RECOVERY ACT

Status of Science-Related 

Funding 

Statement of Frank Rusco, Director

Natural Resources and Environment

Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on 

Investigations and Oversight, Committee 

on Science, Space, and Technology, House 

of Representatives

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EST

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

GAO-12-279T

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-279T, a testimony

before the Subcommittee on Investigations 

and Oversight, Committee on Science, Space,

and Technology, House of Representatives

November 30, 2011

RECOVERY ACT

Status of Science-Related Funding

Why GAO Did This Study

The American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery 

Act) is intended to preserve and create 

jobs and promote economic recovery, 

among other things. The 

Congressional Budget Office estimated 

in 2011 that the Recovery Act would

cost $840 billion, including more than 

$40 billion in science-related activities 

at the Department of Energy (DOE), 

Department of Commerce, the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA), and the National Science 

Foundation (NSF). These activities 

support fundamental research, 

demonstrate and deploy advanced 

energy technologies, purchase 

scientific instrumentation and 

equipment, and construct or modernize 

research facilities.

The Recovery Act assigned GAO with 

a range of responsibilities, such as

bimonthly reviews of how selected 

states and localities used funds, 

including for science-related activities.

This statement updates the status of 

science-related Recovery Act funding 

for DOE, Commerce, NASA, and NSF 

and provides the status of prior 

recommendations from GAO’s 

Recovery Act reports. This testimony is 

based on prior GAO work updated with 

agency data as of September 30, 2011.

What GAO Found

As of September 30, 2011, DOE, Commerce, NSF, and NASA had obligated 

about 98 percent of the more than $40 billion appropriated for science-related 

activities identified at those agencies. They had spent $22 billion, or 54 percent

of appropriated funds. DOE received the majority of this funding, and the four 

agencies vary in the amount of Recovery Act funds they have obligated and 

spent for their programs, as well as the challenges they have faced in 

implementing the Recovery Act. For example:

• Loan Guarantee Program for Innovative Technologies. As of September 30, 

2011, DOE had obligated about 78 percent of the nearly $2.5 billion provided 

for this program, which among other things guarantees loans for projects 

using new or significantly improved technologies as compared with 

commercial technologies already in use in the United States and reported 

spending about 15 percent of those funds. In a July 2010 report 

(GAO-10-627), GAO made four recommendations for DOE to improve its 

evaluation and implementation of the program. DOE has begun to take steps 

to address our recommendations but has not fully addressed them, and GAO 

continues to believe DOE needs to make improvements to the program. 

• Weatherization Assistance Program. As of September 30, 2011, DOE had 

obligated the full $5 billion of Recovery Act funding provided for the

Weatherization Assistance Program, which enables low-income families to 

reduce their utility bills by making long-term energy-efficiency improvements 

to their homes, and reported spending about 72 percent of those funds. In a 

May 2010 report (GAO-10-604), GAO made eight recommendations to DOE 

to clarify guidance and production targets. To date, DOE has implemented 

two of those recommendations: (1) it issued guidance on multi-family 

buildings and (2) clarified the definition of income and strengthened income 

eligibility requirements.

• Commerce, NASA, and NSF. As of September 30, 2011, Commerce, NASA, 

and NSF each had obligated nearly all of their science-related Recovery Act 

funding. Commerce spent about 62 percent, NASA spent about 95 percent, 

and NSF spent about 46 percent of this funding. GAO has reported several 

times on the use of these funds and the challenges agencies faced. In a 

February 2010 report (GAO-10-383), GAO found that some recipients of 

Commerce’s Recovery Act grants faced challenges complying with Recovery 

Act reporting and other federal requirements and had to delay or recast 

certain scheduled activities as a result. In a March 2009 report 

(GAO-09-306SP), GAO found that NASA’s large-scale projects, including 

those that received Recovery Act funds, had experienced significant cost and 

schedule delays. In a March 2011 report, (GAO-11-239SP), GAO found that 

Recovery Act funds allowed NASA to reduce the impact of cost increases on 

some projects and to address problems being experienced by others. In 

GAO’s October 2010 report (GAO-11-127R), it found that NSF’s program to 

increase investment in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 

education took steps to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of its projects 

and developed goals and metrics for that evaluation. 

View GAO-12-279T. For more information, 

contact Frank Rusco at (202) 512-3841 or 

ruscof@gao.gov. 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-279T 

Chairman Broun, Ranking Member Tonko, and Members of the 

Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss our oversight of science-related 

funding provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 

2009 (Recovery Act).1

The Recovery Act assigned GAO with a range of responsibilities, such as 

bimonthly reviews of how selected states and localities used funds, 

including for science-related activities. As we stated in our March 2009 

testimony,

In response to the recent economic crisis, 

Congress enacted the Recovery Act to, among other things, preserve and 

create jobs and promote economic recovery. In 2011, the Congressional 

Budget Office estimated that the Recovery Act would cost approximately 

$840 billion. That amount includes more than $40 billion for sciencerelated activities at the Department of Energy (DOE), the Department of 

Commerce, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), 

and the National Science Foundation (NSF). These activities include 

supporting fundamental research, demonstrating and deploying advanced 

energy technologies, purchasing scientific instrumentation and 

equipment, and constructing or modernizing research facilities.

