Departmental Response to the
Final Report of theCommission to Review the
Effectiveness of the National
Energy Laboratories
Report to CongressFebruary 2016

United States Department of Energy
Washington, DC 20585

Department of Energy | February 2016

Message from the Secretary
The Department of Energy (DOE) is, at its core, a science and technology organization that
advances critical missions for the American people: nuclear security; scientific leadership anddiscovery; clean energy innovation and energy security; emergency response; technology
transfer; and environmental remediation. DOE’s National Laboratories are key to mission
success across the broad spectrum of DOE's responsibilities.
The National Laboratories comprise the most comprehensive research network of its kind in theworld, and they are essential links in the Nation’s innovation chain. Each has distinctive
capabilities; together, they are greater than the sum of their parts. Individually and collectively,
the Labs conduct cutting-edge fundamental and applied scientific research, develop problemsolving technologies, and are one of the Nation’s most effective “on call” resources for tackling
unprecedented challenges – from the threat of unsecured nuclear materials as the Soviet Union
collapsed, to the Macondo oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, to the Fukushima nuclear disaster, todeep and rapid scientific analyses for the Iran nuclear negotiations.
The National Laboratories are an indispensable part of the American research enterprise,creating knowledge at the scientific frontier and housing major scientific facilities used by overthirty thousand university, laboratory and industry researchers annually. Core enabling
technologies – such as high performance computers and modeling of complex physical systems
and particle accelerators – are continuously pushed to new heights. In addition, completely
new directions are established for the research community, such as launching human genomics
and then developing the genomics field for energy. In turn, these advances have contributed
greatly over many decades to ensuring the competitiveness of U.S. industry and of the broader
economy. Well over a hundred science Nobel Prizes have been directly associated with DOE
National Laboratory research.
The labs also have helped spark the energy revolution, from early work on drilling technologies
and basin characterization for shale gas to materials discovery, advanced manufacturing
techniques, and other research that has driven down the cost of wind and solar, batteries andLEDs, and continues to do so.
And of course the labs are core national security assets, sustaining the nuclear deterrent
without testing, securing dangerous nuclear materials worldwide and propelling the nuclear
Departmental Response to the Final Report of the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of
the National Energy Laboratories | Page iDepartment of Energy | February 2016
Navy, and providing critical technology and analysis for the Departments of Defense andHomeland Security and the intelligence community.
These unique and invaluable capabilities must be developed, sustained, and nurtured overdecades. Sound stewardship of the laboratories has been one of my highest priorities as
Secretary. Top talent must be attracted and retained by providing a vibrant research
environment focused on challenging problems that call upon multidisciplinary teams
integrating scientific, engineering, and management expertise.
This stewardship and further strengthening of the National Lab enterprise is both a major
responsibility of and opportunity for DOE in service of the national interest. Recognizing thatsuccess in this endeavor has vital national consequences and meets critical national needs,
Congress directed formation of the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of the National
Energy Laboratories (CRENEL).
I thank the Commission for its conscientious and serious work. In formulating its
recommendations, the Commission visited all 17 DOE National Laboratories, interviewed staff
in more than 100 offices across government and other sectors, and heard testimony by 85
witnesses at public Commission meetings. There is no doubt that the Commission’s findings
and recommendations are thoroughly researched and a testament to the leadership of its CoChairs, Jared Cohon and TJ Glauthier. The Department has carefully considered each of theCommission’s findings and recommendations in formulating this response.
In addition, I have asked for input from the National Laboratory Directors’ Council (NLDC),
which is comprised of the Directors of all 17 National Laboratories, and the Secretary of Energy
Advisory Board (SEAB), a Federal Advisory Committee of experts outside the Department thatprovides advice to me on key issues. Both have provided me with thoughtful views to help
shape our response to the CRENEL report; their feedback is attached to this Departmental
response.
A central finding of the Commission reinforces the unparalleled value of the National
Laboratory system to the Nation, serving as a science and technology powerhouse, andoccupying a critical role that cannot be carried out solely by universities or the private sector.
However, the report also notes that since the end of the Cold War, oversight by DOE has grownincreasingly transactional rather than strategically mission-driven. One of my priorities as
Secretary has been to reset this critical relationship – to improve the strategic partnership
between the Department and the National Laboratories and, in emphasizing an enterprise-wide
Departmental Response to the Final Report of the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of
the National Energy Laboratories | Page ii

Department of Energy | February 2016
approach to the lab system, to help maximize their unique role in the Nation’s innovation
ecosystem.
The Commission also recognized the importance of an overarching strategic approach for thelaboratories. Steps that I have taken in recent years to underscore the value of such an
approach include:
•
•

•

•
•

•
•

reorganizing the Department to integrate and better coordinate basic research andapplied energy programs under a single Under Secretary for Science and Energy;
establishing a Laboratory Policy Council and a Laboratory Operations Board to convene
a senior-level strategic dialogue on key priorities and improve the effectiveness andefficiency of the laboratories’ execution of the DOE mission;
strengthening project management, including by establishing a Project Management
Risk Committee, restructuring the Energy Systems Acquisition Advisory Board, andreinforcing the independent peer review process;launching cross-cutting research initiatives that involve coordinated efforts between
DOE and multiple laboratories;
creating an annual Big Ideas Summit that convenes lab scientists and Departmental
program leadership to generate new mission-related research challenges of importanceto the Nation;
initiating an integrated approach to cyber issues through the establishment of the DOE
Cyber Council, in which the labs are called upon to play a significant role; andinaugurating a Technology Commercialization Fund for National Laboratory
collaboration with the private sector on energy technology development.

Not only do these and other changes make it possible for the labs to become engaged inproviding substantive input about research directions for the Department, but also they havehelped to form networks of labs with complementary capabilities to deliver results. All of thesesteps have been focused on reinvigorating the strategic partnership necessary for effective
stewardship of the laboratories as Federally Funded Research and Development Centers(FFRDCs).
The Commission’s report appropriately focuses on the importance of the FFRDC model inproviding an environment in which DOE sets the mission needs and provides oversight, while
the managing contractor and laboratory leadership and staff put together the teams andstructure programs in response to the mission needs, all in the public interest. The CRENEL
effort has contributed to our re-examination of the management framework for the National
Departmental Response to the Final Report of the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of
the National Energy Laboratories | Page iii

Department of Energy | February 2016
Laboratory system and how it can best serve the public interest. In addressing theCommission’s findings and recommendations, the Department’s response articulates anddefines core objectives that embody this concept of lab management and stewardship. These
objectives, along with the related recommendations from the Commission, are as follows:
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

Identify and provide necessary resources by conducting rigorous, comprehensive
strategic planning across DOE, to include the laboratories in the process(Recommendations 1, 20)
Assist Congress in its role of reviewing the laboratories by promoting greatertransparency with Congress and the taxpayer (Recommendations 1, 2, 30, 36)
Implement laboratory stewardship through partnership (Recommendations 2, 3, 4, 6, 9,
12, 21)Clarify roles and responsibilities (Recommendations 5, 10, 11)
Improve the development and implementation of requirements; improve the laboratory
oversight environment (Recommendations 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 18)
Improve annual laboratory planning and evaluation (Recommendations 3, 16, 20)
Manage the laboratories as a system, seeking to achieve maximum benefit for the
Nation (Recommendations 17, 19)
Beyond revising strategic planning, examine procedures to allow laboratories flexibility
to maintain excellence in the expertise of research staff (Recommendations 18, 19, and21)
Enhance laboratory mission-aligned collaboration with stakeholders and the broader
science and technology community (Recommendations 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28)Continue to develop the Institutional Cost Report (ICR) (Recommendations 29, 30)
Revitalize laboratory infrastructure, reduce the risk of excess facilities, and improve
project management (Recommendations 31, 32, 33, 34, 35)

It is evident that we have a shared vision for a National Laboratory system focused on
innovation, partnership, and stewardship that sustains the DOE laboratories as a science andtechnology powerhouse for the Nation. The CRENEL report, as well as inputs from SEAB andthe lab directors, will continue to help guide progress towards this vital imperative.
Sincerely,

Ernest J. Moniz
Departmental Response to the Final Report of the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of
the National Energy Laboratories | Page iv

Department of Energy | February 2016

Departmental Response to the Final Report of theCommission to Review the Effectiveness of the National
Energy Laboratories
Table of Contents
1

Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1

2

Response .................................................................................................................................. 23

2.1

Recognizing Value ............................................................................................................ 2

2.2

Rebuilding Trust ............................................................................................................... 6

2.3

Maintaining Alignment and Quality ............................................................................. 15

2.4

Maximizing Impact ........................................................................................................ 19

2.5Managing Effectiveness and Efficiency ......................................................................... 24

2.6

Ensuring Lasting Change ................................................................................................ 29

Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 31

Appendix: Full Set of Commission’s Recommendations ............................................................ 32
Attachment 1: Letter from the National Laboratory Directors' Council
Attachment 2: Memorandum from the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board

Departmental Response to the Final Report of the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of
the National Energy Laboratories | Page v

Department of Energy | February 2016

1 INTRODUCTION
Congress, through Section 319 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (Public Law 11376), directed the Secretary of Energy to establish an independent commission known as theCommission to Review the Effectiveness of the National Energy Laboratories (Commission). In
the legislation, Congress asked that the Commission review the 17 Department of Energy (DOE)
National Laboratories with respect to their alignment with DOE’s strategic priorities,
duplication, ability to meet current and future energy and national security challenges, size, andsupport of other Federal agencies. Congress also asked the Commission to consider whether
there are opportunities to more effectively and efficiently use the capabilities of the National
Laboratories, and to analyze the effectiveness of the use of laboratory directed research anddevelopment (LDRD) to meet DOE’s science, energy, and national security goals.
The Secretary established the independent Commission in May 2014, and it published its Final
Report in October 2015. In its report, the Commission concluded that the DOE laboratories are“a unique scientific resource and national security asset, providing a vital experimental
infrastructure to the Nation’s research community and sustaining the nuclear weapons
expertise crucial to modern American security” and are “a national treasure with the potential
to serve the nation now and well into the future.” The Commission noted that, while the DOE
laboratories serve the Nation well, they could be even more effective and efficient if they and
DOE improve their relationship, focusing on the principles of stewardship, accountability,competition, and partnership inherent in the fundamental model of Federally Funded Researchand Development Centers (FFRDC).1 To that end, the Commission offered 36 recommendations
for improvement that focus on six key themes.
As reflected in the Message from the Secretary, DOE agrees with the Commission that the DOE
laboratories provide unparalleled value to the Nation, serving as a science and technology
powerhouse and occupying a critical role that cannot be carried out solely by universities or theprivate sector. The laboratories produce innovations that spur the Nation’s economy, play a
critical role in our national security, and serve as a key catalyst for clean energy development
1

Pursuant to U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 48, Part 35, Section 35.017, “An FFRDC meets somespecial long-term research or development need which cannot be met as effectively by existing in-houseor contractor resources. FFRDC’s enable agencies to use private sector resources to accomplish tasks
that are integral to the mission and operation of the sponsoring agency. ...FFRDC’s are operated,managed, and/or administered by either a university or consortium of universities, other not-for-profit or
nonprofit organization, or an industrial firm, as an autonomous organization or as an identifiable separate
operating unit of a parent organization.”

Departmental Response to the Final Report of the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of
the National Energy Laboratories | Page 1

Department of Energy | February 2016
and climate mitigation strategies. Continued investments in the laboratories, coupled witheffective and efficient stewardship, are critical to strengthening and preserving this vital
partnership.

2 RESPONSE
DOE’s response to the Commission is organized around the six themes articulated by theCommission in its report: (1) recognizing value, (2) rebuilding trust, (3) maintaining alignmentand quality, (4) maximizing impact, (5) managing effectiveness and efficiency, and (6) ensuring
lasting change. For those themes, DOE has identified specific objectives which articulate
strategic outcomes that DOE seeks to achieve to effectuate its vision of laboratory stewardshipand partnership, and to respond to the Commission’s findings, conclusions, andrecommendations. The response then details those actions that DOE is engaged in, or willcommit to execute, to accomplish these objectives.

