Audit reports and checklist should be consistent. An example Audit File Checklist to ensure minimum required documentation is present prior to submittal to MASL is included in Attachment K. Team Make-Up and Subject Matter Experts, as applicable, to include: Qualifications and Certifications Lead Auditors Auditors in training Inspectors Audit approach, to be used, for example: Compliance based Performance based Interviews Acceptable method for documenting/excluding proprietary information Develop a standard process for performing third party reviews that includes role of the reviewer, supplier information, requirements review, and documentation (Attachment K). To achieve full participation by contractors supporting a single approved supplier approach, the Task Team recommends DOE EM should: Incentivize contractors to use MASL and participate with EFCOG QA subgroup to coordinate the audit process and implement a single EM approved supplier list. One example of incentivizing contractors could be through the use of award fee. A letter should be issued from EM-1 to Site Managers incentivizing the use of MASL, and support of EFCOG in coordinating the audit process. This will be discussed further at the EM Site Managers meeting in September of 2017. Incentives should reflect the expectation to use a common supplier list (MASL), to provide support to EFCOG to schedule audits, conduct supplier audits, and to document cost avoidance in MASL. Provide a proposal to the EM IT Governance Board to approve support for MASL maintenance. MASL is currently maintained by KC Honeywell and funded by NNSA. Consider additional incentive compensation for contractors who provide EFCOG audit coordination support and leadership. Confirm each EM site uses MASL as part of their vendor qualification efforts (checks to credit audits by others) and keeps MASL information up-to-date for their respective qualified supplier listing. The EFCOG Board should provide oversight for the EFCOG process. DOE-EM should appropriately support a singular EM supplier list approach including expectations for evaluating audits by others for cost savings, and endorsing the EFCOG EM Single Supplier listing initiatives.
certifications and programs lead auditor certification; adequacy of report/checklist. Questions on ability to use without vendor concurrence 29. Multiple comments: Our IT and IT responsible for MASL are not able to get me access to MASL. We are required to review the supplier audit plan, report and checklist to determine applicability to our work scope. The questions above make assumptions about contractor ability to share information; we have agreements in place with suppliers. Questions above do not allow for alternate answers. Our legal does not allow us to participate in NIAC or NUPIC. The INL has agreements in place to promote small Idaho business. MASL has limited access and does not support use by large procurement, engineering, planning and quality organizations for multiple DOE contractors. The INL is DOE NE. 30. Willingness to upload audits Addressed by recommendation 2.1.1.c, 2.1.1.d, and 2.2.3.b. Usability of NIAC audits as basis 29. Multiple comments: Our IT and IT responsible for MASL are not able to get me access to MASL. We are required to review the supplier audit plan, report and checklist to determine applicability to our work scope. The questions above make assumptions about contractor ability to share information; we have agreements in place with suppliers. Questions above do not allow for alternate answers. NIAC issues addressed by recommendations 2.2.6 and 2.2.7.
Attachment I - NIAC Membership Recommendation (cont.) Additional comparative information between MASL and NIAC is included in the following Table. This information also demonstrates the benefit of using MASL and NIAC combined. NIAC/MASL Attribute Comparison Attribute MASL NIAC Active Suppliers in Database ~700 ~1100 Centralized Administrative Process In development Active and proven Audit Standard endorsement In development NRC, ASME, NUPIC, NIAC Cost impact No annual fee, $2000 travel to EFCOG Supply Chain meeting $600 + $2000 travel to Member meeting WTP, SRNS/SRR, MSA shared suppliers ~15% ~25% Database usability / simplicity More complex interface, additional search and audit document filing features Simple user interface, audit reports not captured in database. Must request copy for use Sharing of Data Accessible to all EM contractors NIAC info accessible to NIAC members only