<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?> 
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rc4docs.xsl"?>
   <Document>
      <DocumentName><![CDATA[DOE O 361.1 Chg 2 Acquisition Career Development Program]]></DocumentName>
      <DocumentId><![CDATA[DOE O 361.1 Chg 2]]></DocumentId>
      <DocumentOpenDate>07/12/2002</DocumentOpenDate>
      <DocumentCloseDate>08/12/2002</DocumentCloseDate>
      <DocumentResolutionDate>10/12/2002</DocumentResolutionDate>
      <MajorComments>
         <Section>
            <SectionTitle><![CDATA[Overall Comments]]></SectionTitle>
            <SectionContent><![CDATA[Please provide your overall comments about this document.
Note: this 'paragraph' is not part of the original document.]]></SectionContent>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Ames Labortatory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Argonne National Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Associate Manager for Science & Technology, Richland]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Bechtel Hanford]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Bechtel Nevada]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Berkeley Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Bonneville Power Administration]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Brookhaven National  Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[BWXT Pantex, LLC]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Carlsbad Area Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Carlsbad Field Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[CH2MHill]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Chicago Operations Office]]></OrganizationName>
               <Source>
                  <SourceUsername><![CDATA[Lynette Kane]]></SourceUsername>
                  <SourceTitle><![CDATA[CH DPC]]></SourceTitle>
                  <SourceSite><![CDATA[Chicago Operations Office]]></SourceSite>
               </Source>
               <ApproverName><![CDATA[Larry J. Vann, Acting Manager]]></ApproverName>
               <Comments><![CDATA[It is the opinion of the reviewers that the subject directive as presently written is far too complex to be effective, and would very likely result in DOE having too few "certified" project managers for the number of projects that require knowledgeable personnel. While the draft is very specific with regard to the administrative bureaucracy that has been put in place to institutionalize the PMCDP, it is quite ambiguous when defining the human resource management issues involving qualification and certification requirements. 

The following examples are provided as the basis for NONCONCURRENCE with the draft module: 

--Assigning project manager certification levels based on estimated Total Project Cost (TPC) appears quite reasonable in theory. However, it should be recognized that the primary qualification for managing high cost projects should be extensive experience with project management on actual and relatively similar projects of an increasingly complex and expensive nature. The CH subject matter experts felt that there should be a project management entry-level tier requiring a college degree with certain basic college courses that would allow a person to obtain experience managing small low-cost DOE projects with no, or minimal, additional courses to be completed or other background requirements. 

--There is a concern on the part of the subject matter experts and the CH Training Officer regarding the required training for PMCDP participants. While we agree that there should be certain standardized DOE courses that are required for higher levels of certification, a number of questions were raised regarding whether credit will be given for all of the previous training that our employees have completed. Because the draft module only provides vague course titles, rather than course descriptions and specific requirements for course length, it is unclear whether the new course requirements repeat the same information with a different spin. Because the Project Management Institute's (PMI) Project Management Professional (PMP) certification plays a major role in the PMCDP, the courses under development should comply with the PMP training credit criteria so that as our employees work through the DOE curriculum they can also satisfy the PMP recertification requirements. 

--The draft module doesn't reference the specific authority (i.e., an OPM qualification standard) under which the Office of Engineering and Construction Management has established a positive educational requirement for project managers. It also doesn't provide adequate information regarding the requirements for granting waivers to experienced project managers. 

--There is a great deal of concern regarding the required incentive payments for PMCDP completion that range from four to ten percent of base pay. Not only are these payments unrealistic in an environment of budget reductions, but it is inconsistent with current Department policy since pay incentives weren't established for completion of the other DOE certification and qualification programs.
]]></Comments>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Critique]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Departmental Representatives Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Directives Management Team]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[DynMcDermott Petroleum Operations]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Fernald]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Fluor Hanford Inc]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Golden Field Office]]></OrganizationName>
               <Source>
                  <SourceUsername><![CDATA[Allen Hays]]></SourceUsername>
                  <SourceTitle><![CDATA[GFO DPC]]></SourceTitle>
                  <SourceSite><![CDATA[Golden Field Office]]></SourceSite>
               </Source>
               <ApproverName><![CDATA[John Kersten, Acting Manager, GFO]]></ApproverName>
               <Comments><![CDATA[Major Comments from Tom Kelly, HR, GFO.

 Appendix B is currently organized in 6 sections: 
I. Background
II. DOE Project Management Certification
III. Training Requirements
IV. Individual Development Plans 
V. Career Path Promotions
VI. Recruiting and Retaining DOE Federal Project Managers

- In order to address issues arising from the laws and regulations governing human resources management within the Federal government, Appendix B might be better organized under the following topics:

I. Background
II. Establishment and Classification of DOE Project Management Positions
III. Minimum Qualification Requirements for DOE Project Management Positions
IV. Recruitment and Selection for DOE Project Management Positions
V.  Training and Development of DOE Project Managers
VI. Retention of DOE Project Managers 
VII. Labor/Employee Relations Issues

Whether or not the document is reorganized, our comments are organized in the latter manner, as follows.

BACKGROUND - Suggest that much of the background information in Appendix B is unnecessary and will be outdated as time goes by.  This section would be adequate if it began after what now reads 'In response to these studies,...'.  So the beginning of the Background section would be 'On January 17, 2001 ...'

ESTABLISHMENT AND CLASSIFICATION OF DOE PROJECT MANAGEMENT POSITIONS

- The draft order doesn't address issues related to classification of DOE Project Manager positions, yet this is a crucial area.  In the Federal HR system for General Schedule positions in the competitive service, duties are assigned to positions, and then individuals are put in those positions.

- Some of the position classification issues arising here are:  Should there be standardized position descriptions for positions assigned responsibility for DOE capital asset projects?  Should they be consistent as to what job series they are placed in?  For example, should they be classified in the GS-800 series?  This would have implications for minimum qualifications.  Should the titles and grades be standard across the DOE complex?  Or is it okay for one field office to title a position with CAPS responsibility a Project Manager, and another to title it something else?  In the field, it is common to find positions with a variety of duties, only one of which is CAPS responsibilities.  Should these positions be classified as Project Managers?  

-   There will be serious classification issues (i.e., down-grade) if project manager duties are taken away from those project managers who don't attain certification.  How should DOE approach this?

- The current Section IV in Appendix B indicates that individuals should be promoted upon attainment of higher levels of certifications.  However, this requires the existence of a higher level position and competitive selection.  Such a position would be classified based on the existence of higher level work.  What if the work isn't there to justify a higher grade?  A clear distinction needs to be made throughout the document between attainment of higher levels of certification and the assignment of higher level work.  The former does not automatically lead to the latter. 

MINIMUM QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR DOE PROJECT MANAGEMENT POSITIONS

- A 'Project Manager Qualification Standard' is referred to in several places in this document, but currently doesn't exist.

- Appendix B established a positive positive education requirement to 'qualify' as a project manager.  Specifically, it requires a BS or BA degree with 24 semester hours of business, physical sciences and mathematics courses.  This raises several issues.  

- First, most current project manager positions in DOE are classified to the GS-800 Engineering or GS-1300 Physical Science job series families.  Positions in these job series already have educational requirements established by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

- If project manager positions are classified to a job series, outside of the 800 or 1300 series, where there is not a positive education requirement, establishment of such a requirement is not permitted without the permission of OPM.  Agencies are not permitted to enhance the OPM-established qualification standards by adding positive education requirements to those series which don't require it.

- Requiring a degree  '...with 24 semester hours of business, physical sciences and mathematics courses.'  needs to be clarified.  Does completion of 24 hours of business courses satisfy this requirement?  Or 24 hours of math courses?

- Also, while traditionally project managers have been classified in the 800 series (Engineering), the proposed positive education requirement does not allow for 24 hours of engineering course work, thereby potentially disqualifying engineers from the project management certification.

RECRUITMENT AND SELECTION FOR DOE PROJECT MANAGEMENT POSITIONS

- Field Element managers are responsible for including PMCDP certification as a selective placement factor in vacancy announcements for positions with CAPS responsibilities.  Clarification is needed regarding selection procedures for these positions, particularly for non-DOE, non-Federal applicants.

- Suggest that available monetary incentives for recruiting highly qualified candidates from outside DOE should be addressed separately from retention incentives.

TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT OF DOE PROJECT MANAGERS

- Appendix B, Section IV, Individual Development Plans, Section e., 360 reviews.  This needs further explanation.  The title should be 360 Degree Feedback or similar.  Discussion of what 360 degree feedback is and how it should be obtained would be appropriate here.

RETENTION OF DOE PROJECT MANAGERS

-Regarding Incentive pay - current regulations do not allow incentive pay for employees who haven't indicated they are leaving and been identified as possessing critically needed skills.  The law and implementing regulations for incentive pay would not permit blanket grants of pay without prior OPM approval.

- When a certified DOE Project Manager doesn't have any current CAPS assignments, they should not be entitled to incentive pay.  The order doesn't address this.  (This is related to the issue of individuals with varied responsibilities, only one of which is CAPS.)

LABOR/EMPLOYEE RELATION ISSUES

- The draft indicates that Program Secretarial Officers and Field Element Managers must 'As appropriate, reassign Federal employees whose certification is canceled ... to duties other than the management of DOE CAPS' - However, it's very possible that there wouldn't be any vacant positions available at the employee's current grade level?  What then?  At a minimum, the Order should insist that the servicing Human Resources office be consulted.

]]></Comments>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Grand Junction]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters CI]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters CIO]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters CN]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters CR]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters ED]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters EE]]></OrganizationName>
               <Source>
                  <SourceUsername><![CDATA[Daniel Hughes]]></SourceUsername>
                  <SourceTitle><![CDATA[EE DPC]]></SourceTitle>
                  <SourceSite><![CDATA[Headquarters EE]]></SourceSite>
               </Source>
               <ApproverName><![CDATA[]]></ApproverName>
               <Comments><![CDATA[Allen Hays (GFO DPC) for Golden Field Office
Major Comments from Tom Kelly, HR, GFO.

 Appendix B is currently organized in 6 sections: 
I. Background
II. DOE Project Management Certification
III. Training Requirements
IV. Individual Development Plans 
V. Career Path Promotions
VI. Recruiting and Retaining DOE Federal Project Managers

- In order to address issues arising from the laws and regulations governing human resources management within the Federal government, Appendix B might be better organized under the following topics:

I. Background
II. Establishment and Classification of DOE Project Management Positions
III. Minimum Qualification Requirements for DOE Project Management Positions
IV. Recruitment and Selection for DOE Project Management Positions
V.  Training and Development of DOE Project Managers
VI. Retention of DOE Project Managers 
VII. Labor/Employee Relations Issues

Whether or not the document is reorganized, our comments are organized in the latter manner, as follows.

BACKGROUND - Suggest that much of the background information in Appendix B is unnecessary and will be outdated as time goes by.  This section would be adequate if it began after what now reads 'In response to these studies,...'.  So the beginning of the Background section would be 'On January 17, 2001 ...'

ESTABLISHMENT AND CLASSIFICATION OF DOE PROJECT MANAGEMENT POSITIONS

- The draft order doesn't address issues related to classification of DOE Project Manager positions, yet this is a crucial area.  In the Federal HR system for General Schedule positions in the competitive service, duties are assigned to positions, and then individuals are put in those positions.

- Some of the position classification issues arising here are:  Should there be standardized position descriptions for positions assigned responsibility for DOE capital asset projects?  Should they be consistent as to what job series they are placed in?  For example, should they be classified in the GS-800 series?  This would have implications for minimum qualifications.  Should the titles and grades be standard across the DOE complex?  Or is it okay for one field office to title a position with CAPS responsibility a Project Manager, and another to title it something else?  In the field, it is common to find positions with a variety of duties, only one of which is CAPS responsibilities.  Should these positions be classified as Project Managers?  

-   There will be serious classification issues (i.e., down-grade) if project manager duties are taken away from those project managers who don't attain certification.  How should DOE approach this?

- The current Section IV in Appendix B indicates that individuals should be promoted upon attainment of higher levels of certifications.  However, this requires the existence of a higher level position and competitive selection.  Such a position would be classified based on the existence of higher level work.  What if the work isn't there to justify a higher grade?  A clear distinction needs to be made throughout the document between attainment of higher levels of certification and the assignment of higher level work.  The former does not automatically lead to the latter. 

MINIMUM QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR DOE PROJECT MANAGEMENT POSITIONS

- A 'Project Manager Qualification Standard' is referred to in several places in this document, but currently doesn't exist.

- Appendix B established a positive positive education requirement to 'qualify' as a project manager.  Specifically, it requires a BS or BA degree with 24 semester hours of business, physical sciences and mathematics courses.  This raises several issues.  

- First, most current project manager positions in DOE are classified to the GS-800 Engineering or GS-1300 Physical Science job series families.  Positions in these job series already have educational requirements established by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

- If project manager positions are classified to a job series, outside of the 800 or 1300 series, where there is not a positive education requirement, establishment of such a requirement is not permitted without the permission of OPM.  Agencies are not permitted to enhance the OPM-established qualification standards by adding positive education requirements to those series which don't require it.

- Requiring a degree  '...with 24 semester hours of business, physical sciences and mathematics courses.'  needs to be clarified.  Does completion of 24 hours of business courses satisfy this requirement?  Or 24 hours of math courses?

- Also, while traditionally project managers have been classified in the 800 series (Engineering), the proposed positive education requirement does not allow for 24 hours of engineering course work, thereby potentially disqualifying engineers from the project management certification.

RECRUITMENT AND SELECTION FOR DOE PROJECT MANAGEMENT POSITIONS

- Field Element managers are responsible for including PMCDP certification as a selective placement factor in vacancy announcements for positions with CAPS responsibilities.  Clarification is needed regarding selection procedures for these positions, particularly for non-DOE, non-Federal applicants.

- Suggest that available monetary incentives for recruiting highly qualified candidates from outside DOE should be addressed separately from retention incentives.

TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT OF DOE PROJECT MANAGERS

- Appendix B, Section IV, Individual Development Plans, Section e., 360 reviews.  This needs further explanation.  The title should be 360 Degree Feedback or similar.  Discussion of what 360 degree feedback is and how it should be obtained would be appropriate here.

RETENTION OF DOE PROJECT MANAGERS

-Regarding Incentive pay - current regulations do not allow incentive pay for employees who haven't indicated they are leaving and been identified as possessing critically needed skills.  The law and implementing regulations for incentive pay would not permit blanket grants of pay without prior OPM approval.

- When a certified DOE Project Manager doesn't have any current CAPS assignments, they should not be entitled to incentive pay.  The order doesn't address this.  (This is related to the issue of individuals with varied responsibilities, only one of which is CAPS.)

LABOR/EMPLOYEE RELATION ISSUES

- The draft indicates that Program Secretarial Officers and Field Element Managers must 'As appropriate, reassign Federal employees whose certification is canceled ... to duties other than the management of DOE CAPS' - However, it's very possible that there wouldn't be any vacant positions available at the employee's current grade level?  What then?  At a minimum, the Order should insist that the servicing Human Resources office be consulted.

Allen Hays (GFO DPC) for Golden Field Office
Major Comments from Tom Kelly, HR, GFO.

 Appendix B is currently organized in 6 sections: 
I. Background
II. DOE Project Management Certification
III. Training Requirements
IV. Individual Development Plans 
V. Career Path Promotions
VI. Recruiting and Retaining DOE Federal Project Managers

- In order to address issues arising from the laws and regulations governing human resources management within the Federal government, Appendix B might be better organized under the following topics:

I. Background
II. Establishment and Classification of DOE Project Management Positions
III. Minimum Qualification Requirements for DOE Project Management Positions
IV. Recruitment and Selection for DOE Project Management Positions
V.  Training and Development of DOE Project Managers
VI. Retention of DOE Project Managers 
VII. Labor/Employee Relations Issues

Whether or not the document is reorganized, our comments are organized in the latter manner, as follows.

BACKGROUND - Suggest that much of the background information in Appendix B is unnecessary and will be outdated as time goes by.  This section would be adequate if it began after what now reads 'In response to these studies,...'.  So the beginning of the Background section would be 'On January 17, 2001 ...'

ESTABLISHMENT AND CLASSIFICATION OF DOE PROJECT MANAGEMENT POSITIONS

- The draft order doesn't address issues related to classification of DOE Project Manager positions, yet this is a crucial area.  In the Federal HR system for General Schedule positions in the competitive service, duties are assigned to positions, and then individuals are put in those positions.

- Some of the position classification issues arising here are:  Should there be standardized position descriptions for positions assigned responsibility for DOE capital asset projects?  Should they be consistent as to what job series they are placed in?  For example, should they be classified in the GS-800 series?  This would have implications for minimum qualifications.  Should the titles and grades be standard across the DOE complex?  Or is it okay for one field office to title a position with CAPS responsibility a Project Manager, and another to title it something else?  In the field, it is common to find positions with a variety of duties, only one of which is CAPS responsibilities.  Should these positions be classified as Project Managers?  

-   There will be serious classification issues (i.e., down-grade) if project manager duties are taken away from those project managers who don't attain certification.  How should DOE approach this?

- The current Section IV in Appendix B indicates that individuals should be promoted upon attainment of higher levels of certifications.  However, this requires the existence of a higher level position and competitive selection.  Such a position would be classified based on the existence of higher level work.  What if the work isn't there to justify a higher grade?  A clear distinction needs to be made throughout the document between attainment of higher levels of certification and the assignment of higher level work.  The former does not automatically lead to the latter. 

MINIMUM QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR DOE PROJECT MANAGEMENT POSITIONS

- A 'Project Manager Qualification Standard' is referred to in several places in this document, but currently doesn't exist.

- Appendix B established a positive positive education requirement to 'qualify' as a project manager.  Specifically, it requires a BS or BA degree with 24 semester hours of business, physical sciences and mathematics courses.  This raises several issues.  

- First, most current project manager positions in DOE are classified to the GS-800 Engineering or GS-1300 Physical Science job series families.  Positions in these job series already have educational requirements established by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

- If project manager positions are classified to a job series, outside of the 800 or 1300 series, where there is not a positive education requirement, establishment of such a requirement is not permitted without the permission of OPM.  Agencies are not permitted to enhance the OPM-established qualification standards by adding positive education requirements to those series which don't require it.

- Requiring a degree  '...with 24 semester hours of business, physical sciences and mathematics courses.'  needs to be clarified.  Does completion of 24 hours of business courses satisfy this requirement?  Or 24 hours of math courses?

- Also, while traditionally project managers have been classified in the 800 series (Engineering), the proposed positive education requirement does not allow for 24 hours of engineering course work, thereby potentially disqualifying engineers from the project management certification.

RECRUITMENT AND SELECTION FOR DOE PROJECT MANAGEMENT POSITIONS

- Field Element managers are responsible for including PMCDP certification as a selective placement factor in vacancy announcements for positions with CAPS responsibilities.  Clarification is needed regarding selection procedures for these positions, particularly for non-DOE, non-Federal applicants.

- Suggest that available monetary incentives for recruiting highly qualified candidates from outside DOE should be addressed separately from retention incentives.

TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT OF DOE PROJECT MANAGERS

- Appendix B, Section IV, Individual Development Plans, Section e., 360 reviews.  This needs further explanation.  The title should be 360 Degree Feedback or similar.  Discussion of what 360 degree feedback is and how it should be obtained would be appropriate here.

RETENTION OF DOE PROJECT MANAGERS

-Regarding Incentive pay - current regulations do not allow incentive pay for employees who haven't indicated they are leaving and been identified as possessing critically needed skills.  The law and implementing regulations for incentive pay would not permit blanket grants of pay without prior OPM approval.

- When a certified DOE Project Manager doesn't have any current CAPS assignments, they should not be entitled to incentive pay.  The order doesn't address this.  (This is related to the issue of individuals with varied responsibilities, only one of which is CAPS.)

LABOR/EMPLOYEE RELATION ISSUES

- The draft indicates that Program Secretarial Officers and Field Element Managers must 'As appropriate, reassign Federal employees whose certification is canceled ... to duties other than the management of DOE CAPS' - However, it's very possible that there wouldn't be any vacant positions available at the employee's current grade level?  What then?  At a minimum, the Order should insist that the servicing Human Resources office be consulted.



]]></Comments>
               <Response>
                  <ResponseLevel><![CDATA[Accepted with Modification]]></ResponseLevel>
                  <ResponseContent><![CDATA[COMMENT:

RESPONSE: Allen Hays (GFO DPC) for Golden Field Office Major Comments from Tom Kelly, HR, GFO. Appendix B is currently organized in 6 sections: I. Background II. DOE Project Management Certification III. Training Requirements IV. Individual Development Plans V. Career Path Promotions VI. Recruiting and Retaining DOE Federal Project Managers - In order to address issues arising from the laws and regulations governing human resources management within the Federal government, Appendix B might be better organized under the following topics: I. Background II. Establishment and Classification of DOE Project Management Positions III. Minimum Qualification Requirements for DOE Project Management Positions IV. Recruitment and Selection for DOE Project Management Positions V. Training and Development of DOE Project Managers VI. Retention of DOE Project Managers VII. Labor/Employee Relations Issues Whether or not the document is reorganized, our comments are organized in the latter manner, as follows. 

RESPONSE: The sections of the order were organized based upon the basic functions/areas that address Project Management Career Development. All of the mentioned sections/topics discussed in the order, may not be in that order.

COMMENT: BACKGROUND - Suggest that much of the background information in Appendix B is unnecessary and will be outdated as time goes by. This section would be adequate if it began after what now reads 'In response to these studies,...'. So the beginning of the Background section would be 'On January 17, 2001 ...

RESPONSE: Agree. The changes are made.

COMMENT: ESTABLISHMENT AND CLASSIFICATION OF DOE PROJECT MANAGEMENT POSITIONS - The draft order doesn't address issues related to classification of DOE Project Manager positions, yet this is a crucial area. In the Federal HR system for General Schedule positions in the competitive service, duties are assigned to positions, and then individuals are put in those positions. - Some of the position classification issues arising here are: Should there be standardized position descriptions for positions assigned responsibility for DOE capital asset projects? Should they be consistent as to what job series they are placed in? For example, should they be classified in the GS-800 series? This would have implications for minimum qualifications. Should the titles and grades be standard across the DOE complex? Or is it okay for one field office to title a position with CAPS responsibility a Project Manager, and another to title it something else? In the field, it is common to find positions with a variety of duties, only one of which is CAPS responsibilities. Should these positions be classified as Project Managers? - 

RESPONSE: Accept. Model PDs have been written for PMs in the 801 and 1301 job series.

COMMENT: - There will be serious classification issues (i.e., down-grade) if project manager duties are taken away from those project managers who don't attain certification

RESPONSE: This order directs or suggests no such action. Organizational and management issues will be addressed and resolved by individual manager.

COMMENT: How should DOE approach this? - The current Section IV in Appendix B indicates that individuals should be promoted upon attainment of higher levels of certifications. However, this requires the existence of a higher level position and competitive selection. Such a position would be classified based on the existence of higher level work. What if the work isn't there to justify a higher grade? A clear distinction needs to be made throughout the document between attainment of higher levels of certification and the assignment of higher level work. The former does not automatically lead to the latter. 

RESPONSE:This order does not provide guidance to managers regarding assessing and judging whether workload is there or fluctuating. Promoting a PM is from one level to next is a personnel issue, and should be addressed by the manager. Certification at a higher level is no guarantee of a promotion.

COMMENT: MINIMUM QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR DOE PROJECT MANAGEMENT POSITIONS - A 'Project Manager Qualification Standard' is referred to in several places in this document, but currently doesn't exist. - Appendix B established a positive positive education requirement to 'qualify' as a project manager. Specifically, it requires a BS or BA degree with 24 semester hours of business, physical sciences and mathematics courses. This raises several issues. - First, most current project manager positions in DOE are classified to the GS-800 Engineering or GS-1300 Physical Science job series families. Positions in these job series already have educational requirements established by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM). - If project manager positions are classified to a job series, outside of the 800 or 1300 series, where there is not a positive education requirement, establishment of such a requirement is not permitted without the permission of OPM. Agencies are not permitted to enhance the OPM-established qualification standards by adding positive education requirements to those series which don't require it. 

RESPONSE: This order has not included a discussion of "positive education requirements". During its review, if OPM requires this discussion, it will be added. Hiring a PM and determining an appropriate series is a sole responsibility of line and field managers. Based upon the mission and function of a particular PSO or field, the respective manager has the flexibility to determine the required job series.

COMMENT: Requiring a degree '...with 24 semester hours of business, physical sciences and mathematics courses.' needs to be clarified. Does completion of 24 hours of business courses satisfy this requirement? Or 24 hours of math courses? - 

RESPONSE: It is combination of math, business, and sience.

