1. Outsourcing Modifications To Contractors
Tom White
Entergy – Pilgrim Station
June 29, 2009
EN MRM Standardization Model

2. Increased Use of Outsourced Engineers
Many staffs have “downsized”
Experienced engineers have retired
Specific technical skill sets have been lost
Large projects continue to emerge (e.g. power uprates, new plants, dry cask storage, security improvements)
EN MRM Standardization Model

3. Outsourcing Options
All work done remotely under contractor programs (QA/non-QA) – Owner Review
Staff Augmentation – Contract engineers work at station under station’s programs
Other?
EN MRM Standardization Model

4. Issues/Considerations
ESP training
Procedures (station vs. contractor)
Technical reviews by station
Oversight of productivity
Database access & update
Information access
Fixed cost vs. T&M
Teamwork
EN MRM Standardization Model

5. Work Remotely Using Contractor Programs (with Owner Review)
Pros
No ESP training oversight burdens (i.e. maintaining qualifications, mentoring/co-signing)
No paperwork burdens if contractor uses station procedures under their programs
Owner’s Review is only requirement
Contracts more amenable to fixed pricing
Cons
Contractors not on-site so productivity must requires additional management (can be addressed by fixed price vs. T&M, periodic schedule reviews, etc.)
Station database access & update more difficult from remote location/server
Information access (walkdowns, drawings) more difficult
Teamwork requires more effort (to assemble meetings, resolve difficult issues face-to-face, etc.)

6. Staff Augmentation Pros
On-site contractors can be managed directly for productivity
Station databases readily available for access & update. Contractor questions easily resolved
Access to information/drawings via walkdowns and document control centers is simple
Teamwork more easily promoted via timely face-to-face meetings
All products developed per station procedures
Cons
Contractors have to be directly supervised by station
Significant ESP training oversight burdens (i.e. maintaining qualifications, mentoring/co-signing)
Substantial station technical reviews required until contractor qualifications are completed
Contracts are typically T&M which can be more expensive

7. Implications for Configuration Management
Do the contractors fully understand your document control systems, document indexes, and information management systems?
Remote access availability and speed
Quality of document cross references and links (identifying impacted documents & programs)
Idiosyncrasies of legacy data in databases
Centralization of design basis information
Tribal knowledge of system engineers, Operations, etc.

8. Implications for Configuration Management
Do the contractors thoroughly understand your document change procedures and electronic processes?
Identification of applicable design criteria
Methods for revising/creating each document type
Roles & responsibilities for each part of overall modification process
Quality training in the use of complicated workflow programs
Data entry quality & verification (e.g. BOMs)

9. Summary/Recommendations
Continued high modification workload will require continued use of contractors
Build time & funding into contracts to address training in use of key databases and work management processes/procedures
Use graded approach to oversight of technical and configuration management tasks
Recognize limitations and pitfalls of your systems and assure contractors are aware
Verify station personnel are cognizant of goals of Owner’s Review versus technical HU reviews
Ensure regular communication between contractor and station POC
Consider steady flow of work to same contract personnel
EN MRM Standardization Model

10. Questions?
EN MRM Standardization Model