DOCSLIB.ORG

Relocation of Non-Nuclear Production to an Alternate Location Business Case

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Relocation of Non-Nuclear Production to an Alternate Location Business Case Relocation of Non-Nuclear Production to an Alternate Location Business Case October 18, 2007 Revision 2 Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration Defense Programs Office of Transformation Prepared by Science Applications International Corporation This Page Intentionally Blank. Revision 2 October 2007 RECORD OF CHANGES REV 1 TO REV 2 - Changed document date from September 20th to October 18th, 2007. - Reorganized Executive Summary for greater clarity. - Added an acronyms list. - Made minor editorial cleanups. REV 0 TO REV 1 - Changed document date from September 17th to September 20th, 2007. - Added the alternative showing the Status Quo, Continue Current Facility Operations, in Table ES-1 and Table 6. - Changed “Annualized FY06 Dollars” to “Constant FY06 Dollars” in Table ES-1, Table 3 and Table 6. - Changed interpretation of the breakeven point from the 95th percentile, of the range of assumptions, based on linear interpolation of the data, to the 99.58th percentile of the range of assumptions, based on simulations that showed the nonlinearity of data in that region. - Adjusted the text to better define the base case and median values for the model results. - Added the opinion letter from TechSource, Incorporated as Appendix 6. Revision 2 October 2007 This Page Intentionally Blank. Revision 2 October 2007 Relocation of Non-Nuclear Production to an Alternate Location Business Case TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures..............................................................................................................................................iii List of Tables ...............................................................................................................................................iii Executive Summary..................................................................................................................................... iv 1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Study Objective ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Approach ................................................................................................................................. 2 1.2.1 Location Selection ..............................................................................................................2 1.2.2 Business Case Model .......................................................................................................... 2 2.0 Relocation Scenario........................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Facility Construction and Occupation..................................................................................... 3 2.2 Production Resumption ...........................................................................................................3 2.3 Personnel ................................................................................................................................. 3 3.0 Alternative City Selection ................................................................................................................. 5 3.1 Benefits.................................................................................................................................... 5 3.2 Costs ........................................................................................................................................ 5 4.0 Quantifying Benefits ......................................................................................................................... 9 5.0 Quantifying Costs............................................................................................................................ 11 5.1 Nonrecurring Costs................................................................................................................ 11 5.1.1 Moving Costs....................................................................................................................12 5.1.2 Personnel Costs – Initial Staffing ..................................................................................... 12 5.1.3 Delay costs........................................................................................................................ 12 5.2 Recurring Costs ..................................................................................................................... 13 5.2.1 Lease Costs ....................................................................................................................... 13 5.2.2 Operating Costs.................................................................................................................14 6.0 Quantitative Results......................................................................................................................... 15 6.1 Business Case Model.............................................................................................................15 6.2 KCRIMS to Albuquerque Risk Adjusted Results ................................................................. 16 6.3 Business Case Comparisons.................................................................................................. 18 7.0 Discussion of Sensitivity Analysis Results ..................................................................................... 21 7.1 Production Volume................................................................................................................ 21 7.2 Outsourcing Percent .............................................................................................................. 22 7.3 Legacy Remediation..............................................................................................................22 7.4 Annual Transportation...........................................................................................................22 7.5 Continuity of Critical Operations .......................................................................................... 23 7.6 Moving Costs ........................................................................................................................ 23 7.7 Employee Willingness to Relocate........................................................................................ 23 7.8 Regulatory Framework.......................................................................................................... 