COMMENT: Also, while traditionally project managers have been classified in the 800 series (Engineering), the proposed positive education requirement does not allow for 24 hours of engineering course work, thereby potentially disqualifying engineers from the project management certification. 

RESPONSE: This order has not included a discussion of "positive education requirements". During its review, if OPM requires this discussion, it will be added. Hiring a PM and determining an appropriate series is a sole responsibility of line and field managers. Based upon the mission and function of a particular PSO or field, the respective manager has the flexibility to determine the required job series.

COMMENT: RECRUITMENT AND SELECTION FOR DOE PROJECT MANAGEMENT POSITIONS - Field Element managers are responsible for including PMCDP certification as a selective placement factor in vacancy announcements for positions with CAPS responsibilities. Clarification is needed regarding selection procedures for these positions, particularly for non-DOE, non-Federal applicants. - Suggest that available monetary incentives for recruiting highly qualified candidates from outside DOE should be addressed separately from retention incentives. 

RESPONSE: It will be taken into consideration at a higher level.

COMMENT: TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT OF DOE PROJECT MANAGERS - Appendix B, Section IV, Individual Development Plans, Section e., 360 reviews. This needs further explanation. The title should be 360 Degree Feedback or similar. Discussion of what 360 degree feedback is and how it should be obtained would be appropriate here. 

RESPONSE: Accepted

COMMENT: LABOR/EMPLOYEE RELATION ISSUES - The draft indicates that Program Secretarial Officers and Field Element Managers must 'As appropriate, reassign Federal employees whose certification is canceled ... to duties other than the management of DOE CAPS' - However, it's very possible that there wouldn't be any vacant positions available at the employee's current grade level? What then? At a minimum, the Order should insist that the servicing Human Resources office be consulted. 

RESPONSE:The servicing human resources office will be involved at every junction. We are coordinating the resolution of this issue with DOE-HQ Personnel Office.

Rest of the comments are duplicate/repeat.]]></ResponseContent>
               </Response>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters EH]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters EIA]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters EM]]></OrganizationName>
               <Source>
                  <SourceUsername><![CDATA[Joni Boone]]></SourceUsername>
                  <SourceTitle><![CDATA[EM DPC]]></SourceTitle>
                  <SourceSite><![CDATA[Headquarters EM]]></SourceSite>
               </Source>
               <ApproverName><![CDATA[Jay E. Rhoderick, Director, Office of Project Management, EM-6]]></ApproverName>
               <Comments><![CDATA[
Dixie Evans (ID DPC) for Idaho Operations Office
The "Project Manager Career Development Program" module gets lost when it is incorporated in DOE O 361.1, Acquisition Career Development Program. 

Options:
1.Change the name of DOE O 361.1 to Acquisition and Project Manager Career Development Programs.  This option directly satisfies the Deputy Secretary's initial direction.

2.Create a separate directive for the PMCDP. This option provides field entities (that are often not structured with procurement and project management personnel in the same organization) an opportunity to obtain better awareness of these new certification requirements.
Comment submitted by Carol Henning, DOE-ID Training & Education Branch) (Approved by Paul Keele, Deputy AM CF&AO)


Joanne Shadel (RL DPC) for Richland Operations Office
RL states:  The Project Management Career Development Program implies that completion of a required developmental activity constitutes demonstration that the competency defined in the KSAs has been attained.  This defies even the most simple logic.  For example, none of the 50 states grants driver's licences based on successful completion of a driver's education course.  Knowledge and skills are necessary but not sufficient requirements. Demonstration of the application is also necessary.  We believe that the PMCDP is important enough to have to demonstrate competency. <b> Failure to resolve this issue will jeopardize DOE’s ability to perform efficiently and economically.  </b> <i> Michael H. Schlender, Deputy Manager </i>

]]></Comments>
               <Response>
                  <ResponseLevel><![CDATA[Not Accepted]]></ResponseLevel>
                  <ResponseContent><![CDATA[Dixie Evans (ID DPC) for Idaho Operations Office The "Project Manager Career Development Program" module gets lost when it is incorporated in DOE O 361.1, Acquisition Career Development Program. Options: 1.Change the name of DOE O 361.1 to Acquisition and Project Manager Career Development Programs. This option directly satisfies the Deputy Secretary's initial direction. 2.Create a separate directive for the PMCDP.

Response: Please refer to Deputy Secretary memo of 01-17/01.


This option directly satisfies the Deputy Secretary's initial direction. 2.Create a separate directive for the PMCDP. This option provides field entities (that are often not structured with procurement and project management personnel in the same organization) an opportunity to obtain better awareness of these new certification requirements. Comment submitted by Carol Henning, DOE-ID Training & Education Branch) (Approved by Paul Keele, Deputy AM CF&AO) Joanne Shadel (RL DPC) for Richland Operations Office RL states: The Project Management Career Development Program implies that completion of a required developmental activity constitutes demonstration that the competency defined in the KSAs has been attained. This defies even the most simple logic. For example, none of the 50 states grants driver's licences based on successful completion of a driver's education course. Knowledge and skills are necessary but not sufficient requirements. Demonstration of the application is also necessary. We believe that the PMCDP is important enough to have to demonstrate competency. Failure to resolve this issue will jeopardize DOE’s ability to perform efficiently and economically. Michael H. Schlender, Deputy Manager 

Response: These are specific experince and developmental assignments required as part of of PMCDP.]]></ResponseContent>
               </Response>
               <Concurrence><![CDATA[Concur/No Comment]]></Concurrence>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters FE]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters GC]]></OrganizationName>
               <Source>
                  <SourceUsername><![CDATA[Richard Farman]]></SourceUsername>
                  <SourceTitle><![CDATA[GC DPC]]></SourceTitle>
                  <SourceSite><![CDATA[Headquarters GC]]></SourceSite>
               </Source>
               <ApproverName><![CDATA[]]></ApproverName>
               <Comments><![CDATA[

Subject Matter Expert steve.duarte@hq.doe.gov
This attachment to O 361.1 concens internal agency management and does not apply to contractors.  The draft does not appear to establish requirements on members of the public that necessitate a notice and comment rulemaking.  No action by the OPI is required in response to this comment.

]]></Comments>
               <Response>
                  <ResponseLevel><![CDATA[Accepted]]></ResponseLevel>
                  <ResponseContent><![CDATA[]]></ResponseContent>
               </Response>
               <Concurrence><![CDATA[Concur/No Comment]]></Concurrence>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters HG]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters IG]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters IN]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters LM]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters MBE]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters NA]]></OrganizationName>
               <Source>
                  <SourceUsername><![CDATA[Diane Gillis]]></SourceUsername>
                  <SourceTitle><![CDATA[NA Directives Point of Contact]]></SourceTitle>
                  <SourceSite><![CDATA[Headquarters NA]]></SourceSite>
               </Source>
               <ApproverName><![CDATA[]]></ApproverName>
               <Comments><![CDATA[Karen Payne-Jones (OAK DPC) for Oakland Operations Office wrote on 08/05/2002 15:13:03 Mountain Time:


Subject Matter Expert charles.marshall@oak.doe.gov
I believe a major failure of this document is its failure to discuss a process for de-certification for reasons other than failure to obtain training for initial or recertification. It should be clear to all who enter this field that there are performance and conduct issues that could result in de-certification.




Delegate Kathy A. Standefer for Savannah River NNSA Office wrote on 08/05/2002 08:57:51 Mountain Time:

Subject Matter Expert lauren.lovick@srs.gov
ODNN concurs with the importance of enhancing project manager qualifications and status in the organization. However, we are concerned that full implementation of these requirements will result in a costly and administratively burdensome program that provides only limited payback towards the ultimate objective of successful project completion. Has a review been performed of resource impacts on OECM, FEMs, and PSOs? NNSA may experience significant program direction funding shortfalls in coming years; extensive resource commitment will be required to ensure that NNSA is not left without certified project managers when the grace period expires under this program. Has a process flowchart been completed to ensure that requirements and process steps are both logical and feasible? 

