What is the difference between a project status report and a project performance report?

Analyzing performance of small projects using URS and PMAS. Information pamphlet. [Uniform Reporting System; Performance Measurement Analysis System]

Technical Report

This pamphlet addresses some basic tools used in the analysis of small project performance, the Uniform Reporting System (URS) and the Performance Measurement Analysis System (PMAS). The flexibility inherent in the URS allows DOE project managers the latitude to negotiate with contractors several key elements in contract performance measurement. Through reviews of management systems documentation, analysis of reports, orientation briefings, and site visits, the project team can obtain a good understanding of how the contractor plans and controls work. This knowledge assists them in performing data analysis by understanding how the data is put together. The key performance measurement data, which are taken or calculated from the cost and schedule report, quantifies the overall effect of the small problems that the project manager frequently deals with. As important as daily contact with project progress is in management of smaller projects, it is equally important to be aware of overall progress and the general trend. The PMAS easily permits management to periodically focus on contract performance trends and forecast contract cost at completion by using simple graphic displays and supporting reports.

• https://doi.org/10.2172/5815629
• Full Text Available

Integrated Project Management System description. [UMTRAP Project]

Technical Report

The Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) Project is a Department of Energy (DOE) designated Major System Acquisition (MSA). To execute and manage the Project mission successfully and to comply with the MSA requirements, the UMTRA Project Office ( Project Office'') has implemented and operates an Integrated Project Management System (IPMS). The Project Office is assisted by the Technical Assistance Contractor's (TAC) Project Integration and Control (PIC) Group in system operation. Each participant, in turn, provides critical input to system operation and reporting requirements. The IPMS provides a uniform structured approach for integrating the work of Project participants. It serves as a tool for planning and control, workload management, performance measurement, and specialized reporting within a standardized format. This system description presents the guidance for its operation. Appendices 1 and 2 contain definitions of commonly used terms and abbreviations and acronyms, respectively. 17 figs., 5 tabs.

• https://doi.org/10.2172/6345075
• Full Text Available

Audit Report on "Work for Others Performed by the Department of Energy for the Department of Defense"

Technical Report

Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Economy Act of 1932, the Department of Energy and its semi-autonomous National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) provide research and technical assistance to other Federal agencies on a reimbursable, full cost recovery basis through the Work for Others (WFO) program. For the vast majority of WFO technical projects, Department Federal officials furnish administrative project oversight while the actual detailed scientific or technical work is completed by the Department's 'management and operating' contractors. These contractors are awarded a special contract type specifically created under the Federal Acquisition Regulation to manage and operate Department sites and facilities, including sophisticated laboratories and technical centers, on a government-owned, contractor-operated basis. With annual expenditures exceeding $1 billion, the Department of Defense (DoD) is one of the Department's largest WFO customers. Work performed for DoD at the Department's national laboratories and other facilities includes highly technical research in areas such as nuclear weapons systems, counter-terrorism, and in-theater troop support. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year (FY) 2009, required the Inspectors General of the DoD and the Department to review procurement methods to determine whether the Department complied with DoD procurement requirements and/or whether alternative procurement policies were in place. In response, we focused our review on projects performed by NNSA because it completes the vast majority (approximately $900 million in FY 2008) of the Department's work for DoD. As part of this effort, and, at the specific request of the DoD Office of Inspector General (DoD OIG), we identified the universe of WFO technical projects that received new funding in the fourth quarter of FY 2008 at NNSA sites. We independently reviewed a judgmental sample of 11 projects selected by the DoD OIG to meet the objectives of this audit. Our review revealed that NNSA managed DoD WFO technical projects in a manner consistent with requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the Federal Acquisition Regulation, and the Department's implementing guidance, the Department of Energy Acquisition Regulation. Because of the very nature of the Department's management and operating contracting model, WFO projects may not be technically compliant with DoD procurement regulations in certain instances. We found that NNSA did not let new contracts or task orders for the DoD WFO technical projects we reviewed and instead managed them under its existing internal control process as part of its management and operating contract structure. In one instance, we noted that the Department had, at DoD's request, supplemented its control structure to incorporate specific DoD procurement requirements. Senior Department of Energy procurement officials acknowledged that neither the Department nor NNSA modified their existing prime contracts to incorporate specific defense procurement requirements because such modifications would be inappropriate, costly, and inefficient. In short, they informed us that the Department had developed and implemented a series of controls designed to monitor overall contractor performance, including WFO technical projects. Department and NNSA officials noted, however, that they were willing to incorporate DoD specific requirements into work orders should DoD request and fund such efforts. Additional details regarding management of WFO technical projects are discussed in the body of this report.