23 7.9 Community Acceptance ........................................................................................................ 24 7.10 Life Extension Program (LEP) Strategy................................................................................ 24 7.11 Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) Strategy ................................................................. 24 7.12 Stockpile Size, and Composition and Technology................................................................ 24 7.13 Weapon Activity Budgets...................................................................................................... 24 Revision 2 i October 2007 Relocation of Non-Nuclear Production to an Alternate Location Business Case 8.0 Risk Identification ........................................................................................................................... 25 8.1 Viability of the Build-Ahead Plan......................................................................................... 25 8.2 Early Attrition at KCP........................................................................................................... 25 8.3 Implementation Challenges................................................................................................... 25 8.4 Distant Location Planning ..................................................................................................... 25 8.5 Greenfield Site Availability................................................................................................... 26 8.6 Viability of On-Site Facility Scenario................................................................................... 26 8.7 Lost Commercialization Potential ......................................................................................... 26 8.8 Capturing Regional Savings.................................................................................................. 26 8.9 Increased Near-Term Negative Cash Flow ........................................................................... 27 8.10 Deferred Maintenance (RTBF and FIRP) ............................................................................. 27 Appendix 1 – Alternate Location Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) Analysis 29 Appendix 2 – City Desirability Analysis .................................................................................................... 31 Appendix 3 – Scenario Assumptions.......................................................................................................... 37 Spectrum of Alternatives................................................................................................................. 37 Appendix 4 – Business Case Model ........................................................................................................... 39 Description of the Business Case Model........................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 162/Monday, August 23, 2004
    Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2004 / Notices 51825 Format (PDF) on the Internet at the Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, and oxidation process). Other following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/ SW., Washington, DC 20585; e-mail: corrections include: B&T Metals (OH) fedregister. [email protected]; toll free: (the DOE designation was in error and To use PDF you must have Adobe 1–877–447–9756; URL: http:// has been removed), Foote Mineral (PA) Acrobat Reader, which is available free www.eh.doe.gov/advocacy/. (the BE designation has been on the at this site. If you have questions about SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: program’s Web site (noted below) since using PDF, call the U.S. Government inception, but was inadvertently Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1– Purpose missing from the Federal Register 888–293–6498; or in the Washington, The Energy Employees Occupational notice), Swenson Evaporator (is located DC, area at (202) 512–1530. Illness Compensation Program Act of in Harvey, not Chicago, IL) and C.H. 2000 (‘‘Act’’), Title 36 of Public Law Schnorr, PA (previously Schnoor). This Note: The official version of this document 106–398, establishes a program to is the document published in the Federal notice also deletes the listing for Ledoux Register. Free Internet access to the official provide compensation to individuals (NY) entirely because it was learned that edition of the Federal Register and the Code who developed illnesses as a result of no radioactivity was used at that of Federal Regulations is available on GPO their employment in nuclear weapons location.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 12 References
    Section 12 References REFERENCES Adriaens, P., J.M. Lendvay, M.L. McCormick and S.M. Dean. 1997. Biogeochemistry and dechlorination potential at the St. Joseph Aquifer-Lake Michigan interface, in In Situ and On Site Bioremediation. Vol 3, edited by B.C. Alleman and A. Lesson. Pp173-179. Battelle, Columbus, Ohio. 1997. Ahrens, L.H., 1965. Distribution of Elements in Our Planet. McGraw-Hill, New York. Albert Kahn Associated Architects and Engineers, “Aircraft Engine Plant for United Aircraft Corporation.” Job No. 1927, September 22, 1942. Files, Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, MO. Plans include the Manufacturing Plant, Test Cells and Boiler House. Albert Kahn Associates, Inc. “Albert Kahn Wartime Contributions for the Corporate Sector.” January 13, 2009. Albert Kahn Associates, Detroit. “An Overview of Albert Kahn’s War Time Contributions.” N.D. Albert Kahn Associates, Detroit. Allied Signal, Inc. 1987. Kansas City Division, Unpublished data: Floor Space Utilization Summary, Chronological Summary of Bendix KCP Plant Acquisitions and Relinquishments. Kansas City, Missouri, October. National Archives and Records Administration. Pratt & Whitney of Kansas City. Memorandum: File No.2. “Sale of Personal Property at Plancor 1213. Allied Signal, Inc. 1989. City Water and Sewage Systems Evaluation and Computer Mapping. Allied Signal Aerospace, Kansas City Division, Kansas City, Missouri. Allied Signal, Inc. 1998. Abandoned Sump Removal, Interim Measures Report. Kansas City, Missouri. ALS Environmental, 2011, Bannister Complex Samples for Q19, F25, and Roof ECAI, Work Order 1108184 Architectural & Historical Research, LLC. “The Kansas City Plant: Bannister Federal Complex.” 26 May 2010. “The Architect Working in Industry.” Architectural Record. Vol. 59 No. 3. March 1941.