Michelle Beg (AL DPC) for Albuquerque Operations Office wrote on 07/31/2002 10:17:07 Mountain Time:
Comments provided by Wayne Walker and approved by Gene Chavez, Director, OHRT, DOE/AL: General Comment - Appendix B

The courses identified in Appendix B are not adequately described to convey the competencies that project managers are expected to gain through attendance at those courses. While it is recognized that several of the proposed courses (e.g., Level 1 and Level 2) do not exist at this time, there should be adequate development work to identify the major topics or learning objectives for the courses. Ideally, each course should have a clear listing of competency statements (see the current DOE-wide Functional Area Qualification Standard for Project Management at http://ma/mbe.doe.gov/ME50/Training/qualstd/proj-mgt.pdf for examples of competency statements) that should be satisfied by the completion of a required course. Without a clear delineation of competencies required by project managers, there is no reasonable basis to establish equivalencies for prior training and experience.

General Comment - Appendix B

The use of elective courses for Level 2, 3, and 4 certifications does not make technical sense. Many of these topics (e.g., cost and schedule estimating, NEPA and environmental regulations, integrated safety management, or operational readiness reviews) would appear to be basic and mandatory topics for any project manager. These elemental topics should be the core of the Level 1 project management course, not options for Level 2 or Level 3 project managers.

General Comment

It is not clear whether the Project Management Career development program is a part of the Technical Qualification Program or is a completely stand-alone program. Currently, all Project Management positions are included in the Technical Qualification Programs established per the requirements of DOE O 360.1B and DOE M426.1-1. Qualification status of project management personnel is reported to the Federal Capability Panel on a periodic basis. 

If the PM CDP is part of the existing TQP, Attachment 4 to DOE 361.1 should be extensively rewritten to conform to the established requirements for the TQP. If the OM CDP is a stand-alone program, Attachment 4 should clearly identify that the PM CDP is a separate program, independent of the TQP.




]]></Comments>
               <Response>
                  <ResponseLevel><![CDATA[Not Accepted]]></ResponseLevel>
                  <ResponseContent><![CDATA[Michelle Beg (AL DPC) for Albuquerque Operations Office wrote on 07/31/2002 10:17:07 Mountain Time: Comments provided by Wayne Walker and approved by Gene Chavez, Director, OHRT, DOE/AL: General Comment - Appendix B The courses identified in Appendix B are not adequately described to convey the competencies that project managers are expected to gain through attendance at those courses. While it is recognized that several of the proposed courses (e.g., Level 1 and Level 2) do not exist at this time, there should be adequate development work to identify the major topics or learning objectives for the courses. Ideally, each course should have a clear listing of competency statements (see the current DOE-wide Functional Area Qualification Standard for Project Management at http://ma/mbe.doe.gov/ME50/Training/qualstd/proj-mgt.pdf for examples of competency statements) that should be satisfied by the completion of a required course. Without a clear delineation of competencies required by project managers, there is no reasonable basis to establish equivalencies for prior training and experience. 

Response: Accept with Modification: Please see the draft PMCDP Guide.
Subject Matter Expert charles.marshall@oak.doe.gov I believe a major failure of this document is its failure to discuss a process for de-certification for reasons other than failure to obtain training for initial or recertification. It should be clear to all who enter this field that there are performance and conduct issues that could result in de-certification.

Response: Reject: These are performance issues that should be added by the supervisor. This order only deals with training and certification showing the capability of individuals of project management. Delegate Kathy A. Standefer for Savannah River NNSA Office wrote on 08/05/2002 08:57:51 Mountain Time: Subject Matter Expert lauren.lovick@srs.gov ODNN concurs with the importance of enhancing project manager qualifications and status in the organization. However, we are concerned that full implementation of these requirements will result in a costly and administratively burdensome program that provides only limited payback towards the ultimate objective of successful project completion. Has a review been performed of resource impacts on OECM, FEMs, and PSOs? NNSA may experience significant program direction funding shortfalls in coming years; extensive resource commitment will be required to ensure that NNSA is not left without certified project managers when the grace period expires under this program. Has a process flowchart been completed to ensure that requirements and process steps are both logical and feasible? 

Response: Reject:
Deputy Secretary has directed to impelement this order. Furthermore this desicion forthcoming in memo concurred by the Secretary. Furthermore it is a part of the President's Human Capital Initiative.

If the PM CDP is part of the existing TQP, Attachment 4 to DOE 361.1 should be extensively rewritten to conform to the established requirements for the TQP. If the OM CDP is a stand-alone program, Attachment 4 should clearly identify that the PM CDP is a separate program, independent of the TQP. 

Response: Yes, it is a stand alone program.

Rest of the comment: Rejcted: Please refer to the PMCDP Guide that is available in draft of PMCDP Guide.


]]></ResponseContent>
               </Response>
               <Concurrence><![CDATA[Concur/No Comment]]></Concurrence>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters NE]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters NTEU]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters OA]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters OPI]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters PC-1]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters PO]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters RW]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters SC]]></OrganizationName>
               <Source>
                  <SourceUsername><![CDATA[Stephen Meador]]></SourceUsername>
                  <SourceTitle><![CDATA[Delegate]]></SourceTitle>
                  <SourceSite><![CDATA[Headquarters SC]]></SourceSite>
               </Source>
               <Comments><![CDATA[The Office of Science has determined the draft order to be unacceptable and provides a significant number of major comments in support of its nonconcurrence.  The directive as presently written is far too complex to be effective, establishes an unrealistic schedule for implementation, and would very likely result in DOE having too few 'certified' project managers in time to suppport the number of projects that require knowledgeable personnel. While the draft order is very specific with regard to the administrative bureaucracy that has been put in place to institutionalize the PMCDP, it is quite ambiguous when defining the human resource management issues involving qualification and certification requirements. 

Assigning project manager certification levels based on estimated Total Project Cost (TPC) appears quite reasonable in theory. However, it should be recognized that the primary qualification for managing high cost projects should be extensive experience with project management on actual and relatively similar projects of an increasingly complex and expensive nature. The SC subject matter experts felt that there should be a project management entry-level tier requiring a college degree with certain basic college courses that would allow a person to obtain experience managing small low-cost DOE projects with no, or minimal, additional courses to be completed or other background requirements. 

There is a concern on the part of the subject matter experts regarding the required training for PMCDP participants. While it is agreed that there should be certain standardized DOE courses that are required for higher levels of certification, a number of questions were raised regarding whether credit will be given for all of the previous training that our employees have completed. Because the draft module only provides vague course titles, rather than course descriptions and specific requirements for course length, it is unclear whether the new course requirements repeat the same information with a different spin. Because the Project Management Institute's (PMI) Project Management Professional (PMP) certification plays a major role in the PMCDP, the courses under development should comply with the PMP training credit criteria so that as our employees work through the DOE curriculum they can also satisfy the PMP recertification requirements. 

The draft module doesn't reference the specific authority (i.e., an OPM qualification standard) under which the Office of Engineering and Construction Management has established a positive educational requirement for project managers. It also doesn't provide adequate information regarding the requirements for granting waivers to experienced project managers. 

There is a great deal of concern regarding the required incentive payments for PMCDP completion that range from four to ten percent of base pay. Not only are these payments unrealistic in an environment of budget reductions, but it is inconsistent with current Department policy since pay incentives weren't established for completion of the other DOE certification and qualification programs.

DOE O 361.1, Attachment 4 places a significant, new financial burden on Field elements.  Salary increases, proscribed training, extensive travel, continuing education, retention incentives, extensive administrative requirements and opportunity costs of covering for PMs performing their required developmental activities. All these requirements, when considered as a whole, will impact program missions by competing for limited funds.  OECM should carefully consider these costs and adjust the requirements (fewer mandatory requirements, phasing requirements, fewer prerequisites, etc.) for PMCDP to ensure the right balance between cost and benefit is achieved.

A number of program/project managers have raised concerns that the program is overly complex and will be difficult to implement in the time frame currently established without significantly impacting planned and ongoing projects.  Four certification levels with corresponding education, experience and training requirements, 4 position descriptions with corresponding KSAs, 28 PMCDP courses (some of which are only now being designed) combined with a large number of administrative tracking and verification requirements for a significant number of employees is cause for concern.

A number of program/project managers have suggested line managers should be the certifying authority or should be accorded more weight in project manager selection and certification.

The PMI certification is acceptable for most of industry.  Why is it not acceptable for the DOE certification process?

]]></Comments>
               <Response>
                  <ResponseLevel><![CDATA[Accepted with Modification]]></ResponseLevel>
                  <ResponseContent><![CDATA[COMMENT: The Office of Science has determined the draft order to be unacceptable and provides a significant number of major comments in support of its nonconcurrence. The directive as presently written is far too complex to be effective, establishes an unrealistic schedule for implementation, and would very likely result in DOE having too few 'certified' project managers in time to suppport the number of projects that require knowledgeable personnel. While the draft order is very specific with regard to the administrative bureaucracy that has been put in place to institutionalize the PMCDP, it is quite ambiguous when defining the human resource management issues involving qualification and certification requirements. 

RESPONSE: The qualification and certification requirements are clearly defined in the Order (please see: Appendix B, Chapter II-
DOE Project Management Certification) and Chapter 5, Sections B,C, and D. Additional guidance on these issues will be provided in the PMCDP Guidance.

COMMENT: Assigning project manager certification levels based on estimated Total Project Cost (TPC) appears quite reasonable in theory. However, it should be recognized that the primary qualification for managing high cost projects should be extensive experience with project management on actual and relatively similar projects of an increasingly complex and expensive nature. The SC subject matter experts felt that there should be a project management entry-level tier requiring a college degree with certain basic college courses that would allow a person to obtain experience managing small low-cost DOE projects with no, or minimal, additional courses to be completed or other background requirements. 

RESPONSE: The contents of the Order do not disagree with this remark.

COMMENT: . The SC subject matter experts felt that there should be a project management entry-level tier requiring a college degree with certain basic college courses that would allow a person to obtain experience managing small low-cost DOE projects with no, or minimal, additional courses to be completed or other background requirements. 

RESPONSE: Agree. These requirements are included in the Appendix B, Chapter II, Section 1 (Certification Requirement for Level 1 Project Manager).

COMMENT: There is a concern on the part of the subject matter experts regarding the required training for PMCDP participants. While it is agreed that there should be certain standardized DOE courses that are required for higher levels of certification, a number of questions were raised regarding whether credit will be given for all of the previous training that our employees have completed. 

RESPONSE: Yes. As discussed in an earlier response, credit for previous training was given

COMMENT: Because the draft module only provides vague course titles, rather than course descriptions and specific requirements for course length, it is unclear whether the new course requirements repeat the same information with a different spin. 

REPONSE: Inclusion of course description and specific requirements will require too much detail in the order. These items will be provided in the CEG and course description documents.
. Because the Project Management Institute's (PMI) Project Management Professional (PMP) certification plays a major role in the PMCDP, the courses under development should comply with the PMP training credit criteria so that as our employees work through the DOE curriculum they can also satisfy the PMP recertification requirements. 

RESPONSE: Agree

COMMENT: The draft module doesn't reference the specific authority (i.e., an OPM qualification standard) under which the Office of Engineering and Construction Management has established a positive educational requirement for project managers. 

RESPONSE: It will be reviewed by OPM.

COMMENT:  It also doesn't provide adequate information regarding the requirements for granting waivers to experienced project managers. 

RESPONSE: Waivers will be determined by OECM and will be infrequent (on a exception basis).

COMMENT: There is a great deal of concern regarding the required incentive payments for PMCDP completion that range from four to ten percent of base pay. Not only are these payments unrealistic in an environment of budget reductions, but it is inconsistent with current Department policy since pay incentives weren't established for completion of the other DOE certification and qualification programs. DOE O 361.1, Attachment 4 places a significant, new financial burden on Field elements. Salary increases, proscribed training, extensive travel, continuing education, retention incentives, extensive administrative requirements and opportunity costs of covering for PMs performing their required developmental activities. All these requirements, when considered as a whole, will impact program missions by competing for limited funds. OECM should carefully consider these costs and adjust the requirements (fewer mandatory requirements, phasing requirements, fewer prerequisites, etc.) for PMCDP to ensure the right balance between cost and benefit is achieved. A number of program/project managers have raised concerns that the program is overly complex and will be difficult to implement in the time frame currently established without significantly impacting planned and ongoing projects. Four certification levels with corresponding education, experience and training requirements, 4 position descriptions with corresponding KSAs, 28 PMCDP courses (some of which are only now being designed) combined with a large number of administrative tracking and verification requirements for a significant number of employees is cause for concern.

RESPONSE: Complex-wide, the incentives payments are less than $1 million a year. Surely, in a $18 billion agency, we can find $1 million (less than 1/10,000 of the budget, or less than 0.01%). Also, similar payments are currently being made under the FACREP program. So, the hypothesis should be re-visited.

The training costs will be centrally funded. Travel will be paid by the participant's organization.

COMMENT: A number of program/project managers have suggested line managers should be the certifying authority or should be accorded more weight in project manager selection and certification. 

RESPONSE: Line managers are responsible for approving individual competencies and equivalencies. OECM must approve the issuance of certification to ensure program integrity. External bench marking indicates that this is a standard practice.

COMMENT: The PMI certification is acceptable for most of industry. Why is it not acceptable for the DOE certification process? 

RESPONSE: The PMP is only a basic certification and is inadequate for levels 2,3, and 4. Also, for level 1PMP does not address doe-specific requirements.]]></ResponseContent>
               </Response>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters SO]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Honeywell FM&T (Kansas City Plant)]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Idaho Operations Office]]></OrganizationName>
               <Source>
                  <SourceUsername><![CDATA[Karen Moses]]></SourceUsername>
                  <SourceTitle><![CDATA[ID DPC]]></SourceTitle>
                  <SourceSite><![CDATA[Idaho Operations Office]]></SourceSite>
               </Source>
               <ApproverName><![CDATA[]]></ApproverName>
               <Comments><![CDATA[The "Project Manager Career Development Program" module gets lost when it is incorporated in DOE O 361.1, Acquisition Career Development Program. 

Options:
1.Change the name of DOE O 361.1 to Acquisition and Project Manager Career Development Programs.  This option directly satisfies the Deputy Secretary's initial direction.

2.Create a separate directive for the PMCDP. This option provides field entities (that are often not structured with procurement and project management personnel in the same organization) an opportunity to obtain better awareness of these new certification requirements.
Comment submitted by Carol Henning, DOE-ID Training & Education Branch) (Approved by Paul Keele, Deputy AM CF&AO)
]]></Comments>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Idaho Operations Office-EM]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[INL - NE]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[INL-ICP-EM]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Kaiser-Hill Company, LLC]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Kansas City Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Livermore Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
               <Source>
                  <SourceUsername><![CDATA[Walter  Cyganowski]]></SourceUsername>
                  <SourceTitle><![CDATA[LSO DPC]]></SourceTitle>
                  <SourceSite><![CDATA[Livermore Site Office]]></SourceSite>
               </Source>
               <ApproverName><![CDATA[]]></ApproverName>
               <Comments><![CDATA[

Subject Matter Expert charles.marshall@oak.doe.gov
I believe a major failure of this document is its failure to discuss a process for de-certification for reasons other than failure to obtain training for initial or recertification.  It should be clear to all who enter this field that there are performance and conduct issues that could result in de-certification.

]]></Comments>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Los Alamos National Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Los Alamos Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[NA Service Center]]></OrganizationName>
               <Source>
                  <SourceUsername><![CDATA[Yolanda Bolivar]]></SourceUsername>
                  <SourceTitle><![CDATA[AL DPC]]></SourceTitle>
                  <SourceSite><![CDATA[NA Service Center]]></SourceSite>
               </Source>
               <ApproverName><![CDATA[]]></ApproverName>
               <Comments><![CDATA[Comments provided by Wayne Walker and approved by Gene Chavez, Director, OHRT, DOE/AL: General Comment â€“ Appendix B

The courses identified in Appendix B are not adequately described to convey the competencies that project managers are expected to gain through attendance at those courses.  While it is recognized that several of the proposed courses (e.g., Level 1 and Level 2) do not exist at this time, there should be adequate development work to identify the major topics or learning objectives for the courses.  Ideally, each course should have a clear listing of competency statements (see the current DOE-wide Functional Area Qualification Standard for Project Management at http://ma/mbe.doe.gov/ME50/Training/qualstd/proj-mgt.pdf for examples of competency statements) that should be satisfied by the completion of a required course.  Without a clear delineation of competencies required by project managers, there is no reasonable basis to establish equivalencies for prior training and experience.

General Comment â€“ Appendix B

The use of elective courses for Level 2, 3, and 4 certifications does not make technical sense.  Many of these topics (e.g., cost and schedule estimating, NEPA and environmental regulations, integrated safety management, or operational readiness reviews) would appear to be basic and mandatory topics for any project manager.  These elemental topics should be the core of the Level 1 project management course, not options for Level 2 or Level 3 project managers.

General Comment

It is not clear whether the Project Management Career development program is a part of the Technical Qualification Program or is a completely stand-alone program.  Currently, all Project Management positions are included in the Technical Qualification Programs established per the requirements of DOE O 360.1B and DOE M426.1-1.  Qualification status of project management personnel is reported to the Federal Capability Panel on a periodic basis.   

If the PM CDP is part of the existing TQP, Attachment 4 to DOE 361.1 should be extensively rewritten to conform to the established requirements for the TQP.  If the OM CDP is a stand-alone program, Attachment 4 should clearly identify that the PM CDP is a separate program, independent of the TQP.

]]></Comments>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[National Energy Technology Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[National Renewable Energy Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Nevada Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Oak Ridge National Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Oak Ridge Operations Office]]></OrganizationName>
               <Source>
                  <SourceUsername><![CDATA[Jennifer Hamilton]]></SourceUsername>
                  <SourceTitle><![CDATA[OR DPC]]></SourceTitle>
                  <SourceSite><![CDATA[Oak Ridge Operations Office]]></SourceSite>
               </Source>
               <ApproverName><![CDATA[]]></ApproverName>
               <Comments><![CDATA[All comments on this draft are from the ORNL Site Office and SNS Project.  All these comments are considered to be major issues and have been reviewed by Johnny Moore, Acting Site Manager in the absence of George Malosh.

General Comment:  The PMI certification is acceptable for most of industry .  Why can it not be acceptable for the certification process  for DOE?]]></Comments>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Oakland Operations Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Office of Energy Assurance]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Office of River Protection]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Ohio Field Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[OSTI]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Pacific Northwest National Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Pantex Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Portsmouth Paducah Project Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Richland Operations Office]]></OrganizationName>
               <Source>
                  <SourceUsername><![CDATA[Joanne Shadel]]></SourceUsername>
                  <SourceTitle><![CDATA[RL DPC]]></SourceTitle>
                  <SourceSite><![CDATA[Richland Operations Office]]></SourceSite>
               </Source>
               <ApproverName><![CDATA[]]></ApproverName>
               <Comments><![CDATA[RL states:  The Project Management Career Development Program implies that completion of a required developmental activity constitutes demonstration that the competency defined in the KSAs has been attained.  This defies even the most simple logic.  For example, none of the 50 states grants driver's licences based on successful completion of a driver's education course.  Knowledge and skills are necessary but not sufficient requirements. Demonstration of the application is also necessary.  We believe that the PMCDP is important enough to have to demonstrate competency. <b> Failure to resolve this issue will jeopardize DOE’s ability to perform efficiently and economically.  </b> <i> Michael H. Schlender, Deputy Manager </i>]]></Comments>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Rocky Flats Field Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Sandia National Laboratories]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Sandia Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Savannah River EM Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Savannah River Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
               <Source>
                  <SourceUsername><![CDATA[Kathy A. Standefer]]></SourceUsername>
                  <SourceTitle><![CDATA[Delegate]]></SourceTitle>
                  <SourceSite><![CDATA[Savannah River Site Office]]></SourceSite>
               </Source>
               <Comments><![CDATA[
Subject Matter Expert lauren.lovick@srs.gov
ODNN concurs with the importance of enhancing project manager qualifications and status in the organization. However, we are concerned that full implementation of these requirements will result in a costly and administratively burdensome program that provides only limited payback towards the ultimate objective of successful project completion.  Has a review been performed of resource impacts on OECM, FEMs, and PSOs?  NNSA may experience significant program direction funding shortfalls in coming years; extensive resource commitment will be required to ensure that NNSA is not left without certified project managers when the grace period expires under this program.  Has a process flowchart been completed to ensure that requirements and process steps are both logical and feasible?  

Subject Matter Expert diane.powell@srs.gov
I am not the SME for this document.  It should be redirected to Eric Adams or someone in the Human Resources Department at SR.

]]></Comments>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Southeastern Power Administration]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Southwestern Power Administration]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Stanford Linear Accelerator Center]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Stanford Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[University of California]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Wackenhut Services Inc (SRS)]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Wackenhut Services Inc. (Nevada)]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[West Valley Demonstration Project]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Western Area Power Administration]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Westinghouse Savannah River Corp.]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Westinghouse Savannah River Corp. for SR-EM]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[WIPP]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Y-12 (BWXT)]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Y-12 (WSI)]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Y-12 Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
         </Section>
         <Section>
            <SectionTitle><![CDATA[1.   OBJECTIVEs]]></SectionTitle>
            <SectionContent><![CDATA[
                      ATTACHMENT 4

       PROJECT MANAGEMENT CAREER DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM MODULE


     1.   OBJECTIVES.  To establish the requirements and responsibilities for the Department of
     Energy (DOE) Project Management Career Development Program (PMCDP), including
     instituting certification, training, and development requirements for all DOE project
     managers with line management responsibility for DOE capital asset projects (CAPs).

]]></SectionContent>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Ames Labortatory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Argonne National Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Associate Manager for Science & Technology, Richland]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Bechtel Hanford]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Bechtel Nevada]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Berkeley Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Bonneville Power Administration]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Brookhaven National  Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[BWXT Pantex, LLC]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Carlsbad Area Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Carlsbad Field Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[CH2MHill]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Chicago Operations Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Critique]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Departmental Representatives Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Directives Management Team]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[DynMcDermott Petroleum Operations]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Fernald]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Fluor Hanford Inc]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Golden Field Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Grand Junction]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters CI]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters CIO]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters CN]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters CR]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters ED]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters EE]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters EH]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters EIA]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters EM]]></OrganizationName>
               <Source>
                  <SourceUsername><![CDATA[Joni Boone]]></SourceUsername>
                  <SourceTitle><![CDATA[EM DPC]]></SourceTitle>
                  <SourceSite><![CDATA[Headquarters EM]]></SourceSite>
               </Source>
               <Comments><![CDATA[Delegate John r. Phillips for Savannah River EM Office

Subject Matter Expert john.reynolds@srs.gov
The background initiates the program on a negative tone and indicates the only reason the Project Manager Training and Qualification Program is being pursued is because the GAO and National Academy of Sciences told us to.  A More positive discription of our self initiated and proactive approach for improving project performance and management within the department aided by the external reviews of the NAS and GAO would make a positive statement leading one to be proud rather than ashamed to be a participant. 



]]></Comments>
               <Response>
                  <ResponseLevel><![CDATA[Accepted]]></ResponseLevel>
                  <ResponseContent><![CDATA[]]></ResponseContent>
               </Response>
               <Concurrence><![CDATA[Concur/No Comment]]></Concurrence>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters FE]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters GC]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters HG]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters IG]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters IN]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters LM]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters MBE]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters NA]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters NE]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters NTEU]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters OA]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters OPI]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters PC-1]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters PO]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters RW]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters SC]]></OrganizationName>
               <Source>
                  <SourceUsername><![CDATA[Stephen Meador]]></SourceUsername>
                  <SourceTitle><![CDATA[Delegate]]></SourceTitle>
                  <SourceSite><![CDATA[Headquarters SC]]></SourceSite>
               </Source>
               <Comments><![CDATA[
Suggest creating a more generic definition of project to be more consistent with commercial practice and to accommodate potential future modifications to DOE Order 413.3.  Focusing Attachment 4 on project managers responsible for capital asset projects may be too limiting considering the wide range of potential project types in the Department.  

]]></Comments>
               <Response>
                  <ResponseLevel><![CDATA[Accepted]]></ResponseLevel>
                  <ResponseContent><![CDATA[]]></ResponseContent>
               </Response>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters SO]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Honeywell FM&T (Kansas City Plant)]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Idaho Operations Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Idaho Operations Office-EM]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[INL - NE]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[INL-ICP-EM]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Kaiser-Hill Company, LLC]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Kansas City Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Livermore Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Los Alamos National Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Los Alamos Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[NA Service Center]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[National Energy Technology Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[National Renewable Energy Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Nevada Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Oak Ridge National Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Oak Ridge Operations Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Oakland Operations Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Office of Energy Assurance]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Office of River Protection]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Ohio Field Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[OSTI]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Pacific Northwest National Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Pantex Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Portsmouth Paducah Project Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Richland Operations Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Rocky Flats Field Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Sandia National Laboratories]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Sandia Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Savannah River EM Office]]></OrganizationName>
               <Source>
                  <SourceUsername><![CDATA[John r. Phillips]]></SourceUsername>
                  <SourceTitle><![CDATA[Delegate]]></SourceTitle>
                  <SourceSite><![CDATA[Savannah River EM Office]]></SourceSite>
               </Source>
               <Comments><![CDATA[
Subject Matter Expert john.reynolds@srs.gov
The background initiates the program on a negative tone and indicates the only reason the Project Manager Training and Qualification Program is being pursued is because the GAO and National Academy of Sciences told us to.  A More positive discription of our self initiated and proactive approach for improving project performance and management within the department aided by the external reviews of the NAS and GAO would make a positive statement leading one to be proud rather than ashamed to be a participant. 

]]></Comments>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Savannah River Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Southeastern Power Administration]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Southwestern Power Administration]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Stanford Linear Accelerator Center]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Stanford Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[University of California]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Wackenhut Services Inc (SRS)]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Wackenhut Services Inc. (Nevada)]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[West Valley Demonstration Project]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Western Area Power Administration]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Westinghouse Savannah River Corp.]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Westinghouse Savannah River Corp. for SR-EM]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[WIPP]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Y-12 (BWXT)]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Y-12 (WSI)]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Y-12 Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
         </Section>
         <Section>
            <SectionTitle><![CDATA[2.	BACKGROUND]]></SectionTitle>
            <SectionContent><![CDATA[
     2.   BACKGROUND.  In response to recommendations from internal DOE reports, General
     Accounting Office reports, and a 1999 National Research Council report, on January 17,
     2001, the Deputy Secretary of Energy directed the DOE Office of Engineering and
     Construction Management (OECM) to establish the DOE PMCDP.  This program was
     to define DOE project management knowledge, skills, and abilities; DOE project
     management training requirements; a DOE career development tracking system; and a
     DOE project manager certification program.  The Deputy Secretary directed OECM to
     develop a PMCDP module to be included in DOE O 361.1, Acquisition Career
     Development Program, dated 11-10-99, as a component of the DOE acquisition
     workforce program.  The PMCDP Module establishes a well-defined career path that
     includes certification, minimum training and continuing education (CE) requirements, and
     project responsibilities that are commensurate with clearly defined qualifications.

]]></SectionContent>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Ames Labortatory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Argonne National Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Associate Manager for Science & Technology, Richland]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Bechtel Hanford]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Bechtel Nevada]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Berkeley Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Bonneville Power Administration]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Brookhaven National  Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[BWXT Pantex, LLC]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Carlsbad Area Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Carlsbad Field Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[CH2MHill]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Chicago Operations Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Critique]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Departmental Representatives Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Directives Management Team]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[DynMcDermott Petroleum Operations]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Fernald]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Fluor Hanford Inc]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Golden Field Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Grand Junction]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters CI]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters CIO]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters CN]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters CR]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters ED]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters EE]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters EH]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters EIA]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters EM]]></OrganizationName>
               <Source>
                  <SourceUsername><![CDATA[Joni Boone]]></SourceUsername>
                  <SourceTitle><![CDATA[EM DPC]]></SourceTitle>
                  <SourceSite><![CDATA[Headquarters EM]]></SourceSite>
               </Source>
               <Comments><![CDATA[Joanne Shadel (RL DPC) for Richland Operations Office


]]></Comments>
               <Response>
                  <ResponseLevel><![CDATA[Accepted]]></ResponseLevel>
                  <ResponseContent><![CDATA[]]></ResponseContent>
               </Response>
               <Concurrence><![CDATA[Concur/No Comment]]></Concurrence>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters FE]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters GC]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters HG]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters IG]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters IN]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters LM]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters MBE]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters NA]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters NE]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters NTEU]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters OA]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters OPI]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters PC-1]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters PO]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters RW]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters SC]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters SO]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Honeywell FM&T (Kansas City Plant)]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Idaho Operations Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Idaho Operations Office-EM]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[INL - NE]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[INL-ICP-EM]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Kaiser-Hill Company, LLC]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Kansas City Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Livermore Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Los Alamos National Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Los Alamos Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[NA Service Center]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[National Energy Technology Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[National Renewable Energy Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Nevada Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Oak Ridge National Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Oak Ridge Operations Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Oakland Operations Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Office of Energy Assurance]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Office of River Protection]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Ohio Field Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[OSTI]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Pacific Northwest National Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Pantex Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Portsmouth Paducah Project Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Richland Operations Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Rocky Flats Field Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Sandia National Laboratories]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Sandia Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Savannah River EM Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Savannah River Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Southeastern Power Administration]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Southwestern Power Administration]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Stanford Linear Accelerator Center]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Stanford Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[University of California]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Wackenhut Services Inc (SRS)]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Wackenhut Services Inc. (Nevada)]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[West Valley Demonstration Project]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Western Area Power Administration]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Westinghouse Savannah River Corp.]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Westinghouse Savannah River Corp. for SR-EM]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[WIPP]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Y-12 (BWXT)]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Y-12 (WSI)]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Y-12 Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
         </Section>
         <Section>
            <SectionTitle><![CDATA[3.	APPLICABILITY, a.  DOE Elements]]></SectionTitle>
            <SectionContent><![CDATA[
     3.   APPLICABILITY.
     
               a.   DOE Elements.  The PMCDP Module applies to all DOE Elements listed in
          Appendix A.

]]></SectionContent>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Ames Labortatory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Argonne National Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Associate Manager for Science & Technology, Richland]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Bechtel Hanford]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Bechtel Nevada]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Berkeley Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Bonneville Power Administration]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Brookhaven National  Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[BWXT Pantex, LLC]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Carlsbad Area Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Carlsbad Field Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[CH2MHill]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Chicago Operations Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Critique]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Departmental Representatives Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Directives Management Team]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[DynMcDermott Petroleum Operations]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Fernald]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Fluor Hanford Inc]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Golden Field Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Grand Junction]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters CI]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters CIO]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters CN]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters CR]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters ED]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters EE]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters EH]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters EIA]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters EM]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters FE]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters GC]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters HG]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters IG]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters IN]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters LM]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters MBE]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters NA]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters NE]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters NTEU]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters OA]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters OPI]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters PC-1]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters PO]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters RW]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters SC]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Headquarters SO]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Honeywell FM&T (Kansas City Plant)]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Idaho Operations Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Idaho Operations Office-EM]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[INL - NE]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[INL-ICP-EM]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Kaiser-Hill Company, LLC]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Kansas City Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Livermore Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Los Alamos National Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Los Alamos Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[NA Service Center]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[National Energy Technology Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[National Renewable Energy Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Nevada Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Oak Ridge National Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Oak Ridge Operations Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Oakland Operations Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Office of Energy Assurance]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Office of River Protection]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Ohio Field Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[OSTI]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Pacific Northwest National Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Pantex Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Portsmouth Paducah Project Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Richland Operations Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Rocky Flats Field Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Sandia National Laboratories]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Sandia Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Savannah River EM Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Savannah River Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Southeastern Power Administration]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Southwestern Power Administration]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Stanford Linear Accelerator Center]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Stanford Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[University of California]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Wackenhut Services Inc (SRS)]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Wackenhut Services Inc. (Nevada)]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[West Valley Demonstration Project]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Western Area Power Administration]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Westinghouse Savannah River Corp.]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Westinghouse Savannah River Corp. for SR-EM]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[WIPP]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Y-12 (BWXT)]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Y-12 (WSI)]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Y-12 Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
         </Section>
         <Section>
            <SectionTitle><![CDATA[3.	APPLICABILITY, b. Contractors, c. Exclusions]]></SectionTitle>
            <SectionContent><![CDATA[
               b.   Contractors.  The requirements in the PMCDP Module do not apply to DOE
          contractors.
               
               c.   Exclusions.  This attachment does not apply to the Bonneville Power
          Administration..

]]></SectionContent>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Ames Labortatory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Argonne National Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Associate Manager for Science & Technology, Richland]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Bechtel Hanford]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Bechtel Nevada]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Berkeley Site Office]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Bonneville Power Administration]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[Brookhaven National  Laboratory]]></OrganizationName>
            </Organization>
            <Organization>
               <OrganizationName><![CDATA[BWXT Pantex, LLC]]></Organization