2.1 RECOGNIZING VALUE
The DOE National Laboratory system consists of 17 laboratories, each with a core mission andcore programmatic sponsor at DOE. Of the 17 laboratories, 16 are operated throughManagement and Operating (M&O) contracts. Some National Laboratories are focused on asingle DOE program, while others have a core program that is strengthened by work performed
for other DOE programs and sometimes for other government entities (such as DOD or DHS) or
private sector partners. DOE uses its laboratories to support and develop its priorities inprogram areas, and also develops and executes cross-cutting programs across the laboratories.
The Commission notes that a culture of scientific excellence, technical rigor, and missionfocused vision has defined the National Laboratories throughout their history and allowed themto serve the United States time and again. The Commission highlighted the unique andcollaborative role that the National Laboratories play in solving highly complex, multidisciplinary, long-term projects that span the basic sciences to research and development(R&D). This collaboration includes university partnerships, working with other Federal
agencies, the private sector, and more than 31,000 academic and industrial scientists who carryout research at DOE’s user facilities. More than 100 DOE laboratory-affiliated researchers havebeen awarded Nobel Prizes, and the National Laboratories have received over 800 R&D 100
Awards since 1962. Given this positive impact, the Commission concluded that sustainedFederal support of R&D at the National Laboratories is critical to the future of the science andtechnology enterprise as well as the Nation’s economy and security. By making the laboratory
system as efficient as possible and ensuring that it focuses on important endeavors not
Departmental Response to the Final Report of the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of
the National Energy Laboratories | Page 2

Department of Energy | February 2016
otherwise being addressed, DOE can maximize the quality of these R&D accomplishments of
the laboratories.
Commission Recommendations
Under the theme “recognizing value,” the Commission provided the following
recommendation:2
Recommendation 1: The National Energy Laboratories provide great value to the Nation in theirservice to DOE’s mission, the needs of the broader national science and technology community,
and the security needs of the Nation as a whole. The Administration and Congress should
provide the necessary resources to maintain these critical capabilities and facilities. It would also
benefit all stakeholders if the key committees in Congress would develop a more orderly processof reviewing the National Laboratories, to replace the unrelenting pace of studies evaluating theperformance of the DOE laboratories.
Discussion
DOE agrees with the Commission’s conclusion that the National Laboratories provide greatvalue to the Nation in their service to DOE’s mission, the needs of the broader national scienceand technology community, and the security needs of the Nation as a whole. The substance of
this first recommendation involves actions by DOE and by Congress. While DOE does not havea response to the Commission’s recommendations to Congress, it recognizes that DOE’s actions
can facilitate Congressional understanding and evaluation of the laboratories’ contributions andperformance.
DOE views the Commission’s recommendation that it provide the necessary resources tomaintain the critical capabilities and facilities of the laboratories in the broad framework of astrategic partnership with the laboratories that emphasizes performance. The following
principles guide DOE’s efforts to improve this partnership, so that it continues to provide value
to DOE and the Nation as a whole:•Creating an institutional environment with necessary and sufficient Federal oversightthat enables laboratories to best serve the public interest with objectivity andindependence and take reasonable risk in the pursuit of innovation

2

In the body of this report, Commission recommendations are stated in summary form. The full text ofCommission recommendations is provided in the Appendix.

Departmental Response to the Final Report of the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of
the National Energy Laboratories | Page 3

Department of Energy | February 2016••••

Encouraging laboratory employees to maintain their world-class capabilities and talentsin their field(s) of expertise
Ensuring that laboratories can provide a quick response capability to DOE and its otherstrategic partners
Promoting transparency between DOE, the laboratories, the government more broadly,
and the public
Facilitating the ability of the Laboratories to perform cutting edge research for otherentities in the national interest

DOE’s approach, then, to implementing this recommendation is twofold. First, DOE willcontinue and enhance its comprehensive planning processes, including involving thelaboratories in these planning efforts, to establish strategic direction and priorities, ensuringthat DOE makes the most of the available resources. Second, DOE will improve transparency
with Congress and with the taxpayer regarding how it is using those resources in the bestinterest of the Nation. The specific actions described here are intended to meet these two
objectives.
Specific Actions
OBJECTIVE: Identify and provide necessary resources by conducting rigorous,
comprehensive strategic planning across DOE, to include the laboratories in thisprocess (Recommendations 1, 20)
Current Strategic Planning Efforts. DOE currently conducts its strategic planning through the
preparation of a series of key studies and documents. They span the range from
Administration-wide policy studies to program-specific strategies.
•

With respect to DOE’s energy programs, the foundational planning drivers for policy andprogrammatic decisions are the Quadrennial Energy Review (QER) and the Quadrennial
Technology Review (QTR). They are designed to evaluate the current state of energyrelated science and technology, policy, infrastructure, and other energy-linked challenges tothe economy, environmental quality, and national security, and identify opportunities andrecommendations. The QER is an Administration-wide policy process, led by the WhiteHouse Domestic Policy Council and Office of Science and Technology Policy. DOE plays acritical role in the QER and is responsible for conducting the analysis, drafting the report,
stakeholder outreach, and supporting interagency coordination. Unlike other Federal
Quadrennial Review processes where an analysis is done every four years, the QER is
conducted through installments to allow for granular analysis of key energy sub-sectors.

Departmental Response to the Final Report of the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of
the National Energy Laboratories | Page 4

Department of Energy | February 2016••

The QTR is a planning process specific to DOE. It explores the current state of technologies
in key energy sectors and R&D opportunities present in the mid-term. It is intended toframe a blueprint for DOE energy technology development and the enabling science for
future technology breakthroughs.
With respect to DOE’s national security responsibilities, the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) produces two comprehensive planning documents that integrate
programmatic requirements across laboratories, plants, and sites. The Stockpile
Stewardship and Management Plan (SSMP) is DOE NNSA’s 25-year strategic program ofrecord for maintaining the safety, security, and effectiveness of the nuclear stockpile. The
SSMP is published annually, in response to statutory requirements, in report or summary
form, to support the President’s Budget submission to Congress for Weapons Activities. As
recommended by the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB) Task Force on Nuclear
Nonproliferation, a new report, Prevent, Counter, and Respond – A Strategic Plan to
Reduce Global Nuclear Threats, articulates for the first time, in a single document, the
NNSA programs to reduce the threat of nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear terrorism. As
such, it serves as a companion document to the annual SSMP.
The results from these foundational reports on DOE’s energy and national security
responsibilities are integrated into DOE’s Strategic Plan. DOE’s most recent Strategic Plan
for 2014–2018, published in March 2014, is a comprehensive blueprint to guide theagency’s core missions and provides a roadmap for the work of DOE, highlights major
priorities, and provides the basis for individual DOE program plans.

Future Laboratory Participation. The National Laboratories are already important partners in
the development of DOE’s key strategic planning documents. They provide important technicalinput and expertise that informs DOE’s analysis and planning efforts. Each of these documents
will be refreshed on a periodic basis to reflect the evolving challenges, technologies, andopportunities facing DOE in the execution of its missions. As part of its efforts to strengthen its
partnership with the National Laboratories, DOE will continue to engage with them indeveloping future updates to these documents.
OBJECTIVE: Assist Congress in its role of reviewing the laboratories by promoting
greater transparency with Congress and with the taxpayer (Recommendations 1, 2, 30,
36)
Starting in 2016, DOE will begin providing an annual report to Congress on the State of theLaboratory System. The purpose of the report will be to describe key initiatives of the National
Laboratories, including how the system as a whole is serving the Nation through collective andDepartmental Response to the Final Report of the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of
the National Energy Laboratories | Page 5

Department of Energy | February 2016
cross-cutting activities. It also will articulate DOE’s operational successes and continued
challenges in stewarding the laboratories, including DOE’s status in implementing key actions
described in this response. The first of these reports will be more comprehensive, providing ahistory and background on the National Laboratories and establishing a foundation for future
annual updates. Developing the annual updates will be a collaborative effort among the three
Under Secretary offices, facilitated by the Laboratory Operations Board (LOB). The annual
report will be endorsed by the Laboratory Policy Council (LPC) and issued by the Secretary.
DOE also will continue to conduct Lab Day on the Hill events. The first, held in September
2014, included Laboratory Directors and representatives from all 17 National Laboratories andshowcased demonstration projects across five theme areas – energy innovation andenvironmental sustainability, manufacturing innovations, high performance computing,national security, and discovery science. The second, in July 2015, highlighted the National
Laboratory system’s scientific and technological contributions towards developing America’s
new energy infrastructure, focusing on: grid modernization, sub-surface science, sustainabletransportation, and integrated energy systems. In October 2015, Lab Day focused on the roleof the National Laboratories in nuclear nonproliferation, national defense, homeland security
and counter terrorism, emergency response, and stockpile stewardship. The next, Science Dayon the Hill, is planned for April 2016, and an Environmental Stewardship Day on the Hill isplanned for fall 2016. These events are a valuable tool not only to share the good work of DOE
and its laboratories but also to raise the laboratory system’s awareness of broader
Congressional interests and to hear feedback from stakeholders.

2.2 REBUILDING TRUSTThe Commission noted that a basic premise of the FFRDC/M&O model is trust. The Commission
stated that “the government is responsible for setting the ‘what’ of strategic program direction
to meet the Nation’s needs, while contracted university and industry partners are responsiblefor determining precisely ‘how’ to meet the technical and scientific challenges and to carry out
programs.” The Commission noted that a strength of this model when it is working properly is
to provide freedom to innovate without overly intrusive management. The Commission
observed that trust between DOE and the laboratories has eroded, which has resulted in overly
prescriptive management in some areas. The Commission also recognized, however, that“there is significant improvement being made in this area under the current Secretary anddirectors of the National Laboratories, and wishes to support these and other steps” including

Departmental Response to the Final Report of the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of
the National Energy Laboratories | Page 6

Department of Energy | February 2016
reactivating the National Laboratory Directors’ Council (NLDC), the LOB, and other forums forcollaboration of various groups within DOE and the laboratories.
Commission Recommendations
Under the theme “rebuilding trust,” the Commission provided the following recommendations:
Recommendation 2: DOE should delegate more authority and flexibility to the laboratories andhold them accountable for results. The laboratories must be transparent with DOE.
Recommendation 3: DOE and each laboratory should cooperatively develop a high level annual
operating plan, and DOE should provide increased flexibility and authority to the laboratory
within that framework.
Recommendation 4: DOE should implement greater leadership and management development
for its Federal workforce, including multi-directional rotational assignments.
Recommendation 5: DOE should separate NETL’s research and development function andconsider converting it to a government-owned, contractor-operated FFRDC. NETL should
increase its interactions and collaboration with universities.
Recommendation 6: DOE should abandon incentive award fees in the M&O contracts in favor ofa fixed fee set at competitive rates. DOE should adopt a broader and richer set of incentives andconsequences to motivate sound laboratory management and enforce accountability.
Recommendation 7: For non-nuclear, non-high- hazard, unclassified activities, DOE should allow
laboratories to use Federal, State, and national standards in place of DOE requirements. DOE
should review and minimize approval processes.
Recommendation 8: DOE should modify its processes for developing directives, orders and otherrequirements to more fully engage subject matter experts and to use a risk-based model.
Recommendation 9: DOE should focus on making the use of Contractor Assurance System (CAS)more uniform across the laboratories, and local overseers should rely on information from the
CAS systems.
Recommendation 10: The role of the site office should be emphasized as one of “mission
support,” with all staff in the site office reporting to the site office manager. DOE should devote
more effort to leadership training and professional development of field staff.

Departmental Response to the Final Report of the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of
the National Energy Laboratories | Page 7

Department of Energy | February 2016
Recommendation 11: DOE should clarify the role and authority of the support centers and alignall authorities at either the site office or DOE headquarters, as appropriate.
Recommendation 12: All stakeholders should make maximum use of local assessments
performed by site offices and laboratories.
Recommendation 13: DOE should establish a single point of control—within the Department or
each stewarding program office—for all laboratory-directed data requests.
Recommendation 14: DOE and its program offices should increase the size of funding
increments, extend timelines and minimize milestones for each increment, and institutionalize
mechanisms for laboratory flexibility to move money between budget codes.
Recommendation 15: Congress should repeal Section 301(d) of the FY 2015 Consolidated
Appropriations Act as soon as feasible to remedy the transactional burden it creates for OMB,DOE Headquarters, and the laboratories when operating under a continuing resolution.
Discussion
DOE agrees with the Commission that there is a need to return to the spirit of the FFRDC
model. FFRDCs enable government agencies to work with private sector partners to accomplish
tasks that are integral to the mission and operation of the sponsoring agency. The FFRDC isrequired to conduct its business in a manner befitting its special relationship with thegovernment, to operate in the public interest with objectivity and independence and with fulltransparency to its sponsoring agency. To do this, DOE and the National Laboratories must
work together as partners to restore the ideal nature of the FFRDC relationship as a culture oftrust and accountability. To that end, the specific actions outlined here focus on achieving
three objectives: (1) implement Laboratory stewardship through partnership, (2) clarify roles
and responsibilities, and (3) improve the development and implementation of requirements, aswell as the laboratory oversight environment.
Specific Actions
OBJECTIVE: Implement laboratory stewardship through partnership (Recommendations
2, 3, 4, 6, 12, 21)
Existing Initiatives. Consistent with the FFRDC model, DOE will ensure its laboratory
stewardship responsibilities are founded on the trusting partnership that must exist between
Federal and laboratory leadership. Maintaining this partnership requires developing a strong
set of tools that will allow all DOE programs to consistently and effectively partner with the
Departmental Response to the Final Report of the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of
the National Energy Laboratories | Page 8