2 our prior work identified several DOE, Commerce, NASA, and 

NSF programs that deserve special attention from agency management 

and the agencies’ Offices of Inspectors General to ensure that funds are 

put to best use. We previously reported on several DOE programs, 

including the Weatherization Assistance Program,3 the Loan Guarantee 

Program (LGP),4

 

1

Pub. L. No. 111-5, § 3, 123 Stat. 116 (2009).

and the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant 

2

GAO, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: GAO’s Role in Helping to Ensure 

Accountability and Transparency for Science Funding, GAO-09-515T (Washington, D.C.: 

Mar. 19, 2009). 

3

GAO, Recovery Act: States’ and Localities’ Uses of Funds and Actions Needed to 

Address Implementation Challenges and Bolster Accountability, GAO-10-604

(Washington, D.C., May 26, 2010).

4

GAO, Department of Energy: New Loan Guarantee Program Should Complete Activities 

Necessary for Effective and Accountable Program Management, GAO-08-750

(Washington, D.C.: July 7, 2008. GAO, Department of Energy: Further Actions Are 

Needed to Improve DOE’s Ability to Evaluate and Implement the Loan Guarantee 

Program, GAO-10-627 (Washington, D.C.: July 12, 2010).

 
 

Page 3 GAO-12-279T 

program (EECBG),

5 and we are currently examining DOE’s Advanced 

Research Projects-Energy and solar energy initiatives. Since the 

Recovery Act was implemented, we also assessed large-scale projects at 

NASA that received Recovery Act funds.6 Additionally, we have reported 

on federal requirements that have influenced project selection and starts 

at a variety of agencies, including DOE, Commerce, NASA, and NSF7

and contracting approaches and oversight at DOE and NASA.8

My statement today updates the status of science-related Recovery Act 

funding for (1) DOE, (2) Commerce, (3) NASA, and (4) NSF and our 

recent recommendations to these agencies regarding their spending of 

Recovery Act funds. This statement is based largely on our prior reviews 

and updates them with data from the four agencies as of September 30, 

2011, on their obligations and spending of science-related Recovery Act 

funds. We did not verify these data. We conducted all of our work in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to produce a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our statement 

today. Additional information on our scope and methodology is available 

in each issued product. (See our list of related products at the end of this 

testimony.)

Of the four agencies that received over $40 billion in funding for sciencerelated activities under the Recovery Act, DOE received the largest 

amount of funds. Table 1 shows Recovery Act funding, obligations, and 

expenditures for these agencies.

 

5

GAO, Recovery Act: Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Recipients Face 

Challenges Meeting Legislative and Program Goals and Requirements, GAO-11-379

(Washington, D.C., Apr. 7, 2011).

6

GAO, NASA: Assessments of Selected Large-Scale Projects, GAO-11-239SP

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 3, 2011).

7

GAO, Recovery Act: Project Selection and Starts Are Influenced by Certain Federal 

Requirements and Other Factors, GAO-10-383 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 10, 2010).

8

GAO, Recovery Act: Contracting Approaches and Oversight Used by Selected Federal 

Agencies and States, GAO-10-809 (Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2010).

Summary of ScienceRelated Recovery Act 

Funding 
 

Page 4 GAO-12-279T 

Table 1: Recovery Act Appropriations, Obligations, and Expenditures (Cumulative) 

Reported by Selected Agencies as of September 30, 2011

(Dollars in millions)

Agency Appropriations Obligations Expenditures

DOE $35,210 $34,613 $18,884

Commerce 1,442 1,418 894

NASA 1,000 1,000 948 

NSF 3,000 3,000 1,379

Total $40,652 $40,031 $22,105

Source: GAO analysis of agency data

Note: The numbers in this table are rounded to the nearest million.

Of the $35.2 billion it received under the Recovery Act for science-related 

projects and activities, DOE reported that it had obligated $34.6 billion (98 

percent) and spent $18.9 billion (54 percent) as of September 30, 2011.9

This is an increase from March 10, 2011, when DOE reported that it had 

obligated $33.1 billion and spent $12.5 billion. Table 2 shows Recovery 

Act funding, obligations, and expenditures for DOE’s program offices.

 

9

DOE was initially appropriated $45.2 billion in the Recovery Act, 6 billion of which was 

directed to DOE’s LGP. In April and May 2009, and again in July 2010, we provided 

Congress with information about DOE’s management of the LGP. In August 2009, 

Congress authorized the transfer of $2 billion from the program to expand the “Cash for 

Clunkers” program (Pub. L. No. 111-47, 123 Stat. 1972 [Aug. 7, 2009]) and in August 

2010, Congress authorized the rescission of $1.5 billion in funds from the program (Pub. 

L. No. 111-226, § 308, 124 Stat. 2405 [Aug. 10, 2010]). As a result, DOE’s appropriations 

under the Recovery Act were reduced by $3.5 billion to $41.7 billion.

