**[EIR Scope of Review ( 16 core review elements)]{.underline}**

**1.0 Work Breakdown Structure**

-   Assess Whether the WBS Incorporates All Project Work.

-   Assess whether the Resource Loaded Schedule is consistent with the
    WBS for the project work scope

-   Does the WBS represent a reasonable breakdown of the project work
    scope, and is it product oriented?

-   **2.0 Resource Loaded Schedule ( BASIS of COST)**

EXAMPLE: WBS 1.0 \$900,000

+---------+--------+---------+------------------+--------------------+
| Sub WBS | Est    | Basis   | EIR Team         | Finding /          |
| element | imated | of Cost | Assessment of    | Observation if     |
|         |        | e       |                  | appropriate        |
| desc    | Cost   | stimate | Cost Basis       |                    |
| ription |        |         |                  |                    |
|         | \$K    |         |                  |                    |
+---------+--------+---------+------------------+--------------------+
| 1.1     | 250    | R.S.    | EIR team was     |                    |
|         |        | Means   | able to document |                    |
|         |        |         | R.S. Means       |                    |
|         |        |         | estimate. Basis  |                    |
|         |        |         | of estimate is   |                    |
|         |        |         | reasonable.      |                    |
+---------+--------+---------+------------------+--------------------+
| 1.2     | 421    | Recent  | Description of   | Costs for WBS 1.2  |
|         |        | Vendor  | equipment        | needs to confirmed |
|         |        | quote,  | provided to the  | with vendor to     |
|         |        | August  | vendor was not   | ensure that vendor |
|         |        | 12,     | specific to      | is aware of NQA-1  |
|         |        | 2005    | application No   | requirements, and  |
|         |        |         | mention of need  | that cost          |
|         |        |         | for NQA-1        | incorporates this  |
|         |        |         | compliance.      | requirement        |
+---------+--------+---------+------------------+--------------------+
| 1.3     | 229    | Vendor  | Three year old   | Updated vendor     |
|         |        | quote 3 | quote is not     | quote is required  |
|         |        | years   | consistent with  |                    |
|         |        | old,    | good cost        |                    |
|         |        |         | estimation       |                    |
|         |        | August  | practice         |                    |
|         |        | 2003    |                  |                    |
+---------+--------+---------+------------------+--------------------+
| Total   | 900    |         |                  |                    |
| 1.0     |        |         |                  |                    |
+---------+--------+---------+------------------+--------------------+

**2.0 RESOURCE LOADED SCHEDULE (BASIS of SCHEDULE ESTIMATE**)

EXAMPLE: WBS 1.0 240 DAYS

+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Sub WBS     | Estimated   | Basis of    | EIR         | Finding/    |
| Element     |             | Schedule    | Assessment  | Observation |
|             | Duration    | Estimate    | of Schedule |             |
|             |             |             | Basis       |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 1.1         | 50 days     | Experience  | Conforms to |             |
|             |             | from recent | good        |             |
|             |             | project     | schedule    |             |
|             |             | with        | estimating  |             |
|             |             | similar     | practice.   |             |
|             |             | activity    | Basis is    |             |
|             |             |             | reasonable. |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 1.2         | 140 days    | This        | No one on   | The EIR     |
|             |             | element has | the IPT     | finds that  |
|             |             | not been    | that helped | there is    |
|             |             | performed   | with this   | not a sound |
|             |             | previously  | estimate    | basis for   |
|             |             | for this    | has any     | estimate.   |
|             |             | material.   | significant | The Project |
|             |             | Project     | experience  | needs to    |
|             |             | team used   | in the type | obtain      |
|             |             | best        | of          | additional  |
|             |             | p           | materials   | expertise   |
|             |             | rofessional | that will   | in the      |
|             |             | judgment.   | be used in  | specialty   |
|             |             |             | c           | area.       |
|             |             |             | onstruction |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| 1.3         | 50 days     |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Total       | 240 days    |             |             |             |
+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

