DOE - EM - SRP - 2010

2nd Edition
Environmental Management

Standard
Review Plan (SRP)
Conceptual Design Review Module

Corporate Critical Decision (CD) Review and

Approval Framework Associated with Nuclear Facility Capital and
Major Construction Projects

March 2010

Office of Environmental Management

U.S. Department of Energy
Washington D. C. 20585
 OFFICE
O OF
F ENVIRO
ONMENTAL
L MANAGE
EMENT

Standard Review
R Plan
n (SRP)

Concep
ptual Design

Revview Modulee

Critical Decission (CD) Ap

C pplicability
CD-00 CD-1 CD-2 CD
D-3 CD-4 Post Opeeration

M
March 2010
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

FOREWORD

The Standard Review Plan (SRP)1 provides a consistent, predictable corporate review framework
to ensure that issues and risks that could challenge the success of Office of Environmental
Management (EM) projects are identified early and addressed proactively. The internal EM
project review process encompasses key milestones established by DOE O 413.3A, Change 1,
Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets, DOE-STD-1189-2008,
Integration of Safety into the Design Process, and EM’s internal business management practices.

The SRP follows the Critical Decision (CD) process and consists of a series of Review Modules
that address key functional areas of project management, engineering and design, safety,
environment, security, and quality assurance, grouped by each specific CD phase.

This Review Module provides the starting point for a set of corporate Performance Expectations
and Criteria. Review teams are expected to build on these and develop additional project-
specific Lines of Inquiry, as needed. The criteria and the review process are intended to be used
on an ongoing basis during the appropriate CD phase to ensure that issues are identified and
resolved.

1
The entire EM SRP and individual Review Modules can be accessed on EM website at
http://www.em.doe.gov/Pages/Safety.aspx , or on EM’s internet Portal at https://edoe.doe.gov/portal/server.pt
Please see under /Programmatic Folder/Project Management Subfolder.

i
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
II. PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................1
III. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ...................................................................................2
IV. REVIEW SCOPE AND CRITERIA ...................................................................................3
V. REVIEW PLANS AND DOCUMENTATION ..................................................................5
VI. REFERENCE MATERIAL .................................................................................................6
APPENDIX A - PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES AND CRITERIA ...................................... A-1

ii
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

ACRONYMS

CD Critical Decision

CDR Conceptual Design Review

CSDR Conceptual Safety Design Report

DOE Department of Energy

EIR External Independent Review

EM Office of Environmental Management

FHA Fire Hazards Analysis

FPD Federal Project Director

FRAM Functions, Responsibilities, and Authorities Manual

IPR Independent Project Review

IPT Integrated Project Team

LOI Line of Inquiry

PHA Preliminary Hazards Analysis

SDIT Safety Design Integration Team

SEI Structural Engineering Institute

SDR Safety Design Report

SME Subject Matter Expert

SSC Structure, System, or Component

WBS Work Breakdown Structure

iii
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

I. INTRODUCTION

Design Reviews are an integral part of the contractor and federal project management process.
As stated in DOE O 413.3A, Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital
Assets:

Technical Independent Project Review

Prior to CD-1 approval, the Program Secretarial Officer will perform a Technical
Independent Project Review (IPR) to ensure safety and security is effectively integrated
into design and construction for high risk, high hazard, and Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3
nuclear facilities. The review should ensure safety documentation is complete, accurate
and reliable for entry into the next phase of the project.

Design Reviews

Beginning at CD-1 and continuing through the life of the project, as appropriate, Design
Reviews are performed by individuals external to the project. Design Reviews are
performed to determine if a product (drawings, analysis, or specifications) is correct and
will perform its intended functions and meet requirements. Design Reviews must be
conducted for all projects and must involve a formalized, structured approach to ensure
the reviews are comprehensive, objective, and documented.

Completion of a Conceptual Design Review (CDR) in support of CD-1 is an essential element to

the assurance that the selected alternative meets the mission needs statement and the operational,
safety and environmental requirements applicable to the project. The conceptual design must
clearly and concisely describe the recommended alternative, the requirements and function that
must be performed and the key performance parameters that form the basis of the Performance
Baseline.

