 6) is

critical as they ensure that all their projects are properly phased, funded over time and
that each project manager is meeting their key milestones. Program managers are the
advocate; they ensure proper resourcing and they facilitate the execution process. A
program manager is responsible for managing programmatic risks and putting
mitigation strategies in place to minimize risks to projects. Programmatic risks should
be identified and quantified in terms of cost and/or schedule contingency and
accounted for within one or more of the projects.
11-29-2010 C-3
With multiple smaller projects, there may be a need for additional FPDs, perhaps at
lower certification levels. However, each project, regardless of size, must be led by a
certified FPD. Depending on the project size, an FPD can be assigned to direct one
large project and/or multiple small projects. In addition, the project organizational
structure, roles and responsibilities, and chain of command should be delineated in the
PEP.
2. Acquisition Strategy.
An AS is a key activity formulated by the IPT leading up to CD-1. The AS is the FPD's
overall plan for satisfying the mission need in the most effective, economical and timely
manner. For more details, see FAR 34.004, DOE Acquisition Guide, Chapter 7, and
DOE G 413.3-13.
Supporting the execution of the AS is the procurement strategy that must be documented
in writing as prescribed by FAR 7.1 and for major systems acquisition, FAR 34.004.
While the AS represents a high level plan which is approved through the CD review and
approval process, the information and analysis required as part of an AP, if applicable,
provides greater focus on the analysis and strategies needed to appropriately execute
procurements in accordance with sound business practices, statutory, regulatory and
policy requirements. Typically, the AP will not be formulated until after the CD authority
has selected the programmatic approach as part of CD-1. The review and approval of the
AP resides within the contracting authority of the Senior Procurement Executive or their
designee. Therefore, approval of the AS by the PSO cannot be presumed to constitute
approval of the AP.
While the approval of the AS and the acquisition planning processes may be bifurcated, it
is critical that the planning and formulation are aligned. The early formulation of an IPT
(including the assignment of a contracting officer), the balance in its composition, and
continuity in the membership is critical to the integration and alignment of the AS and
acquisition planning processes.
If an AS includes the acquisition of real property, it must be reviewed by a certified Real

Estate Specialist for regional land use impact and a real property alternative analysis must
be conducted.
3. Analysis of Alternatives.
The responsible program office is required to conduct an analysis of alternatives (AoA)

that is independent of the contractor organization responsible for managing the
construction or constructing the capital asset project. The AoA will be conducted for
projects with an estimated TPC greater than or equal to the minor construction threshold
prior to the approval of CD-1 and may also be conducted when a performance baseline
deviation occurs or if new technologies or solutions become available. This determination
will be made by the PME. The AoA will be consistent with published GAO best
C-4 11-29-2010
practices. Refer to GAO-15-37, DOE and NNSA Project Management: Analysis of

Alternatives Could Be Improved by Incorporating Best Practices.
For projects with an estimated TPC less than $50 million (i.e., representing the upper end
of the cost range), the AoA shall be commensurate with the project cost and complexity.
4. Baseline Clarity.
There is only one original PB and it is documented at CD-2 approval. The PB represents
the Department's commitment to Congress to deliver the project’s defined scope by a
particular date at a specific cost. Cost estimates in advance of CD-2 do not represent such
commitments. Also, there should be clarity over the terms PB and Performance
Measurement Baseline (PMB) as they are different. The former is the project's baseline
and the latter is for use by the EVMS. Refer to DOE G 413.3-10A for further
clarification.
FPDs, contracting officers and program managers are accountable for ensuring contract
and project documentation is complete, up-to-date, and auditable. Project baseline
documentation must clearly define scope, key performance parameters, and the desired
product, capability, and/or result. At project completion, there should be no question
whether the objectives were achieved. Contracts and M&O work authorizations must
clearly reflect project objectives and scope. Changes, especially to project objectives,
need to be executed through a timely, disciplined change control process. Significant
changes should be the exception, rather than the norm.
5. Cost Estimating.
The authority and accountability for any project, including its costs, must be vested
firmly in the hands of the FPD. Some cost estimate, or cost range, should be provided at
each CD gateway, but the degree of rigor and detail for a cost estimate should be
carefully defined, depending on the degree of confidence in project scale and scope that
is reasonable to expect at that stage. Whatever figure or range that is provided should
explicitly note relevant caveats concerning risks and uncertainties inherent in early
estimates at CD-0 and CD-1 stages given the immature requirements definition at this
juncture. A project owner should never be the sole cost estimator, at any stage (i.e., from
CD-0 on), given the inherent conflict of interest. The second cost estimator should come
from outside of the line manager’s chain of command, to avoid conflict of interest.
Established methods and best practices will be used to develop, maintain, monitor, and
communicate comprehensive, well-documented, accurate, credible, and defensible cost
estimates. Cost estimates shall be developed, maintained, and documented in a manner
consistent with methods and the best practices identified in DOE G 413.3-21, GAO Cost
Estimating and Assessment Guide (GAO-09-3SP), and, as applicable, with the Federal
Acquisition Regulation (e.g., FAR Subpart 15.4 – Contract Pricing; FAR Subpart 17.6 –
Management and Operating Contracts), Office of Management and Budget Circular
11-29-2010 C-5
A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget, and Department of Energy
Acquisition Regulation (DEAR) Subpart 915-4 – Contract Pricing.
6. Design Management.
a. Design Management for Nuclear Facilities.
Nuclear construction projects, DOE/NNSA projects that build facilities with

technologies to manage, store, process or handle nuclear materials, shall comply
with DOE-STD-1189-2008 design safety requirements. Projects designated as
Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities shall achieve at least 90 percent
design completion before CD-2.
The objective is to ensure systems, structures, and components, the overall design,
are sufficiently mature to meet project requirements and outcomes and thus
fulfilling the mission need. Design maturity at 90 percent completion will ensure
that a performance baseline is based on a credible cost estimate and achievable
schedule for project completion.
As a minimum, 90 percent design complete includes:
• Complete final drawings and specifications that may be released for bid
and/or construction
• A current and detailed cost estimate
• A current construction schedule
• Clearly defined testing requirements and acceptance criteria for the safety
and functionality of all subsystems
• Independent technical, construction, operation and environmental reviews

of the final drawings and specifications
• A quality control review that evaluates both technical accuracy and

discipline coordination
• A final design that meets all the requirements stipulated in the Code of
Record
• A final design review that should be a final validation of comment

resolution from previous reviews and a review of any additional
developments since the last review
• The checking and verification of any required waivers or exemptions

C-6 11-29-2010
The following design and safety basis documents would also need to be prepared
prior to CD-2:
• Final design report
• Final design review report
• Preliminary documented safety analysis
• Safety evaluation report
b. Design Management for Non-Nuclear Construction.
Non-nuclear project designs shall be sufficiently mature to allow the PME to

ensure achieving a complete, accurate project baseline with 80-90 percent
confidence. At CD-1, a design plan shall establish anticipated levels of design
maturity at each CD through final design. Independent project reviews should
evaluate progress against the design plans established at CD-1.
In addition, for all capital asset projects greater than $100M, the Project
Management Risk Committee (PMRC) will review all project design plans at
CD-1 to ensure design maturity targets at critical milestones are reasonable based
on numerous factors including technology readiness, complexity, total project
cost, and any other relevant factor for the project. Ideally, at CD-2, the objective
is to achieve a design maturity that would be used as a reliable indicator of a
contractor’s actual total costs at completion that would not exceed the original
cost baseline.
c. Design Management Plans for Major System Projects.
To enhance fiscal insight and discipline for major system projects, an estimate of
the required amount of PED funds to execute the planning and design portion of a
project (period from CD-1 to completion of the project’s design) shall be included
in the CD-1 documentation.
As part of the development and approval process for CD-1 for major system
projects, design management plans shall be developed and included in the
approval package. If at any time, through forecasting or actual costs, it becomes
apparent the design cost target will be breached, then the PMRC shall be notified.
7. Design Maturity.
All aspects of a project should be carefully studied to employ an economic and functional
design that is closely tailored to the requirements. Particular attention shall be directed to
advancing design maturity to a sufficient level prior to establishing the PB. The project
design will be considered sufficiently mature when the project has developed a cost
estimate and all relevant organizations have a high degree of confidence that it will
11-29-2010 C-7
endure to project completion. In determining the sufficiency of the design level, factors
such as project size, duration and complexity will be considered.
In conducting EIRs, PM will evaluate the sufficiency of the project's design maturity.
This analysis will serve as a key evaluation factor in formulating its recommendation to
validate a project PB. In addition, when approving a CD, the PME should consider the
sufficiency of the design maturity.
Project design is a process of preparing design and construction documents that result in
fully integrated solutions. For a design to succeed, the entire project team must be
involved in the process from project inception through delivery. The Pre-Conceptual
Design stage denotes the development and documentation of the functional parameters or
capabilities that the potential project must meet. The development of criteria, which are
complete and specifically related to the project requirements, allows for orderly
development of the design. However, care shall be taken to avoid citing superfluous
codes and standards; the primary purpose of functional criteria is to narrow the criteria to
only those applicable to specific alternatives or options. These functional criteria are
further developed, validated, and expanded during the conceptual design stage.
The conceptual design process must ensure that a solution or alternatives are not only
responsive to an approved need, but also technically achievable, affordable and will
provide the best value to the Department. Research, development, testing and other
efforts may be required to finalize a concept. The conceptual design process may also
require negotiation with outside organizations, stakeholders or other legal entities on
functional, technical, operational and performance requirements or standards. VM is a
key process that supports reaching the best cost and benefit life-cycle cost alternative.
VM should be employed as early as possible so that recommendations can be included in
the planning and implemented without delaying the project or causing significant rework
of designs. VM conducted during the early phases of a project yield the greatest cost
reductions. At a minimum, the Conceptual Design shall develop the following:
• Scope required to satisfy the Program mission requirements;
• Project feasibility;
• Attainment of specified performance levels;
• Assessment of project risks and identification of appropriate risk handling

strategies;
• Reliable cost and schedule range estimates for the alternatives considered;
• Project criteria and design parameters;
• Impact on the site Sustainability Plan; and

C-8 11-29-2010
• Identification of requirements and features.
A Conceptual Design Report (CDR) shall be developed that includes a clear and
concise description of the alternatives analyzed, the basis for the alternative selected,
how the alternative meets the approved mission need, the functions and requirements
that define the alternative and demonstrate the capability for success, and the facility
performance requirements, planning standards and life-cycle cost assumptions. The
CDR should also clearly and concisely describe the KPPs that will form the basis of
the PB at CD-2. When the purpose of the project is remediation, restoration, or
demolition, other forms of documenting the requirements and alternative(s) may be
used.
The following are requirements for projects authorized by the annual National Defense
Authorization Act (refer to 50 USC 2744 and 2746 and PL 113-66, Section 3120). These
statutory requirements apply only to projects in support of a national security program of
the Department.
• The Secretary shall submit a request for funds for a conceptual design for a
project if the estimated cost of the conceptual design exceeds $3M.
• The conceptual design for a project shall be completed before requesting funds for
a construction project.
• If the TEC for construction design for a project exceeds $1,000,000, funds for that
design must be specifically authorized by law.
• Construction on a project may not be started, if the current TEC of the project
exceeds by more than 25% the amount shown in the most recent PDS submitted
to Congress.
The Preliminary Design stage initiates the process of converting concepts to a more
detailed design whereby more detailed and reliable cost and schedule estimates are
developed. This stage of the design is complete when it provides sufficient information to
support development of the PB. The appropriate completion percentage is dependent
upon the type of project. For basic facilities, such as administrative buildings, general
purpose laboratories, and utilities, the design does not have to be as mature as for a
complex chemical or nuclear processing facility (as depicted in Figure 3). The design is
mature when a point estimate can be developed and is ready for an independent review.
The determination of a design completion percentage for reporting purposes will be made
by the Architect-Engineer as well as by subsystem designers contracted to do the work,
and/or other IPT members.
11-29-2010 C-9
Figure 3. Facility Design Maturity General Guidelines for CD-2.
Final Design is the last stage of development prior to implementation. The purpose of
the Final Design stage is to prepare final drawings, technical specifications and
contract documents required to obtain bids and quotes for procurement and
construction. The Final Design should include clear statements of testing requirements
and acceptance criteria for the safety and functionality of all subsystems. The project
scope should be finalized and changes (coordinated through a documented and
approved change control process and CCBs) should be permitted only for compelling
reasons (i.e., substantial economies achieved through VE, accommodation of changed
conditions in construction, or reduction in funds or changes in requirements). In any
case, construction should not be allowed to proceed until the design is sufficiently
mature to minimize change orders.
Scientific systems, such as accelerators, detectors, and production and manufacturing

facilities, may not follow a linear design process in which all subsystems reach the same
maturity at the same time. Concurrency in these types of projects increases the risk
because each subsystem design is dependent upon the design maturity of other
subsystems. Projects that have several subsystems may have separate preliminary and
final design stages. Consequently, final designs may be completed at various points in
time in the system development process. Regardless, design reviews should be conducted
C-10 11-29-2010
for all projects and should involve a formalized, structured approach to ensure the
reviews are comprehensive, objective, professional and documented.
Design reviews (including constructability reviews, where appropriate) are a vital

component of the entire process and should be explicitly included in the schedule for the
design effort. Design reviews shall be conducted by reviewers external to the project to
document the completion of conceptual design, preliminary design and final design. The
fundamental purpose of the design review is to ensure the following:
• Quality of the design.
• Operational and functional objectives are met.
• Maintenance of costs within the budget.
• Design is sufficient for the stage of the project, e.g., for final design, the design is
biddable, constructible, and cost-effective.
• Interface compatibility.
• Final contract documents comply with the design criteria.
• A detailed, unbiased, analytical approach is given to all of the above items.
Complete design submittals are required at completion of established design stages;