Department of Energy | February 2016
laboratories; delegating authorities to the laboratories where warranted; and investing inleadership development for both Federal and laboratory staff. DOE has established two joint
Federal-Laboratory bodies that provide the leadership and enterprise-wide coordination toeffectuate this commitment to a partnership model: the LPC and the LOB.
•••In July 2013, the Secretary established the Laboratory Policy Council (LPC) to provide aforum to include the National Laboratories in strategic discussions of DOE’s policy andprogram planning process, and for DOE to provide strategic guidance on National
Laboratory activities. The LPC, chaired by the Secretary and comprised of senior DOE
leadership and the National Laboratories Directors’ Council Executive Committee, convenes
three times a year and serves as an important forum for exploring nascent proposals related
to new research directions, building human capacity, and improving communications;discussing progress and guidance on initiatives, such as technology transition pilots andemergency response. Discussions within the LPC have focused on crosscutting
Departmental initiatives, DOE-lab studies by external bodies, management challenges, andworkforce and leadership diversity.
The Laboratory Operations Board was chartered in October 2013, with a charge “tostrengthen and enhance the partnership between DOE and the National Laboratories, andto improve management and performance.” One of its early efforts illustrates theenterprise-wide impact of the group: the LOB led a first-ever enterprise wide assessment ofgeneral purpose infrastructure across all 17 National Laboratories and NNSA sites andplants, using newly-established metrics to provide a uniform assessment of infrastructuresuch as utilities, HVAC systems, and office buildings. This initiative provided the basis for an
additional $106 million requested by DOE, and funded by Congress in the Fiscal Year (FY)2016 appropriations, targeted for general purpose infrastructure projects. Since then, the
LOB has led DOE on other operations and management issues ranging from the strategic –e.g. coordinating a similar enterprise-wide effort to provide updated assessments andprioritization of unused and contaminated “excess” facilities, to the targeted – e.g. updating
Departmental policy on Strategic Partnership Projects and then building a community ofpractice to promulgate best practices and streamline approvals.
The LPC and LOB have proven to be successful partnership forums where issues can beraised and solutions can be debated with relevant stakeholders engaged. These bodies willcontinue to play an important role in providing insight into key Departmental strategy andmanagement issues. They are closely integrated with the laboratory leadership, as theexecutive committee of the NLDC sits on the LPC, and the chairs of the laboratory Chief
Operating Officer and Chief Research Officer working groups are members of the LOB. The

Departmental Response to the Final Report of the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of
the National Energy Laboratories | Page 9

Department of Energy | February 2016
charters of these two key leadership groups will be amended to clearly establish that a key
focus area of each initiative should be to address issues counter to the DOE/laboratory
partnership, and to establish mechanisms to identify and remedy those as they arise.
Increasing Flexibility and Accountability through Annual Operating Plans. DOE appreciates therecommendation from the Commission regarding annual operating plans, which would reflect
high-level agreements on the nature and scope of the laboratory’s activities. As discussed
below in Section 2.3, DOE has already embarked on an effort to improve the existing annual
planning process as well as the performance management process through DOE’s existing
annual Performance Evaluation and Management Plans (PEMPs). These improvements are
responsive to some of the increased transparency, accountability, and predictability oflaboratory planning that the Commission’s report recommends, and DOE is currently evaluating
whether existing Departmental mechanisms can be further enhanced to address theCommission’s concerns. In addition to these ongoing efforts to strengthen annual laboratory
planning and evaluation processes, DOE is undertaking a number of other steps.
•••

DOE also is evaluating whether a pilot of the annual operating plan concept at one or two
National Laboratories (or areas within a laboratory) would result in added streamlined
management without creating a duplicative process.3 Any pilot effort would be focused on
establishing a high-level understanding and agreement on the laboratory’s planned work forthe year, which could then be used to guide and expedite various approval processes
throughout the course of the year.
As a result of related recommendations from SEAB, DOE has initiated an “evolutionary”
working group effort to identify specific authorities that can be delegated, on a pilot basis
at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, to improve efficiency and reduce transactionaloversight. Some of the recommendations for this group likely will lead to changes to
Departmental-wide policies.
Similarly, DOE has initiated a second “revolutionary” working group to examine thelaboratory contract structure at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, with the objectiveof developing a more streamlined approach to improve the partnership and reducetransactional oversight.

Leadership Development Rotational Assignments. The LOB has established a working groupwith the DOE Chief Human Capital Officer (CHCO) to develop and implement a pilot for a3

In comments to DOE on the Commission report, the Executive Committee of the National Laboratory
Directors’ Council raised a concern that a new annual operating plan might be duplicative of current
requirements such as the PEMPs.

Departmental Response to the Final Report of the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of
the National Energy Laboratories | Page 10

Department of Energy | February 2016
leadership development rotational program that would offer DOE Federal and laboratory midlevel and senior employees opportunities to rotate to laboratory or Federal sites. These
rotational assignments would provide opportunities for a detail to a limited-term team that is
focused on a unique project or solving a complex problem; longer term assignments also would
be considered on a case-by-case basis. The rotational program, to be run by the CHCO office
and anticipated to begin in 2016, is intended to promote greater common understanding of the
management challenges and opportunities between the laboratories and the Federal
employees, and to strengthen partnership and trust.
Incentive Award Fees. With respect to the M&O contract incentive structure, theCommission’s recommendations are most applicable to the NNSA contracts. Informed by
feedback from the M&O community, NNSA is developing an M&O overarching procurement
strategy guide that will include contract structure and incentive guidance for use when eachspecific acquisition strategy is initiated and approved for future competitions of NNSA’s M&O
contracts. This new contracting strategy will identify the appropriate application of incentive
and fixed fee for NNSA contracts when the procurements for those contracts arise.
OBJECTIVE: Clarify roles and responsibilities (Recommendations 5, 10, 11)
Headquarters and Field Management. In general, program management responsibility andstrategic direction reside at DOE Headquarters whereas field offices provide day-to-day
implementation and are advocates for mission work at the sites. DOE is taking steps to clarify
the roles and responsibilities of the headquarters, program, field, and laboratory organizations.
This will help strengthen the partnership between DOE and the labs and improve theimplementation of core operational mechanisms and risk management, such as the Contractor
Assurance System (CAS).
A working group of the LOB is developing a DOE/Laboratory Management Framework
document to be completed in 2016, which will describe the current operational frameworkacross the Department, identify those parts of the framework that have added value to the
DOE/laboratory relationship, and articulate core management principles relevant to the
DOE/laboratory relationship to be implemented by the Under Secretaries.
Each DOE program will review its field authorities and structure as part of this effort, including
to ensure that Contracting Officers report to line managers. In addition, each program will
formalize a field manager training and professional development program that provides for
effective workforce planning and instills an understanding of “mission support” as the primarysite office role.
Departmental Response to the Final Report of the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of
the National Energy Laboratories | Page 11

Department of Energy | February 2016
In particular, NNSA will execute plans to improve its governance and oversight of field
operations at its laboratories, sites, and plants and clarifying roles and responsibilities. The new
approach will clarify the oversight roles of headquarters and field office personnel, placingemphasis on new rigorous and dependable Contractor Assurance Systems (described below),
and leveraging best practices from the Office of Science, including enhancing peer review andcorporate parent involvement as appropriate for each site. In addition, to manage andeliminate duplication in field oversight, NNSA’s field offices will use a Site Integrated
Assessment Plan (SIAP) to identify their annual oversight requirements. This effort is intended
to result in a consolidated schedule across all field offices and to assign resources based on
expertise and functional area.
National Energy Technology Laboratory. The Commission also recommends for National
Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), the only DOE National Laboratory that is government
owned and government operated (GOGO), that there is a need for “significantly increased
clarity and focus on the R&D mission for the research staff at NETL and for others outside NETL
who work with them.” The Commission recommends that DOE should separate NETL’s R&D
function from its management of Federal programs, and that the R&D function should be
converted to “a government-owned contractor-operated FFRDC.”
While DOE agrees there is a need for increased focus on the R&D conducted by NETL’s
scientists, the Department notes that there are several ways to pursue such a focus. In the nearterm, focus on the R&D can be better achieved by integrating and synchronizing NETL’s
intramural and extramural research portfolio. This integration will better focus NETL’s
research, enhance NETL’s collaborations with researchers in academia, industry, and other
National Laboratories, and increase NETL’s ability to consistently provide better science andresearch results. The Office of Fossil Energy recognizes the need to enhance NETL parity withother GOGOs within the Federal government by giving flexibility and discretion to drive
innovation through mechanisms similar to those authorized by the National Defense
Authorization Act. These mechanisms permit discretionary funds to strengthen scientific andtechnical vitality and create a flexible personnel system (e.g., direct-hire authority for scientificand engineering positions, broad-banded pay systems, simplified job classification,
contribution-based compensation system, and enhanced training and development) to attract
and retain scientific and technical expertise.

Departmental Response to the Final Report of the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of
the National Energy Laboratories | Page 12

Department of Energy | February 2016
OBJECTIVE: Improve the development and implementation of requirements; improve
the laboratory oversight environment (Recommendations 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 18)
DOE has initiated a comprehensive review of how, when, and why it establishes its own set of
requirements, with a charge to take a fresh look at mechanisms including directives, policy
memoranda, and acquisition letters. A workshop with a wide set of perspectives (both Federal
and laboratory) is being convened in early 2016 with the goal of identifying specific challenges
to tackle; it will be sponsored by the LOB and co-chaired by a Federal and a laboratory
employee. Part of that effort is expected to discuss DOE requirements that are duplicative ofFederal, State and National standards and whether there are circumstances where laboratories
should be able to use those standards in place of DOE requirements. The effort also will
evaluate proposals to streamline the processes for developing directives and otherrequirements.
In addition, the Commission noted that data calls “can often arrive at the laboratories without
being sufficiently vetted or filtered.” The Commission indicated that the Office of Science (SC)has reduced the number of data calls by establishing a single point of contact for data requests
for all of its 10 laboratories. Consistent with the Commission’s recommendation, NNSA and theprograms that oversee the applied laboratories plan to evaluate the process used in SC anddetermine what actions would be appropriate for their programs and their respective
laboratories.
The Commission report also recommended that DOE identify opportunities to reduce thetransactional burden associated with funding allotments, as well as to evaluate whether
Congress should repeal Section 301(d) of the FY 2015 Consolidated Appropriations Act.
DOE is limited in the actions it can take without Congress to reduce the subdivision of funding
into smaller “buckets.” The annual appropriations act for DOE subdivides DOE’s funding into
more than 500 legally-binding control points, as enforced by section 301(d). Additional control
points also are sometimes established administratively through the OMB apportionment
process and the internal DOE funds distribution process.
DOE’s Office of the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) has been working with the program offices toreduce the subdivision of funds below the Congressional control points. As the Commission
points out, the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy has recently moved
towards larger grants with longer periods of performance and fewer milestones and reporting
requirements. In addition, increased transparency should reduce the introduction of control
points.
Departmental Response to the Final Report of the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of
the National Energy Laboratories | Page 13

Department of Energy | February 2016
The Section 301 (d) restriction can be troublesome during periods when DOE funding isprovided through Continuing Resolutions rather than through an annual appropriations Act.
Because the Continuing Resolution typically provides funding at the same level and under thesame terms and conditions as the prior year appropriation, it can significantly restrict flexibility
as programs transition to the new fiscal year. Also, because a Continuing Resolution is typicallyenacted for short periods of time, there may not be adequate time to process reprogrammings
to address issues where additional program flexibility may be needed. The Administration
succeeded in obtaining a waiver of section 301 for the NNSA Weapons Activities appropriationin the FY 2013 full year continuing resolution. No other DOE programs received a section
301(d) waiver in the FY 2013 continuing resolution, and reprogrammings—often requiring
months for formulation and Congressional approval—were required to reallocate funds toaddress requirements. Congress has not waived the provision in any subsequent continuing
resolutions or conference appropriations Acts. DOE would work with the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees if they choose to repeal section 301(d) to develop mechanisms thatwill preserve Congressional oversight and ensure Departmental accountability while improving
management efficiency and effectiveness. In addition, DOE is exploring mechanisms for better
integrating disparate funding streams to have a larger impact, such as is being done in the Grid
Modernization Laboratory Consortium.
With respect to the oversight environment, the Contractor Assurance Systems (CAS) willcontinue to serve as a system for the contractor to manage performance consistent with
contract requirements. Under this system, the oversight of activities with potentially highconsequences is given high priority and greater emphasis. In addition, DOE oversight programs
are designed and conducted commensurate with the level of risk of the activities. A working
group led by the LOB has been reviewing how the various offices operate CAS at thelaboratories under their purview and is developing a policy document which articulates highlevel CAS principles, to help further more uniform application across the complex. These
principles of Contractor Assurance, roles/responsibilities, and levels of risk acceptance underlie
DOE/laboratory interactions, and so these core CAS principles will be incorporated into the
DOE/Laboratory Management Framework document described above. In addition, NNSA is in
the process of updating its CAS process to more closely mirror the Office of Science model, toinclude using peer reviews to analyze the strength of the CAS systems.
In the areas of Federal safety and security oversight, DOE has enhanced the way oversight isconducted organizationally, procedurally, and operationally. In 2014, the Secretary established
the Office of Enterprise Assessments to consolidate and manage all independent safety andsecurity assessments within DOE. At the same time, the Office of Environment, Health, Safety,
Departmental Response to the Final Report of the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of
the National Energy Laboratories | Page 14

Department of Energy | February 2016
and Security was established to serve as the organization responsible for policy development
and technical assistance; safety analysis; and corporate safety and security programs. These
actions provided a clear distinction between operational awareness and independent oversight
responsibilities. DOE will continue to work to improve the oversight process, including
addressing duplication where appropriate and sharing best practices.