• https://doi.org/10.2172/967390
• Full Text Available

Audit Report on "The Office of Science's Management of Information Technology Resources"

Technical Report

The Department of Energy's Office of Science (Science) and its facility contractors are aggressive users of information technology (IT) to support fundamental research in areas such as energy, environmental remediation and computational sciences. Of its $4 billion Fiscal Year 2008 budget, Science spent about $287 million to manage its IT program. This included cyber security activities, acquisition of hardware and software, and support service costs used to maintain the operating environments necessary to support the missions of the program. Prior Office of Inspector General reports have identified various issues with Science's management of its IT programs and resources. For instance, our report on Facility Contractor Acquisition and Management of Information Technology Hardware (DOE/IG-0768, June 2007) noted that the Science sites reviewed spent more than necessary when acquiring IT hardware. In another example, our review of The Department's Efforts to Implement Common Information Technology Services at Headquarters (DOE/IG-0763, March 2007) disclosed that Science's reluctance to adopt the Department of Energy Common Operating Environment (DOE-COE) at Headquarters contributed to the Department's inability to fully realize potential cost savings through consolidation and economies of scale. In light of the magnitude of the Office of Science IT program and previously identified program weaknesses, we initiated this audit to determine whether Science adequately managed its IT resources. Science had taken a number of actions to improve its cyber security posture and align its program to Federal requirements. Yet, our review disclosed that it had not taken some basic steps to enhance security and reduce costs. In particular, we found that: (1) For their non-scientific computing environments, all seven of the field sites reviewed (two Federal, five contractor) had implemented security configurations that were less stringent than those included in the Federal Desktop Core Configuration. This configuration was designed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and its use was mandated by the Office of Management and Budget; (2) Although we previously highlighted weaknesses and recommended corrective actions, Science still had not fully established or enforced IT hardware standards for acquiring hardware such as desktop and laptop computers or related peripherals, contributing to significant unnecessary expenditures; and (3) While we have noted in a series of past reports that significant savings could be realized from aggregating demand for IT services and products across the enterprise, Science had not implemented a common infrastructure for users at its Federal sites and continued to maintain an IT environment independent of the Department's Common IT Operating Environment. The weaknesses identified were attributable, at least in part, to a lack of adequate policies and procedures for ensuring effective cyber security and hardware acquisition practices. In addition, Science had not effectively monitored the performance of its field sites to ensure that previously reported internal control weaknesses were addressed and had not implemented an appropriate mechanism to track its IT-related costs. Without improvements, Science may be unable to realize the benefits of improved security over its information systems, reduce costs associated with hardware acquisition, and lower IT support costs through consolidation of services. In particular, we determined that Science could potentially realize savings of more than $3.3 million over the next three years by better controlling hardware costs and implementing standards for certain equipment. Furthermore, Science could continue to pay for duplicative IT support services and fail to take advantage of opportunities to lower costs and apply potential savings to mission-related work. During the course of our audit work, we learned from Science officials that they had initiated the process of revising the Program Cyber Security Plan to better clarify its policy for implementing Federal cyber security requirements. In addition, we noted that the Oak Ridge National Laboratory had taken action to establish and enforce hardware standards on both its administrative and scientific workforce. Although these actions are positive steps, additional action is needed to strengthen Science's IT program. To that end, our report contains several recommendations that, if fully implemented, should help Science improve the management of its IT resources.

What is a project performance report?

What is a project status report?

What are the status reports which check on project performance?

What are the three types of project report?