URS

Introduction/Abstract

The Umatilla Chemical Agent Disposal Facility (UMCDF), located near Umatilla, Oregon, USA, was designed to safely destroy the stockpile of chemical munitions and agent stored at the U. S. Army Umatilla Chemical Depot (UMCD). Originally, there were more than 220,000 munitions in the depot inventory, including rockets, bombs, projectiles, mines, spray tanks, and ton containers. They were filled with chemical agents: GB (sarin) and VX nerve agent and HD (mustard) blister agent. Prior to the start of operations, the chemical agent inventory totaled 7.4 million pounds (12% of the U.S. stockpile).

The contract was awarded in February 1997, and the project scope included equipment acquisition, personnel training, and operations and maintenance of the UMCDF (Exhibit 1). Construction of the facility began in June 1997, followed by systemization and plant readiness activities. The Operations Phase officially started on 7 September 2004 when the first GB rocket was destroyed. UMCDF completed Operations on 25 October 2011 by destroying the final HD ton container. The Cost plus Award Fee contract value for the UMCDF Operations Phase was US$1.4 billion.

The United States agreed to complete destruction of their declared chemical weapons stockpile by 29 April 2012 in accordance with the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) Treaty. As UMCDF was completing its construction and systemization phase, the project was severely challenged in meeting this timeline based on operational assessments predicting the end of agent destruction in 2014. Through aggressive optimization of munition processing, and outstanding teamwork to overcome numerous challenges, the project beat the international treaty date by six months. The project completed a remarkable 935 days ahead of the Life Cycle Schedule and under the budget by US$384.6 million.

Exhibit 1 – Umatilla Chemical Agent Disposal Facility

Operations Phase

The Operations Phase involved nine different mini campaigns to process munitions and seven munition changeover campaigns to retool the equipment. The chart in Exhibit 2 details the baseline and actual schedule for each of the mini campaigns:

Exhibit 2 – Mini-campaign Schedules

The daunting mission to destroy thousands of munitions filled with several million pounds of agent required strategic planning and project management leadership, emphasizing safe and compliant operations. Employee Led Teams were established for safety, environmental compliance, and toxic entries over the life of the Operations Phase to lead grass roots efforts to continuously improve safety and compliance in the field. As a result, UMCDF concluded the Operations Phase with a remarkable safety record, by achieving over 9 million man-hours worked and 1,936 days since the last lost time injury. Calendar year 2011 also marked the lowest rate of environmental non-compliances for the project, as well as setting the demilitarization record for the most number of Demilitarization Protective Ensemble (DPE or Level A) entries safely performed.

Project Management Team Challenges

Following are some significant issues the UMCDF management team faced during the Operations Phase:

Regulatory constraints — The Operations Phase was conducted under a strict permit controlled environment. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) provided diligent oversight to ensure the health and safety of the workers, public, and the environment. The UMCDF was a one of a kind facility in the State of Oregon, resulting in a highly complex regulatory environment governed by several different permits related to hazardous waste, air quality, and water discharge.

Incorporating new standards — The UMCDF implemented new Maximum Achievable Control Technology air-emission standards for hazardous waste combustion facilities. In addition, emerging concerns of mercury contamination in HD Ton Containers resulted in UMCDF installing a first of a kind Mercury Monitoring System on the furnace emission to measure and report mercury. This system paved the way for the EPA to establish new legislation for gas and coal fired plants in the United States. In fact, the new technology was recognized at the 2011 Chemical Weapons Destruction Conference in Interlaken, Switzerland.

Building community trust — Ongoing relationships were maintained with the local Citizen Advisory Committee to communicate project status. In addition, Public Affairs personnel provided a variety of communications media to stakeholders to continue the community partnership. The public actively supported public meetings to review permit modifications performed throughout the Operations Phase to more efficiently manage processing.

External stakeholder's coordination — Oregon's DEQ and the EQC were actively engaged in approving new technology for secondary waste processing and for startup of HD Ton Container processing.

