Common use of Work Plan Development Process Clause in Contracts

Work Plan Development Process. Starting with 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. For FFY 2016 and FFY 2017, EPA Region 1 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 Performance Partnership Grant commitments for the time period FFY 2016 - 2017. Under this approach, 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 will 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. Starting with 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. For FFY 2016 and FFY 2017, EPA Region 1 EPANE and the Region I 1 States agreed to pilot an on-line (via a Microsoft SharePoint site), two-year P&C List process for documenting negotiated Performance Partnership Grant commitments for the time period FFY 2016 - 2017. Under this approach, 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 will 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.