II. PURPOSE

This Review Module is a tool that assists Department of Energy (DOE) federal project review
teams in evaluating the adequacy of the conceptual design package prior to CD-1 approval. It
focuses on the conceptual design package key elements including requirements analysis, safety
design basis, alternatives analysis, systems engineering, value management, risk analysis, and
acquisition strategy. This module has been developed to ensure that the conceptual design
process has effectively integrated requirements identification and analysis, acquisition strategies,
and concept exploration to evolve a cost-effective, preferred solution to meet a mission need
(DOE O 413.3A). Upon completion of the CDR the team will have sufficient evidence to
support the Federal Project Director (FPD) in their decision regarding approval of CD-1.

1
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

III. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

A successful CDR depends on an experienced and qualified team. The team should be
augmented with appropriate subject matter experts (SMEs) selected to complement the specific
technical concerns of the project being reviewed. The specific types of expertise needed will be
dependent on the type of facility being reviewed, as well as other factors such as complexity,
hazards, and risks.

It is preferred that personnel selected to participate in a design review have design experience.
This is particularly relevant for reviewers who evaluate engineering design elements against
industry standards or other regulatory design requirements. It may not be practical or necessary
for some other subject matter experts, such as various safety disciplines, to have this experience.

It is strongly recommended that the team leader should either be a project or systems engineer
experienced in the management of a multi-disciplined review team (e.g., mechanical, electrical,
chemical, industrial, nuclear) that matches to the extent practicable the contractors design team.
The review team should be augmented with subject matter experts as appropriate to review
specialty matters such as structural analysis, seismic design criteria, criticality, and energetic
reactions.

Management support is another necessary component to a successful CDR. Field element

managers, as well as the Federal Project Director, must recognize the importance of the CDR and
facilitate the resources necessary for its execution. This also requires appropriate interfaces with
EM Headquarters personnel who may direct or participate in the CDR process.

The roles and responsibilities for all involved in the CDR must be clear and consistent with
various requirements of DOE O 413.3A and the DOE Functions, Responsibilities, and
Authorities Manual (FRAM). The table below provides a compilation of conceptual design
review roles and responsibilities.

Position Responsibility
Provides support and resources to the Federal Project Director and
Review Team Leader in carrying out the design review.
Field Element
Facilitates the conduct of the design review. Assigns office space,
Manager
computer equipment, and support personnel to the team as necessary to
accomplish the review in the scheduled time frame
Identifies the need for a CDR and determines the scope of the review
effort.
In conjunction with the Contractor Project Manager, develops the briefing
materials and schedule for the review activities.
Coordinates the review team pre-visit activities and follows up review
Federal Project team requests for personnel to interview or material to review.
Director Coordinates the necessary training and orientation activities to enable
the review team members to access the facility and perform the review.
Unless other personnel are assigned, acts as the site liaison with the
review team. Tracks the status of requests for additional information.
Coordinates the Federal site staff factual accuracy review of the draft
report.

2
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

Position Responsibility
Leads the development of the corrective action plan if required. Tracks
the completion of corrective actions resulting from the review.
In coordination with the Federal Project Director and the Acquisition
Executive, selects the areas to be reviewed.
Based on the areas selected for review, project complexity and hazards
involved, selects the members of the review team.
Verifies the qualifications: technical knowledge; process knowledge;
facility specific information; and independence of the Team Members.
Leads the design review pre-visit.
Leads the review team in completing the Review Criteria for the various
areas to be reviewed.
Coordinates the development of the data call and forwards to the Federal
Review Team Project Director, a list of documents, briefings, interviews, and
Leader presentations needed to support the review.
Forwards the final review plan to the Acquisition Executive for approval.
Leads the on-site portion of the review.
Ensures the review team members complete and document their
portions of the review and characterizes the findings.
Coordinates incorporation of factual accuracy comments by Federal and
Contractor personnel on the draft report.
Forwards the final review report to the Acquisition Executive for
consideration in making the decision to authorize start of construction.
Participates, as necessary in the closure verification of the findings from
the review report.
Refines and finalizes the criteria for assigned area of the review.
Develops and provides the data call of documents, briefings, interviews,
and presentations needed for his or her area of the review.
Completes training and orientation activities necessary for the review.
Conducts any necessary pre visit document review.
Participates in the on-site review activities, conducts interviews,
document reviews, walk downs, and observations as necessary.
Review Team Based on the criteria and review approaches in the Review Plan,
Member assesses whether his or her assigned criteria have been met.
Documents the results of the review for his or her areas. Prepares input
to the review report.
Makes recommendations to the Review Team Leader for
characterization of findings in his or her area of review.
Resolves applicable Federal and Contractor factual accuracy comments
on the draft review report.
Prepares the final review report for his or her area of review.