2.3 MAINTAINING ALIGNMENT AND QUALITYThe Commission’s report noted the critical role of DOE in providing strategic direction to thelaboratory system. The Commission indicates what it finds to be a lack of a comprehensive
strategic planning process across DOE, but states that it finds that the laboratories’ “research
programs and capabilities are generally well-aligned with DOE’s missions and strategic
priorities.” The Commission provides recommendations for improving planning efforts at DOE,
including adopting elements of the Office of Science strategic planning process more broadly
across DOE.
Commission Recommendations
Under the theme “maintaining alignment and quality,” the Commission provided the following
recommendations:
Recommendation 16: Other DOE program offices should adapt the procedures and processes
that DOE’s Office of Science has for guiding and assessing the alignment of the laboratories with
DOE’s missions and priorities.
Recommendation 17: The processes that the Office of Science has in place for assessing thequality of laboratory research and the quality of the research portfolio in each of its programs,
should be adapted by the other DOE program offices.
Recommendation 18: There must be a government-wide reconsideration of the conference
travel restrictions.
Recommendation 19: The Commission strongly endorses LDRD programs and supports restoring
the cap on LDRD to 6 percent unburdened, or its equivalent.
Recommendation 20: DOE should manage the National Laboratories as a system having an
overarching strategic plan that gives the laboratories flexibility. Once the research has matured
to the point that a preferred or most promising approach can be identified, the Department
should provide strategic oversight and guidance to coordinate and consolidate programs.
Departmental Response to the Final Report of the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of
the National Energy Laboratories | Page 15

Department of Energy | February 2016
Recommendation 21: Congress should recognize that the technical capabilities currently housed
within the NNSA laboratories are essential to the Nation. Maintaining the nuclear explosive
package capabilities in separate and independent facilities has proven effective and should
continue.
Discussion
DOE agrees with the Commission that strategic planning involving both DOE and thelaboratories is critical to advancing the strategic direction of the laboratory system. To that
end, DOE has identified three objectives: (1) improve laboratory planning and evaluation; (2)manage the laboratories as a system, seeking to achieve maximum benefit for the Nation; and(3) beyond revising strategic planning, examine procedures to allow Laboratories flexibility tomaintain excellence in the expertise of research staff.
Specific Actions
OBJECTIVE: Improve annual laboratory planning and evaluation (Recommendations 3,
16, 20)The Secretary has initiated several efforts to bring moreconsistency to the management and oversight of the DOE
laboratories, and DOE has established an Agency Priority
Goal for FY 2016-FY 2017 (and related Strategy) that will
ensure focus is maintained on these efforts (see box).

Agency Priority Goal: Deliver thehighest quality R&D and production
capabilities, strengthen partnerships
with DOE headquarters, and improve
management of the physicalinfrastructure of the National
Laboratories to enable efficientleadership in science, technology, andnational security.

First, DOE has already begun to develop a consistentannual laboratory planning approach to track and assesslaboratory planning and evaluation. In this effort, DOE isestablishing a Laboratory Planning Working Group,
Strategy - Develop and implement a
convened by the Under Secretary for Science and Energy
consistent, annual process to track
and with participation from NNSA and the Office ofand assess laboratory planning andEnvironmental Management, to create a framework forevaluation.
consistent laboratory planning processes. Consistent with
Commission recommendations 16 and 17, NNSA and theapplied energy offices will model their revised processes using core elements and attributes
from the lab planning process used by the Office of Science (SC). As is done in SC, the annuallaboratory plans will inform the PEMPs, infrastructure plans, and 10-Year Site Plans. A keyelement for programs and Under Secretarial offices is to ensure that these annual planning

Departmental Response to the Final Report of the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of
the National Energy Laboratories | Page 16

Department of Energy | February 2016
efforts provide senior-level vision and direction that will help better integrate efforts rather
than simply adding another process or level of review.
Second, DOE has efforts underway regarding improvements to annual laboratory planning.
Specifically, NNSA is working to improve its strategic planning process and partnership efforts
by establishing a laboratory strategic planning function in the NNSA Office of Policy within the
Office of the Administrator. NNSA will work with each of the Lab Directors and NNSA field
office managers to establish this new process, which will include an annual high-level strategic
discussion at which each Laboratory Director presents his or her long-term strategic vision, to
include the complex factors and competing objectives that each national laboratory balances,while continuing to assure national security mission success. The discussion will also include
longer-term issues that the Director considers vital to the mission success of the laboratory.
Third, the Office of the Under Secretary for Science and Energy has initiated efforts to improve
the annual lab planning processes for the applied energy laboratories under its purview. The
Office is developing coordinated and uniform guidance for applied energy labs to submit an
Annual Laboratory Plan which will track the process and timing used in the Office of Science.
The process will also include presentations by the laboratories of its key priorities.
Finally, the Office of Environmental Management (EM), will establish an entity that is
responsible for the stewardship of Savannah River National Laboratory. This entity will manage
the process for annual laboratory program guidance, planning, and evaluation, and will serve asa focal point for other key laboratory stewardship activities, such as Strategic Partnership
Projects (SPP) and LDRD. EM will implement a planning and evaluation process with coreelements and attributes developed from the Office of Science model.
In addition to these annual lab planning improvements, DOE also has efforts underway to makethe lab performance management process more uniform across DOE. In 2014, the Office of theUnder Secretary for Science and Energy chartered a Laboratory Performance Management
Working Group to better align the processes used by the program offices to annually evaluate
the laboratories’ performance, using the Office of Science PEMP process as a model. This groupdeveloped several recommendations that are being implemented by DOE, through the Under
Secretaries, in FY 2016. The recommendations provide for: consistent annual laboratory
performance plans across all laboratories with common hierarchy; standard nomenclature anddefinitions of terms; the identification and evaluation of a laboratory’s leadership role in cross–cutting initiatives with inter-laboratory collaboration (e.g., Grid Modernization); andperformance feedback from all major sponsors (both DOE and non-DOE) of work at alaboratory. In 2016, the Under Secretary for Science and Energy will integrate this ongoing
Departmental Response to the Final Report of the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of
the National Energy Laboratories | Page 17

Department of Energy | February 2016
effort to improve the PEMP process with the new annual laboratory planning approachdescribed above.
OBJECTIVE: Manage the Laboratories as a system, seeking to achieve maximum benefit
for the Nation (Recommendations 17, 19)
A number of the efforts described above go to the efforts to manage the laboratories as asystem. This includes the enterprise-wide bodies that provide strategic direction and vision to
improve the lab partnership–including the LPC and the LOB–as well as the cross-departmentallaboratory planning and performance working group that seek to not just improve planning at asingle laboratory, but to better integrate planning across the system. In addition, theDepartmental reorganization of the Under Secretary offices moved the basic research andapplied energy programs under the newly-established Under Secretary for Science and Energy
to better coordinate lab research and development activities. DOE will use future updates of
the Science and Energy Plan, the NNSA SSMP, and the report entitled “Prevent, Counter, andRespond – A Strategic Plan to Reduce Global Nuclear Threats,” to articulate decisions pertaining
to an appropriate level of duplication of research and synergies in the DOE-laboratory
crosscuts.
Moreover, DOE will continue collaboration through DOE-laboratory crosscuts, and will use theenhanced lab planning approach to inform, for example, crosscutting teams, and plans andproposals submitted to the National Laboratory Big Ideas Summit. The Under Secretary for
Science and Energy will continue to sponsor an annual National Laboratory Big Ideas Summit,
which brings together subject matter experts from DOE’s science and energy offices as well as
the Office of Energy Policy and Systems Analysis, the NNSA, and all 17 National Laboratories(including their Directors and senior research staff) to propose and explore innovative ideas forsolutions to key energy issues. The first Summit resulted in major Departmental initiatives in FY
2015 and FY 2016, including the Grid Modernization Laboratory Consortium, which is led by
two Federal and two Laboratory representatives.
OBJECTIVE: Beyond revising strategic planning, examine procedures to allow
Laboratories flexibility to maintain excellence in the expertise of research staff.
(Recommendations 18, 19 and 21)
Through discussions with the National Laboratory Directors’ Council (NLDC) and their working
groups, as well as through the LPC and LOB, DOE will continue to identify additional methods
and mechanisms to manage the Laboratories as a system with maximum flexibility to pursue
new, mission-relevant lines of inquiry.
Departmental Response to the Final Report of the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of
the National Energy Laboratories | Page 18

Department of Energy | February 2016
Of particular note, DOE welcomes the Commission’s support for LDRD programs. The LDRD
Program provides the laboratories with the opportunity and flexibility to establish and maintainan environment that encourages and supports creativity and innovation, and contributes totheir long-term viability. LDRD allows DOE’s laboratories to position themselves to advance thenational security mission and respond to the Nation’s future research needs. The Commission
recommended that Congress restore the cap on LDRD to 6 percent unburdened, or its
equivalent, noting that this will have the largest impact on LDRD at the NNSA laboratories. The
recently-enacted FY 2016 National Defense Authorization Act increased funding for LDRD with aminimum rate of 5 percent and a maximum of 7 percent of the NNSA laboratories’ operating
budgets, a level more consistent with historic NNSA levels.
DOE also is working to promulgate best practices on LDRD throughout DOE. DOE will establish
a best practices process in FY 2016 to help the National Laboratories improve the flow ofoutcomes from LDRD to missions. This working group, led by NNSA but involving the other
Under Secretary offices as well, also will develop an electronic forum in 2016 to document andshare best practices. In FY 2016, DOE will issue a LDRD Highlights document; NNSA also will
share the individual annual lab reports with Congress and provide an annual briefing forstakeholders on the benefits realized due to LDRD investments.
In regard to conference management procedures, as the Commission notes, DOE has taken
efforts to revise and refine the existing processes, including to streamline administrative actions
and reduce transactional oversight, while meeting all legal requirements and maintaining
appropriate management controls to ensure cost-effectiveness.
DOE also is streamlining its approval requirements relating to laboratory employee benefits toprovide laboratories greater flexibility to manage their workforce. Among these changes,
following the issuance of the Commission’s report, in January 2016 DOE revised its process toeliminate prior approval of new or revised benefit plan changes, with the exception of changes
that result in increased costs or that are contrary to Departmental policy or written
instructions. DOE also agrees that the timing of its process for reviewing pension funding plans
should be addressed and is working to streamline those processes.

2.4 MAXIMIZING IMPACT
The Commission finds that the “National Laboratories represent a national asset of inestimablevalue” but notes that more can be done to tap the capabilities of the laboratories, especially insupport of economic competitiveness. The laboratories interact with stakeholders beyond DOE– including other Federal agencies and the private sector. The Commission states that more
Departmental Response to the Final Report of the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of
the National Energy Laboratories | Page 19

Department of Energy | February 2016
can be done to broaden collaboration and to make the laboratories run efficiently andeffectively.
Commission Recommendations
Under the theme “maximizing impact,” the Commission provided the following
recommendations:
Recommendation 22: DOE should establish policies and procedures to make the StrategicPartnership Projects (SPP) process more efficient.
Recommendation 23: DOE should support efforts to strengthen the Mission Executive Council.
Recommendation 24: DOE and its laboratories should continue to facilitate and encourage
engagement with universities.
Recommendation 25: DOE should fully embrace the technology transition mission and continue
improving the speed and effectiveness of collaborations. Innovative technology transfer andcommercialization mechanisms and best practices should continue to be pursued.
Recommendation 26: DOE should determine whether the annual operating plans could qualify
as the “agency approved strategic plan” under the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act
of 1980, and the Fast-Track CRADA Program. For CRADAs with non-standard terms andconditions, DOE should define the acceptable range for each term and condition to greatly
expedite negotiation and review/approval time.
Recommendation 27: Laboratories should pursue innovation-based economic development bypartnering with regional universities.
Recommendation 28: DOE, the Administration and Congress should continue to support user
facilities at the DOE laboratories, including peer review by external advisory groups.
Discussion
DOE agrees that the laboratories’ engagement with Federal and private sector partners is a vitalelement of their mission. The DOE laboratories are major national scientific and technicalassets whose contributions to the United States at large, and in areas beyond the DOE missions,
are significant. In addition, the DOE laboratories can play a regional role in supporting
universities and community colleges by providing partnering opportunities and serving as aconduit to the broader laboratory network. DOE’s objective in this area is as follows: enhance
Departmental Response to the Final Report of the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of
the National Energy Laboratories | Page 20

Department of Energy | February 2016
laboratory mission-aligned collaboration with stakeholders and the broader science andtechnology community.
Specific Actions
OBJECTIVE: Enhance laboratory mission-aligned collaboration with stakeholders andthe broader science and technology community (Recommendations 22, 23, 24, 25, 26,
27, 28)In the area of Strategic Partnership Projects (SPP), the Secretary recently issued an updated
policy document which sets forth the principles for DOE’s strategic engagement with partners
from other Federal agencies and the private sector. This policy makes clear that DOE iscommitted to expanding the use of its laboratories and other sites for the benefit of its strategic
partners. This work must be consistent with or complementary to DOE’s missions or the facility
to which the work is to be assigned. The work also should enhance or make use of the facility’score capabilities, but does not need to be associated with a specific mission of the “owning”
program. Additionally, the work must not adversely impact DOE programs, result in directcompetition with the domestic private sector, or create a detrimental future burden on DOE
resources.
In addition, under the leadership of the LOB, DOE established a community of practice on SPP
to ensure communication of best practices across the complex. The community of practice held
its first annual SPP summit in March 2015 and continues to meet to discuss ways to enhancecollaboration and streamline processes. Within NNSA, the Office of Strategic Partnership
Programs has created a task force of laboratory and Federal personnel, including potential SPP
partner representatives, to improve the SPP program, processes, and procedures. The task
force will undertake an in depth look at the current process to identify efficiencies, an analysis
of other mechanisms to place work, including umbrella agreements, and a discussion on
appropriate metrics. Proposed changes to the NNSA SPP approval process are expected to be
implemented in late FY 2016.
The Commission also recommends that DOE “support efforts to strengthen the MEC.” The
Mission Executive Council (MEC) was established to bring a more strategic understanding of
the capabilities needed for the labs and facilities to serve the agencies’ missions. While DOE iscommitted to the future success of the MEC, further development of this strategic concept isrequired, as well as the involvement and commitment of the agencies for which the DOE
facilities perform their work. In addition, since the MEC only represents four agencies, it would
not be the proper venue to coordinate, streamline, and execute all interagency work because
Departmental Response to the Final Report of the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of
the National Energy Laboratories | Page 21

