In 2006, The Fluor Corp. completed the Fernald closure project 12 years early and $7.8 billion below estimates. The overwhelming success of the project earned the 2007 Project Management Institute’s (PMI) Project of the Year Award. (Project Management Institute, 2012) The objective of the project was the environmental cleanup and site closure of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Fernald uranium production facility. The project was undertaken with the knowledge that government funding may not always be available, the public had a very poor perception of the project and current workers at the site would be laid off when the project was complete.
One of the ethical issues that developed early came from reports in the local press about waste, fraud and abuse. The Department of Energy (DOE) had to report to the U.S. Congress to address these allegations.
DOE has not exercised adequate management and oversight of the vitrification and uranyl projects or of the contractor’s safety and health activities. In addition, the contractor has not complied with some required procedures in maintaining its major performance and financial systems. As a result of these weaknesses, costs have increased, schedules have slipped, and safety and health risks exist. (United States General Accounting Office, 1997)
After the report was published, DOE and Fluor changed the way they did business. The project became more successful because DOE took a less hands on role and Fluor stepped up to the challenge to make sure the project was run according to government guidelines. Another issue that was prevalent from day one was the union workers and what would become of them when the project started and was completed. The workers had a concern of being laid off when the project started and then again when their portion of the project was complete. Fluor developed a strategy of retraining workers to