IV. REVIEW SCOPE AND CRITERIA

This Review Module provides a set of review criteria that are organized based on the key
technical and safety areas and disciplines identified in the DOE Orders and guidance. These
review areas are summarized below and include general requirements, requirements analysis,
configuration management, safety design basis, conceptual design report, alternatives analysis,
systems engineering and value management, risk analysis, and acquisition strategy. For each

3
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

review area, Appendix A of this Module provides overall performance objectives and then a
subset of review criteria that satisfy each performance objective. These performance objectives
and review criteria will provide consistent guidance to project-specific design review teams to
develop their Lines of Inquiry (LOIs).

General Requirements

This area of the review is intended to ensure that the conceptual design package meets the
requirements and guidance of the DOE orders and manuals. This review area also addresses the
relationship of the conceptual design to the needs and mission expectations as well as the overall
process goals. The general requirements area also evaluates the programs and processes used to
track and validate technical issues and assumptions used in the conceptual design package
development. Several of the general requirements LOIs are directly related to lessons learned
identified in past DOE projects.

Requirement Analysis

This area is focused on ensuring that the conceptual design package demonstrates a systematic
and comprehensive process for selecting applicable safety and health requirements to be applied
to the design effort. Specifically, the lines of inquiry are designed to ensure that the requirement
analysis process developed the programmatic, system, functional or technical requirements for
hardware, software, facilities, procedures, technical data, and personnel training.

Safety Design Basis

The purpose of this review area is to ensure that the conceptual design package has adequately
implemented the safety-in-design process to integrate safety in the design development process.
This review area also addresses the requirement for the completion a preliminary hazards
analysis for the preferred alternative and the associated identification of safety class, safety
significant and important to safety systems, structures and components.

Conceptual Design Report

This review area is designed to ensure that the conceptual design report meets all of the
requirements and includes the key elements as identified in DOE orders and guidance
documents.

Alternatives Analysis

This review area ensures that the conceptual design process and documentation adequately
analyzed the appropriate alternatives before ultimately deciding upon the preferred alternative.
Each of the alternatives considered must be rigorously evaluated to ensure that the conceptual
design process is adequately executed and that the preferred alternative is the best available
alternative to meet the mission needs.

4
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

Systems Engineering and Value Management

This review area is focused on the evaluation of the systems engineering and value management
process as applied to the development of the conceptual design package. The implementation of
systems engineering and value management processes are an essential element to the ultimate
success of a project design.

Risk Analysis

The purpose of this review area is to ensure that the project risks associated with the alternatives
including the preferred alternative are systematically identified, and managed using a
documented and adequate process. Risk identification and management is essential to the overall
success of the project, and the risks associated with all of the considered alternatives need to be
considered as part of the determination of the preferred alternative.

Acquisition Strategy

A major emphasis of the CDR is on the development and implementation of an effective

acquisition strategy for the project. A carefully developed and consistently executed strategy is
one of the keys to a successful project. This review area addresses the key elements and
requirements of such a successful strategy.

V. REVIEW PLANS AND DOCUMENTATION

The results of a CDR will be used by the DOE Federal Project Director and ultimately the
Acquisition Executive to help determine whether project funds may be authorized by approval of
CD-1. It is important to clearly document the methods, assumptions and results of the CDR.
The overall Standard Review Plan provides guidelines for preparing a Review Plan and a final
report.

The following activities should be conducted as part of the Review Plan development and
documentation/closure of the review:

• The review team members should develop specific lines of inquiry utilizing the topics and
areas listed in the respective appendices of this module.
• The individual lines of inquiry should be compiled and submitted to the manager authorizing
the review for concurrence prior to starting the review.
• The project-specific review plan should be compiled with a consistent and uniform
numbering scheme that provides for a unique identifier for each line of inquiry, arranged by
subject area (e.g. Management-Personnel and Qualifications, Management-Processes and
Systems, Technical-Civil) such that the results of each line of inquiry can be documented and
tracked to closure.
• The lines of inquiry should be satisfied via document review and personnel interviews and
any combination of these methods. The method used the basis for closure, comment, finding
and the result of the inquiry should all be documented and tracked.

5
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

The report produced from the review should follow the format (but in abbreviated form) of an
External Independent Review (EIR) or Independent Project Review (IPR) report with the focus
on a composite listing of the lines of inquiry and the results of each.

VI. REFERENCE MATERIAL

• DOE O 413.3A, Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets

• DOE M 413.3-1, Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets

• DOE-STD-1189-2008, Integration of Safety into the Design Process

• DOE O 420.1B, Facility Safety

• DOE O 430.1B, Real Property Asset Management

• DOE G 430.1-1, Cost Estimating Guide, Chapter 3, “Stages of Project Development”

• DOE-HDBK-1132-99, Design Considerations

• DOE O 414.1C, Quality Assurance

6
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

APPENDIX A: PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES AND CRITERIA

Legend of Conceptual Design Topics

Review Topical Area Identifier

General Requirements GR
Requirements Analysis RA
Safety Design Basis SB
Conceptual Design Report CD
Alternatives Analysis AA
Systems Engineering and Value Management SE
Risk Analysis RE
Acquisition Strategy AS

ID # Performance Objectives and Criteria2 Met?

General Requirements
GR-1 Does the conceptual design document demonstrate compliance with the
requirements for DOE O 413.3A and the associated guidance?
Does documentation shows that the conceptual design process was
executed in a methodical manner that led to the evaluation of an
appropriate set of alternatives? (GR-1.1)
Is the research, development, and testing associated with the
conceptual design and documentation process adequately performed
and well-documented, including assumptions and conclusions?
(GR-1.2)
Do the conceptual design and supporting documentation identify areas
where the execution of the preferred alternative will require negotiation
with regulators? (GR-1.3)
Does the conceptual design process adequately implement the value
management process to identify and select alternatives? (GR-1.4)
Does the conceptual design documentation include a preliminary cost
and schedule for the project that is reasonable and executable?
(GR-1.5)
GR-2 Does the conceptual design meet mission need expectations and meet the
Performance Requirements developed in the Design Requirements
Document?
Have the conceptual design address safety and health standards,
technical risks, construction, and operability requirements? (GR-2.1)
Are design assumptions entered and tracked to ensure their resolution
prior to the issuance of the final design? (GR-2.2)
Does the conceptual design incorporate adequate provisions for the
safe removal, treatment, and disposition of secondary waste and other
byproducts of the process? (GR-2.3)

2
The site should provide the technical bases and assumptions that support the answers provided to each Line of
Inquiry. If possible, the review teams should independently verify the technical bases and assumptions.

A-1
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

ID # Performance Objectives and Criteria2 Met?

Does the conceptual design incorporate construction and process
materials suitable for the site and process environment? (GR-2.4)
Has the project identified all assumptions and requirements that are
required to be carried forward to ensure that design, construction, and
administrative controls are developed? (GR-2.5)
GR-3 Is there a process in place to resolve technical uncertainties and validate
design assumptions?
Is there a process in place to ensure that all elements of the process
are demonstrated at full scale and that production throughput is
verified by demonstration or calculation? (GR-3.1)
Is there design assumptions identified and is there a process to verify
them with actual field measurement or modeling? (GR-3.2)
Requirements Analysis
RA-1 Does the conceptual design and supporting documentation identify the
applicable set of requirements for the design, construction, and operation of
the project?
Does the requirement analysis process develop the programmatic,
system, functional, or technical requirements for the project? (RA-1.1)
Are requirements identified in the requirement analysis process
adequately implemented in the conceptual design? (RA-1.2)
RA-2 Does the conceptual design include the appropriate functional
requirements?
Does the requirements basis for the conceptual design include both
the functional requirements and the appropriate standards, orders, and
consensus standards for the project? (RA-2.1)
Are performances or system functional descriptions included as part of
the conceptual design and documentation? (RA-2.2)
Do the system functional requirements include sufficient detail for
establishing the criteria or limits against which the actual capability of
the system can be judged? (RA-2.3)
Do the subsystem and component requirements identify the specific
requirements required within the overall system? (RA-2.4)
Safety Basis Design
SB-1 Was the Safety-in-Design process used to evaluate the alternative design
concepts?
Has a safety analysis been performed for each of the considered
alterative design concepts? (SB-1.1)
Were the safety analyses for alternatives performed in sufficient detail
enable management to make sound safety decisions? (SB-1.2)
SB-2 The Safety-in-Design process as performed for the alternatives meets the
requirements and guidance of the applicable DOE orders and standards.
As design requirements are established for each alternative, are
engineering and safety personnel identified in alternative facility layout
and processing configurations? (SB-2.1)
Does the Safety-in-Design process involve a qualified, experienced
safety analyst in evaluating each of the alternatives considered?
(SB-2.2)

A-2
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

ID # Performance Objectives and Criteria2 Met?