Another important external stakeholder was the international treaty inspectors who supported treaty verification efforts for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Their primary mission was to oversee and confirm that the facility's chemical weapons destruction was in compliance with the CWC treaty. URS successfully coordinated verification activities for the OPCW Inspectors who maintained a permanent presence throughout the Operations Phase.

Unusual Occurrence — Many of the project management processes described were instrumental in guiding the UMCDF team to effectively respond to unusual occurrences. One such occurrence happened on 17 March 2010 when an employee experienced a small mustard agent skin exposure. This significant event placed the facility in a shutdown condition until a thorough root-cause analysis, along with corrective actions were completed. The remarkable manner in which the entire UMCDF team responded to recovery from the event resulted in the restart of agent operations just one month later.

Ironically, one week following the event, a previously scheduled Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) inspection took place. The purpose of OSHA's visit was to perform a review in support of renewing UMCDF's Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) Star status. The thoroughness with which the UMCDF team approached the analysis of the event and implementation of corrective actions were recognized by the customer and other external stakeholders as superior performance. Evidence of this extraordinary recovery came later in 2011 when OSHA approved renewal of UMCDF's VPP Star status.

Special Project Management Methods

Maintaining high standards of safety and performance were vital to the success of operating a chemical weapons demilitarization facility. As a result, the planning, installation, and startup of each munition campaign required strict discipline to ensure standards were maintained. A plant Operational Readiness Review (ORR) board was established to confirm all systems and processes were in place to support safe, compliant processing. As each munition campaign and retooling changeover were performed, an independent assessment team was established to confirm that plant equipment, personnel, and procedures were tested and confirmed to be fully capable prior to initiating hazardous waste operations. This team provided their recommendation to the ORR board for a go no-go decision. The team encompassed external stakeholders from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency (CMA), sister sites located across the country, and other technical experts.

Short-term and long-term strategy development for subsequent phases of operations was managed through the use of a Three Party (Triad) Team made up of URS, CMA, and DEQ leadership. This team specifically concentrated on managing risks and opportunities that arose from permitting or plant issues that could impact future campaigns.

Owner's Satisfaction

The completion of agent operations eliminated the risk of aging chemical weapons that could have resulted in adverse consequences to the local community (Exhibit 3). As the project's ultimate owners, the general public expressed satisfaction and supported the project's success. Additionally, CMA's satisfaction was evidenced by the comments noted following the completion of agent operations:

Lt. Col. Kris Perkins, Umatilla Chemical Depot Commander, stated, “I would like to personally and on behalf of the Army, thank all of you for your tireless and diligent efforts to dispose of the 220,604 individual chemical munitions stored at the Umatilla Chemical Depot for close to five decades.”

Gary Anderson, CMA's Site Project Manager, went on to say, “Your outstanding performance, dedication to duty and service to our nation has contributed to the success of UMCDF and CMA. You should take great pride in your achievements because our success begins with each individual's contribution. Congratulations on a job well done.”

Exhibit 3 – The final Enhanced On-Site Container shipped to UMCDF

Project Integration Management

Project management and integration were designed to implement safe and compliant activities throughout the project, and involved: URS headquarters and onsite organizations interfacing with the Army's onsite technical and contracting organizations, the Umatilla Chemical Depot organizations, local, state, regional and federal regulatory agencies, and domestic and foreign international treaty organizations. Project activities included munitions processing campaigns, equipment retooling changeovers, operations demonstrations, agent trial burns, and operational readiness assessments. Major milestone activities were planned and implemented according to government guidance and/or contractual requirements.

URS accomplished project management through onsite leadership and assigning functional responsibilities. URS effectively implemented and controlled activities by establishing written standards, regularly monitoring and assessing performance, and holding personnel accountable for performance. In addition, implementing a structured Conduct of Operations enhanced safe operations and organizational productivity, and included four key elements: (1) personal accountability, (2) procedural compliance, (3) technical inquisitiveness, and (4) willingness to stop.

The URS Project General Manager (PGM) provided overall onsite leadership. To ensure smooth progress and integration of project activities, the PGM assigned functional and cost account responsibilities to subordinate managers, i.e., a functional manager was designated for each functional area and cost account managers were assigned for each cost account. These assignments allowed the PGM to maintain focus on the overall project, while providing necessary oversight and support to each functional area.

Technical, schedule, and budget parameters were integrated for program management through an Earned Value Management System (EVMS). Each cost account manager was responsible for developing his or her own budget and schedule consistent with the project scope and integrating them into the project annual budget and schedule, called the Network Analysis System (NAS). This integration ensured appropriate dependencies were linked to key project milestones and provided for generating total project critical path. Functional and cost account managers were responsible for respective resources, coordination with support organizations, and performance of authorized work on schedule. The NAS was created using Primavera Project Planner (P6) software, which provided the schedule baseline control, and was integrated with the cost baseline system Micro-Frame Program Manager (MPM) to provide a complete technical, schedule, and cost baseline for management and project control. Scheduled work was communicated at least daily in plan-of-the-day meetings to ensure a common understanding of project status, needs and resources. Technical, schedule, and cost objectives were defined according to work authorized by contract, and maintained to provide active status for planned activities, major approved contract milestones and approved budget. If execution of authorized activities resulted in potential for significant cost or schedule impact, the functional manager requested assistance and obtained updated authorization for action from the Project General Manager.

Periodically throughout operations, the CMA FO assembled teams of technical resources and EVMS practitioners to conduct Integrated Baseline Reviews (IBRs) and EVMS surveillances. The IBRs verified scope, schedule and budget integration within URS's earned value system. All department Cost Account Managers passed their rigorous IBR surveillances during the Operations Phase.

Planning Process Group

Once the systemization phase was complete, the project management team was faced with re-evaluating and re-planning the schedule for the Operations Phase of chemical weapons destruction. One year into agent operations (2005), after projected budget increases at UMCDF and its sister sites, the CMA opted to restructure the contracts for the remaining campaigns at all sites. The restructured life cycle schedules were intended to be “aggressive but achievable.” New parameters were negotiated using demonstrated processing rates at the Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Destruction Facility (JACADS) and the Tooele Chemical Agent Destruction Facility (TOCDF), averaging in experienced downtime, maintenance periods, safety pauses, and risks for each munition type. Each site built a Life Cycle Schedule to incorporate these established processing rates. The result at UMCDF was a 2,787 day schedule with operations to be completed on 17 May 2014.

CMA determined through risk modeling that the site had < 1% chance of meeting the Chemical Weapons Convention Treaty date of 29 April 2012. With the ownership of the operations strategy and risks transferred to URS, a “Blue Sky” initiative resulted in several viable opportunities to improve schedule performance and attain the treaty date. By exploiting one such opportunity, the Rinsate Collection System, UMCDF exceeded expectations by attaining the treaty date six months early.

Project Scope Management

Scope Statement and Work Breakdown Structure

Strategic planning for operations was conducted more than five years before it actually commenced. The scope planning stage involved destruction of a finite number of munitions in a specially designed plant. Scope planning revealed lessons learned from other sites that drove technology improvements, but the largest obstacle came from defining acceptable operating parameters in the difficult regulatory environment in the State of Oregon.

The UMCDF Contract Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS) addressed the major products and services URS would deliver, and was prepared according to government guidance and contractual requirements. The CWBS, (Exhibit 4), was a specific contract deliverable with all changes subject to CMA approval. CWBS elements were related to the contract statement of work and were the framework for integrating work scope, related budgets, and schedules.

Exhibit 4 – Work Breakdown Structure

Management Control System

The final element of the strategic scope planning effort was the use of a team approach to maintain scope control. As potential scope changes were identified, together URS and the CMA Field Office determined whether the identified change was already within the described scope or whether it required a formal change to the contract. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires contractors to receive formal approval and authorization prior to performance of any work.

Throughout the project, URS evaluated potential project changes, determined affected systems and documentation, and identified and implemented required change mechanisms. Modifications and replacements made to support the project were integrated into the project work control process and the Network Analysis System (NAS). Seventy-one proposed change cases (28% were greater than US$1 million) were integrated into the contract and project schedule, and cost baseline. Project changes impacting the budget or established milestone dates required PGM and CMA FO approval and review. Once approved, scope, schedule, and budget were incorporated into the appropriate work packages, schedules and work processes.

Project Time/Schedule Management

The milestone comparisons above do not fully measure the true success of the UMCDF Operations Phase. A unique and unprecedented combination of factors and events, at the local, national, and international levels, combined to present a daunting challenge to the project's scope, schedule, and budget management. The real success story was the quality of cooperation and communication between URS, the Army, and regulators, using project management fundamentals.

As previously discussed, the project baseline (or Life Cycle) schedule was developed using negotiated processing parameters. The operations scope was broken down into each mini campaign and further broken down into individual processing and downtime activities. The activity definitions were developed using lessons learned from URS's two previous chemical weapons projects. Site management, along with other subject matter experts, worked to develop logic ties, durations, and resource loading for over 12,000 activities in the schedule. This effort involved validating time and logic for processing, maintenance, equipment retooling, as well as procedure reviews, readiness activities, regulatory agreements, permit modifications, and other stakeholder involvement.

To meet or beat the CWC treaty date of 29 April 2012, project management called for a plan to achieve this goal. The project team needed to find opportunities to reduce overall schedule duration. The approach included reducing unscheduled non-processing time, reducing scheduled non-processing and changeover time, and achieving greater production during processing days.

Unscheduled non-processing time was reduced by improving the safety and conduct of operations programs, managing employee attrition, and establishing a weekly scheduled maintenance day (a pause in operations to perform equipment maintenance). Scheduled non-processing days and changeover time were improved with concentrated pre-outage planning, including using lessons learned from other sites, rigorous scope control, performing retooling work during the previous campaign where possible, and an improved equipment staging and control process. Greater production rates were achieved by incorporating lessons learned, aligning environmental permits with increased operations objectives, complimentary processing where possible, and design and implementation of system improvements.

Through extensive planning and diligent schedule management, at the completion of Operations, UMCDF was 935 days ahead of the Life Cycle Schedule. The accomplishments included a 34% reduction in both changeover time (from 704 total days to 466 actual days) and processing time (from 2,083 days to 1,385 days).

Schedule management was accomplished in a participatory and public process that actively involved the customer to eliminate surprises or misunderstandings regarding delay factors or mitigation techniques. URS conducted daily, weekly, and monthly schedule control meetings, which included discussions of critical path analysis and contract scope changes. Weekly, URS provided CMA with paper and electronic copies of the schedule. In general, problems were surfaced and solved at the field level with formal written communications serving to document solutions rather than direct particular corrective actions. The dynamic nature of the project's circumstances demanded this type of cooperation to succeed.

Project Cost Management

After the Life Cycle Schedules were finalized in 2005, the project was tasked with determining the Life Cycle Cost Estimate. The proposal covered the Operations period 30 September 2006 through completion on 17 May 2014. The comprehensive estimate included all labor, subcontract, material, and other direct costs needed to complete all phases of the project. Since the contracting approach transferred the majority of the risk to URS, particular attention was given to developing a well-defined basis of estimate. The basis of estimate was crucial in preparing a defensible proposal for all known processing strategies. For scope that was less defined, additional estimates, called “Priced Estimates” were prepared for later negotiation and incorporation into the contract if needed. The negotiated proposal brought the total value of the Operations Phase to US$1.4 billion.

The baseline budget for the Operations Phase with comparison to earned value and actual costs for each fiscal year is shown in Exhibit 5 below. The U.S. Government fiscal year is October through September (e.g., FY 2004 was October 2003 through September 2004).

Exhibit 5 – Baseline Budget

The schedule and cost performance struggles in the first year of Operations are visible in FY 2004–2005 prior to the life cycle restructuring that took place in 2005. After the Life Cycle Schedule and corresponding budget were placed on contract, a significant improvement in performance was seen. Acceleration of the Life Cycle Schedule with a virtually static number of employees and cost of maintaining the facility resulted in favorable cost performance. Additionally, costs were aggressively managed such that the scope was accomplished in the most cost effective way. A Life Cycle Management Board was put into place to review and approve the planned project expenditures. The board was required to approve any newly identified requirement over US$100,000, to approve all changes in staffing and to prioritize emergent funding needs.

Cost Account Managers (CAMs) were responsible for authorizing all expenditures to their accounts, updating estimates to complete (ETCs) monthly, assessing performance and were required to analyze all variances that exceeded established thresholds. The CAM accounts were reviewed periodically in one-on-one meetings with the Project General Manager and in quarterly EVMS surveillances with the customer.

Project Quality Management

URS established a quality program that provided for an independent Quality Assurance (QA)/Quality Control (QC) organization with authority to identify quality problems; initiate, recommend and/or provide solutions; verify implementation of solutions; and limit or control further processing or installation of an item through stop-work action until the item or process had been properly dispositioned and controls for correction established.

A joint initiative between the Army and URS for continuous improvement was the completion of several Lean Six Sigma projects. Following completion of the five URS-specific projects, several employees attained Green Belt status while also helping the overall project to realize cost and schedule benefits.

An Approved Vendors List (AVL) was established based on a supplier's ability to meet UMCDF quality program requirements. Vendor audits at facilities providing complex, high risk, and/or critical items and services were performed to assess the suppliers’ ability to supply products in accordance with requirements. This AVL process proved especially critical when replacement parts to mission critical equipment were required but the original manufacturer was no longer in business.

Project Human Resource Management

The UMCDF project maintained an average staffing level of 97.75% during the entire Operations Phase. The project also worked diligently on its turnover, ending its Operations Phase with a low of 4.90% on a rolling twelve-month basis. The average attrition rate over the operations time frame was 11.9%, which is significantly lower than the Society of Human Resources estimate of 15% for manufacturing organizations on a national level. On-going recruiting was conducted by HR and management to ensure any gaps were quickly corrected to maintain staffing at greater than 97% for the duration of the project. Recruiting was conducted at Non-Commissioned Officers Association job fairs, other military job fairs in the Northwest, and technical recruiting locations allowing access to qualified employees with military and nuclear experience.

URS worked with three different labor unions in developing new collective bargaining agreements for operations and maintenance employees. Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA) were negotiated using certification programs, which incentivized bargaining unit employees to obtain skilled levels that were rewarded with associated increased compensation. Sound labor management relations were maintained during the whole of the Operations Phase including the support of the two unions representing approximately one half of the project workforce in obtaining the OSHA VPP Star status. Two long-term CBAs (4 years and 6 years, respectively) covered the whole of operations. This cooperation with the two unions facilitated a continuity of work effort that allowed concentration on the safe and compliant mission of operating the facility.

Project Team Interpersonal Skills

The Project General Manager (PGM) challenged the workforce to develop employee-led teams that would foster safety and environmental compliance. With PGM sponsorship, the Safety Management and Recognition Team (SMART) was formed, followed by the Environmental Process Improvement Team (EPIT) and Toxic Area Safety Compliance (TASC) teams. These were the core teams responsible for promoting conduct of operations throughout the project.

The success of these teams was evident from the exemplary safety and environmental performance maintained all throughout the Operations Phase. Upon completion of the final campaign, UMCDF had achieved 9 million man-hours without a lost time accident and a Recordable Injury Rate (RIR) of 0.46. An RIR this low is typically only seen in industries such as dental labs, computer manufacturers, and financial services. The project manager promptly recognized and rewarded the employee-led teams and workforce for such commendable achievements.

Additionally, teamwork at UMCDF meant the need for continuous evaluation and improvement. As the Operations Phase progressed, many challenges were presented to the project management team. To combat these challenges and continuously improve the team's competencies, several outside organizations were called upon to evaluate the team's effectiveness and provide solutions to problem areas. On several occasions throughout the Operations Phase, these external teams, known as “Tiger Teams” or “Red Teams,” provided the UMCDF project management team with their technical support and professional recommendations. Their analysis and feedback provided invaluable insight needed for the team to optimize project performance.

Project Communications Management

A chemical agent disposal facility requires a particularly high level of communication, cooperation, and understanding among managers/supervisors and workers to ensure safe, compliant, and efficient operations. The UMCDF Site Communication Plan detailed the many communications tools used to frequently and effectively communicate to employees, employee's families, and the public. The communications tools used by the project management team are described below.

Internal Communications. Keeping employees informed and aware of project priorities was a constant point of emphasis. Plant management recognized the need to ensure rotating shifts were fully prepared to safely and compliantly destroy chemical weapons. There was a seven-day period during an employee's shift in which they were not onsite. Managers and supervisors from the plant management team conducted a weekly “Tuesday Welcome Back” presentation to all employees. The presentation included a question-and-answer period and covered safety and environmental updates as well as schedule priorities.

The Project General Manager attended new employee orientation to personally meet all new employees. In addition, as a forum for continuous direct communications with employees, the PGM hosted an employee roundtable luncheon attended by randomly selected employees. On a quarterly basis, the PGM conducted internal “all hands” meetings to update workers and allow them to ask questions of project managers. Employees could also register a question, anonymously if desired, through the project's intranet home page.

Daily, the Plant General Manager held a status meeting attended by duty team members from all departments. This brief teleconference communicated work-week schedule and emergent tasks to the entire UMCDF team. In addition, a plant status meeting was held every morning involving representatives from each department including the customer, and key points were shared with employees verbally and through the project's daily newsletter.

The daily publication of the UMCDF Today! began on 11 March 2002. It was shared with the project's employees both electronically and through hard copies delivered to areas in the plant where computer access was limited. It was also shared with depot employees and Army contacts. It included timely project updates, community information related to the project, and updates on the overall demilitarization effort, with special attention to safety and environmental issues.

External Communications. The trust and support of the public were critical to the project's success. That trust was built steadily over time through open communication and sterling safety and environmental compliance performance. A prime example occurred soon after agent operations began when the project had to deal with rocket fires. The fires were not a danger to employees, the public, or the environment because they occurred in the Explosive Containment Rooms, but the public and media were initially alarmed. By being open about the fires and the steps being taken to prevent or mitigate them, and through continued safe operations, rocket fires eventually became a non-issue with the public and stakeholders, and the media downplayed the issue.

The UMCDF Daily Report generated by the Production Controls Department communicated significant project status and activities to a variety of external stakeholders, including URS corporate, CMA, and sister demilitarization sites. The data and information maintained by the Production Controls Department included schedule milestone status, plant activities, demilitarization equipment status and critical evolutions. This daily report supplemented the formalized Lessons Learned program developed for use by all chemical weapons disposal facilities.

Project Risk Management

Planning for the risk management process at UMCDF began well in advance of the start of the Operations Phase. A sister site located in the south pacific, Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Destruction System (JACADS), completed the Operations Phase of chemical weapons destruction in November 2000. Following the end of operations at JACADS, many management, supervision, and field personnel transferred to UMCDF. With a knowledge base loaded with lessons learned and awareness of potential risks related to chemical weapons destruction, the primary support for an effectual risk management program was in place.

The UMCDF team recognized the hazardous and highly complex nature of the project warranted the need for an effective risk management program throughout the project's lifecycle. This was the motivation behind the addition of a Life Cycle/Risk Management (RM) Manager in 2005. This RM, partnering with the newly appointed RMs at UMCDF's sister sites, developed a Risk Management Plan based upon the principles from the corporate Project Execution Procedure for risk management. According to the Plan, the RM facilitated the UMCDF Risk Management Team (RMT), which was chaired by the PGM and supported by other senior organizational managers with responsibility for managing risk.

Risks associated with the state regulator were particularly challenging for the project management team. The customer's Site Project Manager and URS PGM partnered with the Oregon DEQ management to address environmental threats and opportunities that could affect attaining the CWC treaty schedule milestone. The “Triad” met weekly and generated risks using the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) perspective. The partnership and weekly communications resulted in effectively managing schedule threats while also capturing significant opportunities. One opportunity to install and implement a Rinsate Collection System (RCS) eliminated the need to process over 888 recipient ton containers (TC) during the final HD TC campaign. The UMCDF team's effective management of this significant opportunity resulted in DEQ granting the implementation of the RCS and completion of agent operations six months earlier than the CWC treaty schedule milestone.

Project Procurement Management

A government contractual directive stated that URS would be responsible for acquiring services and receiving, storing, issuing, and maintaining all material and equipment, other than Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) required to construct, systemize, and operate the facility. To accomplish this, URS established the Supply Chain organization that encompassed: (1) Purchasing; (2) Subcontracts; (3) Warehousing; and (4) Property.

Supply Chain Management (SCM) established the UMCDF procurement policy necessary to ensure supplies and services were obtained according to established company and government policies, procedures, statutes, and regulations. For example, supplies and services must be obtained at a fair price and the local community must receive an opportunity to participate in competition for needed materials. Materials were received, inspected, and issued as intended, and all GFE was recorded and inventoried for accountability to the government client.

Among the challenges were communicating the requirements and training of site personnel in the necessity of procurement planning, to include preparing scopes of work that address all acquisition requirements. SCM communicated the importance of well-developed scopes of work to ensure quality, safety, engineering, and environmental requirements were addressed. With well-developed scopes of work, the majority of the contracts awarded were firm fixed-price contracts.

The Contractor Purchasing System Review (CPSR) and Property System were the formal processes reviewed by the government to completely evaluate a contractor's purchasing of material and services, subcontracting and subcontract management, from development of the requirement through completion of subcontract performance. The objectives of the CSPR and Property System were to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of a contractor in spending government funds, complying with government policy when subcontracting, and appropriate property disposition. The review provided the administrative contracting officer with a basis for granting, withholding, or withdrawing approval of the contractor's purchasing system. This review specifically focused on: (1) the degree of price competition obtained; (2) pricing policies and techniques; (3) methods of evaluating subcontractors' responsibilities; (4) treatment accorded affiliates; (5) policies and procedures regarding small business concerns; (6) planning, award, and post award management of major subcontract programs; (7) compliance with Cost Accounting Standards in awarding subcontracts;(8) appropriateness of types of contracts used; and, (9) management control systems to administer progress payments to subcontractors. In addition, subcontract and procurement material closeout was not completed until all proper documentation, including a Material Received Report or Certification of Subcontract/Purchase Order (PO) Completion was received and the terms of the Subcontract/PO were met.

Monitoring and Controlling Process Group

The project performed a detailed review of key parameters daily and developed a series of production control charts to monitor plant performance. Parameter profiles were established for each operating furnace and demilitarization equipment lines to track parameters such as temperatures, pressures, and system flows. The charts were reviewed daily by plant management personnel to help identify trends of negative performance and correct plant equipment issues, such as recalibrating a component. This effort was recognized as a best practice within the demilitarization community and the UMCDF metric review was instituted at other locations to monitor and control key process variables.

The Project Controls group tracked several metrics, including the Schedule Acceleration Index (SAI) specifically developed on site to measure schedule gain. An SAI of 1.37 needed to achieve the treaty date was tracked and communicated to project management at the weekly Schedule Analysis meeting. Adjustments were made as required to minimize gaps in performance. Major system outages were preplanned months in advance, and could be scheduled earlier in the event of a significant downtime period. All work packages and equipment were staged and ready to support an unscheduled outage. This was critical in that any downtime was managed with minimal delays by inserting preplanned work. Monitoring schedule progress and strategic planning resulted in an SAI of 1.50 at the end of the Operations Phase.

The project management team also used Operational Excellence Metrics (Exhibit 6) as a way to monitor trends that could affect the overall health of the project. Eight leading indicators and eight lagging indicators were evaluated monthly by the project team. The indicators covered 16 aspects of the project that the management team determined were important to trend. Leading indicators such as Overdue Condition Reports, Staffing Levels, and Emergent Work Orders along with lagging indicators such as Total Injuries, Environmental Non-compliances, and Production Rates were all tracked and weighted appropriately. If a negative trend developed, the management team took appropriate actions to mitigate the trend. This visual picture was a valuable tool used to foresee degrading human performance and implement corrective actions.

Exhibit 6 – Operational Excellence Metric

Project Complexity

Several factors added to the complexity of successfully completing agent operations at UMCDF. The most significant factor was operating in an extremely strict regulatory environment in the State of Oregon. No other demilitarization facility operated in such a highly regulated environment. For example, sister sites in Utah, Alabama, and Arkansas were required to maintain stringent work control and maintenance processes for 3,000 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) designated instruments. Umatilla's plant was required to maintain the same rigorous program for over 10,000 RCRA designated instruments.

Another unique challenge was managing unexpected rocket fires during the GB M55 Rocket Campaign. UMCDF incurred 16 fires during that campaign, and although they were contained within specially designed explosive containment areas, the site was faced with numerous processing delays. The UMCDF team developed a Rocket Fire Recovery Plan that was approved by the Oregon DEQ to guide recovery from a fire event.

The VX campaign included processing of challenging munitions such as leaking projectiles and mines, and the largest munition in the U.S. Army Stockpile — Spray Tanks. Special teams were formed to develop safe handling techniques and the specialized equipment to process leaking munitions. All of these munitions were safely processed without incident. The Spray Tanks also required significant planning and practice in that their size prohibited normal movement throughout the facility. Special provisions were established for the conveyance systems and the Metal Parts Furnace to allow processing to continue.

The most difficult campaign was UMCDF's final campaign of HD Ton Containers (TCs). Significant delays were encountered with the DEQ in obtaining a permit modification to perform Agent Trial Burns (ATBs). Once approved, the ATB's requirements were more onerous than any other trial burn conducted in the United States. The plant had to ramp up from an average of three to six DPE entries per shift to support the spiking of other compounds into the TCs to measure fugitive emissions in the exhaust. Two months in 2010 were dedicated to successful performance of the Agent Trial Burns.

A final unique challenge during the HD TC campaign was installation of a first of a kind Rinsate Collection System to accelerate the campaign following regulatory delays. Installation and testing were performed during normal processing without impacting the schedule. This system was instrumental in UMCDF's ability to beat the CWC treaty date by six months.

The complexity of this project was magnified by the number and diversity of the many external stakeholders. Such a high profile project undoubtedly came under the scrutiny of local and international organizations. While continuing to manage schedule and cost, the project management team also frequently addressed reviews and assessments from nationally recognized organizations such as the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), National Research Council (NRC), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

It is clear that the Operations Phase presented the project management team with schedule and cost challenges atypical for most projects. Meeting the schedule treaty date had global implications, and completing the mission under budget signified good stewardship of government funding. Most important, the many challenges were overcome while ensuring the safety of all project employees and the local community.