Common use of Work Plan Development Process Clause in Contracts

Work Plan Development Process. The detailed work plan (which in NH is formed through the combination of the P&C List, a comprehensive work plan generated from the NHDES Measures Tracking and Reporting System [MTRS], and other separate grant work plans, a significant portion of which is funded with USEPA dollars through the PPG and other funding sources), is the result of a robust negotiations process between NHDES and EPANE Senior Leadership and Program Managers. These work plan-level negotiations are first kicked-off by EPANE via the P&C List process, which is negotiated in partnership with NHDES. NHDES and EPANE Managers and staff jointly review and modify the P&C List until the document is finalized with a sign-off by the EPANE Regional Administrator. In NH, all agreed upon USEPA-funded work plan items (especially those negotiated via the P&C List), as well as many other non-USEPA funded activities throughout NHDES, are “driven” into the department’s Comprehensive Work Plan, which is developed via the MTRS database. Starting in FFY 2016, USEPA released a two-year NPM Guidance planning process and encouraged the Regions and the States to move towards multi-year work plans. In FFY 2016 and FFY 2017, EPANE and the Region I States agreed to pilot an on-line (via a Microsoft SharePoint site), two-year P&C List process for documenting negotiated PPG commitments. Under this approach, which continues to this day, there is an expectation that the negotiated work plan commitments will cover a two-year period absent changed circumstances, as defined below. The benefits of this approach include minimizing/eliminating the need for extensive work plan negotiations at the mid-point of a two-year cycle, with recurring commitments from year one typically carrying over into year two. This approach should also better align the priorities communicated through the NPM and individual programmatic grant guidances with the commitments and flexibilities negotiated in grant work plans. Adjustments to year-two commitments will be necessary if there are changed circumstances such as changes in Administrator/NPM priorities, revisions required by USEPA’s Annual Commitment process, a substantial reduction or increase in USEPA funding, and similar issues experienced at the state levels.

Work Plan Development Process. The detailed work plan (which in NH is formed through the combination of the P&C List, a comprehensive work plan generated from the NHDES Measures Tracking and Reporting System [MTRS], and other separate grant work plans, a significant portion of which is funded with USEPA dollars through the PPG and other funding sources), is the result of a robust negotiations process between NHDES and EPANE Senior Leadership and Program Managers. These work plan-level negotiations are first kicked-off by EPANE via the P&C List process, which is negotiated in partnership with NHDES. NHDES and EPANE ▇▇▇▇▇ Managers and staff jointly review and modify the P&C List until the document is finalized with a sign-off by the EPANE Regional Administrator. In NH, all agreed upon USEPA-funded work plan items (especially those negotiated via the P&C List), as well as many other non-USEPA funded activities throughout NHDES, are “driven” into the department’s Comprehensive Work Plan, which is developed via the MTRS database. Starting in FFY 2016, USEPA released a two-year NPM Guidance planning process and encouraged the Regions and the States to move towards multi-year work plans. In FFY 2016 and FFY 2017, EPANE and the Region I States agreed to pilot an on-line (via a Microsoft SharePoint site), two-year P&C List process for documenting negotiated PPG commitments. Under this approach, which continues to this day, there is an expectation that the negotiated work plan commitments will cover a two-year period absent changed circumstances, as defined below. The benefits of this approach include minimizing/eliminating the need for extensive work plan negotiations at the mid-point of a two-year cycle, with recurring commitments from year one typically carrying over into year two. This approach should also better align the priorities communicated through the NPM and individual programmatic grant guidances with the commitments and flexibilities negotiated in grant work plans. Adjustments to year-two commitments will be necessary if there are changed circumstances such as changes in Administrator/NPM priorities, revisions required by USEPA’s Annual Commitment process, a substantial reduction or increase in USEPA funding, and similar issues experienced at the state levels.