Quality Assurance for River Corridor Closure Contract Procurements
February 15, 2017
minute read time
February 15, 2017
Quality Assurance for River Corridor Closure Contract Procurements
During the Hanford Site’s plutonium production mission, the Department of Energy operated nine reactors and a large laboratory complex along the Columbia River. In 2005, the Department’s Richland Operations Office (Richland) awarded Washington Closure Hanford, LLC (WCH) a $2.9 billion contract to remediate nearly 220 square miles of the Hanford Site.
To ensure compliance with contract requirements and the safe performance of work, Richland included in WCH’s contract the Department’s order on Quality Assurance, which requires the use of an appropriate consensus quality assurance standard consistent with regulatory requirements. WCH adopted the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) - Quality Assurance Requirements for Nuclear Facility Applications (NQA-1) as its consensus standard for its quality assurance program. Specific to procuring material and services, WCH was required to flow down quality assurance requirements specific to the scope of work in its subcontracts and to evaluate the subcontractor’s capability of implementing the applied requirements. We conducted this audit to determine whether WCH had effectively managed quality assurance requirements in its procurements for the River Corridor Closure Contract at the Hanford Site.
As a result of our work we found instances where WCH did not effectively manage quality assurance in its procurements. Specifically, we identified weaknesses in how WCH flowed down quality assurance requirements in its subcontracts and in the subsequent evaluations used to determine whether subcontractors had the capability to implement an NQA-1 quality assurance program. We also found that WCH did not ensure that staff augmentation contracts contained requirements to perform work under WCH’s quality assurance program.
The weaknesses identified in WCH’s quality assurance program can increase the risk that contractual requirements are not met and ultimately expose the Department to increased financial risk. Not imposing applicable NQA-1 requirements can result in conditions that require rework. On the other hand, imposing
NQA-1 requirements for items and services not important to safety or mission can result in unnecessary expenditure of funds. In addition, inadequate supplier evaluations may increase the risk of awarding contracts to subcontractors that cannot perform to contract requirements. We have made several recommendations designed to assist the Manager of the Richland Operations Office in ensuring corrective actions are completed and effective.
Topic: Environmental Cleanup