Jump to content

NNSA releases annual performance reviews of management and operations contractors


bob7947

Recommended Posts

I posted a link to the Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration management & operating contracts on nuclear related work mentioned above on the Home Page.  They are performance reviews but the contracts are there.  These contracts are somewhat different than typical FAR contracts and they include DEAR clauses.

I haven't worked with them in about 25 years.  When I first looked at them, I couldn't figure out what they were.  Then I read about how they were developed from the Manhattan Project during WWII.  It took some time for me to figure them out.  I'm posting this because most of you probably have not seen one.  This can be part of your education.

I don't know how much they've changed over the years.  I hope they have for the better.

One of my colleagues came up with the term "boarding party" for the actual contractors.  I always liked that.  Maybe you can figure out why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since several of you read my earlier post about management and operating contracts (M&O), I decided to add two more posts.  I worked with these contracts in the 1990s and found them fascinating--can you tell?  Here is more than a starting point from part of DOE's Acquisition Guide.  (Match the number to the FAR)  It is the 

DISCUSSION OF THE ORIGIN, CHARACTERISTICS, AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY’s MANAGEMENT AND OPERATING (M&O) FORM OF CONTRACT.

At the end on p, 12 and all of p. 13 it provides key aspects of DOE's M&O contracts.  Read #5 "contractor’s workforce is large, remaining at the site despite change of contractors"  Whoa, what's that.  That is where my colleague got the idea of M&O contractors as "boarding parties."  Usually, these contracts encompass the functions of a small city.  Think of the M&O as the election of a new mayor and city coumcil for a small city.  The populace remains in the city.

When you build a nuke you develop

Sometimes, I look at the M&O National Laboratories on google maps.  Here's a game I sometimes play called Where's the Accelerator.  There are at least 2 types--circular and linear with experimental stations attached.  Using google maps, can you spot them at

Fermilab?  (circular)

Argonne?  (circular)

Thomas Jefferson National Lab?  (linear)

Hint:  These are user facilities where members of educational institutions and corporations can run experiments.  You will probably find housing facilities for the users.  Of course, managed by the M&Os.  There may be more than one accelerator at a site.

I will add the 3rd post at a later date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One summer when I was in college, I worked at Brookhaven National Laboratory. It is a DOE lab that was run by an M&O contractor (Batelle) at the time. I never figured out exactly what my job responsibilities were, but I was part of a "crew" that spent a lot of time in a warehouse reading the newspaper and playing cards. We were once called on to ride out to the Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collider (RHIC) and remove some trash in the form of a broken down steel structure. When we left, the driver passed the road to the dump instead of turning. I asked where we were going. He said "we need to find out if this stuff is radioactive." I asked "what if it is?" "Well, then we'll have to go to medical" he said. "What will they do?" I asked. "They'll have to scrub off the first layer of skin" he said.

Luckily the stuff wasn't radioactive.

Good times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is my third and last post on this subject.  I'll try and make this one short.  Again this was during the 1990s and my first involvement with M&O contracts.  The first thing I did was order a computer run showing DOE's contracts that included, among other things, all the obligations by date to all contracts.  Nothing extraordinary except that DOE was dumping funds in its M&O contracts at the end of the fiscal year.  Of course, unobligated amounts is what Congress looks at.

I've hightlighted the "commonly recognized indicators for" M&O use.  Let me expand on those a bit:

  • broad statement of work.  The statement of work tells one next to nothing because actual work is sent to the M&Os by task.
  • requirement is continuing with no foreseeable end.  At least one M&O contract had an award date in the 1940s and others were not much younger.
  • The contractor’s workforce is large, remaining at the site despite change of contractors.
  • The contractor must link its accounting system with the Department’s, and integrate its budget process with the Department’s.

They don't mention another feature. 

  • M&O's are funded with no-year funds.

Now, sit back and think about this.  Are we really talking about contractors or government regional offices?  That is one thing that always bothered me. 

Then we were invited to a meeting where DOE explained its accounting system that included the integration of M&O contracts.  It was great.  One could see everything.  The M&O work was coded by task numbers and a new feature that went beyond obligated and unobligated funds.  This was costed obligations (spent funds) and uncosted obligations (unspent funds).  Everything fell into place.  By the end of the DOE meeting, I was squirming in my seat because the uncosted obligations totaled about 80% of DOE's annual budget or about $12 billion.  That was when a billion dollars was a lot of money.  Of course, I orderd one of those computer runs and all the task order codes.

Then the fun began.   DOE could hide appropriated no-year funds from Congress by obligating it to M&O contracts since they can last for decades.  Once with an M&O, the funds disappeared from Congress's view but was still visible in DOE's financial system.  All that was left for us was proving that DOE could give some of that $12 biillion back to the Treasury.  What to do?  Simple, look for dead programs that continue to be funded and have uncosted obligations.  We found some of those and it was time for a field trip.  One M&O accountant explained that the M&O didn't need the DOE funds because the program was dead but held the funds in reserve.  Another M&O program manager pointed to an empty field and explained that was where the building would have been before the program was killed but the funds remained as uncosted abligations.  When we talked to a DOE Area Office Manager, he said something like "We were wondering when GAO would finally find out about uncosted obligations."  Congress reduced DOE's budget by about $4 billion the next fiscal year.  Now, DOE must submit bith its regular budget request a report on its uncosted obligations.

That was the end of my work with M&O contracts.  I moved on to the IRS and annoyed them about task order contracts.  From there I retired.

Quote

1. Generally, the contractor assumes multi-program scientific and technical responsibilities and work under a broad statement of work.

2. The requirement is continuing with no foreseeable end.

3. The contractor is responsible for integration of scientific and technical and infrastructure functions.

4. The contractor performs the substantial portion of scientific and technical responsibilities with its own workforce.

5. The contractor’s workforce is large, remaining at the site despite change of contractors. This results in the need for DOE to assume stewardship of employee relations and workplace labor conditions.

6. DOE oversees security, health, and safety at the site.

7. Work takes place at very large, Government-owned reservations and facilities.

8. DOE requires the successful offeror to form a corporate entity specifically for and dedicated to the performance of the DOE M&O contract. The contactor may accept work only directly from DOE or as allowed specifically under the M&O contract.

9. The contractor must link its accounting system with the Department’s, and integrate its budget process with the Department’s; usually the budgets for M&O contracts are line items in the Department’s budget.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Don Mansfield said:

One summer when I was in college, I worked at Brookhaven National Laboratory. It is a DOE lab that was run by an M&O contractor (Batelle) at the time. I never figured out exactly what my job responsibilities were, but I was part of a "crew" that spent a lot of time in a warehouse reading the newspaper and playing cards. We were once called on to ride out to the Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collider (RHIC) and remove some trash in the form of a broken down steel structure. When we left, the driver passed the road to the dump instead of turning. I asked where we were going. He said "we need to find out if this stuff is radioactive." I asked "what if it is?" "Well, then we'll have to go to medical" he said. "What will they do?" I asked. "They'll have to scrub off the first layer of skin" he said.

Luckily the stuff wasn't radioactive.

Good times.

One of my colleagues wouldn't walk off the paved roadway at Rocky Flats because he feared it was contaminated and we weren't wearing dosimeters.  I was strolling around Oak Ridge after work once and ran into a creek with the radioactive sign.  That was it for that stroll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...