design and technical reviews shall then be performed. There shall also be a back-check
review at design completion to verify that all comments made during the Final Design
review stage have been addressed.
8. Earned Value Management System.
The Department will adopt project management control best practices equivalent to those
implemented by the Department of Defense (DoD). This includes a DOE version of the
DoD Integrated Program Management Report (IPMR) on projects not associated with a
firm fixed-price contract.
An EVMS is required for all projects with a TPC greater than or equal to $20M. In
accordance with FAR Subpart 52.234-4, a contractor's EVMS will be reviewed for
compliance with EIA-748C, or as required by the contract. (Further details on
establishing, employing, and maintaining a compliant EVMS are found in
DOE G 413.3-10A, EIA-748C, and DOE Integrated Program Management Report
(IPMR) Data Item Description (DID)).
For projects with a TPC less than $100M, the contractor may request an exemption from
the PMSO from using EVMS. For firm fixed-price contracts, a contractor EVMS is not
required. For projects with a TPC between $20M and $100M, if an EIA-748C compliant
11-29-2010 C-11
EVMS is not used, an alternative project control method must be approved by the PMSO.
The alternate system requirement must be described in the PEP and provided to the
contracting officer to be included as a contract requirement. Alternative project control
methods to be used must include at a minimum a(n) work breakdown structure, integrated
master schedule showing critical path, schedule of values, account of planned versus
actual work and cost, and EAC.
Project control information will be provided monthly, including upload of the baseline
and status schedules, and data from the schedule of values and planned versus actual
work and cost accounts, into the Department’s PARS II system in accordance with the
PARS II Contractor Project Performance (CPP) Upload Requirements document.
For projects using EVMS and reporting EVMS data, the contracting officer, or the
Contracting Officers’ Representative (COR), normally the FPD, will ensure that
contractors upload in PARS II the required project performance data at the lowest
element of cost level in the specified format.
a. EVMS Certification. This is the initial determination by PM that a Contractor's

EVMS is in full compliance with EIA-748C, or as required by the contract, on all
applicable projects. Documentation of the certification shall be provided to the
Contracting Officer and the PMSO. The Contracting Officer must provide copies
of transmittal memoranda or related documents to PM. All relevant
documentation shall be maintained in PARS II.
• For contractors where there are applicable projects with a TPC between
$20M and $100M, the contractor shall maintain EVMS compliant with
EIA-748C.
• For contractors where there are applicable projects having a TPC of

$100M or greater, PM must conduct the certification review process and
certify the contractor's EVMS compliance with EIA-748C, or as required
by the contract.
b. EVMS Surveillance. This is meant to ensure that a contractor's certified EVMS

remains in full compliance with EIA-748C, or as required by the contract, on all
applicable projects. A surveillance review may include an assessment against
some or all of the EIA-748C requirements. The extent of the surveillance review
will be tailored based on current conditions.
For contractors where there are applicable projects having a TPC of $100M or
greater, PM will conduct a risk-based, data driven surveillance during the tenure
of the contract, during contract extensions, or as requested by the FPD, the
Program, or the PME). Documentation of the surveillance will be provided to the
Contracting Officer documenting the compliance status of the contractor's EVMS
with EIA-748C, or as required by the contract.
C-12 11-29-2010
(1) Notification of Non-Compliance. If following a PM surveillance review,

the contractor has not fully corrected the noted deficiencies despite offers
of assistance from PM, has ignored contractual direction to take corrective
action, or the results of the surveillance review indicate non-compliance
with EIA-748C, PM may issue a Notice of Non-Compliance with
EIA-748C, or as required by the contract, to the Contracting Officer and
will note whether the contractor's EVMS certification has been
withdrawn.
(2) Implementation Review. An implementation review is a special type of

surveillance performed at PM’s discretion in lieu of a certification review
when EVMS compliance is a requirement. This type of review extends the
certification of a contractor’s previously certified system. The
implementation review must be conducted prior to CD-3 or at the latest
within three months of construction mobilization. A contractor’s certified
system may be extended in the following situations:
• When a contractor adopts one of their existing certified EVMS for

application under a new contract at the same or different site
(sometimes referred to as Corporate Certification).
• From one project to another project after a period of system

non-use.
• A previously certified system description to a significantly revised

system description.
• From one certifying entity to another (meaning other Civilian

Federal Agency or DoD to DOE) provided the contracting entity
remains the same.
• When a new contractor adopts the previous contractor’s existing

certified system with minimal to no change in the system
description, processes, or tools.
9. Environment, Safety and Health Documentation Development.
a. For projects involving Hazard Category 1, 2, or 3 nuclear facilities as defined in

10 CFR Part 830, Subpart B:
(1) Prior to CD-1, a CSDR is developed to:
• Document and establish a preliminary inventory of hazardous

materials, including radioactive materials and chemicals;
11-29-2010 C-13
• Document and establish the preliminary hazard categorization of

the facility;
• Identify and analyze primary facility hazards and facility Design

Basis Accidents;
• Provide an initial determination, based on preliminary hazard

analysis, of safety class and safety significant structures, systems,
and components;
• Include a preliminary assessment of the appropriate seismic design

category for the facility itself as well as safety significant
structures, systems, and components;
• Evaluate the security hazards that can impact the facility safety
basis (if applicable); and
• Include a commitment to the nuclear safety design criteria of

DOE O 420.1C (or proposed alternative criteria).
(2) Prior to CD-2, a PSDR is developed from the CSDR to reflect more
refined analyses based on the evolving design and safety integration
activities during preliminary design. The PSDR should include the results
of process hazards analyses and confirm or adjust, as appropriate, the
items included in the CSDR.
(3) Prior to CD-2, a PDSA is prepared which updates the safety information
in the PSDR and identifies and justifies changes from the design approach
described in the PSDR. A plan to achieve operational readiness is prepared
using the core requirements of DOE O 425.1D and DOE-STD-3006-2010.
(4) Prior to CD-4, a Documented Safety Analysis is developed based on

information from the PDSA and the SER. Technical safety requirements
are developed to document and establish specific parameters and requisite
actions for safe facility operation.
(5) An ORR or RA will be conducted in accordance with DOE O 425.1D and

DOE-STD-3006-2010.
b. For projects involving facilities that are below the Hazard Category 3 threshold as
defined in 10 CFR Part 830, Subpart B:
(1) Prior to CD-1, prepare a PHAR to identify and evaluate all potential
hazards and establish a preliminary set of safety controls. Hazardous
chemicals are analyzed in accordance with Integrated Safety Management
C-14 11-29-2010
(ISM) requirements in DOE P 450.4A, 29 CFR 1910.119, and

40 CFR Part 68.
(2) Prior to CD-2, a Hazard Analysis Report is developed by updating the

PHAR to include any new or revised information on facility hazards and
safety design.
(3) Prior to CD-3 and CD-4, hazard analysis and controls are updated in the
Hazard Analysis Report.
(4) The PSO will determine what level of readiness review will be conducted.
c. All projects must comply with environmental protection requirements including

NEPA documentation, anticipated permitting requirements and cost-effective
environmental stewardship, advance regional and local integrated planning goals
and sustainable sites, and high performance and sustainable building principles.
d. A Construction Project Safety and Health Plan is prepared prior to construction

activities per 10 CFR Part 851, Appendix A, Section 1(d).
e. EO 13514 requires that all projects divert at least 50 percent of construction and
demolition materials and debris (by weight) from the non-hazardous solid waste
stream.
10. Integrated Project Team.
The FPD shall organize and lead the IPT. The IPT is an essential element in DOE's
acquisition process and is involved in all phases of a project. This team consists of
professionals representing diverse disciplines with the specific knowledge, skills and
abilities to support the FPD in successfully executing a project. The team size and
membership may change as a project progresses from CD-0 to CD-4 to ensure that the
necessary skills are always represented to meet project needs. Team membership may be
full or part time, depending upon the scope and complexity of a project and the activities
underway. However, the identified personnel must be available to dedicate an amount of
time sufficient to contribute to the IPT's success. Refer to DOE G 413.3-18A for further
clarification.
Qualified staff (including contractors) must be available in sufficient numbers to

accomplish all contract and project management functions. Project staffing requirements
should be based on a variety of factors, including project size and complexity, as well as
the management experience and expertise of the project staff. Programs must use a
methodology to determine the appropriate project team size and required skill sets. One
such algorithm is detailed in DOE G 413.3-19. Regardless of the methodology used, once
the appropriate staff size has been determined, programs should plan and budget
accordingly.
The FPD and the team will prepare and maintain an IPT Charter that describes:
11-29-2010 C-15
• Membership (must include the Contracting Officer);
• Responsibilities and authority;
• Leads (as appropriate);
• Meetings;
• Reporting; and
• Operating guidance.
Nuclear safety experts on a nuclear facility project should include personnel in functional
areas which relate to nuclear safety aspects of the facility. Disciplines within these
functional areas can include: design disciplines (civil, structural, mechanical, electrical,
instrumentation); health physics and radiological protection; safety, accident, hazard, or
risk analysis; criticality safety; process chemistry; fire protection; configuration
management; startup testing; conduct of operations; maintenance; operational readiness;
commissioning; quality assurance. This does not preclude personnel from other
disciplines providing that they have relevant and appropriate nuclear safety experience
for the functional area for which they are responsible.
11. Integrated Safety Management System.
An Integrated Safety Management System (ISMS) must be in place to ensure that

potential hazards are identified and appropriately addressed throughout the project (refer
to DOE P 450.4A). It will be used to systematically integrate safety into management and
work processes at all levels. The project management team will implement the following
seven guiding principles:
a. Line management responsibility for safety;
b. Clear roles and responsibilities;
c. Competence commensurate with responsibilities;
d. Balanced priorities;
e. For Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities, the CSDR must identify safety
standards and requirements to include preliminary seismic design category for the
facility itself as well as safety class and significant structures, systems, and
components;
f. Engineered controls tailored to the functions being designed or performed; and
g. Tailoring should be applied to a project's ISMS to enable tasks to be managed at

the appropriate levels enabling those closest to the task plan to assume
C-16 11-29-2010
responsibility for planning and performance. Refer to DOE P 470.1A for more
information.
12. Key Performance Parameters.
A KPP is defined by CD-2 and is a characteristic, function, requirement or design basis

that if changed would have a major impact on the system or facility performance,
schedule, cost and/or risk. In some cases, a minimum KPP or threshold value should be
highlighted for CD-4 (project completion) realizing in many instances full operational
capabilities may take years to achieve. The minimum KPPs and facility mission must stay
intact for the duration of the project since they represent a foundational element within
the original PB. For NNSA projects, KPPs are also identified in the PRD. Additional
details concerning the application of KPPs are provided in DOE G 413.3-5A.
13. Lessons Learned Process.
Lessons Learned and best practices should be captured throughout the continuum of a
project. Within 90 days of CD-3 approval, up-front project planning and design lessons
learned shall be submitted to PM. Likewise, project execution and facility start-up lessons
learned shall be submitted within 90 days of CD-4 approval. Lessons learned reporting
allows the exchange of information among DOE users in the context of project
management.
14. Nuclear Facilities: Safety Design Strategy and Code of Record.
Early in the conceptual design phase, a SDS should be developed for Hazard Category 1,
2, and 3 nuclear projects. The SDS provides preliminary information on the scope of
anticipated significant hazards and the general strategy for addressing those hazards. The
SDS is updated throughout subsequent project phases and should contain enough detail to
guide design on overarching design criteria, establish major safety structures, systems,
and components, and identify significant project risks associated with the proposed
facility relative to safety.
Consistent with this Order, DOE O 420.1C, and DOE-STD-1189-2008 for nuclear
facilities, adequate resources shall be provided to develop a SDS and a Code of Record
early in the design phase. The Code of Record shall be maintained throughout the CD
process and for the remainder of the nuclear facility's life-cycle. The Code of Record
shall serve as the management tool and source for the set of requirements that are used to
design, construct, operate and decommission nuclear facilities over their lifespan.
15. Performance Baseline.
The PB, as established in the PEP, defines the TPC, CD-4 completion date, performance
and scope commitment to which the Department must execute a project and is based on
an approved funding profile. The PB includes the entire project budget (total cost of the
project that includes contingency) and represents DOE's commitment to Congress and the
11-29-2010 C-17
OMB. The approved PB must be controlled, tracked and reported from the beginning to
the end of a project to ensure consistency between the PEP, the PDS, and the Business
Case (a requirement of OMB Circular A-11).
16. Planning and Scheduling.
Projects shall develop and maintain an Integrated Master Schedule (IMS). The IMS shall
be developed, maintained, and documented in a manner consistent with methods and the
best practices identified in the Planning and Scheduling Excellence Guide, published by
the National Defense Industrial Association, and the GAO’s Schedule Assessment Guide
(GAO-16-89C).
17. Project Definition Rating Index.
The project team will perform comprehensive front-end project planning to an

appropriate level before establishing a PB at CD-2. The PDRI model assists the IPT in
identifying key engineering and design elements critical to project scope definition. PDRI
is to be implemented and used for projects with a TPC of $100M or greater, as
appropriate. This will be accomplished by the FPD. While not mandated, it is strongly
encouraged for use by Programs for projects with a TPC less than $100M. See
DOE G 413.3-12 for additional information.
18. Project Execution Plan.
The PEP is the core document for the management of a project. The FPD is responsible
for the preparation of this document. It establishes the policies and procedures to be
followed in order to manage and control project planning, initiation, definition, execution
and transition/closeout, and uses the outcomes and outputs from all project planning
processes, integrating them into a formally approved document. It includes an accurate
reflection of how the project is to be accomplished, the minimum KPPs for CD-4,
resource requirements, technical considerations, risk management, configuration
management, and roles and responsibilities. A preliminary PEP is required to support
CD-1. This document continues to be refined throughout the duration of a project and
revisions are documented through the configuration management process. Key elements
of a PEP are provided in DOE G 413.3-15.
19. Project Funding.
a. Full Funding. All capital asset projects with an estimated TPC of $50M or less
will request full funding, within a single budget year request, unless justification
for less than full funding is provided to and approved by the ESAAB.
b. Incremental Funding. Project budget requests should consider mitigating risks

such as continuing resolutions (particularly for new starts), higher than
anticipated project burn rate and affordability within the program's capital and
operations budget portfolio.
C-18 11-29-2010
c. Funding Profiles. In approving the funding profile for completing the project,
PMEs must determine that the proposed funding stream is affordable and
executable within the program's capital and operations budget portfolio. Any
changes to the approved funding profile that negatively impacts the project after
CD-2 must be endorsed by the project's PME, who may not be the Program
Budget Officer. Prior to endorsement by the PME, the CFO and PM will be
notified of any proposed project funding profile changes so that the CFO can
verify that the funding profile is covered within the President's budget.
d. Funding Documents. All projects, except for MIE, will provide to the CFO and
the PM a project funding document (inclusive of the PDS for line item projects)
that clearly delineates the budget year funding request, prior year budget requests
and appropriations, and future planned budget requests. Consistent with current
budget submission requirements, the PDS for line item projects will be included
in the Department’s Congressional budget submission.
The project funding document (similar to PDS) for operating expense projects
will be considered internal information for the CFO, PM, and appropriate senior
leaders during the budget preparation process to document that project funds are
being requested consistent with the funding profile established at CD-2, or the
latest BCP that was approved.
e. Project Engineering and Design (PED) Funds. To enhance fiscal insight and
discipline for major system projects, an estimate of the required amount of PED
funds to execute the planning and design portion of a project (period from CD-1
to completion of the project’s design) shall be included in the CD-1
documentation.
For projects where the top-end range is less than $100M, the use of PED funds
shall be limited to a two-year duration, unless approved by the PME. The PMRC
shall be notified of granted time extensions or waivers. The estimate will be
subject to applicable independent reviews.
f. Align Priorities to Program Appropriations. Each program office shall develop an

integrated capital asset project priority list as a corporate tool to enable DOE
leadership to optimize limited budget resources. The priority list shall be updated
at least annually and should rank mission needs that are achieved by each capital
asset project and identify project drivers, internal and external factors for ranking
the projects. The prioritization should be reflected in the annual fiscal guidance.
20. Project Reporting, Assessments and Progress Reviews.
a. Project Reporting. PARS II is the central repository for key Departmental-level

project information. PARS II enables receipt of cost and schedule data in the
format specified in the DOE version of the IPMR to ensure consistency across
the federal government and deploy improved cost and schedule analysis tools.
11-29-2010 C-19
Contractor will upload in PARS II the required project performance data at the
lowest element of cost level in the specified format.
The Program Offices and FPDs will ensure that project data is uploaded monthly
into PARS II (including EVMS data provided directly into PARS II from
contractor's systems after CD-2). Approval of CD-0 initiates a requirement for
project status reporting. This reporting continues through completion of the
PMB for all projects with a TPC greater than or equal to the minor construction
threshold. The PSO will submit key project documentation such as CD and BCP
approval memoranda to PM within five business days of document approval.
At CD-2 and continuing through completion of the PMB, projects with a TPC
greater than $20M must report project performance in PARS II no later than the
last workday of every month. The data must be current as of the closing of the
previous month’s accounting period.
The information and earned value data in PARS II must accurately reflect current
project status and provide acceptable forecasts to facilitate project management
and decision-making processes. Accordingly:
• The FPD must assure project cost and schedule performance reflects
reality. Early warning indicators are essential. Monthly estimates at
completion (EACs) are a must, including a separate EAC, or forecasted
TPC, provided by the FPD.
• The contractor must be held accountable for providing timely, accurate,

reliable and actionable project and contractor cost, schedule, performance,
risk, and forecast data, reports and information. The IPT must be
accountable for its oversight and validation of the data.
• Contracts should be structured so as to minimize cost overrun exposure.

When significant PB cost BCPs occur that generate a new TPC, the FPD
and contracting officer shall work together to consider a revised cost share
proposition moving forward. In addition, the FPD and contracting officer
shall work together to ensure the contracts include appropriate
requirements for complete, accurate and timely reporting with appropriate
requirements analysis to support the contractor’s monthly estimates of
project completion cost and schedule.
b. Project Assessments. Following the upload of a contractor's monthly

performance data, the FPDs have until the third business day of the following
month to accomplish their assessment. The Program Managers have until the
sixth business day and PM until the ninth business day to provide their
assessment and to compile the monthly project status report. PM will coordinate
the report with the Programs and on the 25th business day, forward the report to
the Deputy Secretary.
C-20 11-29-2010
Project performance assessments shall be determined through quantitative and

qualitative methods. Elements to be reviewed include, but are not limited to
EVMS data, contractor's monthly reports, acquisition management practices, risk
management status, EIR/IPR/TIPR/Project Peer Reviews, site visits, staffing
assessments, budget submittals, as well as discussions with the IPT members.
PM will provide project assessments for all capital asset projects in its monthly
reports to the Deputy Secretary. Ratings shall be assessed against the current
approved PB:
• Green – Project is expected to meet its current PB.
• Yellow – Project is potentially at risk of not meeting an element of the

current PB.
• Red – Project is highly at risk of requiring a change to the PB by the PME

or is not being executed within the AS and PEP.
c. Project Progress Reviews. QPRs must be conducted with the applicable PME or
their designee. Participation by the PME is strongly encouraged at all QPRs.
However, when it is not possible, the PME can delegate the review. In no case
should it be delegated beyond two consecutive quarters for projects post CD-2. The
CE may delegate QPRs for Major System Projects to the Under Secretaries. PM
must be provided all QPR reports and invited to participate in QPRs for all projects
with a TPC greater than or equal to $100M. Also, PM will serve as Secretariat for
CE QPRs.
21. Project Scope.
Capital asset project scope determinations shall adhere to Federal statutes, regulations,
policy, and guidance. Specifically, determinations shall comply with the Office of
Management and Budget’s Circular A-11 and associated Capital Programming Guide.
Capital asset project decisions shall be made based on clearly defined scope and the
nature and type of work to be completed and shall include all the project-specific work
scope needed to achieve a complete and usable asset and accomplish the defined
mission need using proper project segmentation or project phasing. The cost of
operational activities that occur solely to support accomplishment of the capital asset
project between CD-0 and CD-4 are to be included in the project’s TPC. Refer to DOE
WBS Handbook.
22. Quality Assurance.
Quality Assurance begins at project inception and continues through all phases of the
project. The FPD is responsible for a Quality Assurance Program (QAP) for the project
and all applicable QA requirements must be addressed. Apply ASME NQA-1-2008
(Edition) and NQA-1a-2009 (Addenda) for Hazard Category 1, 2, or 3 nuclear facilities.
11-29-2010 C-21
The key elements of a QAP are provided in DOE O 414.1D and 10 CFR Part 830,
Subpart A. (See also DOE G 413.3-2.)
23. Reviews.
Reviews are an important project activity and must be planned as an integral part of the
project and tailored appropriately to project risk, complexity, duration and CD or phase.
Refer to DOE G 413.3-9 for more information. The following is a summary of key
reviews organized by CD.
a. Prior to CD-0.
(1) Mission Validation Independent Review.
A Mission Validation Independent Review, performed by the PSO, is a

limited review prior to CD-0 for Major System Projects. It validates the
mission need and the ROM cost range that is provided, in part, to properly
designate the appropriate PME. A Value Study may also be conducted, as
appropriate, to assist in CD-0. Refer to DOE G 413.3-17.
(2) Mission Need Statement Document Review.
PM will review the MNS Document and provide a recommendation to the

PSO for projects with a TPC greater than or equal to $100M. The review
shall be completed within 10 days after the submission for Non-Major
System Projects and within 25 days for Major System Projects.
(3) Independent Cost Review.
For Major System Projects, or for projects as designated by the CE, PM

will conduct an ICR. This review validates the basis of the ROM cost
range and provides an assessment of whether the range reasonably bounds
the alternatives to be analyzed in the next project phase. It also determines
the PME authority designation.
b. Prior to CD-1.
(1) Acquisition Strategy Review.
Acquisition Strategies for Major System Projects must be sent to the

ESAAB Secretariat for review by PM prior to scheduling CD-1
decisional briefings. The FPD and CO must concur with the AS prior to
the PM review. Within 10 days upon receipt, PM will provide a
recommendation to the appropriate PSO who holds approval authority.
Approval of the AS does not constitute approval of the AP. The AP
must be submitted for review and approval in accordance with
C-22 11-29-2010
established procurement procedures including DOE Acquisition Guide,

Chapter 7.1.
(2) Independent Project Review.
For Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities, the PSO will conduct
an IPR to ensure early integration of safety into the design process. The
review must: 1) ensure that safety documentation is complete, accurate
and reliable for entry into the next phase of the project; 2) evaluate
whether the preferred alternative process and facility design, and
corresponding safety analyses, are sufficiently detailed to identify any
safety controls that, because of cost, maintainability, complexity or other
limiting characteristics, could significantly impact the decision to select
the preferred alternative; and 3) validate that the IPT charter has
identified appropriate functions, roles and responsibilities for members
needed to support nuclear safety, and that the IPT members supporting
nuclear safety are appropriately qualified, and have the availability to
meet their responsibilities. The PSO approval of IPRs, specified in
Appendix A, Table 2.1 means that the Program Office and FPD jointly
request the review, establish the review scope and schedule, and select a
team leader.
CNS or CDNS concurrence, as appropriate, is required for reviews of

projects that must implement DOE-STD-1189-2008. The team leader is
the approval authority for the review plan (including the Criteria and
Review Approach Documents) and for the final review report.
(3) Conceptual Design Review.
Conceptual Design Review must be conducted for all projects and

involve reviewers external to the project using a formalized, structured
approach to ensure that the reviews are comprehensive, objective and
documented.
(4) Technology Readiness Assessment.
For Major System Projects or first-of-a-kind engineering endeavors, the

IPT shall complete a TRA and Technology Maturation Plan, as
appropriate. These assessments are also encouraged for lower cost projects
where new technologies may exist.
(5) Independent Cost Estimate and/or Independent Cost Review.
For projects with a TPC greater than or equal to $100M, PM will develop
an ICE and/or conduct an ICR, as they deem appropriate. This review
validates the basis of the preliminary cost range for reasonableness and
11-29-2010 C-23
executability. It also includes a full accounting of life cycle costs to

support the alternative selection process and budgetary decisions.
c. Prior to CD-2.
(1) Technical Independent Project Review.
For Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities, a TIPR will be

performed to ensure that safety is effectively integrated into design and
construction. The TIPR must: 1) ensure that safety documentation is
complete, accurate and reliable for entry into the next phase of the project;
and 2) evaluate the IPT to ensure that appropriate team member functions
to support nuclear safety during final design have been established, and
appropriately qualified team members have been selected and have needed
availability to address nuclear safety-related matters during final design.
Completion of the TIPR is required prior to the start of any subsequent
reviews (including EIRs) and is required prior to CD-2 approval. The PSO
approval of TIPRs, specified in Appendix A, Table 2.2 means that the
Program Office and FPD jointly request the review, establish the review
scope and schedule, and select a team leader.
CNS or CDNS concurrence, as appropriate, is required for reviews of

projects that must implement DOE-STD-1189-2008. The team leader is
the approval authority for the review plan (including the Criteria and
Review Approach Documents) and for the final review report.
(2) Performance Baseline Validation Review.
A Performance Baseline Validation Review is required to provide

reasonable assurance that the project can be successfully executed. IPRs
are required to validate the PB for projects with a TPC less than $100M.
The PME may request an EIR in lieu of an IPR through PM, and shall
do so if the PME has no PMSO to perform the review. For all projects
with a TPC greater than or equal to $100M, PM will conduct an EIR
and develop an ICE in support of the PB validation. Findings resulting
from project reviews must be addressed by the IPT in their corrective
action plan and expeditiously resolved. Follow-up reviews to validate
finding resolution may be required at the discretion of the reviewing
entity.
(3) Project Definition Rating Index Analysis.
For projects with a TPC greater than $100M, the FPD shall conduct a
PDRI Analysis. Such analyses are also encouraged for projects with a TPC
less than $100M.
C-24 11-29-2010
For Major System Projects or first-of-a-kind engineering endeavors, the

IPT shall complete a TRA and Technology Maturation Plan, as
appropriate. These assessments are also encouraged for lower cost projects
where new technologies may exist.
(5) Preliminary Design Review.
Preliminary Design Review must be conducted for all projects and involve
reviewers external to the project using a formalized, structured approach
to ensure that the reviews are comprehensive, objective and documented.
(6) Final Design Review.
Final design review must be conducted for all Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3
nuclear facilities and involve reviewers external to the project using a
formalized, structured approach to ensure that the reviews are
comprehensive, objective and documented.
d. Prior to CD-3.
(1) Construction or Execution Readiness Review.
An EIR must be performed by PM on Major System Projects to verify

construction or execution readiness.
(2) Independent Cost Estimate.
For projects with a TPC greater than or equal to $100M, PM will develop
an ICE.
(3) EVMS Certification Review.
For contracts where there are applicable projects with a TPC greater than
$100M, PM must conduct the certification review.
For Major System Projects where a significant critical technology element

modification occurs subsequent to CD-2, conduct a TRA, as appropriate.
(5) Final Design Review.
Final Design Review must be conducted for all non-nuclear facilities and
less than Hazard Category 3 nuclear facilities and involve reviewers
11-29-2010 C-25
external to the project using a formalized, structured approach to ensure that

the reviews are comprehensive, objective and documented.
e. Prior to CD-4.
(1) Operational Readiness Review or Readiness Assessment.
Conduct an ORR or RA for Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities in

accordance with DOE O 425.1D and DOE-STD-3006-2010.
(2) Readiness to Operate Assessment.
For non-nuclear projects, conduct a formal assessment of the project's

readiness to operate, as appropriate. Determine the basis for DOE
acceptance of the asset and if the facility or area can be occupied from both
a regulatory and work function standpoint. Establish a beneficial
occupancy/utilization date for the facility and/or equipment.
f. Project Peer Reviews.
These focused, in-depth reviews are conducted by non-advocates (Federal and

M&O or other contractor experts) and support the design and development of a
project. For projects $100M or greater (or lower as deemed appropriate by the
Under Secretaries), Project Assessment Offices that have direct line of
responsibility to the appropriate Under Secretary shall conduct a Project Peer
Review between CD-0 and CD-1, annually between CD-1 and CD-2, at least
annually between CD-2 and CD-4 and more frequently for the most complex
projects or those experiencing performance challenges. The reviews should be
performed by peers (with relevant experience and expertise) independent of the
project, to evaluate technical, managerial, cost, scope and other aspects of the
project, as appropriate. Each Under Secretary shall ensure that the peer reviews
have independence from line management and, to the greatest extent possible, use
experts who are familiar with the projects to ensure continuity for future reviews.
The review teams will be established with the Department’s most talented project,
contract and technical staff from across the complex. This includes both Federal
and contractor personnel from within and across Program Offices, which will
benefit from this cross-fertilization by learning from each other.
There should be no contractual or budgetary impediments to accomplishing these

reviews, which are fundamental to the professional development of each and
every member of both the project team and the review team. The knowledge and
lessons learned that our project management professional’s gain with each review
is invaluable. Project management professional development and departmental
knowledge management is the ultimate result; enhancements to project execution
C-26 11-29-2010
performance over time is the by-product. Indirect accounts at the contributing

sites should cover these allowable costs.
24. Risk Management.
Risk Management is an essential element of every project and must be analytical, forward
looking, structured and continuous. Risk assessments are started as early in the project
life-cycle as possible and should identify critical technical, performance, schedule and cost
risks. Once risks are identified and prioritized, sound risk mitigation strategies and actions
are developed and documented in the Risk Register. Post CD-1, the risk register (including
new risks) should be evaluated at least quarterly.
Risks and their associated confidence levels are dependent on multiple factors such as
complexity, technology readiness and strength of the IPT. Risks for all capital asset
projects should be analyzed using a range of 70-90% confidence level upon baselining at
CD-2 and reflected in funded contingency, budgetary requests and funding profiles. If a
project has a PB change, FPDs should consider reanalyzing the risks at a higher
confidence level and then reflecting this in budgetary requests and funding profiles.
Additional risk management information is provided in DOE G 413.3-7A.
25. Safeguards and Security.
Prior to CD-1, general safeguards and security requirements for the recommended
alternative and preliminary identification of alternatives (including facility design and the
incorporation of safeguards and security technologies) must be made and these alternatives
evaluated with respect to their impact on mission needs, satisfaction of other requirements
(such as safety requirements) and other cost considerations. This input becomes part of the
conceptual design requirements for further development.
Prior to CD-2, a Preliminary Security Vulnerability Assessment must be conducted that

accounts for the set of applicable safeguards and security requirements, evaluates the
methods selected to satisfy those requirements and addresses any potential risk acceptance
issues. The PEP and the PB must be reviewed to ensure that cost, schedule, and integration
aspects of safeguards and security are appropriately addressed, all feasible risk mitigation
has been identified and concerns for which explicit line management risk acceptance will
be required are appropriately supported.
Prior to CD-3, a final Security Vulnerability Assessment Report should be issued

addressing all the safeguards and security requirements of the project. The project
requirements should be satisfied by the facility design or the proposed operational features.
26. Site Development Planning.
Projects including new construction or modifications to real property assets shall be

included in the site’s Ten Year Site Plan and must provide the necessary documentation to
11-29-2010 C-27
establish a property record in the Department’s Facilities Information Management System

in accordance with DOE O 430.1B.
27. Tailoring.
a. General.
Tailoring is an element of the acquisition process and must be appropriate

considering the risk, complexity, visibility, cost, safety, security and schedule of
the project. Tailoring must be identified as early as possible prior to the impacted
CD and must be approved by the PME. In the Tailoring Strategy or the PEP, the
FPD will identify those areas in which a project is planned to be tailored as well as
an explanation and discussion of each tailored area.
Tailoring does not imply the omission of requirements in the acquisition process or
other processes that are appropriate to a specific project's requirements or
conditions.
Tailoring may involve consolidation or phasing of CDs, substituting equivalent

documents, graded approach to document development and content, concurrency
of processes, or creating a portfolio of projects to facilitate a single CD or AS for
an entire group of projects. Tailoring may also include adjusting the scope of IPRs
and EIRs, delegation of acquisition authority and other elements. Major tailored
elements such as consolidating or phasing CDs or delegation of PMEs should be
specified in the PEP or the Tailoring Strategy.
Tailoring does not apply to nuclear safety requirements, which use a “graded
approach” as prescribed in 10 CFR Part 830, Nuclear Safety Management. Details
on developing a tailoring approach that could be applied are provided in
DOE G 413.3-15.
b. Phasing.
Generally, a CD would not be split and CD-2 is never split. For some projects, it
may be appropriate to phase the work (into smaller, related, complete and useable
projects) and split or phase the CD. In those instances, it may be appropriate to
garner CD-0 and CD-1 approvals for all the smaller projects collectively and
simultaneously. Subsequently, each smaller project must have its own distinct
performance baseline (CD-2) with clearly defined and documented technical scope,
cost, schedule and funding profile including consideration for all applicable
contingencies. See Figure 4.
C-28 11-29-2010
Figure 4. Phasing of a Large Project
As each smaller project achieves CD-2, its cost baseline (or TPC) gets reflected as
point estimates but the TPC of the large project is a collective total of the smaller
projects with the expectation that it is less than the CD-1 high end range. After
each phased CD-2 is approved, the earned value for each smaller project
individually must be reported into PARS II monthly if greater than or equal to
$20M. When a smaller project is developed, the subsequent CDs will be approved
by a PME commensurate with that project’s TPC.
Although funded contingency is included as part of each smaller project’s TPC,

during execution, it may be held at the large project level and utilized as risks are
realized. Contingency becomes part of the smaller project or an activity after the
approval of the baseline change request to utilize contingency. Cost savings from
one small project can be returned to the contingency pool for other small projects
covered by the same PDS. These additional contingency funds can be applied
toward another small project, if necessary. The large project (aggregated) CD-2
value is finally established when the last small project achieves CD-2 approval.
At that time, the large project’s CD-2 value equals the total value of each of the
11-29-2010 C-29
original CD-2 values for each of the smaller projects combined. The project
success metrics are based on the execution of each of the small projects.
For construction projects that collectively support one mission need, it would be
advisable to include each project on one PDS to achieve maximum funding
flexibility. Examples #1 through #4 outline how a time-phased, multiple-project
PDS can be developed.
Example #1: Initial Budget Request for PED funds:
Construction Cost ($M) PED Cost ($M)

CD-0 or CD-1
(TPC Cost Range) TPC FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15
Project A 20-50 - 5 - - - -
Project B 50-100 - 10 - - - -
Project C 100-200 - 10 10 - - -
Project D 75-150 - - 15 - - -
TOTAL 245-500 - 25 25 - - -
Example #2: Initial Budget Request for Construction, Project A (with CD-2 approval) and
Project B (absent of CD-2):
Construction Cost ($M)

CD-0 or CD-1
Project A - 40 - - 40 - -
Project B 50-100 100 - - 10 50 40
Project C 100-200 - - - - - -
Project D 75-150 - - - - - -
TOTAL - 140 0 0 50 50 40
Example #3: Initial Budget Request for Construction, Project A & B (with CD-2 approval) and
Project C & D (absent of CD-2):

CD-0 or CD-1
Project A - 40 - - 40 - -
Project B - 80 - - 10 50 20
Project C 100-200 200 - - - 100 100
Project D 75-150 150 - - - 25 125
TOTAL - 470 0 0 50 175 245
C-30 11-29-2010
Example #4: Initial Budget Request for Construction (all projects with CD-2 approval):

CD-0 or CD-1
Project A - 40 - - 40 - -
Project B - 80 - - 10 50 20
Project C - 200 - - - 100 100
Project D - 140 - - - 25 115
TOTAL - 460 0 0 50 175 235
Likewise, it may be appropriate to split CD-4. For example, “CD-4A” to

designate beneficial occupancy of a facility in advance of operations start-up,
particularly if there is a significant time lapse.
c. Environmental Management Cleanup Projects.
Environmental Management (EM) Cleanup Projects are frequently the antithesis

of construction projects in that EM is deactivating, decommissioning,
remediating, stabilizing and disposing (also known as Environmental Restoration)
versus constructing. These projects are conducted under a variety of regulatory
processes and site-specific cleanup agreements which are legally binding and
specify the process, end states, decision points and approvals required. The TRAs
plays an important role in determining the solution. For these projects, the
performance and scope parameters and start/end dates are based on negotiated
terms with Federal and/or State regulatory agencies. As a result of this variability,
it is not possible to draw a single crosswalk to the traditional construction project
that would be applicable to all EM Cleanup Projects. Hence, a tailored approach
is necessary for each project. As such, the FPD will submit a Tailoring Strategy,
which may be included in the PEP, to the PME for approval. See
DOE G 413.3-15 for additional guidance.
d. Design-Build.
Design-Build is a project delivery method whereby a single contract is awarded

for both design and construction. Design-Build is normally used most
successfully with projects that have well-defined requirements with limited
complexity and risks. Example projects include road building, administrative
facilities and/or replication of previously accomplished projects. The nuclear
safety requirements of this Order will be fully implemented for defense nuclear
facilities.
(1) The Design-Build approach requires the development of a functional

design and clearly stated operating requirements that provide sufficient
information to allow prospective contractors to prepare bids or proposals.
It also allows the flexibility to implement innovative design and
11-29-2010 C-31
construction approaches, VE, and other cost and time savings initiatives.
The overall objective of the Design-Build approach is to:
• Enhance efficiencies in project design integration into construction

execution;
• Reduce the total cost to the Department; and
• Deliver projects faster than by using the traditional

Design-Bid-Build approach.
(2) Since the requirements are well-defined early in the process and much of
the cost and schedule information and key design criteria are known,
CD-1, CD-2 and/or even CD-3 may be accomplished simultaneously.
Essentially, in requesting a simultaneous approval, CD-1/2, CD-1/2/3 or
CD-2/3, the IPT is asserting that:
• There is no advantage to the Department of further evaluation of

alternatives;
• The project functions and requirements are well known; and
• A cost and schedule baseline can be established.
e. Long-Lead Procurement.
CD-3A may be needed for long-lead item procurement. While there is potential
risk in procuring equipment before the design is complete, the potential schedule
improvement may be significant and more than compensate for the risk. If the
long-lead item is nuclear safety-related or nuclear safety-related equipment, safety
document maturity must also be considered. Procurement of vendor engineering
designs, for example, greatly reduces the risk of incomplete or incorrect final
designs that would otherwise require rework and potentially impact cost and
schedule. The need to phase CD-3 should not be confused with minor, early
activities that are necessary and generally performed prior to CD-3. Activities
such as site preparation work, site characterization, limited access, and safety and
security issues (i.e., fences) are often necessary prior to CD-3, and may be
pursued as long as project documents such as a PDS requesting construction or
PED funds to procure the long-lead items and funding approvals are in place. If
CD-3A is anticipated, the need for this decision and the process should be
documented in the PEP or Tailoring Strategy.
28. Technology Readiness Assessment.
The TRA model evaluates technology maturity using the Technology Readiness Level
(TRL) scale. TRAs and associated Technology Maturation Plans are used as a project
C-32 11-29-2010
management tool to reduce the technical and cost risks associated with the introduction of
new technologies. Where technological readiness is a significant concern, TRAs should
be considered for alternatives under consideration.
Major System Projects, or first-of-a-kind engineering endeavors, must be assessed prior

to each CD using the Technology Readiness Assessment and should achieve the
following minimum Technology Readiness Level (TRL) scores for each critical
technology item or system as determined by an independent review team outside of the
project team before that CD can be approved. The higher the TRL at CD-2, the lower the
risk to the project. The PME must provide justification to the ESAAB, if pursuing a TRL
less than 7, at CD-2, which in turn will notify the CE. The following represents the
minimum TRL at each CD:
• CD-1: TRL 4
• CD-2: TRL 7
For Major System Projects where new critical technologies are being deployed, the TRA
shall be conducted and the associated Technology Maturation Plan developed prior to
CD-2. On those projects where a significant critical technology element modification
occurs subsequent to CD-2, conduct another TRA prior to CD-3. It is strongly
encouraged for use by the PME for projects with a TPC less than $750M. See
DOE G 413.3-4A for additional information.
DOE O 413.3B Attachment 1
11-29-2010 Page 1
CONTRACTOR REQUIREMENTS DOCUMENT

DOE O 413.3B, PROGRAM AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT
FOR THE ACQUISITION OF CAPITAL ASSETS
This Contractor Requirements Document (CRD) sets forth requirements applicable to the
contract to which this CRD is inserted. The Contractor is responsible for performing program
and project management of Department-owned or -leased facilities as determined by the Federal
Project Director and Contracting Officer, in conjunction with the Federally-assigned Integrated
Project Team members. The Contractor shall: (1) comply with the requirements of this CRD to
include subcontractor(s), and (2) flow down the appropriate requirements of the CRD to a
subcontractor, when the total project cost to the prime contractor are equal to or greater than $20
million.
The Contractor’s project management system shall satisfy the following requirements:
1. Except for firm fixed-price contracts, the Contractor shall:
• Employ an Earned Value Management System (EVMS) prior to Critical Decision

(CD)-2, or upon contract award, for projects greater than or equal to $20 million,
unless granted an exemption from the PMSO. The system shall be compliant with
EIA-748C (or as required by the contract) in accordance with contract clause FAR
Subpart 52.234-4, EVMS.
• Maintain an EVMS compliant with EIA-748C when there are applicable projects
with a TPC between $20M and $100M.
• Receive certification of EVMS compliance with EIA-748C from PM when there

are applicable projects having a TPC of $100M or greater. PM must conduct the
certification review process and certify the contractor's EVMS compliance with
EIA-748C, or as required by the contract.
• Receive continued surveillance of EVMS compliance with EIA-748C when there

are applicable projects having a TPC of $100M or greater. PM will conduct a
risk-based, data-driven surveillance during the tenure of the contract, during
contract extensions, or as requested by the FPD, the Program, or the PME.
Documentation of the surveillance will be provided to the Contracting Officer
documenting the compliance status of the contractor's EVMS with EIA-748C, or
as required by the contract.
• Provide access to all pertinent records and data requested by the contracting
officer, PM, or other duly authorized representative as necessary to permit
Government surveillance to insure EVMS complies, and continues to comply,
with EIA-748C.
• Submit a request for an Over-Target Baseline (OTB) or Over-Target Schedule

(OTS) to the contracting officer, when indicated by performance. The request
Attachment 1 DOE O 413.3B
Page 2 11-29-2010
shall include a top-level projection of cost (known as an estimate at completion)

and/or schedule growth (known as an Integrated Master Schedule), a
determination of whether or not performance variances will be retained, and the
schedule for the implementation of the rebaselining. Refer to DOE G 413.3-20.
2. For projects with a TPC less than $100M, the contractor may request an exemption from
using EVMS. For firm fixed-price contracts, a contractor EVMS is not required. If
contractor requests and an EVMS waiver is approved by the PMSO, the contractor will:
• Use an alternative project control method approved by the PMSO.
• Describe the alternate project control system in detail to the contracting officer.
• Ensure the system provides adequate insight to potential risks to DOE relating to
achievement of cost, schedule, and technical performance objectives.
• Ensure the alternate project control methods include at a minimum a(n) work
breakdown structure, integrated master schedule showing critical path, schedule
of values, account of planned versus actual work and cost, and EAC.
• Beginning no later than three months following CD-2, upload project control
information monthly, including upload of the baseline and status schedules, and
data from the schedule of values and planned versus actual work and cost
accounts, into the Department’s PARS II system in accordance with the PARS II
Contractor Project Performance (CPP) Upload Requirements document.
3. The Contractor shall submit monthly project performance data beginning no later than
three months following CD-2 for projects having a total project cost greater than or equal
to $20 million.
a. For projects executed under a cost reimbursement contract and required to use an
EVMS compliant with EIA-748C, or as specified in the contract, the required
project performance data must be uploaded into PARS II at the lowest element of
cost level in the specified format. This includes:
• Earned value data consistent with EIA-748C (or as required by the

contract);
• Time-phased incremental budget, and performance in cost and quantity;
• Management reserve;
• Integrated Master Schedule (both baseline and status);
• Variance analysis;
• Risk management data; and
11-29-2010 Page 3
• Formal submission of all DOE Integrated Program Management Report

(IPMR) formats to the contracting officer and uploaded in PARS II.
b. For a project or a portion of a project being accomplished under a cost

reimbursement contract where EVMS requirements have been waived and an
alternate project control system adopted, project performance data will be
provided monthly into PARS II in accord with PARS II Contractor Project
Performance (CPP) Upload Requirements document, and will include:
• Baseline and status schedules;

• Schedule of values data;
• Planned versus actual work and control account data;
• Variance analysis;
• Risk management data; and
• Estimate at Completion (EAC) data.
c. Under a firm fixed-price construction contract, EVM is not mandated by the

Government. However, it is not discouraged, if used by a contractor to manage its
projects as a standard business practice. Unlike a cost reimbursement contract,
firm fixed-price contracts are not subject to adjustment on the basis of the
contractor’s cost experience in performing the contract. Management of firm
fixed-price construction projects are accomplished through establishment of
performance milestones, schedules, and percentage of project completion. For
construction contracts, FAR Subpart 52.232-5, Payment[s] Under Fixed-Price
Construction Contracts, governs payment and the data that the contractor must
provide to support its estimate of work accomplished. Substantiation includes an
itemization of the amounts requested, related to the various elements of work
required by the contract covered by the payment requested and a listing of the
amount included for work performed by each subcontractor under the contract,
the total amount of each subcontract under the contract, and amounts previously
paid to each subcontractor under the contract. While firm fixed-price construction
projects cannot require the regular submission of cost data as with a cost
reimbursement contract, successful project and contract execution is highly
dependent on well-defined requirements that serve as the foundation upon which
performance milestones are developed, accomplished, and evaluated.
d. Except for firm fixed-price contracts, the data shall be submitted by the prime
contractor electronically by uploading the required project performance data at the
lowest element of cost level in the specified format into the Project Assessment
and Reporting System (PARS II) in accordance with the “Contractor Project
Performance Upload Requirements” document maintained by the Office of
Project Management Oversight and Assessments (PM). Unless PM has granted a
temporary exemption, all requested data shall be submitted timely and accurately.
Page 4 11-29-2010
Data shall be loaded into PARS II no later than the last workday of every month.
This data shall be current as of the close of the previous month’s accounting
period. Ad hoc or periodic reporting by the contractor may be required earlier
than CD-2 as specified in the contract.
4. For project contracts to be awarded as subcontracts by the Contractor, the Contractor

shall develop a written Acquisition Plan, if applicable. The Acquisition Plan shall receive
the Contracting Officer’s concurrence.
5. Technical performance analyses and corrective action plans shall be reported to DOE for
variances to the project baseline objectives resulting from design reviews, component and
system tests and simulations.
6. An Integrated Master Schedule (both resource loaded and with critical path) must be
developed and maintained for the project. As a minimum, a resource-loaded IMS must
contain labor, material and equipment costs to include unit prices and quantities. For firm
fixed-price contracts, the total contract cost must be included in the integrated master
schedule.
7. Project technical, cost and schedule risks must be identified, quantified and mitigated
throughout the life of the project. A Risk Management Plan (RMP) will be developed to
cover processes and procedures that will be implemented to address risk assessment
(qualitative and quantitative), risk monitoring, risk reporting and lessons learned. The
contractor's RMP must receive concurrence from DOE in accordance with contract
requirements.
8. The approved integrated contractor technical, cost and schedule baseline shall be
maintained using appropriate change control processes (e.g., Change Control Board) as
defined in the Project Execution Plan (PEP).
9. A configuration management process must be established that controls changes to the

physical configuration of project facilities, structures, systems and components in
compliance with ANSI/EIA-649B and DOE-STD-1073-2003. This process must also
ensure that the configuration is in agreement with the performance objectives identified
in the technical baseline and the approved quality assurance plan.
10. A Value Management/Engineering (VM/VE) process shall be used. Annually, contractors

shall submit a progress report identifying VE accomplishments to the Program Offices.
Refer to OMB Circular A-131, 48 CFR 52.248-1, ASTM E1699-10, and 41 USC 1711.
11. A Quality Assurance Program must be developed and implemented for the contract scope
of work in accordance with DOE O 414.1D, Attachment 2 (CRD), as applicable, and
10 CFR Part 830, Subpart A. For nuclear-related activities, the applicable national
consensus standard shall be ASME NQA-1-2008 (Edition) and NQA-1a-2009 (Addenda).
11-29-2010 Page 5
12. An Integrated Safety Management System must be developed and implemented for the
contract scope of work when the contractor is complying with the requirements of
48 CFR 970.5223-1, Integration of Environment, Safety and Health into Work Planning
and Execution.
13. Contractors performing design for projects shall, at a minimum, conduct a Conceptual,
Preliminary and Final Design Review, in accordance with the PEP. For nuclear projects,
the design review will include a focus on safety and security systems. A Code of Record
shall be maintained under configuration control throughout the CD process and for the
remainder of the nuclear facility’s life-cycle.
14. For projects that are Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities or include major
modifications thereto (as defined in 10 CFR Part 830), the requirements in
DOE-STD-1189-2008 shall be fully implemented. The following documents must be
submitted: Safety Design Strategy (CD-1), Conceptual Safety Design Report (CD-1),
Preliminary Safety Design Report (CD-2), Preliminary Documented Safety Analysis
(CD-2), and Documented Safety Analysis with Technical Safety Requirements (CD-4).
For major modifications, the Conceptual Safety Design Report (CSDR) and the
Preliminary Safety Design Report (PSDR) may either be separate documents or be
subsumed within the Preliminary Documented Safety Analysis. The need to maintain the
CSDR and PSDR as separate documents shall be based on the design development
phases. Projects with conceptual and/or preliminary design phases shall develop the
corresponding safety documentation.
15. The Guiding Principles for Federal Leadership in High Performance and Sustainable
Buildings cited in EO 13693, Section 3(h), must be applied to the siting, design,
construction, and commissioning of new facilities and major renovations of existing
facilities.
16. At a minimum, all new construction and major building renovations must meet U.S.
Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Gold
certification absent an approved waiver from the PME. Refer to DOE Order 436.1.
17. For non-M&O contracts, the Contractor shall develop a Project Management Plan (PMP)
that supports and complements the Federal PEP and its contract. The PMP shall describe
the management methods, organization, control systems and documentation for the
project. The PMP shall receive the concurrences of the FPD and the DOE Contracting
Officer. If significant changes occur during the project, the PMP shall be revised by the
Contractor at the direction of the Contracting Officer.
11-29-2010 Page 1
DEFINITIONS
1. Acquisition Plan. The document that facilitates attainment of the acquisition objectives.
The plan must identify: those milestones at which decisions should be made; all the
technical, business, management; and other significant considerations that will control the
acquisition including, but not limited to, market research, competition, contract type,
source selection procedures and socio-economic considerations.
2. Acquisition Strategy. A high-level business and technical management approach

designed to achieve project objectives within specified resource constraints with
recognition of key project risks and the strategies identified to handle those risks. It is the
framework for planning, organizing, staffing, controlling, and leading a project. It
provides a master schedule for activities essential for project success, and for formulating
functional strategies and plans.
3. Baseline. A quantitative definition of cost, schedule and technical performance that

serves as a base or standard for measurement and control during the performance of an
effort; the established plan against which the status of resources and the effort of the
overall program, field program(s), project(s), task(s), or subtask(s) are measured,
assessed and controlled. Once established, baselines are subject to change control
discipline.
4. Baseline Change Proposal. A document that provides a complete description of a

proposed change to an approved performance baseline, including the resulting impacts on
the project scope, schedule, design, methods, and cost baselines.
5. Beneficial Occupancy. Stage of construction of a building or facility, before final

completion, at which its user can occupy it for the purpose it was constructed. Beneficial
occupancy does not imply that a project has reached CD-4.
6. Best Practices. An activity or procedure that has produced outstanding results in another
situation and could be adapted to improve effectiveness and efficiency in a current
situation.
7. Capital Assets. Capital assets are land, structures, equipment and intellectual property,
which are used by the Federal Government and have an estimated useful life of two years
or more. Capital assets exclude items acquired for resale in the ordinary course of
operations or held for the purpose of physical consumption such as operating materials
and supplies. Capital assets may be acquired in different ways: through purchase,
construction, or manufacture; through a lease-purchase or other capital lease, regardless
of whether title has passed to the Federal Government; or through exchange. Capital
assets include the environmental remediation of land to make it useful, leasehold
improvements and land rights; assets owned by the Federal Government but located in a
foreign country or held by others (such as federal contractors, state and local
governments, or colleges and universities); and assets whose ownership is shared by the
Federal Government with other entities.
Page 2 11-29-2010
8. Capital Asset Project. A project with defined start and end points required in the
acquisition of capital assets. The project acquisition cost of a capital asset includes both
its purchase price and all other costs incurred to bring it to a form and location suitable
for its intended use. It is independent of funding type. It excludes operating expense
funded activities such as repair, maintenance or alterations that are part of routine
operations and maintenance functions.
9. CD-0, Approve Mission Need. Approval of CD-0 formally establishes a project and
begins the process of conceptual planning and design used to develop alternative
concepts and functional requirements. Additionally, CD-0 approval allows the Program
to request PED funds for use in preliminary design, final design and baseline
development.
10. CD-1, Approve Alternative Selection and Cost Range. CD-1 approval marks the
completion of the project Definition Phase and the conceptual design. Approval of CD-1
provides the authorization to begin the project Execution Phase and allows PED funds to
be used.
11. CD-2, Approve Performance Baseline. CD-2 approval marks the approval of the
performance baseline and requires the completion of preliminary design for all projects.
It also requires the completion of final design for Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear
facilities. It is the first major milestone in the project Execution Phase. Approval of CD-2
authorizes submission of a budget request for the TPC.
12. CD-3, Approve Start of Construction. CD-3 provides authorization to complete all
procurement and construction and/or implementation activities and initiate all acceptance
and turnover activities. Approval of CD-3 authorizes the project to commit all the
resources necessary, within the funds provided, to execute the project.
13. CD-4, Approve Start of Operations or Project Completion. CD-4 approval marks the
achievement of the completion criteria (i.e., KPPs) defined in the PEP (or in the PRD, for
NNSA projects), and if applicable, subsequent approval of transition to operations.
14. Change Control. A process that ensures changes to the approved baseline are properly
identified, reviewed, approved, implemented and tested and documented.
15. Code of Record. A set of requirements, including Federal and state laws, as defined in
contracts and Standards or Requirements Identification Documents (or their equivalent),
that are in effect at the time a facility or item of equipment was designed and accepted by
DOE. It is initiated during the conceptual design phase and prior to approval of CD-1. It
is placed under configuration control to ensure it is updated to include more detailed
design requirements as they are developed during preliminary design and prior to
approval of CD-2. It is controlled during final design and construction with a process for
reviewing and evaluating new and revised requirements to determine their impact on
project safety, cost and schedule before a decision is taken to revise the Code of Record.
It is maintained and controlled through facility decommissioning.
11-29-2010 Page 3
16. Conceptual Design. The Conceptual Design process requires a mission need as an input.
It is the exploration of concepts, specifications and designs for meeting the mission
needs, and the development of alternatives that are technically viable, affordable and
sustainable. The conceptual design provides sufficient detail to produce a more refined
cost estimate range and to evaluate the merits of the project.
17. Confidence Level. The likelihood – expressed as a percentage – that an occurrence will
be realized. The higher the confidence level, the higher the probability of success.
18. Configuration Management. The technical and administrative direction and surveillance
actions taken to identify and document the functional and physical characteristics of a
configuration item; to control changes to a configuration item and its characteristics; and
to record and report change processing and implementation status.
19. Constructability Review. A technical review to determine the extent to which the design
of a structure facilitates ease of construction, subject to the overall requirements for the
completed form.
20. Contractor Requirements Document. The DOE document that identifies the requirements
that the prime contractor's project management system must satisfy (Attachment 1).
21. Contingency. The portion of the project budget that is available for risk uncertainty
within the project scope, but outside the scope of the contract. Contingency is budget that
is not placed on the contract and is included in the TPC. Contingency is controlled by
Federal personnel as delineated in the PEP.
22. Corporate Certification. A corporate certification exists when a contractor adopts one of
their existing certified EVMS in its entirety for application under a new contract,
regardless of location. The EVMS under the corporate certification must remain intact in
all aspects to that originally certified and will be validated by an EVMS Surveillance.
23. Critical Decision. A formal determination made by the CE or PME at a specific point
during the project that allows the project to proceed to the next phase or CD.
24. Critical Path. Those series of tasks that define the longest durations of the project. Each
task on the critical path is a critical task and must finish on time for the entire project to
finish on time.
25. Deactivation. The process of placing a facility in a stable and known condition including
the removal of hazardous and radioactive materials to ensure adequate protection of the
worker, public health and safety, and the environment, thereby limiting the long-term
cost of surveillance and maintenance. Actions include the removal of fuel, draining
and/or de-energizing nonessential systems, removal of stored radioactive and hazardous
materials, and related actions. Deactivation does not include all decontamination
necessary for the dismantlement and demolition phase of decommissioning, e.g.,
Page 4 11-29-2010
removal of contamination remaining in the fixed structures and equipment after

deactivation.
26. Decommissioning. Takes place after deactivation and includes surveillance and
maintenance, decontamination and/or dismantlement. These actions are taken at the end
of the life of a facility to retire it from service with adequate regard for the health and
safety of workers and the public and for the protection of the environment. The ultimate
goal of decommissioning is unrestricted release or restricted use of the site.
27. Decontamination. The removal or reduction of residual chemical, biological, or

radiological contaminants and hazardous materials by mechanical, chemical or other
techniques to achieve a stated objective or end condition.
28. Demolition. Destruction and removal of physical facilities or systems.
29. Design Authority (for nuclear facilities only). The engineer designated by the PME to be
responsible for establishing the design requirements and ensuring that design output
documentation appropriately and accurately reflect the design basis. The Design
Authority is responsible for design control and ultimate technical adequacy of the design
process. These responsibilities are applicable whether the process is conducted fully
in-house, partially contracted to outside organizations, or fully contracted to outside
organizations. The Design Authority may delegate design work, but not its
responsibilities.
30. Design-Bid-Build. A project delivery method whereby design and construction are
separate contracts.
31. Design-Build. A project delivery method whereby design and construction contracts are
combined. It is important that specific flow down requirements specified in requests for
proposals to subcontractors, especially for firm fixed-price subcontracts, to insure
implementation of the principles from this Order for effective performance
measurement of the subcontractors’ scope of work.
32. Design Review. A formal and documented management technique used primarily to
conduct a thorough evaluation of a proposed design in order to determine whether or not
the proposed design meets the project requirements set forth by the customer, as well as
to determine whether the proposed design will be fully functional.
33. Deviation. Occurs when the TPC, CD-4 completion date, or performance and scope
parameters, defined by the approved PB at CD-2, cannot be met.
34. Directed Change. A change caused by some DOE policy directives (such as those that
have force and effect of law and regulation), regulatory, or statutory action and is
initiated by entities external to the Department, to include external funding reductions.
11-29-2010 Page 5
35. Dismantlement. The disassembly or demolition and removal of any structure, system or
component during decommissioning and satisfactory interim or long-term disposal of the
residue from all or portions of a facility.
36. Disposal. Final placement or destruction of toxic, radioactive, or other waste, surplus or
banned pesticides or other chemicals, polluted soils and drums containing hazardous
materials from removal actions or accidental releases. Disposal may be accomplished
through use of approved, secure, regulated landfills, surface impoundments, land
farming, deep well injection or incineration.
37. Disposition. Those activities that follow completion of program missions, including but
not limited to, preparation for reuse, surveillance, maintenance, deactivation,
decommissioning, and long-term stewardship. DOE O 430.1B provides implementation
guidance for requirements specific to the disposition and long-term stewardship of
contaminated, excess facilities.
38. Earned Value. The budgeted value of work actually accomplished in a given time.
Simply defined, Earned Value represents the value of work accomplished during the
period.
39. Earned Value Management. A project performance method that utilizes an integrated set
of performance measurements (e.g., scope, cost and schedule) to assess and measure
project performance and progress, and estimate cost and schedule impacts at completion.
40. Earned Value Management System. An integrated set of policies, procedures and
practices to objectively track true performance on a project or program. EVMS represents
an integration methodology that is able to provide an early warning of performance
problems while enhancing leadership decisions for successful corrective action.
41. Environmental Remedial Action Plan. Summarizes the remedial alternatives presented in
the analysis of the feasibility study and identifies the preferred alternative and the
rationale for selecting the preferred alternative.
42. EVMS Certification. The determination that a Contractor's EVMS, on all applicable
projects, is in full compliance with EIA-748C, or as required by the contract, and in
accordance with FAR Subpart 52.234-4, EVMS.
43. EVMS Surveillance. The process of reviewing a Contractor's certified EVMS, on all
applicable projects, to establish continuing compliance with EIA-748C, or as required by
the contract, and in accordance with FAR Subpart 52.234-4, EVMS. Surveillance may
also verify that EVMS use is properly implemented by the contractor.
44. Energy Systems Acquisition Advisory Board. Advises the CE on CDs related to Major
System Projects, site selection and PB deviation dispositions.
45. Equivalencies. Alternatives to how a requirement in a directive is fulfilled in cases where

the “how” is specified. These represent an acceptable alternative approach to achieving
Page 6 11-29-2010
the goal of the directive. Unless specified otherwise in the directive, Equivalencies are
granted, in consultation with the OPI, by the Program Secretarial Officer or their
designee, or in the case of the NNSA, by the Administrator or designee, and documented
for the OPI in a memorandum. For those directives listed in Attachment 1 of
DOE O 410.1, CTA concurrences are required prior to the granting of equivalencies.
46. Estimate-At-Completion. Actual cost of work completed to date plus the predicted costs
and schedule for finishing the remaining work.
47. Estimate-To-Complete. The value expressed in either dollars or hours developed to

represent the cost of the work required to complete a task.
48. Exemptions. The release from one or more requirements in a directive. Unless specified
otherwise in the directive, Exemptions are granted, in consultation with the OPI, by the
Program Secretarial Officer or their designee, or in the case of the NNSA, by the
Administrator or designee, and documented for the OPI in a memorandum. For those
directives listed in Attachment 1 of DOE O 410.1, CTA concurrences are required prior
to the granting of exemptions.
49. External Independent Review. A project review performed by personnel from PM and
augmented by individuals outside DOE, primarily to support validation of either the
Performance Baseline (CD-2) or Construction/Execution Readiness (CD-3). PM selects
an appropriate group of subject matter experts in a contracted capacity to assist with these
reviews.
50. Facilities Information Management System. The Department's corporate database for real
property. The system provides the Department with an accurate inventory and
management tool that assists with planning and managing all real property assets. See
DOE O 430.1B for additional information.
51. Federal Program Manager. An individual in the headquarters organizational element

responsible for managing a program and, until designation of the FPD, its assigned
projects. They ensure that all the projects are properly phased, funded over time, and that
each project manager is meeting their key milestones. They are the project manager's
advocate, ensure proper resourcing and facilitate the execution process. They predict
programmatic risks and put mitigation strategies in place so that projects are not affected.
52. Federal Project Director. The individual certified under the Department's PMCDP as
responsible and accountable to the PME or Program Secretarial Officer for project
execution. Responsibilities include developing and maintaining the PEP; managing
project resources; establishing and implementing management systems, including
performance measurement systems; and approving and implementing changes to project
baselines.
53. Funding Profile. A representation of the project funding over the life of the project. It is
part of the PME decision and any decremental change requires PME approval.
11-29-2010 Page 7
54. Final Design. Completion of the design effort and production of all the approved design
documentation necessary to permit procurement, construction, testing, checkout and
turnover to proceed.
55. General Plant Project. Miscellaneous minor new construction project, of a general nature,
for which the total estimated cost may not exceed the congressionally established limit.
GPPs are necessary to adapt facilities to new or improved production techniques, to effect
economies of operations, and to reduce or eliminate health, fire and security problems.
These projects provide for design and/or construction, additions, improvements to land,
buildings, replacements or additions to roads and general area improvements. (Refer to
DOE O 430.1B and 50 USC 2743)
56. Hot Commissioning. The processing of a minimal acceptable sample of an actual

material to obtain the desired performance output during the startup and testing phase of a
chemical or nuclear processing facility.
57. Independent. An office or entity that is not under the supervision, direction, or control of
the sponsor responsible for carrying out the project's development or acquisition.
58. Independent Cost Estimate. A cost estimate, prepared by an organization independent of

the project sponsor, using the same detailed technical and procurement information to
make the project estimate. It is used to validate the project estimate to determine whether
it is accurate and reasonable.
59. Independent Cost Review. An independent evaluation of a project's cost estimate that
examines its quality and accuracy, with emphasis on specific cost and technical risks. It
involves the analysis of the existing estimate's approach and assumptions.
60. Independent Government Cost Estimate. The government's estimate of the resources and
its projected costs that a contractor would incur in the performance of a contract. These
costs include direct costs such as labor, supplies, equipment, or transportation and
indirect costs such as labor overhead, material overhead, as well as general and
administrative expenses, profit or fee. (Refer to FAR 36.203 and FAR 15.404-1.)
61. Independent Project Review. A project management tool that serves to verify the project's
mission, organization, development, processes, technical requirements, baselines,
progress and/or readiness to proceed to the next successive phase in DOE's Acquisition
Management System.
62. Integrated Project Team. A cross-functional group of individuals organized for the
specific purpose of delivering a project to an external or internal customer. It is led by a
Federal Project Director.
63. Integrated Safety Management System. The application of the integrated safety
management system to a project or activity. The fundamental premise of Integrated
Safety Management is that accidents are preventable through early and close attention to
Page 8 11-29-2010
safety, design, and operation, and with substantial stakeholder involvement in teams that
plan and execute the project, based on appropriate standards.
64. Key Performance Parameters. A vital characteristic, function, requirement or design

basis, that if changed, would have a major impact on the facility or system performance,
scope, schedule, cost and/or risk, or the ability of an interfacing project to meet its
mission requirements. A parameter may be a performance, design, or interface
requirement. Appropriate parameters are those that express performance in terms of
accuracy, capacity, throughput, quantity, processing rate, purity, reliability, sustainability,
or others that define how well a system, facility or other project will perform. In
aggregate, KPPs comprise the scope of the project.
65. Lessons Learned. The project management related input and output device that represents
the knowledge, information or instructional knowledge that have been garnered through
the process of actually completing the ultimate performance of the respective project.
Lessons learned are valuable because they will benefit future endeavors and ideally
prevent any negative happenings from taking place in the future.
66. Life-Cycle Costs. The sum total of all direct, indirect, recurring, nonrecurring and other
related costs incurred or estimated to be incurred in the planning, design, development,
procurement, production, operations and maintenance, support, recapitalization and final
disposition of real property over its anticipated life span for every aspect of the program,
regardless of funding source.
67. Line Item. A distinct design, construction, betterment and/or fabrication of real property
for which Congress will be requested to authorize and appropriate specific funds. A
full-scale test asset or other pilot/prototype asset primarily constructed for experimental
or demonstration purposes, but planned to become DOE property and continue to operate
beyond the experimental or demonstration phase is included in this definition.
68. Long-Lead Procurement. Equipment, services and/or materials that must be procured
well in advance of the need because of long delivery times. If long-lead procurements are
executed prior to CD-3 approval for the project, this will be designated as CD-3A and
require a stand-alone decision by the PME, outside of the CD process.
69. Major Item of Equipment. Capital equipment with a cost that exceeds $2M. In most
cases, capital equipment is installed with no construction cost. However, in cases
where the equipment requires provision of supporting construction such as
foundations, utilities, structural modifications, and/or additions to a building, the
associated construction activities must be acquired through a line item construction
project or a minor construction project if the cost is below the minor construction
threshold established by Congress..
70. Major System Project. A project with a TPC of greater than or equal to $750M or as
designated by the Deputy Secretary.
11-29-2010 Page 9
71. Management Reserve. An amount of the total contract budget withheld for
management control purposes by the contractor. Management reserve is not part of the
Performance Measurement Baseline.
72. Milestone. Any significant or substantive point, time or event of the project.
Milestones typically refer to points at which large schedule events or series of events
have been completed, and a new phase or phases are set to begin.
73. Mission Need Statement. The primary document supporting the PME's decision to
initiate exploration of options to fulfill a capability gap including but not limited to
acquisition of a new capital asset.
74. Mitigation. Technique to eliminate or lessen the likelihood and/or consequence of a

risk.
75. Non-Major System. Any project with a TPC less than $750M.
76. Operational Readiness Review. A disciplined, systematic, documented,

performance-based examination of facilities, equipment, personnel, procedures and
management control systems for ensuring that a facility can be operated safely within
its approved safety envelope as defined by the facility safety basis plan. The ORR
provides the basis for the Department to direct startup or restart of the facility, activity
or operation.
77. Other Project Costs. All other costs related to a project that are not included in the
TEC. OPCs will include, but are not limited to: research and development; conceptual
design and conceptual design report; startup and commissioning costs; NEPA
documentation; PDS preparation; siting; and permitting requirements.
78. Performance Baseline. The collective key performance, scope, cost, and schedule
parameters, which are defined for all projects at CD-2. The PB includes the entire
project budget (TPC including fee and contingency) and represents DOE's
commitment to Congress.
79. Performance Measurement Baseline. The baseline cost that encompasses all contractor
project work packages and planning packages, derived from summing all the costs from
the Work Breakdown Structure. Undistributed management reserve, contingency, profit,
fee and DOE direct costs are not part of the Performance Measurement Baseline. The
PMB is the benchmark used within EVM systems to monitor project (and contract)
execution performance.
80. Preliminary Design. This is the design that is prepared following CD-1 approval.
Preliminary design initiates the process of converting concepts to a design appropriate for
procurement or construction. All KPPs and project scope are sufficiently defined to
Page 10 11-29-2010
prepare a budget estimate. This stage of the design is complete when it provides
sufficient information to support development of the PB.
81. Program. An organized set of activities directed toward a common purpose or goal
undertaken or proposed in support of an assigned mission area. It is characterized by a
strategy for accomplishing a definite objective(s) that identifies the means of
accomplishment, particularly in qualitative terms, with respect to work force, material
and facility requirements. Programs are typically made up of technology-based activities,
projects and supporting operations.
82. Program Management. A group of closely-related projects managed in a coordinated

way.
83. Project. A unique effort having defined start and end points undertaken to create a
product, facility, or system. Built on interdependent activities planned to meet a common
objective, a project focuses on attaining or completing a deliverable within a
predetermined cost, schedule and technical scope baseline. Projects include planning and
execution of construction, assembly, renovation, modification, environmental restoration,
decontamination and decommissioning, large capital equipment, and technology
development activities. A project is not constrained to any specific element of the budget
structure (e.g., operating expense).
84. Project Assessment and Reporting System. A reporting process to connect field project
status with headquarters to report and compare budgeted or scheduled project
forecasts.
85. Project Closeout. Occurs after CD-4, Project Completion, and involves activities such as
performing financial and administrative closeout, developing project closeout and lessons
learned reports, and other activities as appropriate for the project.
86. Project Data Sheet. A document that contains summary project data and the justification
required to include the entire project effort as a part of the Departmental budget.
87. Project Definition Rating Index. This is a project management tool which is used for
assessing how well the project scope is defined. The tool uses a numeric assessment
which rates a wide range of project elements to determine how well the project is defined.
88. Project Engineering and Design. Design funds established for use on preliminary design.
Typically, PED funds are used for preliminary and final design and related activities for
design-bid-build strategies, and for preliminary design and related costs in design-build
strategies. It is also analogous with a project phase that includes preliminary and final
design and baseline development.
89. Project Execution Plan. DOE's core document for management of a project. It establishes
the policies and procedures to be followed in order to manage and control project
planning, initiation, definition, execution, and transition/closeout, and uses the outcomes
11-29-2010 Page 11
and outputs from all project planning processes, integrating them into a formally
approved document. A PEP includes an accurate reflection of how the project is to be
accomplished, resource requirements, technical considerations, risk management,
configuration management, and roles and responsibilities.
90. Project Management. Those services provided to DOE on a specific project, beginning
at the start of design and continuing through the completion of construction, for
planning, organizing, directing, controlling and reporting on the status of the project.
91. Project Management Plan. The contractor-prepared document that sets forth the plans,
organization and systems that the contractor will utilize to manage the project. Its content
and the extent of detail of the PMP will vary in accordance with the size and type of
project and state of project execution.
92. Project Management Support Office. An office established exclusively to oversee and
manage the activities associated with projects.
93. Project Peer Reviews. Periodic review of a project performed by peers (with similar
experience to project personnel), independent from the project, to evaluate technical,
managerial, cost and scope, and other aspects of the project, as appropriate. These
reviews are typically led by the PMSO.
94. Quality Assurance. All those actions performed by the DOE prime contractor during the
project that provide confidence that quality is achieved. It is executed through a
formalized Quality Assurance Program.
95. Quality Control. Those actions related to the physical characteristics of a material,
structure, component, or system which provide a means to control the quality of the
material, structure, component, or system to predetermined requirements.
96. Readiness Assessment. An assessment to determine a facility's readiness to startup or

restart when an ORR is not required or when a contractor's standard procedures for
startup are not judged by the contractor or DOE management to provide an adequate
verification of readiness.
97. Resource-Loaded Schedule. Schedules with resources of staff, facilities, cost, equipment
and materials which are needed to complete the activities required.
98. Risk. Factor, element, constraint or course of action that introduces an uncertainty of
outcome, either positively or negatively that could impact project objectives.
99. Risk Assessment. Identification and analysis of project and program risks to ensure an
understanding of each risk in terms of probability and consequences.
100. Risk Management. The handling of risks through specific methods and techniques.
Effective risk management is an essential element of every project. The DOE risk
management concept is based on the principles that risk management must be analytical,
Page 12 11-29-2010
forward-looking, structured, informative and continuous. Risk assessments should be

performed as early as possible in the project and should identify critical technical,
performance, schedule and cost risks. Once risks are identified, sound risk mitigation
strategies and actions should be developed and documented.
101. Risk Management Plan. Documents how the risk processes will be carried out during the
project.
102. Rough Order of Magnitude Estimate. An estimate based on high-level objectives,

provides a high-level view of the project deliverables, and has lots of wiggle room. Most
ROM estimates have a range of variance from -25% all the way to +75%.
103. Safeguards and Security. An integrated system of activities, systems, programs, facilities
and policies for the protection of classified information and/or classified matter,
unclassified control information, nuclear materials, nuclear weapons, nuclear weapon
components, and/or the Department's and its contractors' facilities, property and
equipment.
104. Sustainability. To create and maintain conditions, under which humans and nature can
exist in productive harmony, that permit fulfilling the social, economic and other
requirements of present and future generations.
105. System Engineering Approach. A proven, disciplined approach that supports

management in clearly defining the mission or problem; managing system functions and
requirements; identifying and managing risk; establishing bases for informed
decision-making; and, verifying that products and services meet customer needs. The
goal of the system engineering approach is to transform mission operational requirements
into system architecture, performance parameters and design details.
106. Tailoring. An element of the acquisition process and must be appropriate considering the
risk, complexity, visibility, cost, safety, security, and schedule of the project. Tailoring
does not imply the omission of essential elements in the acquisition process or other
processes that are appropriate to a specific project's requirements or conditions.
107. Technical Independent Project Review. An independent project review conducted prior
to obtaining CD-2, for Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities. At a minimum, the
focus of this review is to determine that the safety documentation is sufficiently
conservative and bounding to be relied upon for the next phase of the project.
108. Technology Maturation Plan. A TMP details the steps necessary for developing
technologies that are less mature than desired to the point where they are ready for
project insertion.
109. Technology Readiness Assessment. An assessment of how far technology development

has proceeded. It provides a snapshot in time of the maturity of technologies and their
readiness for insertion into the project design and execution schedule.
11-29-2010 Page 13
110. Technical Readiness Level. A metric used for describing technology maturity. It is a
measure used by many U.S. government agencies to assess maturity of evolving
technologies (materials, components, devices, etc.) prior to incorporating that technology
into a system or subsystem.
111. Total Estimated Cost. All engineering design costs (after conceptual design), facility
construction costs and other costs specifically related to those construction efforts. TEC
will include, but is not limited to: project, design and construction management; contract
modifications (to include equitable adjustments) resulting in changes to these costs;
design; construction; contingency; contractor support directly related to design and
construction; and equipment rental and refurbishment.
112. Total Project Cost. All costs between CD-0 and CD-4 specific to a project incurred
through the startup of a facility, but prior to the operation of the facility. Thus, TPC
includes TEC plus OPC.
113. Value Engineering. A structured technique commonly used in project management to

optimize the overall value of the project. Often, creative strategies will be employed in an
attempt to achieve the lowest life-cycle cost available for the project. The VE effort is a
planned, detailed review/evaluation of a project to identify alternative approaches to
providing the needed assets.
114. Value Management. An organized effort directed at analyzing the functions of systems,
equipment, facilities, services and supplies for achieving the essential functions at the
lowest life-cycle cost that is consistent with required performance, quality, reliability and
safety. VM encompasses VE.
115. Value Study. An intensive review of requirements and the development of alternatives by
the use of appropriate value techniques utilizing aspects of engineering, requirements
analysis, the behavioral sciences, creativity, economic analysis and the scientific method.
116. Variance. A measurable change from a known standard or baseline. It is the difference
between what is expected and what is actually accomplished. A variance is a deviation or
departure from the approved scope, cost or schedule performance. Variances must be
tracked and reported. They should not be eliminated, but mitigated through corrective
actions. Baseline changes, if needed, are submitted for changes in technical scope,
funding or directed changes.
117. Work Breakdown Structure. Used by the project management team to organize and
define a project into manageable objectives and create a blueprint by which the steps
leading to the completion of a project are obtained. It is an outline of the project that
becomes more detailed under the subheadings or work packages.
11-29-2010 Page 1
ACRONYMS
ANSI American National Standards Institute

AoA Analysis of Alternatives
AP Acquisition Plan
AS Acquisition Strategy
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials
BCP Baseline Change Proposal
BOD Beneficial Occupancy Date
CCB Change Control Board
CD Critical Decision
CDNS Chief of Defense Nuclear Safety
CDR Conceptual Design Report
CE Chief Executive for Project Management
CFO Office of the Chief Financial Officer
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CNS Chief of Nuclear Safety
CO Contracting Officer
CPARS Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System
CPP Contractor Project Performance
CRD Contractor Requirements Document
CSDR Conceptual Safety Design Report
CSVR Conceptual Safety Validation Report
CTA Central Technical Authority
DEAR Department of Energy Acquisition Regulation
DoD U.S. Department of Defense
DOE U.S. Department of Energy
DID Data Item Description
EAC Estimate at Completion
EIA Electronic Institute of America
EIR External Independent Review
Page 2 11-29-2010
EM Environmental Management
EO Executive Order
ESAAB Energy Systems Acquisition Advisory Board
EVMS Earned Value Management System
FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation
FDO Fee Determining Official
FPD Federal Project Director
FIMS Facility Information Management System
FR Federal Register
FY Fiscal Year
G Guide
GAO U.S. Government Accountability Office
GPP General Plant Project
ICE Independent Cost Estimate
ICR Independent Cost Review
IMP Integrated Master Plan
IMS Integrated Master Schedule
IPA Intergovernmental Personnel Act
IPMR Integrated Program Management Report
IPR Independent Project Review
IPT Integrated Project Team
ISM Integrated Safety Management
ISMS Integrated Safety Management System
KPP Key Performance Parameter
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
LOE Level of Effort
M Manual
MIE Major Items of Equipment
MNS Mission Need Statement
M&O Management and Operating
NDIA National Defense Industrial Association
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
11-29-2010 Page 3
NNSA National Nuclear Security Administration

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
NQA Nuclear Quality Assurance
O Order
OBS Organizational Breakdown Structure
OE Operating Expense
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OPC Other Project Costs
ORR Operational Readiness Review
OTB Over-Target Baseline
OTS Over-Target Schedule
P Policy
PARS Project Assessment and Reporting System
PASEG Planning and Scheduling Excellence Guide
PB Performance Baseline
PDRI Project Definition Rating Index
PDS Project Data Sheet
PDSA Preliminary Documented Safety Analysis
PED Project Engineering and Design
PEP Project Execution Plan
PHAR Preliminary Hazard Analysis Report
PL Public Law
PM Office of Project Management Oversight and Assessments
PMB Performance Measurement Baseline
PMCDP Project Management Career Development Program
PME Project Management Executive
PMRC Project Management Risk Committee
PMSO Project Management Support Office
PRD Program Requirements Document
PSDR Preliminary Safety Design Report
PSO Program Secretarial Officer
PSVR Preliminary Safety Validation Report
Page 4 11-29-2010
PMP Project Management Plan

QA Quality Assurance
QAP Quality Assurance Program
QPR Quarterly Project Review
RA Readiness Assessment
RMP Risk Management Plan
ROM Rough Order of Magnitude
SBAA Safety Basis Approval Authority
SDS Safety Design Strategy
SER Safety Evaluation Report
SPE Senior Procurement Executive
STD Standard
TEC Total Estimated Cost
TIPR Technical Independent Project Review
TPC Total Project Cost
TMP Technology Maturation Plan
TRA Technology Readiness Assessment
TRL Technology Readiness Level
UFGS Unified Facilities Guide Specification
USC United States Code
VE Value Engineering
VM Value Management
WBS Work Breakdown Structure
11-29-2010 Page 1
REFERENCES
1. 10 CFR Part 830, Nuclear Safety Management.
2. 10 CFR Part 830, Subpart A, Quality Assurance Requirements.
3. 10 CFR Part 830, Subpart B, Safety Basis Requirements.
4. 10 CFR 830.206, Preliminary Documented Safety Analysis.
5. 10 CFR 830.207, DOE Approval of Safety Basis.
6. 10 CFR Part 851, Worker Safety and Health Program, Appendix A, Section 1(d).
7. 10 CFR Part 1021, National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures.
8. 2 CFR Part 910, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit
Requirements for Federal Awards.
9. 29 CFR 1910.119, Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals.
10. 29 CFR 1910.120, Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response.
11. 40 CFR Part 68, Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions.
12. 41 USC 1711, Value Engineering.
13. 48 CFR 52.248-1, Value Engineering.
14. 48 CFR 970.5204-2, Laws, Regulations, and DOE Directives.
15. 48 CFR 970.5223-1, Integration of Environment, Safety and Health into Work Planning
and Execution.
16. 50 USC 2406, Deputy Administrator for Naval Reactors.
17. 50 USC 2511, Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program.
18. 50 USC 2743, Minor Construction Projects.
19. 50 USC 2744, Limits on Construction Projects.
20. 50 USC 2746, Conceptual and Construction Design.
21. 77 FR 14473, Council on Environmental Quality, March 12, 2012.
22. ANSI/EIA-649B, National Consensus Standard for Configuration Management, April

2011.
Page 2 11-29-2010
23. American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Nuclear Quality Assurance

(NQA)-1-2008 (Edition) and NQA-1a-2009 (Addenda), Quality Assurance Requirements
for Nuclear Facility Applications.
24. ASTM E1699-10, Standard Practice for Performing Value Analysis of Buildings and
Building Systems and Other Constructed Projects.
25. Department of Defense (DoD) Integrated Program Management Report (IPMR)

Implementation Guide, January 24, 2013.
26. Department of Energy Acquisition Guide,

http://energy.gov/management/downloads/department-energy-doe-acquisition-guide.
27. Department of Energy Acquisition Regulation (DEAR), Subpart 915-4, Contract Pricing.
28. DOE Integrated Program Management Report (IPMR) Data Item Description (DID),
June 2015.
29. DOE G 413.3-1, Managing Design and Construction Using Systems Engineering, dated
09-23-08.
30. DOE G 413.3-2, Quality Assurance Guide for Project Management, dated 06-27-08.
31. DOE G 413.3-3A, Safeguards and Security for Program and Project Management, dated
08-15-13.
32. DOE G 413.3-4A, Technology Readiness Assessment Guide, dated 09-15-11.
33. DOE G 413.3-5A, Performance Baseline Guide, dated 09-23-11.
34. DOE G 413.3-6A, High Performance Sustainable Building, dated 11-09-11.
35. DOE G 413.3-7A, Risk Management Guide, dated 01-12-11.
36. DOE G 413.3-9, Project Review Guide for Capital Asset Projects, dated 09-23-08.
37. DOE G 413.3-10A, Earned Value Management System (EVMS), dated 03-13-12.
38. DOE G 413.3-12, Project Definition Rating Index Guide for Traditional Nuclear and
Non-Nuclear Construction Projects, dated 07-22-10.
39. DOE G 413.3-13, Acquisition Strategy Guide for Capital Asset Projects, dated 07-22-08.
40. DOE G 413.3-15, Project Execution Plans, dated 09-12-08.
41. DOE G 413.3-16A, Project Transition/Closeout Guide, dated 10-26-11.
42. DOE G 413.3-17, Mission Need Statement Guide, dated 06-20-08.

11-29-2010 Page 3
43. DOE G 413.3-18A, Integrated Project Team Guide for Formation and Implementation,
dated 02-03-12.
44. DOE G 413.3-19, Staffing Guide for Project Management, dated 06-03-10.
45. DOE G 413.3-20, Change Control Management Guide, dated 07-29-11.
46. DOE G 413.3-21, Cost Estimating Guide, dated 05-09-11.
47. DOE G 430.1-7, Alternative Financing Guide, dated 03-12-12.
48. DOE G 450.4-1C, Integrated Safety Management System Guide, dated 09-29-11.
49. DOE O 251.1C, Departmental Directives Program, dated 01-15-09.
50. DOE O 361.1C, Acquisition Career Management Program, dated 05-14-15.
51. DOE O 410.1, Central Technical Authority Responsibilities Regarding Nuclear Safety
Requirements, dated 08-28-07.
52. DOE O 414.1D, Quality Assurance, dated 04-25-11.
53. DOE O 415.1, Chg 1, Information Technology Project Management, dated 12-3-12.
54. DOE O 420.1C, Change 1, Facility Safety, dated 12-04-12.
55. DOE O 420.2C, Safety of Accelerator Facilities, dated 07-21-11.
56. DOE O 425.1D, Change 1, Verification of Readiness to Start Up and Restart Nuclear
Facilities, dated 04-16-2010.
57. DOE O 430.1B, Change 2, Real Property Asset Management, dated 04-25-11.
58. DOE O 436.1, Departmental Sustainability, dated 05-02-11.
59. DOE O 450.2, Integrated Safety Management, dated 04-25-11.
60. DOE O 451.1B, Change 3, National Environmental Policy Act Compliance Program,
dated 10-26-2000.
61. DOE O 470.4B, Change 1, Safeguards and Security Program, dated 07-21-2011.
62. DOE P 450.4A, Integrated Safety Management Policy, dated 04-25-11.
63. DOE P 470.1A, Safeguards and Security Program, dated 12-29-10.
64. DOE-STD-1073-2003, Configuration Management, October 2003.

Page 4 11-29-2010
65. DOE-STD-1189-2008, Integration of Safety into the Design Process, March 2008.
66. DOE-STD-3006-2010, Planning and Conducting Readiness Reviews, May 2010.
67. DOE Work Breakdown Structure Handbook, dated 08-01-12.
68. EIA-748C, Earned Value Management Systems, March 2013.
69. EO 12344, Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, dated 02-01-82.
70. EO 12931, Federal Procurement Reform, dated 10-13-94.
71. EO 13693, Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade, dated 03-25-15.
72. Federal Acquisition Regulation, Part 7, Subpart 7.1, Acquisition Plans.
73. Federal Acquisition Regulation, Part 15, Subpart 15.4, Contract Pricing.
74. Federal Acquisition Regulation, Part 15, Subpart 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis
Techniques.
75. Federal Acquisition Regulation, Part 15, Subpart 15.406-1, Pre-negotiation Objectives.
76. Federal Acquisition Regulation, Part 17, Subpart 17.6, Management and Operating
Contracts.
77. Federal Acquisition Regulation, Part 34, Subpart 34.004, Acquisition Strategy, and
Subpart 34.2, Earned Value Management System.
78. Federal Acquisition Regulation, Part 36, Subpart 36.203, Government Estimate of
Construction Costs.
79. Federal Acquisition Regulation, Part 42, Subpart 42.15, Contractor Performance
Information.
80. Federal Acquisition Regulation, Part 52, Subpart 52.232-5, Payments Under Fixed-Price
Construction Contracts.
81. Federal Acquisition Regulation, Part 52, Subpart 52.234-2 through 52.234-4, Earned
Value Management System.
82. Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA), Title VIII, Subtitle
D of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2015, Public Law
No. 113-291.
83. GAO-15-37 DOE and NNSA Project Management: Analysis of Alternatives Could be
Improved by Incorporating Best Practices, December 11, 2014.
11-29-2010 Page 5
84. GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Developing and
Managing Capital Program Costs (GAO-09-3SP), dated 03-02-09.
85. GAO Schedule Assessment Guide (GAO-16-89C), December 2015.
86. House Report 109-86, “Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, 2006.”
87. National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA), Integrated Program Management

Division (IPMD), Earned Value Management Systems EIA-748C Intent Guide, April 29,
2014.

Division (IPMD), Planning & Scheduling Excellence Guide (PASEG), Version 3, March
9, 2016.

Division (IPMD), Surveillance Guide, Revision 2, July 17, 2015.
90. OMB Circular A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget, June 2015;
and Supplement to A-11, Capital Programming Guide.
91. OMB Circular A-123, Management's Responsibility for Internal Control, dated 12-21-04.
92. OMB Circular A-130, Management of Federal Information Resources, dated 7-27-16.
93. OMB Circular A-131, Value Engineering, dated 12-26-13.
94. OMB Memorandum M-15-14, Management and Oversight of Federal Information

Technology, dated 6-10-15.
95. Project Assessment and Reporting System (PARS II) Contractor Project Performance
(CPP) Upload Requirements.
96. Public Law (P.L.) 104-106, Section 4306, National Defense Authorization Act.
97. Public Law (P.L.) 106-65, Section 3212(d), National Nuclear Security Administration
Act.
98. Public Law (P.L.) 111-8, Section 310 (General Plant Projects), Omnibus Appropriations
Act, 2009.
99. Public Law (P.L.) 112-74, Section 310, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012.

Doe Order 413-3b

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Doe Order 413-3b

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Doe Order 413-3b

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

U.S.

Department of Energy PAGE CHANGE

SUBJECT: PAGE CHANGE TO DOE O 413.3B, PROGRAM AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Page Paragraph Changed To

Appendix A 7.a.(7) and Added the Chief Information

Attachment 4 82. Added Federal Information

SUBJECT: PROGRAM AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT FOR THE ACQUISITION OF

a. To provide the Department of Energy (DOE) Elements, including the National

b. To implement Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circulars to include:

Any reference to a Program Secretarial Officer (PSO) in this Order is also

AVAILABLE ONLINE AT: INITIATED BY:

Except for the equivalencies/exemptions in paragraph 3.c., the CRD

c. Equivalencies/Exemptions. Equivalencies and exemptions to this Order are

(1) Equivalency. In accordance with the responsibilities and authorities

Reactors (Director) will implement and oversee requirements and

(2) Equivalency. Bonneville Power Administration in accordance with

• An established PMSO with adequate project management

• An on-going set of active capital asset projects, post CD-2, of over

• Completed 90% of projects across a three-year rolling average, not

To allow PM to determine Departmental-wide metrics and to permit an

• Report all projects into PARS II monthly, including earned value

• Submit all CD or equivalent documents to PM.

• Submit Performance Baseline Change Proposal approvals to PM.

• PM will lead Independent Cost Reviews and Independent Cost

Additionally, the nuclear safety-related requirements of the Order,

When a PSO is no longer exempt, the requirements of this Order must be

documents, using a graded approach to document development and

b. Implementation. The requirements in this update must be implemented

5. RESPONSIBILITIES. Key roles and responsibilities of line managers are described in

6. DEFINITIONS. See Attachment 2. See Attachment 3 for Acronyms.

7. REFERENCES. See Attachment 4.

8. CONTACT. Questions concerning this Order should be directed to PM, 202-586-3524.

BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY:

1. Deputy Secretary ..................................................................................................................1

Appendix C: Topical Areas

1. Project Management Principles ...........................................................................................1

16. Planning and Scheduling....................................................................................................17

Attachment 1. Contractor Requirements Document

Table 1. Critical Decision Authority Thresholds ................................................................. A-4

Figure 1. Typical DOE Acquisition Management System

2. DOE Acquisition Management System.

• CD-2, Approve Performance Baseline. Definitive scope, schedule and cost

• CD-3, Approve Start of Construction/Execution. The project is ready for

• CD-4, Approve Start of Operations or Project Completion. The project is ready

Figure 1. Typical DOE Acquisition Management System

Figure 2. Typical DOE Acquisition Management System for Other Capital

3. Critical Decision Approval Authority and Thresholds.

The Deputy Secretary serves as the Department’s CE and promulgates Department-wide

a. Major System Projects.

b. Non-Major System Projects.

Table 1. Critical Decision Authority Thresholds

≥ $100M and < $750M

Program ≥ $10M* and < $100M

* This is subject to change with the minor construction threshold.

4. Requirements for Approval of Critical Decisions.

a. CD-0, Approve Mission Need.

The Initiation Phase begins with the identification of a mission-related need. A

The cost range provided at CD-0 should be Rough-Order of Magnitude (ROM)

Table 2.0 CD-0 Requirements1