**3.0 Key Project Cost and Schedule Assumptions**

+-----------------+-------------+----------------------+---------------+
| COST / SCHEDULE | BASIS of    | EIR TEAM ASSESSMENT  | FINDING/      |
| ASSUMPTIONS     | ASSUMPTION  | of the               |               |
|                 |             | REASONABLENESS of    | OBSEVATION    |
| (**EXAMPLE      |             | the ASSUMPTIONS      |               |
| ONLY**)         |             |                      |               |
+-----------------+-------------+----------------------+---------------+
| Price of steel  | Program     | EIR Team does not    | Finding:      |
| from now until  |             | consider the         |               |
| project         | Direction   | assumption to be     | The EIR TEAM  |
| completion in   |             | reasonable. Steel    | finds that    |
| 2012 will       |             | prices have          | the cost      |
| remain the same |             | increased            | estimate is   |
|                 |             | considerably over    | deficient as  |
|                 |             | the last several     | a result of   |
|                 |             | years, and the ENR   | the technical |
|                 |             | predicts that cost   | assumption    |
|                 |             | will continue to     | concerning    |
|                 |             | increase             | the price of  |
|                 |             | significantly.       | steel.        |
+-----------------+-------------+----------------------+---------------+
| Technical basis | Program     | The EIR Team         | Finding:      |
| of the design   | Direction   | performed a limited  |               |
| is sound and    |             | review of the design | The EIR Team  |
| start-up will   |             | basis. The Team      | finds that    |
| not experience  |             | found that the       | the cost and  |
| significant     |             | analysis supporting  | estimate is   |
| cost increases  |             | the design is        | deficient as  |
| or schedule     |             | flawed, and does not | a result of   |
| delays due to   |             | support the design   | the likely    |
| system not      |             | criteria.            | need to       |
| working as      |             |                      | perform       |
| designed.       |             |                      | re-design.    |
+-----------------+-------------+----------------------+---------------+

**4.0 Funding Profile**

-   Review and provide the basis for the Funding Profile (e.g. FY 05
    Project Data Sheet)

-   Compare the annual funding with the cost requirements, and provide
    an assessment of whether the costs and funding are reasonably
    linked.

-   Identify any significant disconnects between the Performance
    Baseline requirements and funding.

**5.0 Critical Path**

-   Assess whether the Critical Path is reasonably defined

-   Assess whether the Critical Path reflects an integrated schedule and
    schedule durations are reasonable.

-   Provide the duration between the Critical Path completion date and
    the Project Completion date (CD-4). Is the schedule contingency
    (float) reasonable for this type of project?

**6.0 Risk Management**

-   Describe the approach used to identify project risks and assess
    adequacy of this approach

-   Assess whether all risks ( including site specific factors such as
    availability of contractors) have been quantified based on the
    probability and consequence of occurrence, and whether risks have
    been quantified as high, medium, and low risk

-   Assess whether all appropriate risk mitigation actions have been
    incorporated into the Performance Baseline to include cost and
    schedule contingency.

-   Identify cost and schedule contingency, and provide an assessment of
    whether the basis of contingency is reasonable for this type of
    project.

**7.0 Hazards Analysis**

-   Identify the functional make-up of the Hazards analysis IPT, and
    provide an assessment of the overall staffing mix and expertise of
    the team.

-   Assess the Hazard analysis process, including the use of internal
    and external safety reviews.

-   Review any Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board and/or Nuclear
    Regulatory Commission interface and discuss the status of their
    involvement. Have DNFSB/ NRC issues been reasonably considered and
    addressed?

-   Assess whether the Hazards identified and the accident scenarios
    represent a reasonably comprehensive list

-   Assess whether all systems, structures, and components (SSCs) needed
    for worker and public safety have been incorporated into the
    Performance Baseline.

**8.0 System Functions and Requirements**

-   Assess whether \"design-to\" functions are complete and have a sound
    technical basis (The review team should include safety and external
    requirements such as permits, licenses, and regulatory approvals).

-   The EIR Team should assess whether system requirements are derived
    from and consistent with the Mission Need

-   Assess whether the CD-4 (project completion) activities are clearly
    defined in the Requirements Document, and whether these activities
    are quantified and measurable, or can otherwise be reasonably
    determined as complete.

**9.0 Basis of Preliminary Design**

Review the Process Flowsheet and assess the reasonableness of the input
and output parameters for each unit operation. Specifically, the EIR
team shall complete the table below that provides a short description of
the unit operation, the design parameters, the basis of the design
parameters and an assessment of whether the design basis is reasonable.

**EXAMPLE**

  ------------- ------------ ------------ ----------- ------------- --------------
  Unit          Key Input    Key Output   Describe    Is the        EIR team
  Operation/    parameters   Parameters   Basis of    composition   assessment of
  Short                                   Design      of the        the basis of
  Description                                         Project feed  design for
                                                      similar?      each unit
                                                      Explain       operation

  Unit                                                              
  Operation A                                                       

  B                                                                 

  Etc.                                                              
  ------------- ------------ ------------ ----------- ------------- --------------

2\. Review the surrogate tests and provide an assessment of whether the
surrogate composition reasonably represents the full range of feed
streams for the aqueous polishing operation. Specifically, complete the
table below:

  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
  Description of Purpose of the EIR team                      The EIR team
  the surrogate  test/ success  assessment of                 assessment of
  test/          criteria       whether the                   the surrogate
  surrogate                     "success                      test
  composition                   criteria" were                
                                achieved                      

  Surrogate Test Assess whether Success                       The surrogate
  A              component A    criteria were                 test does not
                 can be         not achieved                  provide a
                 effectively                                  sound
                 separated from                               technical
                 feed material                                basis for
                                                              design.
  -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------

**10.0 Preliminary Design Review and Comment Disposition**

-   The EIR Team is to review the adequacy of the preliminary design
    including adequacy of the drawings and specifications, and assess
    whether they are consistent with system functions and
    requirements**.**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The EIR Team is to review the disciplines and experience of the
    Project Design Review Team. The EIR team is to provide an assessment
    of whether the Design Review team had appropriate experience and
    technical disciplines on the team.

-   The EIR Team will review the Design Review comments and responses.
    Based on a reasonable sample, the EIR team is to assess whether
    these comments have been incorporated into the Design, and whether
    the costs and schedule associated with design changes have been
    incorporated into the Performance Baseline.

**11.0 Start-Up Test Plan**

-   The EIR TEAM will review the start-up test plan and assess whether
    the plan identifies the acceptance and operational system tests
    required to demonstrate that the system meets design performance
    specifications and safety requirements.

-   The EIR Team should review key tests to ensure that sufficient
    description is provided to estimate cost and schedule durations
    associated with these tests.

-   The EIR team should ensure that the start-up test plan identifies
    how tests will be determined to be successful, and that associated
    equipment and instrumentation has been included in the preliminary
    design.

-   The EIR team should assess whether adequate cost and schedule are
    included in the Performance Baseline to accomplish the required
    start-up activities.

-   Finally, the EIR team should assess whether there is sufficient cost
    and schedule contingency for test and equipment failure during
    start-up testing.

**12.0 Project Controls/Earned Value Management System**.

-   Assess whether the project control systems and reporting
    requirements are in place to correctly report Earned Value.

-   Assess the capability to provide for timely and accurate transfer of
    actual cost information from the accounting system into the earned
    value management system.

-   Discuss specifically whether accrual accounting will be used. If
    not, assess the adequacy of the EV system to acceptably report
    monthly cost and schedule information .

-   Evaluate the control process whereby projects incorporate formal
    changes, conduct internal replanning, and adjust past, present and
    future information to accommodate changes. Identify whether the
    process includes a system whereby such changes are documented,
    explained, and justified. Asses whether these processes are
    reasonable.

**13.0 Value Management/Engineering**.

-   Assess the applicability of Value Management/Engineering, and
    whether a Value Management/Engineering analysis has been performed
    with results being incorporated into the baseline.

-   Provide an assessment of the Value Management/Engineering process
    for this project. Include whether the VM team had a reasonable skill
    mix and experience background.

-   Assess whether Life cycle cost analysis was reasonably performed as
    part of the trade-off studies and various alternatives reviewed.

**14.0 Project Execution Plan**.

-   Review the Project Execution Plan and determine if it reflects and
    supports the way the project is being managed, is consistent with
    the other project documents, and establishes a plan for successful
    execution of the project.

**15.0 Acquisition Strategy**

-   Review the Acquisition Strategy to determine if it is consistent
    with the way the project is being executed.

-   The Review Team should evaluate any changes from CD-1 and assess
    whether the current AS still represents best value to the
    government.

**16.0 Integrated Project Team**

-   Assess whether the project management staffing level is appropriate,
    and determine if appropriate disciplines are included in the
    Integrated Project Team.

-   Identify any deficiencies in the Integrated Project Team that could
    hinder successful execution of the project.