SB-3 Does each alternative considered in the Safety-in-Design process
incorporate the key elements identified in the applicable orders and
standards?
Was the Safety-in-Design process used to evaluate the design
architecture? (SB-3.1)
Was the Safety-in-Design process used to consider alternative facility
locations to minimize potential public and collocated worker exposures
to facility releases or to minimize the threat of external events
associated with nearby facilities? (SB-3.2)
During the alternative analysis process, did the Independent Project
Team (IPT) and Safety Design Integration Team (SDIT) ensure that
the relative hazards, as well as the costs and uncertainties associated
with the hazard controls that address these hazards, are considered
for each alternative? (SB-3.3)
SB-4 Has a Safety Design Strategy (SDS) been developed and implemented for
the project?
SB-5 Has the safety analysis process been integrated into the design of safety-
class and safety-significant systems, structures, and components (SSCs)?
Has the safety analysis process been integrated in the design process
to identify and describe the SSCs and to satisfy the facility
performance requirements? (SB-5.1)
Have safety design requirements in DOE O 420.1B been addressed in
the design development? (SB-5.2)
SB-6 Has a Conceptual Safety Design Report (CSDR) been prepared in
accordance with DOE-STD-1189-2008?
Has a preliminary inventory of hazardous materials been established
and documented? (SB-6.1)
Has the facility hazard categorization been established in accordance
with DOE-STD-1027-92? (SB-6.2)
Does the CSDR identify and analyze the primary facility hazards and
facility-level design basis accidents? (SB-6.3)
Does the CSDR provide an initial determination, based on the
Preliminary Hazards Analysis (PHA), of safety-class and safety-
significant SSCs? (SB-6.4)
SB-7 Have the Safety-in-Design and Opportunity Assessment processes been
implemented in the conceptual design phase, consistent with the guidance
in DOE-STD-1189-2008?
Were the Safety-in-Design and Opportunity Assessment processes
used to evaluate the overall safety design basis risks and opportunities
associated with the project? (SB-7.1)
Have the risks considered included the uncertainties related to the
possibility that there may be additional costs and schedule impacts that
have not yet been identified? (SB-7.2)
Conceptual Design Report
CD-1 Is the Conceptual Design Report (CDR) complete and adequate for the
project and includes the appropriate material to support the selection of the
recommended alternative?

A-3
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

ID # Performance Objectives and Criteria2 Met?

Does the conceptual design documentation include a description of the
recommended alternative and a synopsis of the development
activities? (CD-1.1)
Does the CDR include a schedule and cost range, including the
resources necessary to complete the design and preparation
activities? (CD-1.2)
Does the CDR includes an alternatives analysis, including lifecycle
costs, operational considerations, site development considerations,
relationships to other site activities, and the comparison of alternatives
with the risks and the preferred alternative? (CD-1.3)
CD-2 Have all of the applicable key elements been completed as part of the
conceptual design process phase of the project?
Has the requirement analysis from the pre-conceptual phase been
further developed to include safety functions and SSC requirements
and is documented in the project technical requirements documents
and in the CDR? (CD-2.1)
Have alternative design concepts been analyzed and a preferred
alternative has been selected? (CD-2.2)
Has a Conceptual Safety Design Report (CSDR) been developed to
guide the design, including description of strategies to address major
hazards, commitment to appropriate safety design criteria, and security
issues as applicable? (CD-2.3)
Has a preliminary hazards analysis (PHA) been performed to provide
the basis for the facility hazard categorization? (CD-2.4)
Has a preliminary fire hazards analysis (FHA) been performed that
identifies and assesses fire risks and defines levels of safety-in-design
that do not necessarily exist in the PHA? (CD-2.5)
Has a preliminary Security Vulnerability Assessment been completed
and factored into the PHA? (CD-2.6)
Has a facility-level Design Basis Accident (DBA) analysis been
performed to identify the major facility safety functions needed?
(CD-2.7)
Have SSCs and their safety classifications been proposed for the
major safety functions? (CD-2.8)
Has the initial Safety-in-Design Risk and Opportunities Assessment
been developed based on assumptions that may have been necessary
and on uncertainties in safety and design considerations? (CD-2.9)
Has the CSDR been developed to document the basis for the safety
design aspects of the facility? (CD-2.10)
Have the required technical studies necessary to resolve risks and
technology been identified? (CD-2.11)
Has DOE reviewed the CSDR and prepared a Conceptual Safety
Validation Report? (CD-2.12)
CD-3 Does the conceptual design for the alternative selected identify the key
elements necessary to proceed with design development?
Does the conceptual design identify the overall project and facility
functional requirements in sufficient detail that the preliminary design
can be developed? (CD-3.1)

