What is your overall evaluation of this workshop session?

U.S. Department of State perspectives: 8

U.S. Department of Energy program overview: 5

Opportunities to network and interact with program and project team members: 5

Lessons learned, war stories, vendor success stories: 5

U.S. team members' descriptions of current projects: 4

Meeting format: 2

Meeting location and setting: 2

Discussion of future possibilities of work; participants' "tips" on dealing with foreign organizations: 1

No response: 8

All of the topics had value, were okay: 4

Review of status of 1997 projects: 1

Need to identify upcoming opportunities separate from ongoing projects. Expand upon liability protection for U.S. companies: 1

Time limits: 1

Specific, overly-detailed descriptions of individual contractors' tasks. Instruct contractor panelists to limit discussions of their tasks to facets that will be of general interest: 1

From a news perspective, the contractor "flashback" and overview of past work is of least value to me. However, if a contractor in attendance is looking to start work, that historical perspective would be most helpful: 1

Repetition between speakers of same points: 1

No response 3

Did not attend. 2

Positive overall, with no qualifications: 5

Positive with qualifications: 1

• Do again in future but add more formal structure to each speaker's comments.
• Generally good, but still too formal.
• Interesting format--but I assumed contractors would give more "insights" rather than list projects.
• Very positive, but give the speakers a table so they can write notes.
• Good exchange of ideas
• Format and participants are good but should be defined better before.

Negative: 1

• Format = too unstructured; content = too repetitious.

No response 4

None 1

Budgets: 5

• Greater detail on budgets by activity/project, proposed projects.
• How much spent on each item in budget, how items are selected for implementation.

More info on new opportunities: 5

• Informal discussion of how to attack and work opportunities; possible teaming.
• Perhaps a "forecast to industry" segment, laying out DOE/agency needs. Such a segment would give contractors strong business opportunities to look forward to.
• What is DoD doing?
• More on future target projects, where, what to be done, when. Get representatives of GAN, REA, and some sites here to speak next time, maybe Russia or Ukraine Customs.

PNNL assessment of which programs have been useful: 1

The regulatory (NRC) approach: 1

Other: 5

No response: 1

Every other year: 0

Once per year: 5

Every six months: 9

Other (specify interval): 1

Every other year OR once per year, depending on funding/level of activity.

No response: 4

Clarify objectives of meeting. Objectives from several "parties" probably exist: Department of State, DOE, PNNL, ANL, BNL, contractors, FSU utilities, FSU consultants/research institutes). Have everyone submit list of problems/questions and publish prior to meeting. Solutions and answers would then make up the agenda of the meeting: 4

Provide hard copies of viewgraphs before presentations: 3

List of upcoming opportunities, strategy for future projects: 3

Consider increasing attendance/participation by utilities and their in-country consultants/research institutes. Bring Russians and Ukrainians here: 2

Instruct participants in appropriate use of audience microphones and to provide their name and affiliation when beginning to speak: 2

Allow vendor CIS representatives to give their views on what is occurring: 1

Provide list of available in-country contacts: 1

Insist that speakers define all abbreviations, acronyms, initialisms used: 1

Limit number of speakers, unless their presentations differ substantially: 1