    [Show full text]
  • Kansas City Plant FY 2016 – FY2025 Ten Year Site Plan
    Kansas City Plant FY 2016 – FY2025 Ten Year Site Plan Kansas City Plant FY 2015 – FY2024 Ten Year Site Plan Limited Update - - - This page intentionally blank. - - - 2 - - - This page intentionally blank. - - - 2 List of Abbreviations ADAPT – Advanced Design and Production Technologies AF&F – Arming, Fuzing, and Firing ALT - Alternate ATECC – Alternate Transportation Emergency Control Center ATTC – Albuquerque Transportation & Technology Center BFC – Bannister Federal Complex BMP – Best Management Practices BTA – Building Technology Associates, Inc. BTU – British Thermal Unit CBDPP – Chronic Beryllium Disease Prevention Program CD – Critical Decision CMD -- Component Maturation and Development CME – Component and Material Evaluation CMMS – Computerized Maintenance Management System COTS – Commercial-Off-The-Shelf CRADA – Cooperative Research and Development Agreement CUP - Central Utility Plant DDC – Direct Digital Controls DM – Deferred Maintenance DMSMS – Diminishing Manufacturing Sources & Material Shortages DoD – Department of Defense DSA – Detonator Sensing Assembly DSW – Directed Stockpile Work DTRA – Defense Threat Reduction Agency EA – Environmental Assessment EIS – Environmental Impact Statement EMP – Energy Management Plan ENS – Emergency Notification System EPH – East Powerhouse ES – Enhanced Surveillance ESC – Enhanced Surveillance Campaigns ESN – Enterprise Secure Network FBI – Federal Bureau of Investigation FEMP – Federal Energy Management Program FIMS – Facilities Information Management System FIRP – Facilities Infrastructure
    [Show full text]
  • Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act of 2000; List of Covered Facilities
    6450-01-p DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act of 2000; List of Covered Facilities AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of Listing of Covered Facilities SUMMARY: The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act of 2000 (“Act”), Public Law 106-398, establishes a program to provide compensation to individuals who developed illnesses as a result of their employment in nuclear weapons production- related activities and certain other federally-owned facilities in which radioactive materials were used. On December 7, 2000, the President issued Executive Order 13179 (“Order”) directing the Department of Energy (“Department” or “DOE”) to list covered facilities in the Federal Register. This notice responds to both the Act and the Order. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Office of Worker Advocacy, 1-877-447- 9756. ADDRESSES: The Department welcomes comments on this list. Individuals who wish to suggest additional facilities for inclusion on the list, indicate why one or more facilities should be removed from the list, or provide other information may contact: Office of Worker Advocacy (EH-8) U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585 email: [email protected] toll-free: 1-877-447-9756 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1 Purpose: The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act of 2000 (“Act”), Public Law 106-398, establishes a program to provide compensation to individuals who developed illnesses as a result of their employment in nuclear weapons production-related activities and certain other federally-owned facilities in which radioactive materials were used. On December 7, 2000, the President issued Executive Order 13179 (“Order”) directing the Department of Energy (“Department” or “DOE”) to list covered facilities in the Federal Register.