DOE 
 

Page 5 GAO-12-279T 

Table 2: Recovery Act Funding, Obligations, and Expenditures (Cumulative) 

Reported by DOE by Program Office as of September 30, 2011 

(Dollars in millions) 

Program office Funding Obligations

Percentage 

obligated Expenditures

Percentage 

expended

Advanced 

Research Projects 

Agency - Energy 

$387 $387 100% $167 43% 

Departmental 

Administration 

143 112 78% 79 55%

Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable 

Energy 

16,666 16,655 100% 9,600 58%

Energy Information 

Administration 

8 8 100% 8 100%

Environmental 

Management 

5,989 5,988 100% 5,270 88%

Fossil Energy 3,379 3,379 100% 363 11%

Loan Programs 

Office 

2,470 1918 78% 380 15%

Office of Electricity 

Delivery and 

Energy Reliability 

4,488 4,488 100% 1,831 41%

Office of Science 1,669 1,669 100% 1,178 71%

Western Area 

Power 

Administration 

10 9 90% 7 71%

Total $35,210a $34,613 98% $18,884 54%

Source: GAO analysis of DOE data

Note: Funding, obligations, and expenditures are rounded to the nearest million. Totals may not sum 

due to rounding.

a This table does not include the following Recovery Act funds appropriated to DOE: (1) $6.5 billion in 

borrowing authority ($3.25 billion for the Bonneville Power Administration and $3.25 billion for the 

Western Area Power Administration) and (2) $15 million for the Office of Inspector General. 

Our Recovery Act recommendations have focused primarily on the 

following four DOE programs and projects:

• The EECBG program, which provides grants to states, territories, 

tribes, and local communities for projects that improve energy 

efficiency, reduce energy use, and reduce fossil fuel emissions.

• The Office of Environmental Management, which cleans up 

contaminated sites across the country where decades of nuclear 
 

Page 6 GAO-12-279T 

weapons research, development, and production left a legacy of 

dangerously radioactive, chemical, and other hazardous wastes.

• The LGP, which guarantees loans for energy projects that (1) use

either new or significantly improved technologies as compared with 

commercial technologies already in use in the United States and (2) 

avoid, reduce, or sequester emissions of air pollutants or man-made 

greenhouse gases.

• The Weatherization Assistance Program, which enables low-income 

families to reduce their utility bills by making long-term energyefficiency improvements to their homes by, for example, installing 

insulation, sealing leaks, and modernizing heating or air conditioning 

equipment.

Table 3 shows Recovery Act funding, obligations, and expenditures for 

these DOE programs as of September 30, 2011.

Table 3: Recovery Act Funding, Obligations, and Expenditures (Cumulative) Reported by DOE for Select Programs and 

Projects as of September 30, 2011 

(Dollars in Millions)

Program or Project Program Office Funding Obligations

Percentage 

obligated Expenditures 

Percentage 

expended

Energy Efficiency and 

Conservation Block Grants 

Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy

$3,193 $3,193 100% $1,657 52%

Environmental Management Office of Environmental 

Management

5,989 5,988 100% 5,270 88%

Loan Guarantee Program Loan Programs Office 2,470 1918 78% 380 15%

Weatherization Assistance

Program 

Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy

4,975 4,975 100% 3,570 72%

Source: GAO analysis of DOE data

Note: Funding, obligations, and expenditures are rounded to the nearest million.

The Recovery Act provided about $3.2 billion for DOE’s EECBG, funding 

the program for the first time since it was authorized in the Energy 

Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007.

DOE awarded this funding as follows:

• About $1.94 billion as formula grants to more than 2,000 local 

communities—including cities, counties, and tribal communities.

Energy Efficiency and 

Conservation Block Grant 

Program 
 

Page 7 GAO-12-279T 

• About $767 million as formula grants to the states, five territories, and 

the District of Columbia.10

• About $40 million for Administrative and Training/Technical 

Assistance. 

• About $453 million through competitive grants to local communities.

Our April 2011 report on the EECBG program focused on the 

approximately $2.7 billion awarded through formula grants.11

We also found that DOE did not always collect information on the various 

methods that recipients use to monitor contractors and subrecipients.

In that 

report, we found that more than 65 percent of EECBG funds had been 

obligated for three types of activities: (1) energy-efficiency retrofits (36.8 

percent), which includes activities such as grants to nonprofit 

organizations and governmental agencies for retrofitting their existing 

facilities to improve energy efficiency; (2) financial incentive programs 

(18.5 percent), which includes activities such as rebates, subgrants, and 

revolving loans to promote recipients’ energy-efficiency improvements; 

and (3) energy-efficiency and conservation programs for buildings and 

facilities (9.8 percent), which includes activities such as installing storm 

windows or solar hot water technology. 

12

 

10Funding is allocated to state recipients based on population and total energy 

consumption; to city and county recipients based on resident and commuter populations; 

and to Native American tribes based on population and climatic conditions. 

As a result, DOE does not always know whether the monitoring activities 

of recipients are sufficiently rigorous to ensure compliance with federal 

requirements. In addition, DOE officials have experienced challenges in 

assessing the extent to which the EECBG program is reducing energy 

use and increasing energy savings. Most recipients report estimates to 

comply with program reporting requirements, and DOE takes steps to 

assess the reasonableness of these estimates but does not require 

recipients to report the methods or tools used to develop estimates. In 

addition, while DOE provides recipients with a software tool to estimate 

11GAO-11-379. 