Department of Energy | February 2016
many other stakeholders would not be represented. The MEC is currently pursuing an agenda
focused on identifying strategic priorities and critical capabilities to address enduring national
security challenges and potential technological surprises raised by the MEC Member agencies.
This approach and dialogue are starting to work and will result in an actionable MEC strategic
framework on specific activities for the MEC Members to execute.
DOE concurs with the Commission’s recommendation on continuing to support user facilities atthe laboratories. DOE will continue to support user facilities as a key part of its portfolio andwill continue to use external peer review and external advisory groups to evaluate facility
performance and help inform decisions on existing and future facilities. DOE also will ensurethat best practices by the Office of Science for managing user facilities are incorporated into the
management practices of other DOE program offices. In addition, DOE will include a discussion
about user facilities in the Annual State of the Laboratory System report to emphasize thecritical role they play.
In regard to supporting and accelerating DOE’s Technology Transfer Mission, DOE also
recognizes how technology transition activities offer ways to improve coordination of strategic
activities with the laboratory enterprise. In early 2015, the Secretary established the Office ofTechnology Transitions (OTT) to coordinate and optimize how DOE transitions early-stage R&D
to applied energy technologies through technology transfer, commercialization, anddeployment activities. The OTT works with the Technology Transfer Working Group, which
includes representatives from all National Laboratories, as a strategic partner providing theminformation about DOE activities and getting feedback from them on new technology transition
programs and policies.
To further support technology transitions activities, DOE will update its 2008 Department-wide
policy statement on technology transfer activities and will also develop the statutorily-required
Technology Transfer Execution Plan, which will help set the strategic vision and implementation
instructions for DOE. These documents will identify ways to enhance the visibility and endorse
the importance of the technology transition mission. Additionally, DOE will work to provide
more clarity to laboratories regarding the acceptable range for terms and conditions for nonstandard CRADAs to expedite negotiation and subsequent review and approval. DOE
implements both decentralized and centralized approaches to technology transfer and notesthat National Laboratories currently have and employ the flexibility to interact directly withindustry and negotiate agreements. DOE supports industry and laboratory interactions that aredecentralized since each laboratory is unique and should develop partnerships that support themissions of DOE, and are tailored to the Laboratory’s surrounding community and industry
Departmental Response to the Final Report of the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of
the National Energy Laboratories | Page 22

Department of Energy | February 2016
needs, including the pursuit of innovation-based economic development. Recognizing some of
the constraints of existing mechanisms, DOE has over the last few years worked to provide
more flexibility through the Agreement for Commercializing Technology (ACT) pilot, which will
be assessed for its ability to reduce barriers to entities that access the laboratories. DOE also
will continue to encourage laboratories to build on the successful innovative mechanisms
identified by the Commission for engaging industry to make collaborations easier, faster, lessexpensive, and more effective.
With respect to collaboration with universities, DOE agrees that its engagement with
universities is a critical part of the work of DOE and its laboratories. For instance, DOE provides
direct-funded grants to universities following a competitive selection process (ranging fromsingle-investigator awards to large multi-disciplinary efforts), and also issues subcontracts touniversities. One example of ongoing engagement is through the Energy Frontier ResearchCenters (EFRCs), which are funded by the Office of Science, and involve partnerships among
universities, National Laboratories, and private sector partners to conduct fundamental
research focusing on one or more grand challenges to accelerate transformative discovery incurrent energy technologies. Other partnerships including Energy Innovation Hubs, which areintegrated research centers that combine basic and applied research with engineering toaccelerate scientific discovery, and the National Network for Manufacturing and Innovation(NNMI), which provides a manufacturing research infrastructure where U.S. industry andacademia collaborate to solve industry-relevant problems.
In addition, university faculty and students are actively engaged in work at DOE’s laboratories;
more than half of the researchers using the Departmental scientific user facilities come fromuniversities. Collaborations between university and National Laboratory researchers take placethrough mechanisms such as personnel exchanges and joint faculty appointments, researchcollaborations, and joint research programs.
Looking forward, there will be additional opportunities to further engage with universities andimpact innovation based economic development as a result of the Mission Innovation
initiative. At the recent COP21 meeting in Paris, the Mission Innovation initiative wasannounced by the President and leaders from 19 other countries. Each of these countries
pledged to double their investment in clean energy R&D over the next five years. DOE’s
implementation of Mission Innovation will encourage greater effort and collaboration by allparticipants in the innovation process – including individual innovators, universities, privatecompanies and National Labs.
Departmental Response to the Final Report of the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of
the National Energy Laboratories | Page 23

Department of Energy | February 2016

2.5 MANAGING EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCYThe Commission Report addresses effectiveness and efficiency in three specific areas of DOE’s
enterprise: overhead rates, infrastructure, and project management. Having compared
overhead rates at DOE laboratories with those of university, the Commission concluded that
non-NNSA laboratory rates are comparable with university rates when both are adjusted forvariability in rate structures. NNSA laboratory rates were found to be higher; however, theCommission noted that the difference was understandable given the unique mission at thoselaboratories. The Commission also highlights that facilities and infrastructure can have asubstantial impact on laboratory research operations. The Commission concludes thatlaboratory facilities and infrastructure in poor condition can have inadequate functionality for
mission performance; negative effects on the environment, safety, and health of the site;higher maintenance costs; and problems recruiting and retaining high-quality scientists andengineers. The Commission recommended increased investment to “...maintain and revitalize
the system.” Finally, the Commission indicates that project performance could be improved by
imposing greater discipline in following project management guidance.
Commission Recommendations
Under the theme “managing effectiveness and efficiency,” the Commission provided thefollowing recommendations:
Recommendation 29: DOE should continue implementing the Institutional Cost Report (ICR) andencourage additional peer reviews to help mature the ICR.
Recommendation 30: DOE should provide greater transparency into laboratory indirect costs
and publish an annual report of the overhead rates at each National Laboratory.
Recommendation 31: DOE should consider whether a capital budget will better serve its internal
facilities and infrastructure budgeting and management needs.
Recommendation 32: DOE and the laboratories should continue efforts to improve
infrastructure by halting the growth in deferred maintenance and speeding up the deactivationand decommissioning of excess facilities. DOE should work with Congress and OMB to agree
upon the size and nature of the resources shortfall and develop a long-term plan.
Recommendation 33: DOE, the laboratories, Congress, and OMB should actively work together
to identify appropriate situations and methods for utilizing innovative financing approaches.

Departmental Response to the Final Report of the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of
the National Energy Laboratories | Page 24

Department of Energy | February 2016
Recommendation 34: DOE should maintain focus on increasing institutional capability andimposing greater discipline in project management, including peer reviews and “red teams.”
Recommendation 35: The Commission supports the recent SEAB Task Force recommendation to
put more resources into science and technology development for the EM program.
Discussion
DOE agrees that managing effectiveness and efficiency is a critical element to a well-functioning
FFRDC partnership. Recent Departmental efforts, such as the establishment of the Under
Secretary for Management and Performance, the development of the LOB, and theDepartmental efforts to improve project management, have focused on this issue. DOE’s
objectives in this area are as follows: (1) continue to maintain the Institutional Cost Report(ICR); (2) revitalize laboratory general purpose infrastructure and reduce the risk of excess
facilities; and (3) improve project management.
Specific Actions
OBJECTIVE: Enhance the Institutional Cost Report (ICR) (Recommendations 29, 30)
DOE will continue to work with the laboratories to refine and enhance the quality of theInstitutional Cost Report (ICR) data. DOE initiated annual ICR reporting in FY 2011, and withthe submission of FY 2015 data, will have five years of ICR data. This report provides high-level
data to DOE on trends in indirect costs at the laboratories. DOE will work with the laboratories
to analyze cost trends across the five years of data and continue to use the ICR data to provide
supporting data, as appropriate, for DOE data calls and analyses of laboratory costs.
Detailed ICR data is shared among laboratories under a contractual term prohibiting disclosureof confidential or proprietary business information. This sharing has enabled the laboratories
to perform peer reviews of the data to improve quality and consistency. Nonetheless, there are
significant variations in the ICR data reflecting, in part, different accounting methods forallocation of indirect cost pools among the laboratories. DOE strongly supports the objective ofimproving the management efficiency of the National Laboratories through more rigorous
analysis of indirect costs and actions to better control costs. The laboratory peer review
process provides a needed first step, and DOE will work with the laboratories to continue andintensify the peer review process in order to gain insight into management opportunities toreduce costs. In addition, the LOB will assign greater priority to providing a forum for
identifying and sharing of best practices to reduce costs across the laboratories and DOE
programs consistent with relevant OMB guidance. DOE will undertake additional efforts to
Departmental Response to the Final Report of the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of
the National Energy Laboratories | Page 25

Department of Energy | February 2016
improve the validation of indirect cost estimates, such as crosscutting reviews of selectedindirect cost categories. Such reviews will inform additional efforts by the laboratories tomanage indirect costs. DOE will also work on efforts that will lead toward consistency andpromote greater transparency to the public on overhead rates in the national laboratory
system within legal constraints.4
OBJECTIVE: Revitalize laboratory infrastructure, reduce the risk of excess facilities, andimprove project management (Recommendations 31, 32, 33, 34, 35)
The Commission’s report identifies significant challenges faced by DOE and the laboratories
with degrading infrastructure and deferred maintenance and “excess” facilities that were once
used for the Nation’s nuclear production efforts but now are sitting unused, awaiting
deactivation and decommissioning (D&D). The Commission states that “The total cost ofcleanup at all DOE sites was estimated to be $280 billion in 2013. As of 2015, EM hasdetermined that 234 additional facilities meet its criteria for transfer to EM, but it does nothave the funding to accept them for remediation. In addition to the issue of cost of surveillance
and maintenance for the program offices, contaminated excess facilities continue to pose a risk
to mission, workers, the public, and the environment.” The Commission also notes that “theDepartment needs to build more project management and cost-estimating capacity. It also
needs a more homogeneous and disciplined project/program
Agency Priority Goal: Deliver the
management culture.”highest quality R&D and production
Recognizing these challenges, DOE has recently implemented anenterprise-wide focus on infrastructure planning and uniform
assessments, and improving project management. This focus
supports a specific strategy DOE has articulated under its Agency
Priority Goal for the National Laboratories, to improve thepercentage of DOE laboratory facilities assessed as “adequate”(see box).
First, last year, a LOB-led effort resulted in significant DOE-wide
improvements to the rigor and consistency of infrastructureassessments, allowing more credible and reliable data for decision

capabilities, strengthen partnerships
with DOE headquarters, and improve
management of the physicalinfrastructure of the National
Laboratories to enable efficientleadership in science, technology, andnational security.
Strategy - By the end of FY 2017, thepercentage of assessed DOE laboratory
facilities categorized as “adequate” will
increase by 2 percentage points fromthe FY 2015 baseline.

4

The Commission report provided a summary comparison of indirect cost rates that illustrated thedifferences in the composition of indirect costs among classes of laboratories – NNSA and Non-NNSA
laboratories. The Commission’s analysis also suggests that total indirect costs for the non-nuclear
security laboratories are commensurate with those at major research universities.

Departmental Response to the Final Report of the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of
the National Energy Laboratories | Page 26

Department of Energy | February 2016
makers at all levels. This year, the focus has been on further developing an annual
infrastructure status report that provides an enterprise-wide view of risks and opportunities ona timeline that will inform budget formulation and defense. Both of these efforts will continue
under the leadership of the newly-formed Infrastructure Executive Committee, which consistsof line managers and facilities experts from programs, labs, plants, and sites that has been
charged with providing an annual update to DOE leadership on the state of general purpose
infrastructure, and presenting an enterprise-wide list of prioritized investments. In FY 2016,
the first year of this effort, Congress appropriated $106 million in new investments in criticalgeneral purpose infrastructure requested by the Administration and identified through thisLOB-led process. In addition, DOE’s FY 2017 budget submission proposes investments toensure no increase in the backlog of deferred maintenance at facilities across the complex.
Within individual program offices, infrastructure efforts are now an integral part of thelaboratory planning and evaluation processes described in Section 2.3, above. Specifically,annual infrastructure planning processes at each laboratory are being developed that will resultin a ten-year maintenance and recapitalization plan that is integrated with and fully supportiveof the Annual Lab Plans. Plans will include reduction of deferred maintenance, removal ofexcess facilities, and proposals for potential construction of new facilities, including
consideration of innovative financing approaches as recommended by the Commission.
Evaluation of laboratory performance related to infrastructure stewardship will be included inlaboratory performance plans. In addition, NNSA has expanded its Asset Management Program(AMP) which uses supply chain management economies-of-scale to provide a more centralized
and efficient procurement approach to replacing mission-critical aging infrastructure systems
that are common throughout the enterprise, such as roof and HVAC systems.
Second, in regard to removal of excess facilities, the Secretary directed the establishment of an
Excess Contaminated Facilities Working Group, led by the LOB. The working group developedand executed an enterprise-wide data collection effort to obtain updated cost and risk
assessments to deactivate, decontaminate, decommission, and demolish excess facilities. The
updated data from the working group was used to define the scope of the challenge and to
identify options for how DOE may better prioritize excess facilities. The group is developing
policies to institutionalize a corporate approach, and updating and validating data gathered by
the working group’s efforts. The group also will be finalizing a report on its work. This reportwill be issued in 2016, also in response to a requirement of the 2016 National Defense
Authorization Act.

Departmental Response to the Final Report of the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of
the National Energy Laboratories | Page 27

Department of Energy | February 2016
Third, in 2013, the Secretary established a working group to examine project management
practices at DOE. After its review, the working group issued a report identifying ways in which
project management at DOE could be improved. Following these efforts, in December 2014,
the Secretary issued a Secretarial policy memorandum which included additional efforts toimprove project management, including: strengthening the Energy Systems Acquisition
Advisory Board, establishing a Project Management Risk Committee, and improving the lines of
responsibility and the peer review process. To further strengthen the independence of the
project peer review process, the Secretary directed each Under Secretary to establish, if it did
not already exist, a project assessment office that did not have line management responsibility
for project execution. As a result, the Under Secretary for Nuclear Security elevated the Officeof Project Assessments as a direct report to the Under Secretary, and within the Under
Secretary for Management and Performance, the Office of Project Management Oversight andAssessments was established as a direct report to conduct assessments of the EM portfolio of
projects. The Under Secretary for Science and Energy uses the successful model employedwithin the Office of Science (including the comprehensive project reviews conducted by SC’s
Office of Project Assessment), and is continuing to expand that model to capital projects fundedby the energy programs. In June 2015, a Secretarial memorandum further enhanced andclarified departmental policy related to areas of project management to include analysis ofalternatives, cost estimating, planning and scheduling, and design management, among others.
DOE is in the process of revising its Project Management Order to incorporate theseenhancements to DOE’s project management processes and procedures.
In addition, the FY 2017 DOE budget proposes to establish a statutory, DOE-wide Office of Cost
Estimating and Program Evaluation (CEPE-DOE) in recognition of a gap in DOE’s capacity to
independently determine accurate costs of programs and acquisitions within DOE. This
proposal also complements, but is not duplicative of, NNSA’s Office of Cost Estimating andProgram Evaluation (CEPE) established by the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act (50 USC2411). CEPE-DOE will provide independent analytic advice on all aspects of DOE programs,
including cost-effectiveness, and the development and evaluation of program alternatives.
Fourth, even with the improved planning tools noted above in place, DOE agrees with theCommission’s recommendation that high levels of deferred maintenance and excess facilities
continue to pose a challenge. The Commission recommended that DOE work with Congress
and OMB to agree upon the size and nature of the resources shortfall for facilities andinfrastructure, and to develop a long-term plan to resolve it through a combination of increased
funding, policy changes, and innovative financing. DOE agrees with this recommendation, andDepartmental Response to the Final Report of the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of
the National Energy Laboratories | Page 28

Department of Energy | February 2016
will continue briefing Congress and OMB on the updated data on the infrastructure and excess
facilities challenges identified by the recent working groups.
Further, current Federal budget statutes and policies derive from the concept of a unified
Federal budget and do not provide for separate capital and operating budgets. While DOE will
not pursue a capital budget, DOE CFO will work with OMB to establish a separate management
information system to report on capital investments that it will present in its FY 2018 budget
request to Congress. These efforts will both improve DOE’s infrastructure and provide greaterpublic insight into Departmental investments.
DOE also agrees that, where appropriate, innovative financing approaches that are consistent
with relevant policies should be pursued more aggressively to address the infrastructure
challenges and future needs. DOE has been working with its laboratories to intensify thereview and analysis of such approaches, including non-Federal financing and enhanced use
leasing, and the LOB receives a monthly update on the progress of these efforts.
Finally, with respect to environmental management technology development, DOE agrees
with the recommendations from the recent SEAB Task Force regarding the importance of these
initiatives. While EM has made significant progress in closing a number of projects, many of themost challenging projects remain and will for decades to come. To address these challenges,
the Secretary established a SEAB Task Force Advisory Board to advise on opportunities andbarriers for science and technology development for cleanup, as well as a recommendation on
the means to implement a program to develop such technologies. EM is targeting critical, nearterm technology challenges, which include the following: disposition of cesium and strontium;
remediation of mercury contamination; smarter Solutions for technetium management;
developing capability for radioactive test beds; and leveraging Federally-funded initiatives andadvancements in robotics. EM also is analyzing its remaining mission scope to identify
opportunities for infusing game-changing innovation that will help reduce the overall lifecycle
cost and duration of that work. As part of this effort, DOE held a Basic Research Needs
workshop (co-sponsored by SC and EM) to identify challenges germane to the clean-up, and SC
has now issued a call for proposals seeking new Energy Frontier Research Centers to tackle
some of the challenges. EM also will continue to identify technologies that improve upon
worker health and safety as well as nuclear facility safety.

2.6 ENSURING LASTING CHANGE
The Commission’s report points out that over 50 commissions, panels, reviews and studies of
the National Laboratories have been conducted over the past four decades, noting that none of
Departmental Response to the Final Report of the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of
the National Energy Laboratories | Page 29

Department of Energy | February 2016
those reports led to the comprehensive change necessary to address persistent challenges. The
Commission report observes the lack of a standing body or internal DOE mechanism to
advocate for implementation of recommended changes, perform systematic assessments, andevaluate progress over time and states that such an entity could, among other purposes, serveto evaluate whether changes to restore the FFRDC relationship are being made in substance or
only cosmetically.
Commission Recommendation
Under the theme “ensuring lasting change,” the Commission provided the following
recommendation:
Recommendation 36: A standing body should be established to track implementation of therecommendations and actions in this report, and to report regularly on progress, results, andneeded corrective actions.
Discussion
DOE acknowledges that in the past, certain improvements following recommendations fromexternal bodies have not always been fully implemented or sustained. Recognizing theimportance of institutionalizing ongoing and new efforts identified in this response, DOE iscommitted to tracking implementation of these commitments. Moreover, DOE’s efforts will be
guided by the overarching objectives identified in this document, so that DOE can assess not
only whether the specific action was taken or not, but also whether it had the intended
consequence and effectively addressed the broader goals – a signpost to guide substantive
change.
Specific Actions
For the most part, the actions described in this response are to be owned and implemented by
the three Departmental Under Secretaries who have line responsibility for stewardship of the
National Laboratories – the Under Secretary for Nuclear Security (LANL, Sandia, and LLNL); theUnder Secretary for Science and Energy (the 10 Office of Science labs, NREL, INL, and NETL); andthe Under Secretary for Management and Performance (SRNL). That said, monitoring andreporting on these actions will necessarily require cross-agency collaboration. The Secretary
will charge the LOB with the responsibility to track implementation of these actions and anyother follow-on actions identified to achieve the objectives contained throughout this
response. Similarly, the LPC will be charged to serve as a steering committee for the overall
effort of re-examining the management framework and partnership for the National Laboratory
Departmental Response to the Final Report of the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of
the National Energy Laboratories | Page 30

Department of Energy | February 2016
system and how it can best serve the public interest. The charters for each group will be
modified to reflect these roles and responsibilities. Within the next 24 months, the LOB,
working with the LPC, will conduct a review to assess whether the actions articulated here have
had their desired impact.
In addition, the DOE Office of Enterprise Assessments (EA) is the organization responsible for
performance of assessments on behalf of the Secretary and Deputy Secretary in the areas of
nuclear and industrial safety, cyber and physical security, and other critical functions as
directed by the Secretary and his Leadership team. EA also has been charged by the Secretarywith identifying best practices across the enterprise which will include interfaces with the
National Laboratories.
From an independent oversight perspective, DOE believes it would be most efficient to leverage
existing bodies to support the implementation of the Commission’s recommendations rather
than creating a new external committee. DOE also notes that the NLDC indicated in its
response to the Commission’s report that “we would want to guard against such a body serving
as the intermediary between the laboratories, DOE and Congress.” DOE plans to look to SEAB.
SEAB is a Federal Advisory Committee, composed of external members, which provides advice
and recommendations to the Secretary on DOE’s basic and applied research, economic andnational security policy, educational issues, operational issues, and other activities as directedby the Secretary. SEAB specifically has a Task Force on DOE National Laboratories that was
created to provide advice, guidance, and recommendations on important issues related to
improving the health and management of the labs. Finally, DOE will include discussion of theimplementation of the key objectives and actions in the Annual State of the Laboratory System
report described above, tying results back to the desired outcome – a robust, efficient, effective
National Laboratory System in service to the Nation.

3 CONCLUSIONThe Commission’s report identifies strengths of the National Laboratory system and provides
recommendations for improvement. DOE is committed to executing the actions identified inthis response to strengthen the DOE/laboratory partnership and to nurture and sustain theunique and valuable capabilities of the DOE National Laboratories.

Departmental Response to the Final Report of the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of
the National Energy Laboratories | Page 31

Department of Energy | February 2016

APPENDIX: FULL SET OF COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 1: The National Energy Laboratories provide great value to the Nation in their service
to DOE’s mission, the needs of the broader national science and technology community, and the
security needs of the Nation as a whole. The Administration and Congress should provide the necessary
resources to maintain these critical capabilities and facilities. It would also benefit all stakeholders if the
key committees in Congress would develop a more orderly process of reviewing the National
Laboratories, to replace the unrelenting pace of studies evaluating the performance of the DOE
laboratories. For example, Congress could initiate a comprehensive review of the entire laboratory
system in predetermined intervals.
Recommendation 2: Return to the spirit of the FFRDC model (stewardship, accountability, competition,and partnership). DOE and the National Laboratories must work together as partners to restore theideal nature of the FFRDC relationship as a culture of trust and accountability. DOE should delegate
more authority and flexibility to the laboratories on how to perform their R&D, and hold them fully
accountable for their actions and results. For their part, to be trusted partners and advisors, thelaboratories must be transparent with DOE about their planned activities ahead of time, as well as about
their actions and results as they are carried out.
Recommendation 3: DOE and each laboratory should cooperatively develop a high level annual
operating plan, with specific agreements on the nature and scope of activities at the laboratory, andmilestones and goals that are jointly established. Within that framework, DOE should provide increased
flexibility and authority to the laboratory to implement that plan. This increased flexibility must go
hand-in hand with greater transparency and accountability. The annual operating plan is not intended
to be a retrospective evaluation document, such as SC’s Performance and Evaluation and Measurement
Plan (PEMP) or NNSA’s Performance Evaluation Plan (PEP). Instead it can provide high-level perspective
for such evaluation plans. In other words, as envisioned by the Commission, the annual operating planfits between the laboratory’s long term strategic plan and its evaluation plan.
Recommendation 4: To improve DOE’s ability to manage the laboratories, DOE should implement
greater leadership and management development for its Federal workforce, including multi-directionalrotational assignments with the laboratories.
Recommendation 5: DOE should separate NETL’s R&D function from its program responsibilities (andcall the R&D portion—not the program activities—NETL). Furthermore, consideration should be given
to converting the new, research NETL into a government-owned, contractor-operated FFRDC. Whether
or not the above steps are taken, NETL should increase its interactions and collaboration with
universities.
Recommendation 6: DOE should abandon incentive award fees in the M&O contracts of the National
Laboratories in favor of a fixed fee set at competitive rates with risk and necessary investment in mind.

Departmental Response to the Final Report of the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of
the National Energy Laboratories | Page 32

Department of Energy | February 2016
In addition, DOE should adopt a broader and richer set of incentives and consequences to motivate
sound laboratory management and enforce accountability.
Recommendation 7: DOE should give the laboratories and M&O contractors the authority to operatewith more discretion whenever possible. For non-nuclear, non-high- hazard, unclassified activities, DOE
should allow laboratories to use Federal, State, and national standards in place of DOE requirements.
DOE should review and minimize approval processes.
Recommendation 8: DOE should modify its processes for developing directives, orders and otherrequirements to more fully engage subject matter experts for input on the benefits and impacts of the
proposed requirements. When developing new requirements, DOE should use a risk-based model,
ensuring the level of control over an activity is commensurate with the potential risk.
Recommendation 9: DOE should focus on making the use of CAS more uniform across the laboratories.
DOE local overseers should rely on information from the CAS systems, with appropriate validation, as
much as possible for their local oversight. The quality of CAS can be increased through peer reviews for
implementation and effectiveness.
Recommendation 10: The role of the site office should be emphasized as one of “mission support” tothe program offices at DOE and to the laboratories. The site office manager should be clearly
responsible for the performance of the site office in support of the mission, and all staff in the site
office, including the Contracting Officers, should report to the site office manager. Since site officeeffectiveness is so dependent on site office leadership, DOE should devote more effort to leadershiptraining and professional development of field staff.
Recommendation 11: DOE should clarify the role and authority of the support centers. Wherever
approval authority resides with a support center, DOE should remove it and reinstate it at either the site
office or DOE headquarters, as appropriate.
Recommendation 12: All stakeholders should make maximum use of local assessments (performed bysite offices and laboratories), with appropriate verification, to reduce duplicative assessments andburden on the laboratories.
Recommendation 13: DOE should establish a single point of control—within the Department or eachstewarding program office—for all laboratory-directed data requests.
Recommendation 14: To reduce the number of funding buckets and minimize the accompanying
transactional burden, DOE and its program offices should adopt and adhere to the following principles:•

Increase the size of funding increments through consolidation of B&R codes at the highest levelpossible within each program area.

Departmental Response to the Final Report of the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of
the National Energy Laboratories | Page 33

Department of Energy | February 2016••

Extend timelines and minimize milestones for each increment of funding. Work breakdown
structures must be formulated to focus on strategic goals rather than tactical milestones andreporting requirements.
Within legal limits, institutionalize mechanisms for laboratory flexibility via notification, rather
than formal approval, to move money between B&R codes on cross-cutting R&D objectives orclosely interrelated research areas among DOE program offices.

Recommendation 15: Congress should repeal Section 301(d) of the FY 2015 Consolidated Appropriations
Act as soon as feasible to remedy the transactional burden it creates for OMB, DOE Headquarters, andthe laboratories when operating under a continuing resolution.
Recommendation 16: Other DOE program offices should adapt to their contexts the procedures andprocesses that DOE’s Office of Science has in place for guiding and assessing the alignment of thelaboratories under its stewardship with DOE’s missions and priorities.
Recommendation 17: The processes that the Office of Science has in place for assessing the quality of
the research being done by the 10 laboratories under its stewardship, and for assessing the quality of
the research portfolio in each of its programs, should be adapted by the other DOE program offices.
Recommendation 18: There must be a government-wide reconsideration of the conference travel
restrictions to enable conference participation at levels appropriate to both the professional needs ofthe existing scientific staff and to attract the highest quality staff in the future. The Commission is
encouraged by DOE’s recently revised guidance on conference-related activities and spending, andnotes that the laboratories have been given more autonomy on this issue, while at the same time being
held accountable for the appropriate use of taxpayer funds.
Recommendation 19: The Commission strongly endorses LDRD programs, both now and into the future,and supports restoring the cap on LDRD to 6 percent unburdened, or its equivalent. The Commission
recognizes that, in practice, restoring the higher cap will have the largest impact on the LDRD programsof the NNSA laboratories.
Recommendation 20: DOE should manage the National Laboratories as a system having an overarchingstrategic plan that gives the laboratories the flexibility to pursue new lines of inquiry, so long as theresearch aligns with mission priorities. Once the research has matured to the point that a preferred ormost promising approach can be identified, the Department should provide strategic oversight andguidance, including expert peer review, for the laboratory system to coordinate and potentiallyconsolidate their programs to achieve the most effective and efficient use of resources.
Recommendation 21: Congress should recognize that the technical capabilities currently housed within
the NNSA laboratories are essential to the Nation. Maintaining the nuclear explosive package
capabilities in separate and independent facilities has proven effective and should continue, thereby

Departmental Response to the Final Report of the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of
the National Energy Laboratories | Page 34

Department of Energy | February 2016providing senior decision makers the highest possible level of confidence in the country’s nuclear
weapons stockpile.
Recommendation 22: DOE should establish policies and procedures to make the Strategic Partnership
Projects (SPP) process more efficient, especially for work that is consistent with the annual operatingplans, such as institutionalizing ongoing efforts to streamline the contracting process through moreconsistent use of umbrella SPP agreements and oversight mechanisms dedicated to shortening thetimeline of the approval process; encouraging greater use of personnel exchanges and “customer
relationship managers”; and creating a central point of contact in DOE headquarters to field questions
from other Federal agency customers about where specific capabilities lie within the laboratory system.
Recommendation 23: DOE should support efforts to strengthen the Mission Executive Council.
Recommendation 24: DOE and its laboratories should continue to facilitate and encourage engagementwith universities through collaborative research and vehicles such as joint faculty appointments andpeer review.
Recommendation 25: All DOE programs and laboratories should fully embrace the technology transition
mission and continue improving the speed and effectiveness of collaborations with the private sector.
Innovative technology transfer and commercialization mechanisms should continue to be pursued andbest practices in other sectors, including academia, should be examined.
Recommendation 26: DOE should determine whether the annual operating plans proposed by theCommission in Recommendation 3 could qualify as the “agency approved strategic plan” under the
Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980, and the Fast-Track CRADA Program, and, if not,Congress should amend the law accordingly. For CRADAs with non-standard terms and conditions, DOE
should define the acceptable range for each term and condition to greatly expedite negotiation andreview/approval time.
Recommendation 27: Laboratories should pursue innovation-based economic development bypartnering with regional universities.
Recommendation 28: DOE, the Administration and Congress should continue to support user facilities atthe DOE laboratories. Peer review by relevant external advisory groups should continue to be used todecide which facilities to build and where to put all future upgrades and new and replacement user
facilities.
Recommendation 29: DOE should continue implementing the ICR as a consistent method for tracking
indirect costs across all laboratories, and encourage additional peer reviews to help mature the ICR as atool for DOE, the laboratories, and other stakeholders.

Departmental Response to the Final Report of the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of
the National Energy Laboratories | Page 35

Department of Energy | February 2016
Recommendation 30: DOE should provide greater transparency into laboratory indirect costs andpublish an annual report of the overhead rates at each National Laboratory.
Recommendation 31: DOE should consider whether a capital budget will better serve its internal
facilities and infrastructure budgeting and management needs.
Recommendation 32: DOE and the laboratories should continue efforts to improve laboratory facilities
and infrastructure by halting the growth in deferred maintenance and speeding up the deactivation anddecommissioning of excess facilities. DOE should work with Congress and OMB to agree upon the size
and nature of the resources shortfall for facilities and infrastructure, and to develop a long-term plan toresolve it through a combination of increased funding, policy changes, and innovative financing.
Recommendation 33: DOE, the laboratories, Congress, and OMB should actively work together to
identify appropriate situations and methods for utilizing innovative financing approaches, such as thirdparty financing, enhanced use leases, and other methods, including State funding, gifts, and leveraging
partnerships with other Federal agencies.
Recommendation 34: DOE should maintain focus on increasing institutional capability and imposing
greater discipline in implementing DOE project guidance, which is currently being incorporated into its
DOE directive 413.3 B. Expanding on recent DOE efforts, there should be more peer reviews and “redteams” within DOE, among laboratories, other agencies, industry, and academia when appropriate.
Recommendation 35: The Commission supports the recent SEAB Task Force recommendation to put
more resources into science and technology development for the EM program given the technicalcomplexity of its projects.
Recommendation 36: A standing body should be established to track implementation of therecommendations and actions in this report, and to report regularly to DOE, the laboratories, theAdministration, and the Congress on progress, results, and needed corrective actions. The standing
body could assist congressional committees in developing a rational plan for future evaluations of the
DOE laboratories.

Departmental Response to the Final Report of the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of
the National Energy Laboratories | Page 36SECRETARY OF ENERGY ADVISORY BOARD
MEMORANDUM FOR:

SECRETARY OF ENERGYFROM:Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB)

DATE:

January 26, 2016

SUBJECT:

Task Force comments on the Final Report of the Commission to
Review the Effectiveness of the National Energy Laboratories

You have charged the SEAB National Laboratory Task Force to review studies of the DOE
National Laboratories as they appear and to give you advice about what your response
should be to their findings and recommendations. This SEAB letter transmits the commentsof its National Laboratories Task Force on the recently released report of the Commission to
Review the Effectiveness of the National Energy Laboratories (CRENEL), entitled Securing
America’s Future: Realizing the Potential of the DOE’s National Laboratories. That
committee, co-chaired by TJ Glauthier and Jared Cohen, was formed pursuant to Section
319 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (Public Law No. 113-76), and wascharged to evaluate the laboratories’“…alignment with the Department’s strategic priorities, duplication, ability
to meet current and future energy and national security challenges, size,and support of other Federal agencies,…the efficiency and effectiveness of
the laboratories, including assessing overhead costs and the impact of
DOE’s oversight and management approach,…the effectiveness of the
Department’s oversight approach and the extent to which LDRD funding
supports recruiting and retention of qualified staff 1.”
The CRENEL report is based on extensive fact finding, including significant testimony fromnumerous stakeholders and visits to all of the labs in the DOE complex. The final report,
issued on October 28, 2015, follows the Commission’s report of February 27, 2015, andcontains a total of 36 recommendations across 6 primary themes: recognizing value,
1

Final Report of the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of the National Energy Laboratories, Volume 1,
October 28, 2015, p 1.

1 of 11

rebuilding trust, maintaining alignment and quality, maximizing impact, managing
effectiveness and efficiency, and ensuring lasting change. For convenience, Appendix 1 ofthis letter provides a copy of the tabulated recommendations from the Commission’s report,
grouped by theme and identifying a proposed owner for each. 2
Overall, our SEAB Task Force endorses the CRENEL report. We find the analysis andrecommendations from the Commission to be consistent with the numerous priorinvestigations, commissions and studies that have reviewed the Laboratories over the years.
The Commission’s report is well aligned in areas that overlap with previous work andrecommendations from our Task Force. We comment below on several specific items but, ingeneral, we view the Commission’s report as a thorough recitation of a well-told story that
repeats and reinforces important recommendations to improve the efficiency of laboratory
operations, planning and research outcomes, while endorsing the value, the direction andoperations of the current laboratory system. As with the majority of recent reports, theCommission decries the current environment where oversight and regulation are
increasingly imposed on the national laboratories and Congress and the Department havenot followed-up or implemented recommendations to streamline the process and the
management of the labs. Speaking to this issue, the Commission’s final recommendation
states,A standing body should be established to track implementation of therecommendations and actions in this report, and to report regularly to DOE, thelaboratories, the Administration, and the Congress on progress, results, and needed
corrective actions. The standing body could assist Congressional committees indeveloping a rational plan for future evaluations of the DOE laboratories. 3
Later in this letter, you will find SEAB’s recommendation on how the “standing body”
could be created and who should establish and maintain it.

2

The Commission appendix would be even more useful if the Commission suggested which office in DOE
should be the “responsible actor” for each recommendation. Experience shows that absent direct secretarial
intervention, bureaucratic interests greatly delay the implementation of meritorious proposals for change.
3
ibid, p 63.

2 of 11

We first point out areas of emphasis in the Commission’s report that reinforce points raisedin your SEAB Task Force’s report:
1. The Commission speaks to the need to reestablish the model in which the laboratories
operate as FFRDCs and roles are appropriately established: “…the government is
responsible for setting the “what” of strategic and program direction to meet the Nation’s
needs, while the contracted partners, along with the laboratories they manage andoperate, are responsible for determining precisely “how” to meet the technical andscientific challenges and to carry out programs.” 4 In particular, the Commission
highlights the need to clearly establish where responsibility rests amongst the many
stakeholders involved in the lab management and delivery system (the laboratory
director and the director’s leadership team, DOE Headquarters sponsoring program
offices, DOE Site (or in the case of the NNSA, Field) Offices, DOE Service Centers,
DOE operational oversight offices, the M&O contractor). This finding is directly alignedwith the primary focus in our Task Force’s report (Recommendation 1.1) to use theLaboratory Policy Council to clarify the roles and responsibilities for mission execution
at the laboratories and direct the Under Secretary for Management and Performance tolead the Laboratory Operations Board in implementing these changes.
2. The Commission’s report recommends a number of actions that can be taken to provide
immediate change to the overly burdensome detailed management of the laboratories
that is inconsistent with the philosophy of a Government Owned, Contractor Operated(GOCO) laboratory. The Commission endorses the recommendation of the AugustineMies Panel to eliminate the incentive portion of the M&O contract award, replacing itwith a competitive fixed fee arrangement. We support this recommendation as a way to
reduce complex bureaucracy, which is delivering limited operational performanceleverage.

4

ibid, p iv.

3 of 11Other short term actions recommended in the CRENEL report are consistent with the
SEAB Task Force’s recommendation for laboratory management “experiments.” The
Commission suggests reestablishing local and rapid decision making for conference
participation (which it deems vital to maintaining the intellectual excellence oflaboratory staff), establishing a single point of control within the Department for alllaboratory data requests, and removing approval authority from Support Centers, clearly
articulating their support role.
Finally, it is worth noting that the Commission specifically recommends separating the
National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), currently the only Government
Owned, Government Operated (GOGO) laboratory in the system, into two independentparts – a standard GOCO to handle the research and development mission and acontracting office to handle the disbursement of funds to external partners.
We find merit in all these CRENEL suggestions.
3. As noted in numerous reviews and reports over the last decade, the Commission
observes that the laboratories can make a greater contribution to the national economy
and its competitiveness, if the laboratories have effective technology transfer processes
in place. The Commission clearly articulates the larger view of what technology transfer
means, commenting that in addition to traditional Cooperative Research andDevelopment Agreements, Work for Others, or licensing activities, significant
technology transfer occurs through the world class user facilities, through the maturingof early career research talent and through personnel flow and rotation between thelaboratories, academia and industry. SEAB strongly endorses this view. However, we
believe that CRENEL has failed to comment on an important issue on this topic. As theInterim Report by the SEAB National Laboratory Task Force suggests, there is somelevel of confusion and inconsistency about whether economic development and national
competitiveness are part of the mission of National Laboratories. To address thisdirectly, the SEAB report has recommended (#3.1) that you issue a policy statement that

4 of 11creating value for the private sector through the use of technology transfer, researchfacilities and workforce is part of the National Laboratory mission. We continue toadvocate this.
4. The Commission provides a thorough analysis of the rationale and current uses ofLaboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) and finds clear benefits fromthe program for supporting high-risk, potentially high reward early-stage research, for
exploring research avenues that may be new to the laboratory or the complex, and as asignificant tool that “.. enables laboratories to develop and invest in its workforce forboth the short and long term.” 5 As with numerous recent reviews, including your Task
Force, the Commission “…strongly endorses LDRD programs, both now and into the
future, and supports restoring the cap on LDRD to 6 percent, unburdened, or its
equivalent.” 6
5. The Commission notes positively your strongly articulated commitment and the steps
being taken by the Department to ensure alignment of the laboratories in its strategicplanning processes. The Office of Science (SC) process is described in detail:During this Laboratory Strategic Planning process, SC requires laboratory leaders todefine the long-range visions for their respective laboratories. This information
provides a starting point for discussion about each laboratory’s future directions,
immediate and long-range challenges, and resource needs. DOE and the laboratory
leaders settle on new research directions and the expected development orsustainment of capabilities. In addition, external advisory committees provide advice
on establishing research and facilities priorities; determining proper program balanceamong disciplines; and identifying opportunities for inter-laboratory collaboration,
program integration, and industrial participation. 7
The report further describes the effective processes SC uses to review its alignment to
DOE strategy and connect both its strategic and tactical execution to its annual
5ibid, p 66.
ibid, p 43. SEAB notes with some sadness that use of the word “equivalent” apparently conceals inability toagree on a simple and transparent method to calculate the 6% because some labs are jockeying for more
complex formulae that result in greater LDRD.
7
ibid, p 35.
6

5 of 11Performance and Evaluation and Measurement Plan (PEMP.) The Commission calls forthe adaptation of these core, successful processes to all the DOE laboratories. As you
know, the SEAB Task Force made a similar recommendation and proposed that the
DOE Laboratory Operations Board be charged with the task of implementing a DOEwide effort to identify, manage, and resolve issues affecting the management,
operations, and administration of the National Laboratories.

One additional point that bears mentioning is the Commission’s analysis and endorsementof recommendations made by both the NRC 8 and, more recently SEAB 9, to provide a
modest investment stream for science and technology development for the Environmental
Management program, stating that, “Success of the cleanup effort will require significant
new understanding of the science and with this understanding, development of newtechnology.” 10
As noted above, CRENEL calls for the establishment of a “standing body” to track
implementation of the recommendations made in its report. SEAB recommends that because
most of the National Laboratories are managed by their respective offices of the Under
Secretaries for Science & Energy and Nuclear Security, and many of the recommendations
involve management and performance, the “standing body” should be formed by the three
Under Secretaries – Science & Energy, Nuclear Security and Management & Performance –with the Under Secretary for Management & Performance serving as the Chair of thisstanding body. The purpose of this standing body would be to track and enforce timelines
and priorities to make process changes and report directly to the Secretary.

8

National Research Council, Committee to Evaluate the Science, Engineering, and Health Basis of the DOE’s
Environmental Management Program, Improving the Environment: An Evaluation of DOE’s Environmental
Management Program,” (Washington DC: NRC, 1995), 21.
9SEAB, Report of the Task Force on Technology Development for Environmental Management, (Washington,
DC: DOE, 2014);
10
Final Report of the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of the National Energy Laboratories, Volume 1,
October 28, 2015, p 59.

6 of 11

We also note a few points where we feel that the CRENEL report could have been a bit
more assertive in its recommendations.
1. The Congressional charge to the Commission implicitly calls for a judgment about
whether the size of the DOE national laboratory network is too big, too small, or justright given the current and future technology needs of the country in DOE’s mission
areas of responsibility: science, energy, national security, and environmental
management. The Commission does not directly address this central question but
their implicit answer is that the DOE national labs are doing their job, theireffectiveness and efficiency is impaired by over regulation, and the amount of publicresources is “just right” although at several points there is a hint that more resources
would be welcome. This central conclusion would be more convincing if theCommission had examined a range of different organizational arrangements, quite
different from the current structure, and compared the pros and cons of each.
2. The CRENEL report also does not offer a timeline for its recommendations to be
implemented. Because many of the recommendations are similar to the ones offeredby the SEAB Task Force, we suggest that you use the timeline offered by the SEAB
Task Force report.
In summary, we find that the CRENEL Commission report provides additional support for
the numerous findings and recommendations that have already been voiced about the value
and performance of the DOE national laboratories. The Commission also repeats andunderscores the many recommendations that have been made to streamline the management
and oversight of the laboratories, thus making them more efficient and of greater value tothe scientific and technological strength of the country. It is up to you and your successors
to see that the meritorious suggestions for change are put into place.

7 of 118 of 11

Theme567SectionMaximizing Impact
Managing Effectiveness and Efficiency
Ensuring Lasting Change

Theme

Appendix 1 Summary of the Commission’s Recommendation11

Recognizing Value
Rebuilding Trust
Maintaining Alignment and Quality

Rec.
No.

Administration and
The Administration and Congress should recognize the value of the National Laboratories and provide thenecessary resources to maintain their capabilities and facilities. Congress should also develop a more orderly Congressprocess of reviewing the laboratories.

2.C

Section
2
3
4

1

DOE andLaboratories

2.C

Table 4. Responsible Actors for Each Recommendation and Cross-References to Volume 2

2

Department of Energy (DOE) and the laboratories must work together to restore the ideal Federally Funded
Research and Development Center (FFRDC) relationship as one of trust and accountability. DOE should
delegate more authority and flexibility to the laboratories and hold them accountable. The laboratories must
be more transparent with DOE about their activities.

DOE andLaboratories

2.C

3.A.1

3.A.1

1.E

Volume 2
Chapter &SectionReference3

DOE and each laboratory should jointly develop an annual operating plan, with agreements on the natureand scope of the laboratory’s activities, including goals and milestones. DOE should then provide increased
flexibility and authority to the laboratory to implement that plan.

DOE

2.C

3.A.1

Responsible
Actor(s)Volume 1
Chapter &SectionReference4

To improve DOE’s ability to manage the laboratories, DOE should implement greater leadershipand management development for its Federal workforce, including multi-directional rotational
assignments.

DOE and Congress

2.C

3.A.2

Recommended Action

2.C

5

DOE should separate the National Energy Technology Laboratory’s (NETL) research and development(R&D) function from its program responsibilities. Consideration should be given to converting the new,research NETL into an FFRDC. NETL should increase its interactions with universities.

DOE

3.A.1

6

DOE should abandon incentive award fees in favor of a fixed fee set at competitive rates with risk andnecessary investment in mind. DOE should also adopt richer set of incentives to motivate soundmanagement.

11
Reproduced directly from Table 4 of the Final Report of the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of the National Energy Laboratories, Volume 1, October 28,
2015.
9 of 11

12

11

10

9

8

7

DOE should establish a single point of control within the Department for all laboratory-directed data requests.

DOE should clarify the role and authority of the support centers. Wherever approval authority resides with asupport center, DOE should remove it and reinstate it at the site office or DOE headquarters.
All stakeholders should make maximum use of local assessments (performed by site offices andlaboratories), with appropriate verification, to reduce duplicative assessments and burden on thelaboratories.

The role of the site office should be emphasized as one of “mission support.” The site office manager should
be responsible for the performance of the site office; all staff, including the Contracting Officers, shouldreport to the site office manager. DOE should devote more effort to professional development of field staff.

DOE should focus on making the use of Contractor Assurance System (CAS) more uniform across thelaboratories. DOE local overseers should rely on information from the CAS systems, with appropriate
validation, as much as possible for their local oversight. The quality of CAS can be increased through peer
reviews for implementation and effectiveness.

DOE should modify its processes for developing directives, orders and other requirements to get more input
on the benefits and impacts of the proposed requirements. When developing new requirements, DOE
should use a risk-based model, ensuring the level of control over an activity is commensurate with thepotential risk.

DOE should give the laboratories the authority to operate with more discretion whenever possible. For nonnuclear, non- high-hazard, unclassified activities, DOE should allow laboratories to use Federal, State, andnational standards in place of DOE requirements. DOE should review and minimize approval processes.

DOE

DOE and External
Auditors

DOE

DOE

DOE

DOE

DOE

7.E

6.D

6.D

5.C

5.C

4.D

4.D

4.D

3.G

3.B.2

3.B.2

3.B.4

4.A
4.B

4.B

4.C

4.D

3.G

13

DOE

7.E

Volume 2
Chapter &SectionReference

14

DOE

Congress should repeal Section 301(d) of the FY 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act as soon as feasible to Congress
remedy the transactional burden it creates for the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), DOE
Headquarters, and the laboratories.

DOE should increase the size of funding increments by consolidating budget and reporting (B&R) codes,
extending timelines and minimizing milestones for each funding increment and institutionalizing mechanisms
to move money between B&R codes for related research areas.

DOE

Responsible
Actor(s)15

Other DOE program offices should adapt the processes that DOE’s Office of Science has in place for guiding
and assessing the alignment of the laboratories under its stewardship with DOE’s missions and priorities.

Recommended Action

16

The processes that Office of Science has in place for assessing the quality of the research being done by its
laboratories and for assessing the quality of its research portfolio should be adapted by the other program
offices.

7.E

Rec.
No.

3.B.2

17

There must be reconsideration of the travel restrictions to enable conference participation at levels appropriate DOE and OMB
to the professional needs of the existing scientific staff and to attract the highest quality staff in the future. The
Commission is encouraged by DOE’s recently revised guidance on conference-related activities and spending.

8.D

3.B.1

3.B.3

18

Congress

7.E

Volume 1
Chapter &SectionReference

3.B.3

19

The Commission strongly endorses Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) programs, both
now and into the future, and supports restoring the cap on LDRD to 6 percent unburdened, or its equivalent.
The Commission recognizes that, in practice, restoring the higher cap will have the largest impact on the
LDRD programs of the National Nuclear Security Administration laboratories.

DOE

3.B.1

3.B.4

20

DOE should manage its laboratories as a system having an overarching strategic plan that gives thelaboratories the flexibility to pursue new lines of inquiry. Once the research has sufficiently mature, DOE
should provide strategic oversight and guidance to coordinate and potentially consolidate their programs.

10 of 11

Recommended Action

Responsible
Actor(s)

5.A

4.D

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

DOE should provide greater transparency into laboratory indirect costs and publish an annual report of theoverhead rates at each individual National Laboratory.

DOE should continue implementing the Institutional Cost Report (ICR) as a method for tracking indirect costs
across the laboratories, and encourage peer reviews to help mature the ICR as a tool for DOE, thelaboratories, and other stakeholders.

DOE and Congress should continue to support user facilities at the DOE laboratories. External advisorygroups should continue to be used to decide which facilities to build and how to upgrade existing
facilities.

DOE and the laboratories should fully embrace the technology transition mission and continue improving
the speed and effectiveness of collaborations with the private sector. Innovative transfer andcommercialization mechanisms should be pursued and best practices in other sectors should be
examined.
DOE should determine whether the annual operating plans proposed by the Commission could qualify as the“agency- approved strategic plan” under the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980, and theFast-Track Cooperative Research and Development Agreement Program. If not, Congress should amend thelaw accordingly.
Laboratories should pursue innovation-based economic development by partnering with regional universities.

DOE and its laboratories should continue to facilitate and encourage engagement with universities
through collaborative research and vehicles such as joint faculty appointments and peer review.

DOE should support efforts to strengthen the Mission Executive Council.

DOE should establish techniques to make the Strategic Partnership Projects process more efficient.

DOE

DOE

DOE,
Administration, andCongress

Laboratories

DOE and Congress

DOE andLaboratories

DOE andLaboratories

DOE

14.D

14.D

13.E

13.E

12.C

11.E

11.E

11.E

10.C

9.E

Volume 2
Chapter &SectionReference

5.A

30

DOE

14.D

Rec.
No.

5.B

31

DOE should consider whether a capital budget will better serve its internal facilities and infrastructurebudgeting and management needs.

DOE,
Laboratories,
Congress, and
OMB

15.G

Volume 1
Chapter &SectionReference

5.C

32

DOE and the laboratories should continue efforts to improve facilities and infrastructure by halting the
growth in deferred maintenance and speeding up the deactivation and decommissioning of excess
facilities. DOE should work with Congress and OMB to agree upon the size and nature of the resources
shortfall for facilities and infrastructure, and to develop a long- term plan to resolve it through a combinationof increased funding, policy changes, and innovative financing.

DOE,
Laboratories,
Congress, and
OMB

15.G

6.A

6.B

6.B

6.C

6.C

7.E

5.C

33

DOE, the laboratories, Congress, and OMB should actively work together to identify appropriate situations
and methods for utilizing innovative financing approaches, such as third-party financing, enhanced use
leases, and other methods, including State funding, gifts, and leveraging partnerships with other Federal
agencies.

DOE

16.D

7.C

9.E

5.D

34

DOE should maintain focus on increasing institutional capability and imposing greater discipline in
implementing DOE project guidance, which is currently being incorporated into its DOE directive 413.3 B.
There should be more peer reviews and “red teams” within DOE.

DOE,
Administration, andCongress

Congress should recognize that the capabilities currently housed within the NNSA laboratories are essential to Congress
the Nation. Maintaining these capabilities in separate and independent facilities should continue.
DOE

6.A

35

The Commission supports the recent Secretary of Energy Advisory Board Task Force recommendation
to put more resources into science and technology development for the EM program given thetechnical complexity of its projects.

DOE,
Administration, andCongress

5.C

6.B

36

A standing body should be established to track implementation of the recommendations and actions inthis report, and to report regularly to DOE, the laboratories, the Administration, and the Congress. Thisbody could assist Congress in developing a rational plan for future evaluations of the DOE laboratories.

11 of 11