    [Show full text]
  • April 7, 2000 Bishop C. Dale White
    April 7, 2000 Bishop C. Dale White 117 Eustis Avenue Newport, RI 02840 Dear Dale: I believe that those of us who believe that nuclear deterrence and any use of nuclear weapons are immoral should make this an election issue in 2000. We should challenge the presidential candidates to deal with this matter. We should demand that they consider the immorality of threatening innocent people and the environment in the name of nuclear deterrence. We should insist that they admit that nuclear weapons have no utility for war-fighting, as numerous military leaders have testified. The same issues could be raised with candidates for the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. I would like to explore this matter with you by correspondence and to talk with you some time during the first week of General Conference. I'll be there from May 1 to 5. One possibility would be a letter from religious leaders to the presidential candidates, emphasizing the immorality of nuclear weapons and asking them to set forth a plan for global elimination of nuclear weapons within a reasonable time span. Because of the sensitive nature of church/state relations the signers might be persons like yourself who are not official representatives of religious denominations rather than asking heads of communion to sign. Such persons might include Bishop Walter Sullivan, president of Pax Christi; retired heads of communion, such as Episcopal Bishop Edmond Browning, former UCC president Paul Sherry, retired Presbyterian Stated Clerk James Andrews, etc.; Joan Brown Campbell; other prominent clergy, including other faiths. Such a letter could cite the position of various religious bodies, such as the UM bishops' In Defense of Creation, the UM resolution on Nuclear Abolition (which will be updated in Cleveland), a similar Episcopal resolution, last year's statement by Pax Christi bishops, a statement of Archbishop Martino, the Holy See representative to the UN, a statement by Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • (PER) Kansas City Plant October 1, 2005 Through September 30, 2006
    Description of document: DOE NNSA FY 2006 Performance Evaluation Report Kansas City Plant Requested date: 26-January-2007 Released date: 11-September-2007 Posted date: 15-October-2007 Title of Document Performance Evaluation Report (PER) Kansas City Plant October 1, 2005 through September 30, 2006 Date/date range of document: FY 2006 Source of document: Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration Service Center P.O. Box 5400 Albuquerque, NM 87185 Freedom of Information Act U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, DC 20585 (202) 586-5955 [email protected] http://management.energy.gov/foia_pa.htm The governmentattic.org web site (“the site”) is noncommercial and free to the public. The site and materials made available on the site, such as this file, are for reference only. The governmentattic.org web site and its principals have made every effort to make this information as complete and as accurate as possible, however, there may be mistakes and omissions, both typographical and in content. The governmentattic.org web site and its principals shall have neither liability nor responsibility to any person or entity with respect to any loss or damage caused, or alleged to have been caused, directly or indirectly, by the information provided on the governmentattic.org web site or in this file. Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration Service Center P. O. Box 5400 Albuquerque, NM 87185 SEP 11 200t CERTIFIED MAIL - RESTRICTED DELIVERY - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED This is in final response to your Freedom oflnformation Act (FOIA) request dated January 26, 2007, for "a copy ofthe most recent two annualperformance reviews for Pantex Site, Kansas City Site, Sandia Site, Los Alamos Site, Y-12 Site and Livermore Site." I contacted the Site Offices who have oversight responsibility for the records you requested, and they are enclosed.
    [Show full text]
  • Gao-14-588, National Nuclear Security Administration
    United States Government Accountability Office Report to the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives July 2014 NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Agency Expanded Use of Some Federal Oversight Reforms, but Is Still Determining Future Plans GAO-14-588 July 2014 NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Agency Expanded Use of Some Federal Oversight Highlights of GAO-14-588, a report to the Reforms, but Is Still Determining Future Plans Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found NNSA, a separately organized agency Key reforms at the National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) Kansas within DOE, has had long-standing City Plant (KCP)—a site in Missouri that manufactures electronic and other problems managing its contracts and nonnuclear components of nuclear weapons—included (1) streamlining operating projects, which GAO has identified as requirements by replacing Department of Energy (DOE) requirements with being at high risk for fraud, waste, industry standards, where appropriate; (2) refocusing federal oversight to rely on abuse, and mismanagement. Both contractor performance data for lower-risk activities; and (3) establishing clear DOE and, specifically, NNSA, contractor goals and incentives. A 2008 review of the reforms reported nearly undertook initiatives in 2002 and 2003 $14 million in cost reductions were achieved at the site by implementing these to improve contractor performance reforms. through revised federal oversight and greater contractor accountability. In NNSA and KCP federal and contractor staff identified key factors that facilitated 2006, concerned that efforts were implementation of reforms at KCP, including the following: moving too slowly, the NNSA Administrator tasked its KCP Field • High-level support from NNSA and field office leadership.