12DOE defines subrecipients as those recipients that receive pass-through funds from 

recipients but are not the ultimate beneficiary of the funds, such as the vendor or 

contractor who provided the good or service. 
 

Page 8 GAO-12-279T 

energy savings, DOE does not require that recipients use the most recent

version. 

Based on these findings, we recommended that DOE (1) explore a 

means to capture information on recipients’ monitoring activities and (2) 

solicit information on recipients’ methods for estimating energy-related 

impact metrics13 and verify that recipients who use DOE’s estimation tool 

use the most recent version. DOE generally agreed with our 

recommendations and has taken steps to implement them. DOE 

took action on our first recommendation by collecting additional information 

related to subrecipient monitoring, in order to help ensure that they 

comply with the terms and conditions of the award. These changes will 

help improve DOE’s oversight of recipients. DOE implemented our 

second recommendation by making changes to the way it collects data to 

apply a unified methodology to the calculation of impact metrics. DOE 

officials also said the calculation of estimated impact metrics will now be 

performed centrally by DOE by applying known national standards to 

existing recipient-reported performance metrics.

The Recovery Act provided about $6 billion to expand and accelerate

cleanup activities at numerous contaminated sites across the country.14

 

13DOE guidance requires that recipients report quarterly on impact metrics—which include 

energy savings, energy cost savings, renewable-energy generation, and emissions 

reductions—and verify cumulative totals when grants are closed out, but DOE does not 

require that these impact metrics be based on actual, as opposed to estimated, data. 

This funding substantially boosted the Office of Environmental 

Management’s annual appropriation for cleanup, which has generally 

been between $6 billion and $7 billion. As of September 30, 2011, DOE 

had obligated all of the $6 billion in Recovery Act funding. DOE officials 

told us that they planned to have 92 percent of the funds spent by 

September 30, 2011, and DOE had expended about 88 percent (nearly 

$5.3 billion) by that time.

14Cleanup activities include treating and permanently disposing of millions of gallons of 

radioactive and chemical waste stored in large underground tanks; disposing of spent 

nuclear fuel; removing contaminated soil; treating contaminated groundwater; packaging 

and shipping solid wastes infused with synthetic radioactive elements like plutonium and 

americium for permanent disposal to a deep geologic repository; and eliminating excess 

facilities, which may include decontaminating, decommissioning, deactivating, and 

demolishing obsolete structures or a combination of these activities. DOE has estimated 

that the cost of this cleanup may approach $300 billion over the next several decades. 

Environmental Cleanup 

Projects
 

Page 9 GAO-12-279T 

As of May 2011, DOE had selected 109 projects for Recovery Act funding at 

17 DOE sites in 12 states. DOE designated 80 percent of this funding to 

speed cleanup activities at four large sites: the Hanford Site in Washington 

State, Idaho National Laboratory, the Oak Ridge Reservation in Tennessee, 

and the Savannah River Site in South Carolina. DOE generally chose to use 

Recovery Act funds for cleanup projects that could be started and finished 

quickly. The majority of the projects selected also had existing contracts, 

which allowed the department to update and validate new cost and schedule 

targets within a short time frame. DOE generally funded four types of 

projects: (1) decontaminating or demolishing facilities, (2) removing 

contamination from soil and groundwater, (3) packaging and disposing of 

transuranic15

In July 2010, we reported that DOE has faced challenges in both 

managing Recovery Act projects and measuring how Recovery Act 

funding has affected cleanup and other goals.

and other wastes, and (4) supporting the maintenance and 

treatment of liquid tank wastes. According to DOE officials, as of the end of 

May 2011, DOE had completed 28 Recovery Act projects.

16

In our July 2010 report, we found it has also been a challenge for DOE to 

provide an accurate assessment of the impact Recovery Act funding has 

had on job creation, environmental risk reduction, and the life-cycle costs 

of its cleanup program for several reasons. First, DOE used several 

different methodologies to assess and report jobs created, which provided 

In that report, we found 

that one-third of Recovery Act-funded environmental cleanup projects did 

not meet cost and schedule targets, which DOE attributed to technical, 

regulatory, safety, and contracting issues. DOE took steps aimed at 

strengthening project management and oversight for Recovery Act 

projects, such as increasing project reporting requirements and placing 

tighter controls on when funds are disbursed to sites. By October 2010, 

DOE had made improvements in both cost and schedule performance.

 

15Transuranic wastes are typically discarded rags, tools, equipment, soils, or other solid 

materials that have been contaminated by radioactive elements, such as plutonium or 

americium. 

16GAO, Recovery Act: Most DOE Cleanup Projects Appear to Be Meeting Cost and 

Schedule Targets, but Assessing Impact of Spending Remains a Challenge, GAO-10-784

(Washington, D.C., July 29, 2010). 
 