A-4
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

ID # Performance Objectives and Criteria2 Met?

Does the conceptual design identify the system functional capabilities
necessary to achieve the overall project and facility functional
requirements? (CD-3.2)
Does the conceptual design identify the key interface subsystems to
achieve the overall project and facility functional requirements?
(CD-3.3)
Does the conceptual design identify the anticipated inputs to achieve
the overall project and facility functional requirements? (CD-3.4)
Does the conceptual design identify the expected outputs, including
waste streams, at an appropriate level to achieve the overall project
and facility functional requirements? (CD-3.5)
Alternatives Analysis
AA-1 Does the alternatives analysis performed in support of the conceptual design
meet the requirements and guidance of the applicable DOE Orders,
Standards, and Manuals?
Has the alternative analysis been performed based on appropriate,
applicable, and feasible technologies? (AA-1.1)
Does the alternatives analysis consider lifecycle costs, including
operations, maintenance, and disposal? (AA-1.2)
Does the alternatives analysis consider stakeholder values, reliability,
operability, maintainability, safety, technology development
requirements, project risks, and regulatory requirements? (AA-1.3)
Has the recommended alternative been selected based on a
systematic analysis of the benefits and costs? (AA-1.4)
Systems Engineering and Value Management
SE-1 Does the system engineering process adequately translate the mission
operational requirements into system architecture, performance parameters,
and design details?
Does the systems engineering process considered the requirements
analysis, alternatives analysis, and functional analyses and
allocations? (SE-1.1)
SE-2 Was the value management process implemented as required by Federal
Acquisition Regulation part 48?
Does the value management system use a systematic process for
analyzing requirements and translating these into the most economical
means for providing essential functions without impairing essential
performance, reliability, quality, maintainability, and safety? (SE-2.1)
Risk Analysis
RA-1 Was a formal risk analysis/management process used to identify the project
risks associated with all of the alternatives evaluated?
Does the risk management process involve the IPT members and
external experts, as appropriate? (RA-1.1)
Are risks for each alterative clearly identified, and their consideration is
evident in the selection of the preferred alternative? (RA-1.2)
Acquisition Strategy
AS-1 Does the acquisition strategy address the key elements identified in the
DOE Orders and guidance documents?
Does the acquisition strategy identify the primary office of responsibility
for the project? (AS-1.1)

A-5
Standard Review Plan, 2nd Edition, March 2010

ID # Performance Objectives and Criteria2 Met?

Does the acquisition strategy describe how the project fits within the
mission and identifies the mission need approval date and approving
official, and summarizes any material changes from the approved
mission need? (AS-1.2)
Does the acquisition strategy describe the key technical and
performance parameters for the project? (AS-1.3)
Does the acquisition strategy identify the projected total project cost,
expressed as a range? Does the total project cost include a profile
that distributes the cost by fiscal year? (AS-1.4)
Does the acquisition strategy identify applicable conditions and factors
that may affect the operational, design, or execution requirements?
(AS-1.5)
Does the acquisition strategy identify the major acquisition,
management, technical, cost, and schedule risks, and how handling
the risks influences the strategy? (AS-1.6)
Does the acquisition strategy discuss the approach to the acquisition,
including managing and executing the project? (AS-1.7)
Does the acquisition strategy discuss the methods of completion that
will be sought, promoted, and sustained throughout the course of the
project? (AS-1.8)
Does the acquisition strategy discuss the approach to managing the
project? (AS-1.9)
Does the acquisition strategy discuss the interfaces with other DOE
organizations, national laboratories, or outside stakeholders?
(AS-1.10)

A-6