    [Show full text]
  • EEOICPA PROGRAM – National Security Campus
    National Nuclear Security Administration Federal Manufacturing & Technologies EEOICPA PROGRAM – National Security Campus Stacey Eide | January 29, 2015 The Department of Energy’s National Security Campus is operated and managed by Honeywell Federal Manufacturing & Technologies, LLC under contract number DE-NA0000622 History National Nuclear Security Administration Federal Manufacturing & Technologies • The Kansas City Plant has been operated by the same Management & Operations (M & O) contractor since 1949 • The contractor’s company has changed names through mergers or acquisitions (Bendix, Allied, Allied-Signal and now Honeywell FM&T) • Bendix began to make parts for nuclear weapons at KCP in 1949 • Original building that housed KCP was constructed in 1942 to build aircraft engines • KCP moved to a new facility in 2013 • New facility is referred to as the National Security Campus (NSC) National Nuclear Security Administration Federal Manufacturing & Technologies A Rich Site History • 1922 - Kansas City Speedway • 1942 - Building construction and occupant - Pratt & Whitney Aircraft • 1949 - The Atomic Energy Commission and the Bendix Corporation HISTORY National Nuclear Security Administration Federal Manufacturing & Technologies 2011 – The Kansas City Plant Mergers and Honeywell - - - - - - - - 1983 – 1942 - Building construction and occupant - Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Allied 1999 – Honeywell 2012 – NSC 1949 - The Atomic Energy Commission and the Bendix Corporation National Nuclear Security Administration Federal Manufacturing & Technologies
    [Show full text]
  • G ANNEX G Abbreviations
    G ANNEX G Abbreviations G.1 AGENCY, BUREAU, AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONAL ABBREVIATIONS This section of Annex G contains those Agency and other Organizational Name and Bureau abbreviations that will be used in the Serial Number (SER), Bureau (BUR) and Circuit Remarks (REM) fields of the GMF. (See Chapter 9, Section 9.8.2). Agency Bureau Abbreviation Agency for International Development AID Agriculture, Department of A Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service APHS Agriculture Research Service ARS Cooperative State Research Education & Extension Service CSRE Farm Service Agency FSA Farmers Home Administration FHA Food & Nutrition Service FNS Forest Service F Forest Service - Region 1 F1 Forest Service - Region 2 F2 Forest Service - Region 3 F3 Forest Service - Region 4 F4 Forest Service - Region 5 F5 Forest Service - Region 6 F6 Forest Service - Region 8 F8 Forest Service - Region 9 F9 Forest Service - Region 10 F10 Forest Service - Washington Office FWO Food Safety and Inspection Service FSIS Grain Inspection, Packers & Stockyards Administration GIPS Natural Resources Conservation Service NRCS Office of Inspector General OIG Office of the Secretary SEC Air Force, Department of the AF Architect of the Capitol AOTC Army, Department of the AR AFMO CONUS AC United States Army, Alaska AK Army Spectrum Management Office AR Corps of Engineers CE Military District of Washington DW Army Spectrum (Fort Meade) FM AFC, State of Arizona HU U.S. Army (State of Hawaii) HW Satellite/Communications SAT U.S. Army Pacific (does not include Hawaii) PA AFC, White
    [Show full text]
  • Kansas City Plant (KCP) Utilities
    FINAL - - - This page intentionally blank. - - - FINAL - - - This page intentionally blank. - - - Table of Contents FINAL Section Page POINTS OF CONTACT.............................................................................................................................................9 PREFACE ..................................................................................................................................................................11 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................................................13 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / FUTURE STATE ...........................................................................................17 2.0 ASSUMPTIONS..............................................................................................................................................23 3.0 MISSION NEEDS / PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS....................................................................................27 3.1 NNSA MISSIONS, PROGRAMS AND WORKLOAD .......................................................................................27 3.1.1 NNSA Directed Stockpile Work (DSW)................................................................................................28 3.1.2 Campaigns ...........................................................................................................................................36 3.1.3 Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF)............................................................................41
    [Show full text]
  • Transfer of the Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri
    DOE/EA-1947 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE TRANSFER OF THE KANSAS CITY PLANT, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI U.S. Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration February 2013 CONVERSION FACTORS Metric to English English to Metric Multiply by To get Multiply by To get Area Square kilometers 247.1 Acres Acres 0.0040469 Square kilometers Square kilometers 0.3861 Square miles Square miles 2.59 Square kilometers Square meters 10.764 Square feet Square feet 0.092903 Square meters Concentration Kilograms/sq. meter 0.16667 Tons/acre Tons/acre 0.5999 Kilograms/sq. meter Milligrams/liter 1a Parts/million Parts/million 1a Milligrams/liter Micrograms/liter 1a Parts/billion Parts/billion 1a Micrograms/liter Micrograms/cu. meter 1a Parts/trillion Parts/trillion 1a Micrograms/cu. meter Density Grams/cu. centimeter 62.428 Pounds/cu. ft. Pounds/cu. ft. 0.016018 Grams/cu. centimeter Grams/cu. meter 0.0000624 Pounds/cu. ft. Pounds/cu. ft. 16,025.6 Grams/cu. meter Length Centimeters 0.3937 Inches Inches 2.54 Centimeters Meters 3.2808 Feet Feet 0.3048 Meters Micrometers 0.00003937 Inches Inches 25,400 Micrometers Millimeters 0.03937 Inches Inches 25.40 Millimeters Kilometers 0.62137 Miles Miles 1.6093 Kilometers Temperature Absolute Degrees C + 17.78 1.8 Degrees F Degrees F − 32 0.55556 Degrees C Relative Degrees C 1.8 Degrees F Degrees F 0.55556 Degrees C Velocity/Rate Cu. meters/second 2,118.9 Cu. feet/minute Cu. feet/minute 0.00047195 Cu. meters/second Meters/second 2.237 Miles/hour Miles/hour 0.44704 Meters/second Volume Cubic meters 264.17
    [Show full text]
  • Conflict Or Bias Web Disclosure Form
    CONFLICT OR BIAS ORAU TEAM Dose Reconstruction WEB DISCLOSURE FORM Project for NIOSH DATE COMPLETED: 8/9/2011 ORAU TEAM EMPLOYEE'S NAME: Cardarelli, Ron EMPLOYER: CN Associates, Inc. [ ]Yes [x] No 1. Are you currently engaged in any capacity (paid or unpaid) by the U.S. Department of Energy? *A Yes indicates a conflict or bias with all DOE/AWE sites. DOE/AWE SITE(S) WHERE A CONFLICT OR BIAS EXISTS: DEFINITIONS: a. The term "work" means employment as a production manager, or management, direction or implementationb of radiation protection and health physics program policies, practices or procedures for the site or site operatorc. Student internships or fellowships and independent activities at the site funded by entities other than the site or site operatorc, such as audits, are not considered work for the site. b. The term "implementation" means developing, authorizing, controlling and/or professional level decision-making with regard to radiation protection and health physics program policies, practices, or procedures. It does not include mere adherence to those policies, practices or procedures by site personnel who are not directly employed by the health physics program. c. The term "operator" refers to the governmental and/or corporate entities, including their subcontractors, responsible for performing and overseeing day-to-day work activities at the site. d. The term "relative" means current spouse, child, parent, sibling, or grandparent and any survivor(s) of the same. e. The term "subordinate work relationship" means a relationship with an individual who is in the same reporting chain and who is within two organizational levels above your level in the organization.
    [Show full text]