Page 10 GAO-12-279T 

very different and potentially misleading information.17

As a result, we recommended four actions for DOE to improve project 

management and reporting: (1) determine whether project management 

and oversight steps adopted for Recovery Act projects would benefit 

other cleanup projects; (2) clarify the methodology used to calculate any 

supplemental job creation figures in addition to prime contractor and 

subcontractor jobs created, such as head count—that is, workers who 

have charged any amount of time to Recovery Act projects; (3) develop 

clear and quantifiable measures for determining the impact of Recovery 

Act funding; and (4) ensure that cost savings are calculated according to 

federal guidance. DOE agreed with the recommendations and has taken 

steps to implement two of them. In response to our first recommendation, 

DOE implemented some of the steps it used to improve management of 

Recovery Act projects for the cleanup work it funds through its annual 

appropriations. In response to our third recommendation, DOE issued 

clarifying guidance to the sites on the methodology to be used for 

reporting footprint reduction, but the extent to which this methodology 

measures actual environmental risk reduction, if at all, is not clear.

Second, DOE had 

not yet developed a clear means of measuring how cleanup work funded 

by the act would affect environmental risk or the land and facilities 

requiring DOE cleanup. Third, it is unclear to what extent Recovery Act 

funding will reduce the costs of cleaning up the DOE sites over the long 

term. DOE’s estimate of $4 billion in life-cycle cost savings resulting from 

Recovery Act funding was not calculated in accordance with Office of 

Management and Budget’s guidance on benefit-cost analysis or DOE’s 

guidance on life-cycle cost analysis. Our analysis indicated that those 

savings could be 80 percent less than DOE estimated. Without clear and 

consistent measures, it will be difficult to say whether or how Recovery 

Act funding has affected DOE’s cleanup goals.

18

 

17For example, DOE’s calculation of head count is potentially misleading for two reasons. 

First, counting the number of people carrying out Recovery Act work, rather than the time 

they have actually spent in such work, implies that one person engaged in 2 hours of work 

per week is equivalent to one person engaged in 40 hours of work per week. The 

economic benefits to the worker, however, differ significantly. Second, the estimate 

includes a count of those people who contributed to the manufacture of materials or 

equipment purchased by prime contractors and subcontractors to support Recovery Act 

work, an estimate that is difficult to verify, according to site officials.

Finally, a DOE document stated that our second recommendation is no 

18DOE officials define footprint reduction as the “physical completion of activities with 

petition for regulatory approval to follow.” 
 

Page 11 GAO-12-279T 

longer relevant since the Office of Management and Budget now requires 

contractor and subcontractor jobs to be reported online.19

In February 2009, the Recovery Act amended the LGP, authorizing DOE 

to also guarantee loans for some projects using commercial technologies. 

Projects supported by the Recovery Act must employ renewable energy 

systems, electric power transmission systems, or leading-edge biofuels 

that meet certain criteria; begin construction by the end of fiscal year 

2011; and pay wages at or above market rates. The Recovery Act 

originally provided nearly $6 billion to cover the credit subsidy costs for 

projects meeting those criteria.20

Our July 2010 report

Congress subsequently authorized a 

reduction of $3.5 billion of this funding to be used for other purposes. 

According to our analysis of DOE data, as of September 30, 2011, DOE’s 

LGP had obligated about 78 percent of the remaining $2.5 billion in 

Recovery Act funds, leaving $552 million unobligated. The Recovery Act 

required that borrowers begin construction of their projects by September 

30, 2011, to receive funding, and the unobligated funds expired and are 

no longer available to DOE.

21

 

19On July 2, 2010, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued revised guidance 

to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.204-11, such that both prime contractor 

and subcontractor jobs are now reported in FederalReporting.gov. Previously, only prime 

contractor jobs were reported, which understated the number of jobs created by 

Environmental Management’s Recovery Act Program since, according to DOE, nearly 40 

percent of jobs are subcontracted to encourage competition and to allow for small 

business participation. Before OMB’s guidance was issued, DOE had been reporting the 

subcontractor jobs separately. As a result of OMB’s change in guidance, DOE believes 

that our second recommendation is no longer relevant. We are currently assessing 

whether this addresses our recommendation.

found that DOE is implementing the program in a 

way that treats applicants inconsistently, lacks systematic mechanisms for 

applicants to appeal its decisions or for applicants to provide feedback to 

DOE, and risks excluding some potential applicants unnecessarily. 

20 Recovery Act, div. A, Title IV, 123 Stat. at 140 (Feb. 17, 2009). Congress originally 

appropriated nearly $6 billion to pay the credit subsidy costs of projects supported under 

the Recovery Act, with the limitation that funding to pay the credit subsidy costs of leadingedge biofuel projects eligible under the act would not exceed $500 million. Credit subsidy 

costs are the government’s estimated net long-term costs, in net present value terms, of 

direct or guaranteed loans over the entire period the loans are outstanding (not including 

administrative costs). 

21GAO-10-627. 

Loan Guarantee Program 

for Innovative 

Technologies
 

Page 12 GAO-12-279T 

Consequently, we reported that DOE’s program management could 

improve its ability to evaluate and implement the LGP by implementing the 

following four recommendations: (1) develop relevant performance goals 

that reflect the full range of policy goals and activities for the program, and 

to the extent necessary, revise the performance measures to align with 

these goals; (2) revise the process for issuing loan guarantees to clearly 

establish what circumstances warrant disparate treatment of applicants; (3) 

develop an administrative appeal process for applicants who believe their 

applications were rejected in error and document the basis for conclusions 

regarding appeals; and (4) develop a mechanism to systematically obtain 

and address feedback from program applicants and, in so doing, ensure 

that applicants’ anonymity can be maintained.

In response to our recommendations, DOE stated that it recognizes the 

need for continuous improvement to its LGP as those programs mature 

but neither explicitly agreed nor disagreed with our recommendations. In 

one instance, DOE specifically disagreed with our findings: the 

department maintained that applicants are treated consistently within 

solicitations. Nevertheless, the department stated that it is taking steps to 

address concerns identified in our report. For example, with regard to 

appeals, DOE indicated that its process for rejected applications should 

be made more transparent and stated that the LGP continues to 

implement new strategies intended to reduce the need for any kind of 

appeals, such as enhanced communication with applicants and allowing 

applicants an opportunity to provide additional data to address 

deficiencies DOE has identified in applications. DOE directly addressed

our fourth recommendation by creating a mechanism in September 2010 

for submitting feedback—including anonymous feedback—through its 

website. We tested the mechanism and were satisfied that it worked. 

We have an ongoing mandate under the 2007 Revised Continuing 

Appropriations Resolution to review DOE’s execution of the LGP and to 

report our findings to the House and Senate Committees on 

Appropriations. We are currently conducting ongoing work looking at the 

LGP, which will examine the status of the applications to the LGP’s nine 

solicitations and will assess the extent to which has DOE adhered to its 

process for reviewing loan guarantees for loans to which DOE has closed 

or committed. We expect to issue a report on LGP in early 2012.
 

Page 13 GAO-12-279T 

The Recovery Act provided $5 billion for the Weatherization Assistance 

Program, which DOE is distributing to each of the states, the District of 

Columbia, five territories, and two Indian tribes. The $5 billion in funding 

provided by the Recovery Act represents a significant increase for a 

program that has received about $225 million per year in recent years.

During 2009, DOE obligated about $4.73 billion of the $5 billion in 

Recovery Act weatherization funding to recipients, while retaining the 

remaining funds to cover the department’s expenses. Initially, DOE 

provided each recipient with the first 10 percent of its allocated funds, 

which could be used for start-up activities, such as hiring and training 

staff, purchasing equipment, and performing energy audits of homes. 

Before a recipient could receive the next 40 percent, DOE required it to 

submit a plan for how it would use its Recovery Act weatherization funds. 

By the end of 2009, DOE had approved the weatherization plans of all 58 

recipients and had provided all recipients with half of their funds.

In our May 2010 report,22

In our May 2010 report, we made eight recommendations to DOE to 

clarify its weatherization guidance and production targets. DOE generally 

concurred with the recommendations, has fully implemented two of them 

and taken some steps to address a third. For example, we recommended 

that DOE develop and clarify weatherization program guidance that 

considers and addresses how the weatherization program guidance is 

impacted by the introduction of increased amounts of multifamily units. 

we found that although weatherizing multifamily 

buildings can improve production numbers quickly, state and local 

officials have found that expertise with multifamily projects is limited and 

that they lack the technical expertise for weatherizing large multifamily 

buildings. We also found that state agencies are not consistently dividing 

weatherization costs for multifamily housing with landlords. In addition, we 

found that determination and documentation of client income eligibility 

varies between states and local agencies and that DOE allows applicants 

to self-certify their income. We also found that DOE has issued guidance 

requiring recipients of Recovery Act weatherization funds to implement a 

number of internal controls to mitigate the risk of fraud, waste, and abuse, 

but that the internal controls to ensure local weatherization agencies 

comply with program requirements are applied inconsistently.

 

22GAO-10-604. 

Weatherization Assistance 

Program
 

Page 14 GAO-12-279T 

DOE has issued several guidance documents addressing multi-family 

buildings that, among other things, provide guidance on conducting 

energy audits on multi-family units. We also recommended that DOE 

develop and clarify weatherization program guidance that establishes 

best practices for how income eligibility should be determined and 

documented and that does not allow the self-certification of income by 

applicants to be the sole method of documenting income eligibility. In 

response to our recommendation, DOE issued guidance that clarified the 

definition of income and strengthened income eligibility requirements. For 

example, the guidance clarified that self-certification of income would only 

be allowed after all other avenues of documenting income eligibility are 

exhausted. Additionally, for individuals to self-certify income, a notarized 

statement indicating the lack of other proof of income is required. Finally, 

DOE agreed with our recommendation that it have a best practice guide 

for key internal controls, but DOE officials stated that there were sufficient

documents in place to require internal controls, such as the grant terms 

and conditions and a training module, and that because the guidance is 

located in on the website, a best practice guide would be redundant. 

Therefore, DOE officials stated that they do not intend to fully implement 

our recommendation. Nonetheless, DOE distributed a memorandum 

dated May 13, 2011, to grantees reminding them of their responsibilities 

to ensure compliance with internal controls and the consequences of 

failing to do so. We will continue to monitor DOE’s progress in 

implementing the remaining recommendations.

We expect to issue a report on the use of Recovery Act funds for the 

Weatherization Assistance Program and the extent to which program 

recipients are meeting Recovery Act and program goals, such as job 

creation and energy and cost savings, as well as the status of DOE’s 

response to our May 2010 recommendations by early 2012.

Of the over $1.4 billion Commerce received under the Recovery Act for 

science-related projects and activities, Commerce reported that it had 

obligated nearly all of it (98 percent) and spent $894 million (62 percent) 

as of September 30, 2011. Table 6 shows Recovery Act funding, 

obligations, and expenditures for Commerce.

Commerce
 

Page 15 GAO-12-279T 

Table 6: Recovery Act Funding, Obligations, and Expenditures (Cumulative) Reported 

by Commerce by Program Account as of September 30, 2011 

(Dollars in millions)

Program Funding Obligations

Percentage 

obligated Expenditures

Percentage 

expended

National Institute of 

Standards and 

Technology $612 $601 98% $294 48% 

Scientific and 

Technical Research 

Services 252 241 95% 139 55% 

Construction of 

Research Facilities 360 360 100% 155 43% 

National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric 

Administration $830 $817 98% $600 72%

Operations, 

Research, and 

Facilities 231 231 100% 188 81%

Procurement, 

Acquisition, and 

Construction 599 586 98% 412 69%

Total $1,442 $1,418 98% $894 62% 

Source: GAO analysis of Commerce data.

Note: Funding, obligations, and expenditures are rounded to the nearest million.

As part of our February 2010 report,23 we found that some recipients of 

Recovery Act grants from Commerce’s National Institute of Standards 

and Technology had to delay or recast certain scheduled engineering or 

construction-related activities to fully understand, assess, and comply 

with the Recovery Act reporting and other requirements. In contrast, 

Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration officials 

said federal requirements did not impact the processing of Recovery Act 

acquisitions.

 

23GAO, Recovery Act: Project Selection and Starts Are Influenced by Certain Federal 

Requirements and Other Factors, GAO-10-383 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 10, 2010).
 

Page 16 GAO-12-279T 

Of the $1 billion NASA received under the Recovery Act for sciencerelated projects and activities, NASA reported that it had obligated nearly

$1 billion (100 percent) and spent $948 million (95 percent) as of 

September 30, 2011. Table 4 shows Recovery Act funding, obligations, 

and expenditures for NASA.

Table 4: Recovery Act Funding, Obligations, and Expenditures (Cumulative) 

Reported by NASA by Program Account as of September 30, 2011

(Dollars in millions)

Program Funding Obligations

Percentage 

obligated Expenditures

Percentage 

expended

Science $400 $400 100% $390 97%

Aeronautics 150 150 100% 128 86%

Exploration 400 400 100% 380 95%

Cross Agency 

Support 

50 50 100% 50 100%

Total $1,000 $1,000 100% $948 95%

Source: GAO analysis of NASA data

Notes: Funding, obligations, and expenditures are rounded to the nearest million. 

In a March 2009 report,24 we found that NASA large-scale projects had 

experienced significant cost and schedule growth, but the agency had 

undertaken an array of initiatives aimed at improving program 

management, cost estimating, and contractor oversight. However, we 

also noted that until these practices became integrated into NASA’s 

culture, it was unclear whether funding would be well spent and whether 

the achievement of NASA’s mission would be maximized. In our most 

recent update of that report, we found that, although cost and schedule 

growth remained an issue, Recovery Act funding enabled NASA to 

mitigate the impact of cost increases being experienced on some projects 

and to address problems being experienced by other projects.25

 

24GAO, NASA: Assessments of Selected Large-Scale Projects, 

In 

several cases, NASA took advantage of the funding to build additional 

knowledge about technology or design before key milestones.

GAO-09-306SP

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2, 2009).

25GAO-11-239SP. 

NASA
 

Page 17 GAO-12-279T 

In our July 2010 report,26 we reviewed NASA’s, as well as other 

agencies’, use and oversight of noncompetitive contracts awarded under 

the Recovery Act. We found that most of the funds that NASA had 

obligated under Recovery Act contract actions, about 89 percent, were 

obligated on existing contracts. We found that officials at several 

agencies said the use of existing contracts allowed them to obligate funds 

quickly. Of the funds NASA obligated for new actions, over 79 percent 

were obligated on contracts that were competed. We also found that 

NASA undertook efforts to provide oversight and transparency of 

Recovery Act-funded activities. For example, NASA issued guidance to 

the procurement community on the implementation of the Recovery Act, 

prohibited the commingling of funds, and increased reporting to senior 

management. 

Of the $3 billion it received under the Recovery Act for projects and 

activities, NSF reported that it had obligated nearly all of the $3 billion 

(almost 100 percent) and spent $1.4 billion (46 percent) as of September 

30, 2011. Table 5 shows Recovery Act funding, obligations, and 

expenditures for NSF.

Table 5: Recovery Act Funding, Obligations, and Expenditures (Cumulative) 

Reported by NSF by Program Account as of September 30, 2011

Dollars in millions

Program Funding Obligations

Percentage 

obligated Expenditures

Percentage 

expended

Research and 

Related Activities

$2,500 $2,500 100% $1,225 49% 

Education and 

Human Resources

100 100 100% 24 24% 

Major Research 

Equipment and 

Facilities 

Construction 

400 400 100% 129 32% 

Total $3,000 $3,000 100% $1,379 46% 

Source: GAO analysis of NSF data

Note: Funding, obligations, and expenditures are rounded to the nearest million. 

 

26GAO, Recovery Act: Contracting Approaches and Oversight Used by Selected Federal 

Agencies and States, GAO-10-809 (Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2010).

NSF 
 

Page 18 GAO-12-279T 

In our October 2010 report,27 we reviewed the effectiveness of new and 

expanded activities authorized by the America Creating Opportunities to 

Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science 

Act of 2007 (America COMPETES Act).28 The act authorized NSF’s 

Science Master’s Program, later funded by the Recovery Act.29 This 

program, along with 24 new programs and 20 existing programs, was 

funded to increase federal investment in basic scientific research and 

science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education in 

the United States. The Science Master’s Program awarded 21 grants in 

fiscal year 2010, totaling $14.6 million. We found that evaluating the 

effectiveness of federal basic research and STEM education programs 

such as those authorized by the act can be inherently difficult. We also 

found that NSF was taking steps to evaluate the long-term effectiveness 

of their funded projects. As part of its broader initiative to pilot and review 

new approaches to the evaluation of its programs, NSF developed goals 

and metrics for activities in its education portfolio to reflect its increased 

expectations for evaluation of its funded projects.

Chairman Broun, Ranking Member Tonko, and Members of the 

Subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement. As noted, we are 

continuing to monitor agencies’ use of Recovery Act funds and 

implementation of programs. I would be happy to respond to any 

questions you may have at this time.

For further information regarding this testimony, please contact me at 

(202) 512-3841. Tanya Doriss, Kim Gianopoulos, Carol Kolarik, Holly 

Sasso, Ben Shouse and Jeremy Williams made key contributions to this 

testimony.

 

27GAO, America COMPETES Act: It Is Too Early to Evaluate Programs Long-Term 

Effectiveness, but Agencies Could Improve Reporting of High-Risk, High-Reward 

Research Priorities, GAO-11-127R (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 7, 2010).

28Pub. L. No. 110-69, 121 Stat. 572 (Aug. 9, 2007). 

29This program was authorized by section 7034 of the America COMPETES Act as the 

“Professional Science Master’s Degree Program.” In addition to changing the name of the 

program, while the program was originally authorized to be funded through NSF’s research 

and related activities account, NSF funded the program through its education and human 

resource funding beginning in fiscal year 2010, according to information from NSF. 

Contact and 

Acknowledgments
Related GAO Products

Page 19 GAO-12-279T 

Recovery Act Education Programs: Funding Retained Teachers, but 

Education Could More Consistently Communicate Stabilization Monitoring 

Issues. GAO-11-804. Washington, D.C.: September 2011.

Recovery Act: Status of Department of Energy’s Obligations and 

Spending. GAO-11-483T. Washington, D.C.: March 17, 2011.

Recovery Act: Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant 

Recipients Face Challenges Meeting Legislative and Program Goals and 

Requirements. GAO-11-379. Washington, D.C.: April 2011.

NASA: Assessments of Selected Large-Scale Projects. GAO-11-239SP. 

Washington, D.C.: March 3, 2011.

Recovery Act: Opportunities to Improve Management and Strengthen 

Accountability over States’ and Localities’ Uses of Funds. GAO-10-999. 

Washington, D.C.: September 2010.

Recovery Act: Contracting Approaches and Oversight Used by Selected 

Federal Agencies and States. GAO-10-809. Washington, D.C.: July 15, 

2010.

Recovery Act: Most DOE Cleanup Projects Appear to Be Meeting Cost 

and Schedule Targets, but Assessing Impact of Spending Remains a 

Challenge. GAO-10-784. Washington, D.C.: July 2010.

Department of Energy: Further Actions Are Needed to Improve DOE’s 

Ability to Evaluate and Implement the Loan Guarantee Program.

GAO-10-627. Washington, D.C.: July 2010.

Recovery Act: States’ and Localities’ Uses of Funds and Actions Needed 

to Address Implementation Challenges and Bolster Accountability. 

GAO-10-604. Washington, D.C.: May 2010.

Recovery Act: Increasing the Public’s Understanding of What Funds Are 

Being Spent on and What Outcomes Are Expected. GAO-10-581. 

Washington, D.C.: May 27, 2010.

Recovery Act: Factors Affecting the Department of Energy’s Program 

Implementation. GAO-10-497T Washington, D.C.: March 4, 2010.

Related GAO Products
Related GAO Products

Page 20 GAO-12-279T 

Recovery Act: Project Selection and Starts Are Influenced by Certain 

Federal Requirements and Other Factors. GAO-10-383. Washington, 

D.C.: February 10, 2010.

Recovery Act: GAO’s Efforts to Work with the Accountability Community 

to Help Ensure Effective and Efficient Oversight. GAO-09-672T. 

Washington, D.C.: May 5, 2009.

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: GAO’s Role in Helping to 

Ensure Accountability and Transparency for Science Funding. 

GAO-09-515T. Washington, D.C.: March 19, 2009.

(361363)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs