RPP-27195 TOC INTERFACE MANAGEMENT PLAN Manual …_TOC_Interface... · RPP-27195 TOC INTERFACE MANAGEMENT PLAN Manual Document Page Issue Date Management Plan TFC-PLN-102, REV C-3

RPP-27195

TOC INTERFACE MANAGEMENT PLAN Manual

Document Page

Issue Date

Management Plan

TFC-PLN-102, REV C-3 1 of 14

December 28, 2016

Ownership matrix Click for copy of Word (native) file

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ................................................................................................ 2 2.0 INTERFACE REQUIREMENTS ..................................................................................... 3 3.0 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ................................................................................. 3 4.0 INTERFACE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM..................................................................... 3 5.0 ISSUE RESOLUTION ................................................................................................... 8 6.0 CHANGE CONTROL.................................................................................................... 9 7.0 SOURCES.................................................................................................................... 9

7.1 Requirements...................................................................................................... 9 7.2 References ........................................................................................................10

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1. TOC Interface Document Hierarchy. .............................................................................. 5 Figure 2. TOC Interface Management Issue Resolution Process. ...................................................... 9

TABLE OF TABLES

Table 1. TOC Interface Responsibilities.......................................................................................11

MANAGEMENT PLAN

TOC INTERFACE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Document

Page

Issue Date

TFC-PLN-102, REV C-3

2 of 14

December 28, 2016

1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE (7.1.1, 7.1.3)

The Washington River Protection Solutions, LLC (WRPS) Project Execution Management Plan

(PEMP) (TFC-PLN-84) outlines policies, procedures, roles, responsibilities, authorities, and

accountabilities for implementing the Tank Operations Contract (Contract). This TOC Interface

Management Plan (IMP) is part of the TOC PEMP, as the IMP plays an integral part in managing and controlling support activities necessary to execute the Contract.

The purpose of the TOC IMP is to outline the requirements in the Contract related to the Interface

Management (IM) program and to define the execution/portfolio management strategy the TOC

will apply to meet these requirements in support of line management projects. This includes the

technical, administrative, and regulatory interfaces among U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Richland Operations Office (RL), DOE Office of River Protection (ORP), Prime Contractors and

other Hanford Contractors (OHCs).

This plan is based on establishing and maintaining the interfaces outlined in the Contract,

Section J, Attachment J.3, “Hanford Site Services and Interface Requirements Matrix,” (J.3 Matrix). This matrix is located on the Internet at:

http://www.hanford.gov/files.cfm/TOC_Section_J.3_Conformed%20thru_%20Mod%201691.pdf

Interface integration among the Hanford Contractors ensures that the J.3 Matrix requirements are

mutually understood and implemented within the context of the J.3 Matrix. In addition, the TOC collaborates with the Mission Support Contractor (MSC) and the OHCs to ensure services

received by the TOC or provided to others from the TOC are right-sized, continuously improved,

and meet the needs of the customers.

The scope of this plan is to describe the key attributes of the IM program, and outline the inter-

relationships of interface management documents. In addition, this document illustrates the different interface types and processes for managing inter-contractor interfaces. Specifically, this

includes the interfaces between the TOC and the following:

MSC

Plateau Remediation Contractor (PRC)

Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Contractor (WTP)

River Corridor Closure Contractor

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Hanford Occupational Medical Services Contractor

Laboratory Analysis and Testing Services Contractor

Energy Savings Performance Contractor

Laundry Services Contractor

DOE

Other companies, as applicable.

Ensuring that services are provided to the TOC projects in a safe, compliant, reliable, and

cost-effective manner are key attributes of the IM program. Additionally, the timely resolution of

multi-party issues without DOE involvement is an objective of the IM program. This document

outlines the implementation strategies that will be used for the execution of the TOC IM program.

MANAGEMENT PLAN


Document

Page

Issue Date


3 of 14

December 28, 2016

2.0 INTERFACE REQUIREMENTS (7.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.1.3)

The TOC interface requirements require that the J.3 Matrix be maintained by the MSC and that

the TOC will provide input for the annual update of the J.3 Matrix. This matrix outlines the types

of interface (interface, service, or physical contact between systems or facilities), the service

providers, service receivers, cost allocation methodology, and scope. It is incumbent on the service providers and receivers to ensure they have adequate interface relationships and

agreements in place to right-size these services.

The TOC Contractor implements the J.3 Matrix requirements through the IM document

hierarchy, as depicted in Figure 1. This does not mean that other services beyond the scope of the

J.3 Matrix will not be shared among contractors, but those outlined in the J.3 Matrix are provided,

as defined, and are flowed down to lower-level and project-specific documents. Additionally, as outlined in Section C.3.5 of the Contract, the TOC will support the MSC in the annual update of

the Infrastructure and Services Alignment Plan (ISAP) and with the annual review of the Hanford

Site IMP (MSA-OTHER-MS-00001). These plans provide Site-wide strategies and tactical

interface integration and planning, as well as ensuring implementation of J.3 Matrix

requirements.

The Hanford Contractors review the ISAP annually to ensure that mission-critical infrastructure

and Site services align with future mission requirements. Additional detail is found in Section 4.0

for the lower-level interface documents that are implemented by the TOC. Section H of the

Contract, “Special Contract Requirements,” Subsection 42, “Hanford Site Services and Interface Requirements Matrix,” provides further detail for the interface function and relationships among

the Contractors. It further reiterates the requirements for support and input to the Hanford Site

IMP, the J.3 Matrix, and the ISAP.

3.0 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The TOC major roles and responsibilities associated with implementation of the IM program are

outlined in Table 1.

4.0 INTERFACE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (7.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.1.3)

Enhanced senior management focus and attention are at the core of the execution strategy of the

TOC IM program. To support this enhanced focus, the TOC has appointed a senior-level

Interface Manager to lead the interface functions and issue resolution process, with a core staff

supported by the Interface Owners (IOs) and their associated Technical Points of Contact (TPOCs).

This functional area, like other support functions, is part of the overall project execution process

being implemented by the TOC. The TOC IMP is integral to project success and is part of the

TOC PEMP. In addition to direct support of safe work performance at the project level, the IM program is also closely linked with the Procurement Manager, Prime Contract Manager, and the

General Counsel, as interface documents establish contractor commitments. This business

management and technical project relationship ensures integration of the required interfaces with

OHCs to the TOC.

In addition to ensuring senior management focus in the TOC organization, other key elements of

the TOC IM program includes:

MANAGEMENT PLAN


Document

Page

Issue Date


4 of 14

December 28, 2016

Conduct routine communications and collaboration among IOs, TPOCs, the IM

organization, Business Management, General Counsel, Prime Contracts, the One System,

and their counterparts from the interfacing Contractors

Manage sound interface documents agreed upon by all affected parties, combined with

routine reviews by the participating Contractors, revising as necessary

Ensure change control and document control processes are followed as outlined in the IM

Procedure (TFC-BSM-CP_CPR-C-17).

Ensure timely resolution of issues or concerns as shown in Figure 2.

The TOC implements a disciplined IM program, required byTFC-PLN-41, the Integrated Safety

Management System Description for the Tank Operations Contractor, and ensures compliance with the signed interface agreements and to explore ways to improve operational efficiency. The

TOC works with the other Site Contractors to review services and associated interface agreement

documents on a routine and as-needed basis.

The IM program is supported by the document hierarchy, which outlines the various interface documents and their relationships. IM will ensure General Counsel and Prime Contract

Management review interface agreements to ensure requirements flow down as appropriate. As

the documents are revised or new documents developed, the specific and applicable J.3 Matrix

requirements are integrated into the documents to ensure there is a clear and traceable roll down

of requirements into the interface agreements between the TOC and OHCs. Additionally, as

interfacing documents are developed or revised, these lower-level documents reference the applicable MOA.

The Hanford ISAP and the Hanford Site IMP are required Site wide plans. They are MSC-

owned documents that provide both strategic and tactical interface integration and planning for

the Hanford Prime Contractors. The WTP IMP (24590-WTP-PL-MG-01-001) establishes the interface management program between ORP, WRPS, and WTP. The interface process between

WTP and OHCs (PRC, MSC, and TOC) is implemented through the Hanford IMP. In support of

these Site wide plans, TOC-specific plans are reviewed on an annual basis and updated if needed,

as they serve as the basis for input into the Hanford ISAP and the Hanford Site IMP.

The TOC collaborates with the MSC and will:

Provide the TOC strategic vision and operational plans (PEMP, etc.) and forecast of

infrastructure and service requirements

Maintain active interfaces with the MSC to ensure infrastructure systems and services are available when needed by the TOC

Jointly explore and collaborate on opportunities for effectiveness and efficiency

improvements

Develop contingency plans with the MSC for critical infrastructure and service needs to mitigate risks, particularly from aging Hanford infrastructure and deferred maintenance

of utility systems

Collaborate in the development of, and concur or not concur with the Hanford ISAP prior

to MSC submittal to the DOE

MANAGEMENT PLAN


Document

Page

Issue Date


5 of 14

December 28, 2016

Figure 1. TOC Interface Document Hierarchy.

MANAGEMENT PLAN


Document

Page

Issue Date


6 of 14

December 28, 2016

Identify the various interfaces, define the scope of each interface, provide a brief

description of the required deliverables, define interface requirements, and cite applicable

source documents for each interface

Implement changes to interface agreements through the appropriate change control

process and, if necessary, coordinate with Prime Contract Management for TOC Contract

changes

Identify, track, and elevate issues for management review on a regular basis

Provide organizational TPOCs and detail their responsibilities

Maintain a change control process

Refine the integrated issue resolution process.

In this plan, the term “interface agreements” applies to those interactions where a formal

commitment related to the cooperative transfer of material, energy, services , or data across

Contractor boundaries is required to support contractual baseline commitments. Interface agreements are not intended to conflict with existing contractual commitments or govern the

informal exchange of information (e.g., phone calls, e-mails, etc.) that naturally occur among

Contractors tasked with Hanford Site work scope.

The inter-contractor IM program is intended to improve communication, solve issues, and

facilitate the development of interface agreements when necessary; all in an effort to maximize

the efficient exchange of services between the Contractors. Communication across the interface by the TPOCs is the fundamental basis for seamless and fluid service exchanges. Service

requirements, delivery constraints, and interface logistics have to be mutually understood for the

interface to function optimally. When expectations or limitations are not communicated,

breakdowns in the service delivery process will likely occur. As a third party to the service

delivery process, the IM function is designed to improve inter-contractor communications and foster working relationships that effectively bridge interface impasses. When conflicts arise, IM

is tasked with assessing the issue, gathering the facts, identifying potential opportunities for

improvement, coordinating resolutions, and determining if an interface agreement is needed to

prevent further conflicts.

The following are the interface agreements utilized by the IM function:

1. Memorandums of Agreement (MOAs) are high-level overarching documents used to

describe the business agreement reached between the TOC and another Prime Contractor

for the performance and payment of services. MOAs are implemented through four

lower-level interface documents. MOAs establish a formal one-to-one business

relationship among the TOC and other Prime Contractors.

2. Administrative Interface Agreements (AIAs) are documents used to define

responsibilities and describe details of activities that cross Hanford Site Prime Contractor

boundaries. AIAs do not involve physical systems or physical interfaces that must work

in concert with one another. AIAs document services that are provided typically at no

cost and do not authorize the transfer of funds. AIAs may describe roles and responsibilities associated with cost-based services to delineate between the different cost

allocations. Those functional areas in the J.3 Matrix, identified as interface or services

(without costs to the other Contractor), are implemented through AIAs.

MANAGEMENT PLAN


Document

Page

Issue Date


7 of 14

December 28, 2016

3. Service Delivery Documents (SDDs) can be used when feasible in place of an AIA, or

in conjunction with an AIA or an ICD, as decided by the IO(s) and Interface Manager(s).

SDDs are used to define the scope, requirements, roles and responsibilities, service basis

(mandatory or optional), the service provider, cost allocation, TPOCs, and operating principles for the delivery of services amongst the Hanford Site Prime Contractors.

References to AIAs and/or ICDs will be included in the SDD when applicable. SDDs are

developed collaboratively by the Hanford Site Prime Contractors and are managed by the

provider of that particular service.

4. Interface Control Documents (ICDs) are used to define responsibilities and describe

details of activities that cross Hanford Site Prime Contractor boundaries . ICDs involve

physical systems or physical interfaces that must work in concert with one another and

generally do not involve discrete transfer of funds. Those functional areas in the J.3

Matrix, identified as being physical (without costs to the other Contractor), are implemented through ICDs. ICDs may describe roles and responsibilities associated with

cost-based services to delineate between the different cost allocations.

5. Statements of Work (SOWs), also known as Inter-contractor Work Orders (ICWOs) or

Task Orders, are managed by the Procurement organization, and are used to define the

scope, safety, quality, and technical requirements, etc., for services that will be provided for a discrete transfer of funds. The SOW is used to convey Environment, Safety, Health

& Quality and Integrated Safety Management System expectations to the providing

Contractor and is administered through the TOC Procurement organization. The

Interface Management organization supports the development of the SOWs upon request,

also ensuring the appropriate J.3 identifier is referenced.

6. Service Level Agreements (SLAs) serve as an agreement between two parties where one

is the customer and the other is the service provider. The SLA may specify the levels of

availability, serviceability, performance, and estimated operation levels for a given

service.

The TOC IM program incorporates a feedback cycle that provides for continuous revision and

refinement of the IM program and associated interface agreements. Adequate interface

documents (MOAs, AIAs, ICDs, SDDs, SLAs, and SOWs) among the Contractors must be

developed and agreed to by all affected parties to establish the working agreements for services

among the Contractors. MOAs, AIAs, and ICDs will be signed by all affected parties; SDDs and SOWs are approved electronically to expedite the change process in order to minimize impacts to

service delivery.

IM document reviews occur on a routine and as-needed basis and are conducted with input from

the affected Hanford Site Contractors. From these reviews, issues are identified and resolved or

escalated in accordance with the issue resolution process. This routine review of services, as well as, forecasting of future service needs also provides the basis for input into the Hanford ISAP and

Hanford Site IMP. In addition, the TOC has routine dialogue with the MSC and other

Contractors to ensure that services provided or sold to the TOC are meeting TOC requirements

and standards and that services that the TOC provides or sells to others also meet applicable

requirements and standards. This review and revision process, supported by feedback among all affected Contractors, is important to the ongoing continuous improvement of the shared services.

MANAGEMENT PLAN


Document

Page

Issue Date


8 of 14

DRAFT

The TOC also works with other service providers and the DOE-ORP to identify ways to

continuously improve the effectiveness and efficiency of shared services in order to find ways to

reduce the overall costs of services to the TOC and/or OHCs. This is done through collaborative and cooperative discussions and well-researched recommendations and options.

5.0 ISSUE RESOLUTION

As with any functional area or process that involves multiple Contractors, issues arise and require timely and efficient resolution. The TOC goal is to ensure work continuity and prevent work

stoppage related to interface issues. Additionally, the goal is to resolve issues between

Contractors, without involvement of the DOE customer whenever possible (except those issues

that are Contract or DOE direction related). There are two critical agreements that underpin the

IM programs and the issues resolution process. These include:

Agreement between Contractors to not stop work due to administrative interface issues.

This does not preclude safety, quality, or other technical stop works.

Agreement between Contractors to resolve issues are defined in the Hanford Site IMP

and the WTP IMP.

NOTE: The WTP-ICD issue resolution process is described in the WTP IMP.

The TOC uses the following issue resolution process in order to ensure issues between it and

OHCs are resolved in as timely a manner as possible or that the issue is escalated, as needed.

This process is shown in Figure 2, and is documented in each of the Contractor MOAs.

Step 1.The first level of issue resolution occurs at the TPOC/Technical Lead (TL) level. The

TOC encourages issue resolution at the lowest level possible, where the work occurs and where

safety and individual jobs are most affected by issues. The TPOCs should discuss any issues and

resolve them as quickly as possible while ensuring safety and compliance are not compromised.

Step 2. If the TPOCs cannot resolve the issue(s) to the satisfaction of all affected parties, then the

issue should be escalated quickly to the functional manager/IO level.

Step 3. If issues cannot be resolved by the functional manager or IO, it is escalated to the TOC Interface Manager who meets with their counterpart from the affected Contractor(s) for issue

resolution. The majority of issues are expected to be resolved at the TPOC/TL, functional

manager/IO, and/or Interface Manager levels.

Step 4. If the issue still cannot be resolved by the individual Interface Managers, it may be

elevated to the CIB. If the issue is not mitigated by the CIB, it may be elevated to the Hanford Contractors Alignment Board (HCAB) for resolution. Issues between Contractors not involving

Contract or DOE directives that cannot be resolved by the CIB will be elevated to the respective

company presidents, or designed for resolution.

Step 5. For those rare issues involving Contract or DOE directives that cannot be resolved by the Contractors, the situation will be elevated to the respective DOE Contracting Officer for

disposition at the HCAB. Successful issue resolution may be documented through initiation or

revision of an interface agreement between the affected Contractors.

MANAGEMENT PLAN


Document

Page

Issue Date


9 of 14

DRAFT

Figure 2. TOC Interface Management Issue Resolution Process.

6.0 CHANGE CONTROL

Interface agreements will be administered through the TOC document control and records

management system. As such, they will have routine reviews and are subject to document revision and change control like other administrative documents, as outlined in TFC-BSM-

IRM_DC-C-02. WTP interface agreements developed and issued in accordance with WTP plans

and procedures are owned by the WTP, and the WTP is the record copy holder for those

agreements. WTP interface agreements will be administered through the WTP document control

and records management system. However, TOC IM must ensure records retention for all interface agreements, regardless of ownership.

7.0 SOURCES

7.1 Requirements

1. DE-AC27-08RV14800, “Tank Operations Contract.”

2. MSA-OTHER-MS-00001, “Hanford Site Interface Management Plan.”

3. TFC-PLN-84, “Tank Operations Contract Project Execution Management Plan.”

MANAGEMENT PLAN


Document

Page

Issue Date


10 of 14

DRAFT

7.2 References

1. 24590-WTP-PL-MG-01-001, “WTP Interface Management Plan.”

2. HNF-44238, “Infrastructure and Services Alignment Plan.”

3. TFC-BSM-CP_CPR-C-17, “Interface Management.”

4. TFC-BSM-IRM_DC-C-02, “Records Management.”

5. TFC-PLN-41, “Integrated Safety Management System Description

MANAGEMENT PLAN


Document

Page

Issue Date


11 of 14

DRAFT

Table 1. TOC Interface Responsibilities.

CIB The CIB provides inter-contractor leadership to review financial, contractual, and interface

management topics and issues that affect any or all Hanford Contractors in order to resolve without DOE involvement.

Engineering Ensures engineering standards and requirements for configuration management, safety basis and hazard controls/mitigation, and change control are included in the appropriate IM documents.

Functional Manager

Each functional interface (e.g., security, emergency management, steam, electricity, etc.) has a designated functional manager who is responsible for:

Designating IOs to represent CLIN areas and their interface needs

Pursuing resolution of issues elevated by the IO through peer-level negotiations with OHCs

Elevation of unresolved issues to the TOC Interface Manager.

HCAB The purpose of the HCAB is:

Support the Hanford Site cleanup mission by assessing strategic, emerging issues

Identify and agree upon unified actions related to DOE Prime Contracts, funding allocations and priorities, and project management decisions

Provide integrated decisions for significant issues and actions concerning the Prime Contracts.

The HCAB is made up of DOE senior managers and other upper-level management personnel (such as Contracting Officers). Each HCAB member is responsible to assist when, and if necessary, to resolve process issues associated with inter-contractor interfaces and to negotiate

funding matters when interface issues require a change to a Contractor’s baseline. The HCAB will only need to resolve process issues if these issues cannot first be resolved by Contractor

senior management.

The MSC, as the designated Hanford Site Services integrator, will provide the administrative leadership for coordinating HCAB meetings.

IM IM acts as the Portfolio Manager for the TOC in the overall Hanford mission integration objectives and is responsible for:

Identifying, coordinating, reviewing, managing, and tracking interface and service

requirements and agreements

Developing and maintaining the TOC IMP

Providing input to the MSC and negotiating changes to the J.3 Matrix on an annual or as -needed basis

Maintaining procedural guidance (TFC-BSM-CP_CPR-C-17) for interface agreement

development

Communicating with IOs and TPOCs to help clarify roles and responsibilities, or current issues

Evaluating shared services to develop cost and effective alternatives for management review and action

Coordinating TOC review and administration of Contract Section J, attachments entitled J.13, “Hanford Site Structures List,” and J.14, “Hanford Waste Site Assignment List”

Providing administrative support to the One System organization and interface with the WTP DOE-ORP Interface Manager in regard to the WTP interface program

Facilitating the coordination, planning, and payment of the WTP Contractor’s requirements

for infrastructure, utility, and service support from the OHCs, as identified in the J.3 Matrix

Review SOWs for TPOCs and the Procurement organization to verify correct J.3 references and funding applications

MANAGEMENT PLAN


Document

Page

Issue Date


12 of 14

DRAFT

Table 1. TOC Interface Responsibilities. (cont.)

IM Providing internal TOC organizational issue resolution and problem solving, as requested

Collaboratively working with the OHCs to ensure services received by the TOC or provided to others from the TOC are right-sized, continuously improved, and meet the needs of the customers

Scheduling and conducting periodic assessments of the IM Program

Coordinating the process of TFC-BSM-AD-C-04 to ensure that non-TOC documents that

WRPS uses are approved and referenced on said procedure’s associated web page as appropriate, and are included in applicable AIAs, ICDs and SDDs.

IOs Each functional interface (e.g., security, emergency management, steam, electricity, etc.) has a named IO and associated TPOCs who are responsible for:

Representing the CLIN areas and their respective interface needs

Day-to-day interface implementation, compliance, programmatic commitments, and issue

resolution (if possible and within their level of authority) or issue escalation to their functional manager

Ensuring programmatic commitments in interface agreements are effectively flowed down

into corresponding processes, programs documents, and procedures

Interfacing with IOs and TPOCs from all participating Contractors specific to the interface the IO represents

Establishing appropriate documentation and managing interfaces in accordance with theJ.3 Matrix

Providing TOC coordination and input to MSC for the annual update to the Hanford Site

ISAP, Ten Year Site Plan and the annual review of the Hanford Site IMP

Providing input to the annual forecast of services and gathering projections of the TOC needed utilities, services, and infrastructure, which is then incorporated into the ISAP

Supporting the development and maintenance of MOAs, AIAs, ICDs, SDDs , SLAs, and

SOWs with other Site Contractors

Ensuring engineering standards, requirements for configuration management, and change controls are applied to IM documents, as applicable

Working with OHCs to resolve interface issues and negotiate other Site wide decisions related to shared services and Site wide safety standards

Ensuring the interface agreements accurately reflect the Contract baseline and that exceptions

falling outside the Contract baseline (Contract misalignments) are captured as open issues

Ensuring new WTP ICDs and revisions to WTP ICDs affecting their organization are evaluated by their TL, RL, and NSL, as applicable, and respective SMEs to identify and evaluate any regulatory or nuclear safety and technical issues, and that these are tracked as

WTP ICD issues

Concurring with interface agreements by providing signature.

NSL NSLs are SMEs that are designated to WTP ICD interface agreements, as appropriate, by the

IOs, with necessary concurrence from functional management. NSLs and SMEs are accountable to their respective IO for performance of the following WTP ICD-related responsibilities:

Participating in WTP ICD team meetings

MANAGEMENT PLAN


Document

Page

Issue Date


13 of 14

DRAFT


Reviewing revisions to the WTP ICDs and WTP interface change forms for nuclear safety accuracy, including evaluation of system nuclear safety impacts

Identifying nuclear safety risks as WTP ICD issues.

Office of

General Counsel

The Office of General Counsel is responsible for:

Review MOAs, AIAs, and ICDs that include external TOC commitments, and ensuring that

they do not place undue liability on WRPS.

One System Integrated Project Team

The One System Integrated Project Team is responsible for:

Designating WTP Interface IOs, TLs, RLs, and NSLs to support WTP ICD development.

Providing the necessary planning, analysis, and integration to manage WTP and tank farm interfaces

Assisting the WTP Contractor in the development and maintenance of WTP ICDs and other

WTP interface activities

Ensuring WTP interface agreements are technically and administratively accurate and align with TOC baseline commitments

Pursuing resolution of issues elevated by the IOs through peer-level negotiations with OHCs, other TOC organizations, or within the One System Integrated Project Team.

Prime

Contract Manager

The Prime Contract manager is responsible for:

Ensuring interface agreements are in compliance with the Contract and that appropriate

contractual language (e.g., costing, terms and conditions, acceptance criteria) is used for each interface agreement, as applicable

Ensuring interface agreements meet applicable local, state, and federal rules and regulations

Concurring with finalized interface agreements by providing signature.

RL RLs are SMEs that are designated to WTP ICDs and non-WTP interface agreements, as appropriate, by the IOs, with necessary concurrence from functional management. RLs and

SMEs are accountable to their respective WTP IOs for performance of the following ICD-related responsibilities:


Reviewing revisions to the WTP ICDs and WTP interface change forms for regulatory accuracy, including evaluation of system regulatory impacts

Identification of regulatory issues as WTP ICD issues.

TPOC Each functional interface from the J.3 Matrix (e.g., security, emergency management, fleet services, electricity, etc.) has a TPOC who is responsible for the following:

Representing respective WRPS interface needs

Day-to-day interface implementation, compliance and oversight, programmatic commitments, and issue resolution (if possible, and within their level of authority) or issue escalation

Ensuring applicable external procedures and documents that address the TOC Section J.3 are

administratively controlled by TOC personnel, or are controlled in a manner equivalent to TOC administrative controls. Equivalency in administrative procedure control is demonstrated by the presence of a Contractor’s approved Integrated Safety Management

System, or the procedure is included in Attachment A of TFC-BSM-AD-C-04, “Documents Owned by Other Hanford Prime Contractors Used by WRPS.” This responsibility is ensured by the TPOC being included on the review, comment, and revision of these documents

Initiating a procedure or document revision, if necessary, as part of the feedback process.

MANAGEMENT PLAN


Document

Page

Issue Date


14 of 14

DRAFT


TOC Project Manager

The TOC Project Manager is responsible for:

Ensuring interface agreements are in place and implemented to receive necessary services from OHCs to support the TOC mission and for the TOC to provide services to OHCs

Actively participating with the TOC leadership team and with the OHCs to review and support Site wide activities and to resolve common issues/challenges.

WTP IOG IOG meetings are held to resolve WTP ICD issues on which the WTP ICD team could not previously reach resolution

The TOC will provide the administrative leadership for coordinating IOG meetings. In this role, the TOC will be responsible for scheduling all IOG meetings and for recording and distributing minutes for these meetings. DOE-ORP will provide oversight for IOG activities.

WTP TL The WTP TLs are SMEs that are designated, as appropriate, by the IOs in consultation with other

managers within their organization. The WTP and TOC Contractors will assign TLs for each ICD. Technical SMEs are appropriately qualified to systematically evaluate the WTP ICD

content for interfacing systems’ technical and design impacts and identify technical risks and issues. TLs and SMEs are accountable to their respective WTP IOs for performance of the following ICD-related responsibilities:


Reviewing revisions to the WTP ICDs and WTP interface change forms for technical accuracy, including evaluation of system technical and design impacts

Identifying technical risks and issues as WTP ICD issues

Concurrence of completed interface agreements by signature.

Ensuring a compatible and viable interface exists that:

– Accurately describes all interface issues

– Documents the vehicle being used to follow each issue to resolution

– Is within the Contract baseline, permits, and authorization basis of the Contractor.

AIA = Administrative Interface Agreement

CIB = Contractor Interface Board

CLIN = Contract Line Item Number

DOE = U.S. Department of Energy

HCAB = Hanford Contractors Alignment Board

ICD = Interface Control Document IM = Interface Management

IMP = Interface Management Plan

IO = Interface Owner

IOG = Interface Owners Group

ISAP = Hanford Infrastructure and Services

Alignment Plan

MOA = Memorandum of Agreement

MSC = Mission Support Contractor

NSL = Nuclear Safety Lead

ORP = Office of River Protection

RL = Regulatory Lead

SDD = Service Delivery Document

SLA = Service Level Agreement SME = Subject-Matter Expert

SOW = Statement of Work

TL = Technical Lead

TOC = Tank Operations Contract

TPOC = Technical Point of Contact

WRPS = Washington River Protection Solutions LLC

WTP = Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant